abolished and superseded by that of 1851;
and it contained a direct provision that that
Constitution should not be amended, altered
or changed, except in the manner therein pre-
scribed. Now was it so altered, changed or
amended? Is it not notorious to everybody
within the limits of this State that it was not
so amended and changed ?
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Will the
gentleman point to that portion of the old
Constitution which reads as he says?
Mr. SANDS. I read the 59th article.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. Does that
prohibit the people of Maryland from calling
a Convention?
Mr. SANDS. I will read it acain :
"That this form of government, and the
Declaration of Rights, and no part thereof,
shall be altered, changed or abolished, unless
a bill so to alter, change or abolish the same,
shall pass the General Assembly and be pub-
lished at least three months belore a new elec-
tion, and shall be confirmed by the General
Assembly after a new election of delegates, in
the first session alter such new election,"
That is the 59th article of the old Consti-
tution. I think, therefore, that the argument
of the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Berry)—I do not know whether it was in-
tended to he in that direction, but it certainly
had that bearing, and leaning, and tendency.
And if it was not meant to be that way, but
was meant to be perfectly straight up, it was
so very straight that it leaned over the other
way. His idea seemed to be this: that the
Convention of 1850 was called nearer in ac-
cordance with the terms of the pre-existing
Constitution, than this Convention was. Now
I say that this Convention was not only called
nearer to, but in exact conformity with, the
Constitution of 1851.
I say then, Mr. President, we are here, first,
entitled to be fairly considered, by the vote
cast, the sole and only representatives of the
State of Maryland at this time, her lawful
representatives in this sovereign Convention.
And I do aver that if I held any other doc-
trine but this, if I did not believe this body
was lawfully constituted and entitled here to
act, the place that now knows me would
know me no longer. I would be a part of
no body that I considered revolutionary,
Having, to my satisfaction at least, fixed
two points, that we are here rightfully both
as to the vote that sent us here and the law
under which we are called here, I want to
consider briefly our proper action in view of
the matter now belore the House. Gentle-
men have spoken of the right of revolution;
and they have spoken of it in a manner that
would seem to me to indicate that revolu-
tions are made of rosewater. They are not,
sir, they lire made of terrible civil strife.
They are mixed with blood and tears. No
right of revolution belongs to the people of
any State until the wrongs they are suffering |
from oppression are such as not to be borne.
The idea that the people have a right to revo-
lutionize without some cause fur it I My
—-! I will not take that name: but where
is the conservative who allows the right of
revolution except when revolution is abso-
lutely necessary?
insurrection has two forms—revolution,
when it is put forward against tyranny, and
rebellion, when it is put forward against a
fair and lawful and beneficent Government.
1 t has two phases. In one form it is the an-
gel come to strike off bonds, fetters and
gyves. In the other, it is the devil dragging
down to the pit where unhappily we are to-
day. I acknowledge the right of such revo-
lution as our fathers made. That was a revo-
lution of the people against-tyranny. But
there have been subsequent revolutions, which
1 execrate because they have been revolutions
of ambitious men against the people.
Mr, JONES, of Somerset. Will the gentleman
from Howard allow me to ask him, in
his admission of the right of revolution ex-
isting where oppression and tyranny is too
grievous to be borne, who are the persons to
judge of that tyranny and oppression ?
Mr. SANDS. When our fathers revolted and
declared their independence, they said: A
decent respect for the opinions of mankind
compel us to declare the grounds upon which
we take up arms.
Mr. JONES. Then they judged of the necessity.
Mr, SANDS. And the Christian world en-
dorsed their judgment. Let other people,
who are in these circumstances go and get the
same endorsement,
1 say, sir: that this doctrine of the right
of revolution in form unrestricted, is tine most
accursed in the pages of history. It is that
right which Satan usurped to himself in Par-
adise; and it has been followed under almost
analogous circumstances.
1 am afraid that in talking about radical-
ism and conserva tism we are getting into the
habit of making them convertible fur the
terms faction and the people. Let the people
speak out as they have done, in thunder tones
from the Allegany to the Atlantic; as they
did when you, sir, received their almost
unanimous support, and that is "radical-
ism," a radicalism which had been scouted,
scorned and hooted. I do not feel ashamed
of endorsing that kind of radicalism. I am
a radical of that kind; I say it now, and 1
shall never take it back.
There is a kind of conservatism which is
forever attempting to hamper and restrict the
people in the exercise of their just and un-
alienable rights. That is not the kind of
conservatism I like. For a definition of that
kind of conservatism that exactly suits my
views, I refer gentlemen to the pages of the
New Gospel of Peace, written by Benjamin
the Scribe, brother to Fernando Wood. |
