the several States bear to one another as
members of one political family, mutually
contributing to promote the happiness of
each other."
I have thus, Mr. President, without any
pretension to originality but from the study
of principles as enunciated by the great
men who have discussed these topics, endea-
vored plainly to enforce upon your considera-
tion the true theory of our Government.
It has been my aim to vindicate the " pesti-
lent pretension of State rights " from assaults,
and to allow that while properly understood
and acted upon, they will save us from a con-
solidated government, they do not involve as
a logical conclusion the assertion of the right
of secession, ending in anarchy. State rights
do not logically lead to secession. Under a
true State rights theory of the government,
Secession is revolution. There is a real practical
difference between secession as revolution and
secession as defined by its friends and advo-
cates. in the latter case, the Government
may be broken up at any time, at the will of
a State, or a few States. In the former case
it is never justifiable, except for causes which
would render revolution justifiable on the
part of individuals, and would never be re-
sorted to, except for like causes, by the States
Will we preserve our form of Government ?
Will we cling to time honored principles of
liberty? Will we preserve our State pride
and our State rights, or shall we at the bid-
ding of men who seek to destroy our form
of Government as organized by and under
the Constitution—
——Strive
Which shall propound most abject things ant
base—
And leave our consciences to smite us with
the reproach ?
"Well all is worthy of us, were it more
Who, with our riots, pride and civil hate
Have so provoked the justice of the gods ;
We that within these four score years were
born
Free—Equal laws of the triumphed world
And knew no masters but affection ;
To which betraying first our liberties
We once become the slaves to one man's lusts
And now to many. Every ministering spy
That will accuse and swear, is lord of you—
Of me—of all our fortunes—all our lives—
Our looks are called in question, and our
words,
How innocent soever, are made crimes.
We shall not shortly dare to tell our dreams
Or think, but t'will be treason."
But, Mr. President, there is another Con
Bideration connected with our action upon
this article of the bill of rights, which has
not yet been alluded to in the discussion
We are sworn representatives of the people
We have taken the oath in the sight of high
Heaven prescribed by the Convention Bill |
Will gentleman accept it in all its provisions,
in its length and breadth—its depth and
thickness? And while I hold myself bound
to its strict observance, I purpose to hold
others equally bound by it. Now, to what
does this oath bind each and every member
of this body? It is unnecessary for me to
read it. I was A member of the last Legisla-
ture, and discussed both the provisions of the
House bill introduced by the gentleman from
Baltimore city, and the Senate bill. And I
must confess that while I regarded some of
the provisions of the House bill unconstitu-
tional, it was a bill which in my humble
judgment did more credit to its author, inas-
much as it was frank, plain and clear, than
the Senate bill, which was a kind of bringing
into hotch potch of the principles of the radi-
cal emancipation party, intermixed with the
Conititutioinal scruples of the conservative
emancipation party, in which the latter un-
der the cover of ambiguities yielded to the
radicals practically all the Constitutional
scruples which they had not the manliness to
maintain and in which the former secured
most they wanted, stripped of its clearness
and want of ambiguity—and clothed in that
non-committal, non-action form in which it is
the pleasure of some men in Maryland to aim
to appear before the people.
The House bill contained the oath of alle-
giance to the Constitution and Government
of the United States, but there was no pro-
vision in it which recognized any allegiance
to the State of Maryland. To meet this very
case—this apprehension that this Convention
would surrender the State, soul and body,
into the embraces of the consolidationists,
who believe in the doctrine of paramount
allegiance—I offered, when the bill was un-
der consideration, an amendment which pre-
scribed a form of oath—which while it did
not go into the past—required allegiance to
the Constitution and Government of the Uni-
ted States, within the limits of the power
conferred by the Constitution, and allegiance
to the State of Maryland.
That oath, in the form of the amendment
offered by me, was rejected in the House, but
was so far as allegiance to the United States
and the State of Maryland was involved, en-
grafted into the law assembling the Conven-
tion. Not only so, but many of the members
are members of the legislature, and hold other
important offices. What oath have they
taken? See the Constitution of the State of
Maryland:
" I, A. B., do ."wear (or affirm, as the case
may be) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States, and I will be faithful
and bear a true allegiance to the State of
Maryland and support the Constitution and
laws thereof."
How, I ask in the plain terms of these
oaths, can we vote to incorporate this article
in our Constitution without the commission |
