ments, judicial or otherwise, is to be the in-
terpreter of the extent of its own powers, in
the last resort, in a conflict between it and
the States, then the Federal Government is
the embodiment of a despotism, more power-
ful. more full, more supreme, more sacred,
more hedged in by law, than any despotism
ever was that existed since history was first
written.
Now, I do not wish to express views at all
offensive to any one in any way. But I am
greatly strengthened, in what I have always
held upon this doctrine of States' rights, by
a consideration to which I will now advert.
What has been the history and practice of
this Government since theories prevailed?
What direction have the courts taken?
What direction has Congress taken? From
the foundation of the Government to this pre-
sent moment, with a few exceptions, the
States' rights theory has given the direction,
the course, the impulse, to the whole Gov-
ernment. The Virginia and Kentucky Reso-
lutions of 1778 and 1789 became, as it were,
a sort of public law in the country, that
practically ruled all parties. Men differed
upon tariffs, and upon other subordinate
questions. But upon the great, original
question of the powers of the Government, I
maintain that the great stress of public opin-
ion, and the practise of the Government, I
might say almost uninterrupted, with the
single exception of general Jackson, has been
that the States' rights theory, the disintegra-
tion theory, the theory that was opposed to
centralization, was the proper method upon
which to administer this Government, and is my
that without fear of successful contradiction,
Now, I suppose that General Jackson will
be a great thorn in the path of States' rights
men here, and I state here, that but for the
authority of the name of Jackson, there would
not be in the whole of your history, the
smallest peg upon which to hang this consol-
idaltion, theory. General Jackson is responsi-
ble for the whole of that; I say that freely,
for there can be no doubt in the world. But
in order to obviate beforehand the force of
the argument that I know will be based upon
General Jackson's position, I desire to read
from General Jackson's farewell address, pre-
ceded by Borne few of the many beautiful
words that Mr. Parton uses in his remarkable
book. He says in reference to General Jack-
son and his theory of coercion :
" His proclamation, his message, land all his
proceedings therefore bore a two-fold aspect—
one of relief and justice in reducing the rev-
enue to the wants of the Government in the
economical administration of its affairs; the
other of firm and mild authority in enforcing
the laws against offenders."
How little he relied upon force to maintain
the Union will appear from the following ex-
tract from his farewell address to the Ameri-
can people; |
" If such a struggle (civil war) is once be-
gun, and the citizens of one section of the
country arrayed in arms against those of an-
other in doubtful conflict, let the battle result
as it may, there will be an end of the Union,
and with it an end to the hopes of freedom.
The victory of the injured would not secure to
them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge
their wrongs, but they would themselves share
in the common ruin. But the Constitution
cannot be maintained, nor the Union pre-
served in opposition to public feeling, by the
mere exertion of the coercive powers confided
to the General Government; the foundations
must be laid in the affections of the people, in
the security it gives lo life, liberty, character
and property in every quarter of the country ;
and in the" fraternal attachment which the
citizens of the several States bear to one an-
other, as members of one political family mu-
tually contributing to promote the happiness
of each other."
I interpose that between myself and any
argument which may be raised by my friends
upon the other side upon the authority of the
great name of Jackson.
But after all, Mr. President, the great difficulty
that I have in endorsing the proposition
to put this new article into the bill of rights
is that, in itself, the theory of consolidation
is necessarily accompanied with what I regard
as the great demon of our destiny, that is, the
theory of coercion by the Federal Govern-
ment of the States which created the Federal
Government, Now, such a principle is in the
mere statement of it a solecism. Confessedly
the States as sovereign created the Federal
Government. Whatever may be the powers
of the Federal Government the? States created
it. I believe nobody from 1787 to this day
has ever had the temerity to say that the
rights of the people of these States arose in
any other way than that they as States pre-
ceded the Constitution, formed it, and were
the originators and creators of it. That has
been consistently maintained upon both floors
of Congress, by men holding every possible
variety of political opinion. And there is but
one man now known to history who has ever
maintained the contrary; and he is Abraham
Lincoln, who, in one of his messages, did say,
I believe, that the Constitution of the United
States created the States. He is the exception
to the rule. The other doctrine has been
universally held by all men of every party.
Now, sir, if the States created the Federal
Government, and endowed it with certain
powers, can it be said that the Federal Gov-
ernment has the right, by any just rule or
reason, to bind and force the States into its
construction of its powers? Was that ever
designed? Docs any man suppose that those
who were sent from this State to Philadelphia
to strengthen in some particulars the articles
of consideration in order to promote the com-
mon convenience and welfare of the States, |
