and elaborate, to establish the fact that the
proper interpretation of the theory of the
Government of the United States, is to be
found in that laid down by the States' rights
men of our day and of the days that have
gone before us. I find it almost impossible
to answer the gentleman who has just taken
his seat—I am willing to say that for him—
many things that he said were so utterly
wild. At the close of his speech, he even
wished us to believe that the States' rights
theory would have been the proper theory,
by following which this war could have been
avoided. Does the gentleman altogether dis-
regard the facts of history? Does he pay
no attention to the political and military his-
tory of the inception of this rebellion? Does
he pretend to ignore the embryo existence of
this rebellion for the last thirty or forty
years, embodied in what he calls the States
rights party ?
I declare here to-day that I know some-
thing of that party. I know something
about the leaders of this rebellion: some of
them at least. And I never heard any thing
so wild as the conclusion of the gentleman's
argument, which asserted that the adoption
of the States' rights theory by this Govern-
ment would have avoided this war. But I
propose at a later stage of my argument to
meet the statement to which I have now
only casually alluded Living as we are to-
day in the midst of a practical denial that
the States' rights theory is the proper inter-
pretation of our form of government, those
who to-day advocate that theory are far more
worthy of condemnation than those of our
ancestors who avowed their belief in that
theory. There was some excuse for our an-
cestors, It was then an untried experiment.
It was said, I believe by James Monroe, that
there were three great epochs of free govern-
ment upon this earth, First, the establish-
ment of the ancient republics of Greece and
Rome; second, the establishment of those
founded upon the ruins of the Roman empire;
and lastly, the present epoch, of the experi-
ment of a republican government, which we
are trying, and which they pat in definite
form when they made the Constitution under
which we live. They did not then see the
fallacy of the States' rights theory. A great
many of them were wrong in being carried
away by it, but they had not witnessed the
utter ruin which it would entail upon the
country. But what excuse can there be for
men who stand here to-day and advocate
that theory, when it is evident that there
cannot possibly exist upon this continent,
within the generally admitted boundaries of
the United States, any other than one con-
solidated government; or, on the other hand,
universal anarchy, chaos and political death.
I have had great difficulty in determining
exactly where these gentlemen who have ad-
dressed the Convention, stand upon the States' |
rights doctrine; although I have no difficulty
in coming at a proper conclusion as to the
results to which their arguments lead. But
when they undertake to state the matter dis-
tinctly, I understood the gentleman from
Prince George's (Mr. Clarke) who first ad-
dressed the Convention, to declare that he
was not in favor of secession, I did not
so understand the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Belt) who last spoke. I understood
the theory of the first gentleman
(Mr. Clarke) to be this, although it was very
difficult to understand him: that the States
were sovereign as States; that they yielded
up a sufficient amount of their sovereignty to
the General Government to deprive them,
among other things, of the power of seceding
from the General Government. I believe
that was about the gist of it. [Mr. C.
nodded his head in assent.] The absurdity
of such a theory appears upon its face. If
they have yielded up that portion of their
sovereignty which gives them the right to
act in any sovereign capacity as a sover-
eignty, under the general acceptation of the
term, that admits the whole question at issue.
If they have no right to se cede, what attribute
of sovereignty does the gentleman claim for
them? The question before us is, whit is the
supreme power in the land. To what power
in this land do we owe paramount allegiance?
Is it to the State of Maryland or the Consti-
tution of the United States, and the laws
.made in pursuance thereof? In answer to
that question, the gentleman comes forward
and assures us that Maryland, to a limited
extent, is sovereign, its sovereignty being
limited just enough to prevent her acting in
an independent capacity. At the same time
he has the effrontery to demand of us that we
shall acknowledge paramount allegiance to
the State of Maryland.
Mr. CLARKE. I say that paramount alle-
giance is due to each in its proper sphere.
Mr. PUGH. What we wish to announce
here is that paramount allegiance is due from
us somewhere. We contemplate declaring ill
this article where that paramount allegiance
is due; for the very reason that in these ter-
rible days it is not clearly understood where
it is due and what is to be recognized as
Sovereign in this country. If the doctrine
the gentleman has stated, is that the State of
Maryland is to a certain extent sovereign,
and to a certain other extent not sovereign,
it is only another form of the old delusion
which has dragged this country to ruin. I
have never belore met with the States' rights
doctrine in this peculiar mild form; but its
aspect to me is just as hideous, its features to
me just as revolting, in this shape as in any
other; because I look at practical results.
Although in that State where I have heard
so much of the States' rights doctrine, it never
wag presented in this peculiar form, yet I
have the game abhorrence for it in this form, |
