words, can be given to it except for the basest
purposes, and by political demagogues,
whether of the South or of the North.
Gentlemen have not pretended to show here
how it is possible for a Government constitu-
ted as they profess to believe that this Gov-
ernment was constituted, to have between its
constituent incoherent parts any cohesive
power. On the contrary they maintain that
each retains its sovereignty, and has a right
to leave on its own responsibility, whenever
it desires. They would have that right, if
this were simply an agreement; and if that
interpretation could properly be given to this
preamble; for the same parties that make an
agreement have the right to dissolve it. If
the Constitution is anything else than it declares
itself to ie, a form of government, it
contains within itself the elements of its own
destruction, but I deny that that is a correct
interpretation of our system of government.
What halve gentlemen said to lead us to be-
lieve that this Government could exist as a
mere agglomeration of sovereignties, in one
mass, there being nothing to hold them to-
gether except their own choice? The gentleman
who last spoke (Mr. Belt) declared
that there was no sovereignty whatever in
the General Government.
I might refer to authorities; there are
plenty of them; but I think we have had
authorities enough, it is sufficient to cite
the plain words written in the Constitution
itself. " We the people," the American citi-
zens, as distinct from Virginians, Maryland-
ers, Pennsylvanians, South Carolinians, or
people of any other individual State. " We
the people of the United States" ordain and
establish a certain form of government. We
refer, therefore in tire first place to the
written document, in proof of the correctness
of our interpretation.
In the next place we refer to the facts of
history, and more especially the history of
the last thirty or forty years. Two ideas have
started, and hive worked themselves out.
One of them is the idea, gotten up as I reli-
giously believe, for the basest of purposes,
and full of destruction, the idea that our
government is only a partnership concern.
The other ideal, that, it is what it claims to be,
a government, has been combatting it. Cal-
houn was the most powerful representative of
the first ideal. Daniel Webster was probably
the most powerful representative of the other.
Those two ideals are clashing to-day. We
need no other evidence of the fact that the one
leads inevitably to disintegration, and that
the other only can establish unity, than the
very existence this terrible war. For years
past this first idea has been kept at work,
and never allowed asingle hour for slumber.
At first it was done for the purpose of raising
a few political aspirants into power, but af-
terwards probably for the purpose of sus-
taining the institution of slavery. That fatal |
idea was kept at work all the time, not only
there but also in the North; for I want to
make the statement here, that I believe there
are just as many slave-holders in spirit, in
proportion to the population, in the North as
in the South. That ideal was kept constantly
at work, and the true idea was left free to
combat it. We see the result to day. In-
stead of the facts being as the gentleman
states, instead of our government being controlled
by the States' rights idea, as the gentleman
proclaimed, it was simply controlled
as a Federal Government, in spite of the
working of the States' rights idea. I agree
with all the gentleman has said of the mag-
nificence of our country, and the respect she
had abroad among the nations. But where
do we find ourselves to-day; and what is the
cause of it? This is a serious question for
reasonable men, and seems to admit of but
one answer. It has been therefore a matter
of astonishment to me that the gentleman
from Prince George's can stand up here and
boldly declare against this war upon the
ground that it is the offspring of a consoli-
dated form of government, it is an asser-
tion which deserves no reply from me, other
than to ask that the people of Maryland may
have an opportunity to show their sense of
the true disturber of our peace by declaring
that our paramount allegiance is due to the
Government of the United States.
Mr. NEGLEY. In the discussion of this
question, I desire first to follow the argu-
ments of the gentleman from Prince George's
who addressed the Convention this morning,
(Mr. Belt) and then to follow to some extent,
what I consider without any disrespect what-
ever for the author of it, the rambling, dis-
jointed and disconnected argument of his
colleague (Mr. Clarke.) I shall then discuss
this article, and answer the only solitary
objection that has been attempted to be urged
against it—its asserted tendency to centralize
the power of the Federal Government; that
it has a tendency to make that government
so strong as to endanger, they do not say
the rights of the people, but the rights of the
States. I shall show from the very authors
whom they have invoked in the name of
Madison and the old founders of the republic,
to show that this was not a National Govern-
ment but a mere confederation of States; I
shall show from the Federalist, from Madi-
son and from Hamilton, that they regarded
the present Government of the United States
as a National Government and not as a Fed-
eral Government, on the whole. But I will
not go into that discussion now. And shall
conclude by inquiring whether the States'
rights party or the national party of the land,
is responsible for the war in which we are
involved. Those are the three subjects to
which I shall call your attention.
The gentleman who addressed us this
morning (Mr. Belt) commences his argument |
