There lived some years ago in the State of
Georgia, one of the purest and best men that
ever graced the halls of Congress. I speak
of John McPherson Berrier. What does he
say?
"Forty years of successful experiment
have proved the efficiency of this government
to sustain us in An honorable intercourse
with the other nations of the world. Exter-
nally in peace and in war, amid the fluctua-
tions of commerce and the strife of arms, it
has protected our interests and defended our
rights. One trial, one fearful trial remains
to be made. It is one under the apprehension
of which the bravest may tremble, which the
wise and the good will anxiously endeavor to
avoid, it is that experiment which shall test
the competency of this government to pre-
serve our internal peace, whenever a question
vitally affecting the bond which unites us as
one people shall come to be solemnly agitated
between the sovereign members of this Con-
federacy. In proportion to its dangers should
be our solicitude to avoid it by abstaining on
the one hand from acts of doubtful legisla-
tion, as well as by the manner of resistance
on the other, to those which are deemed un-
constitutional. Between the independent
members of this Confederacy, sir, there can
be no common arbiter. They are necessarily
remitted to their own sovereign will, de-
liberately expressed, in the exercise of those
reserved rights of sovereignty, the delegation
of which would have been an act of political
suicide. The designation of such an arbiter,
was, by the force of invincible necessity,
casus omissus among the provisions of a con-
stitution conferring limited powers, the inter-
pretation of which was to be confided to the
subordinate agents created by those who
were intrusted to administer it. I earnestly
hope that the wise and conciliatory spirit of
this government, aid of those of the several
States, will postpone to a period far distant
the day that will summon us to so fearful &.
trial. If, indeed, we are doomed to encoun-
ter it, I as earnestly hope it may be entered
upon in the spirit of peace, and with cher-
ished recollections of former amity."
Glorious words and well worthy of such a
man. There is one other authority upon
this point which I wish to read.
"The secession of a State from the Union
depends upon the will of the people of such
State. The people alone, as we have already
seen, have the power to alter the Constitu-
tion .''— William Rawle, of Pennsylvania, 1825.
Perhaps the governing spirit of the Con-
vention that framed the Constitution, the one
who left his impress more deeply upon it
than any other, unless indeed it be Mr. Mad-
ison, was Gouverneur Morris, What does
he say about the Constitution? He declares
that it was a compact between the States, and
not a compact between individuals scattered
over the whole Union. These are his words ; |
"That the Constitution was a compact,
not between solitary individuals, but between
political societies, the people, not of America,
but of the United States—each (State) en-
joying sovereign power and of course equal
rights."
Thus it differs from a State Constitution,
which is a compact so far as it can be called
a compact, between individuals. It is a com-
pact between sovereignties.
Mr. Madison says:
"On examining the first relation, it ap-
pears on one hand, that the Constitution is
to be founded on the assent and ratification
of the people of America, given by deputies
elected for the special purpose; but on the
other, that this assent is given by the people,
not as individuals composing one entire na-
tion, but as composing the distinct and inde-
pendent States to which they respectively
belong. This assent and ratification is to be
given by the people, not as individuals com-
posing one entire nation, but as composing
the distinct and independent States to which
they respectively belong. It is to he the as-
sent and ratification of the several States de-
rived from the supreme authority in each
State—the authority of the people themselves.
The act, therefore, establishing the Constitu-
tion, will not be a national but a federal act."
Mr. Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Con-
vention, objected to the words—"We, the
people of the United States, " lest it might be
supposed that it meant the inhabitants of all
the States as one homogeneous mass or ag-
gregate. Mr. Madison replied to him :
"The parties to it are to be the people,
but not the people as composing one great
society, but the people as composing thirteen
distinct and separate sovereignties,"
Now, sir, one word upon this doctrine of
coercion. My theory is that this is a gov-
ernment of consent. The people found a
difficulty in getting along together under the
old articles of confederation, and to remedy
those difficulties they met together in Con-
vention, peaceably, quietly, and by consent
they adopted this Constitution. By it they
gave certain powers to the federal authority,
and within the limits of that grant of power
the federal authorities can rightfully go and
no further. Outside of it they dare not step.
Outside of it they cannot step rightfully,
legally. When they transcend those limits
it is usurpation, and usurpation is despotism.
I said it was a government of consent. I say
so still. And I say that if a condition of
things ever arises in this country not pro-
vided for by law, one of three things must
happen: the fundamental law must either be
amended in the mode prescribed by itself, or
the States must be resolved into their origi-.
nal condition, or the Federal Government
becomes a despotism by the assumption of
undelegated and unauthorized powers. One
of these three things must happen. |
