siderations of patriotism, not by love of conn-
try, not by those enlarged views which give
character to nations and to statesmen; but
by considerations immediately arising from
the sectional advantage of the particular
quarter, North or South, in which the doc-
trine was advocated. Whatever debates took
place in the Convention that formed the Con-
stitution, what debates may have taken place
by the able men of our country, either in the
Congress of the United States, or in the Su-
preme Court of the United States, or in the
State Conventions, or in any other forum in
which they may have transpired—all partook
of this very same character. Wherever you
find this question the subject of discussion,
you find that the circumstances which sur-
round the men engaged in the discussion, are
circumstances which give tone and character
to their opinions. The country, the whole
country, the good of the country, have been
merged in the personal interests and aggran-
dizements of individuals and States. Such
has been the conclusion which I have reached
from a tolerably careful examination of the
history of this question of State rights.
Indeed, the Convention which formed the
Constitution itself was not free from this in-
fluence. For if my memory serves me, 1
have seen somewhere a letter from General
Washington, written during the sitting of the
Convention, or soon afterwards, in which be
declares that the selfish interests of some of
the States were so controling that they were
not willing to surrender even the smallest
attribute of sovereignty, though necessary to
make the government of the whole country
what it should be.
1 propose, Mr. President, to answer only in
avery brief and summary way a few of the
points that have been raised in the course of
the dehate upon this question, I find it very
difficult to make a genera] answer for the rea-
son that no two of the gentlemen who have
occupied the floor in opposition to this arti-
cle, occupy the same ground in relation to
the question of State rights. They all mate-
rially differ; all, however, landing in Dixie;
all reaching the conclusion that secession is
perfectly legitimate, according to some by
peaceful means, according to others by revo-
lutionary means. I regard the term " revo-
lution " as, for the most part, conveying the
idea of violent means, although in latter days
it has received a more convenient construc-
tion, and is now interpreted to mean, a get-
ting away from bonds by peaceful means if
you can, by violence, or force, if necessary.
Now, in regard to ' sovereignty," for that
is the great basis upon which all these rights
rest. We are told that this sovereignty is
coextensive with the history of the people ;
that is, from the time of the achievement of
independence. That the very moment our
independence was achieved, each colony be-
came a sovereign State; that that condition |
of sovereignty passed with them under the ar-
ticles of confederation, passed with them under
the Constitution of the United States, and it
is now possessed by them intact, unchanged,
absolute. In legal acceptation, what are the
attributes of sovereignty? Let us go down
to first principles; let us analyze ibis word
"sovereignty," and see what it really means.
1 shall do that very briefly, by simply refer-
ring to its definition in the Law Dictionary,
without undertaking at all to produce any
other authority. The authorities upon which
Bouvier relies are cited by him, and I take it
for granted they are cited correctly. And 1
shall, therefore, not occupy the attention of
the Convention by any analysis of them, but
shall adopt his definition as ex cathedra.—
What does he say :
"Sovereignty," says Bouvier, "is the union
and exercise of all human power possessed in
a State; it is a combination of all powers; ii
is the power to do everything in a State with-
out accountability; to make laws, to execute
and to apply them; to impose and collect
taxes, and levy contributions; to make war,
or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of com-
merce with foreign nations;" for this defini-
tion Bouvier refers to Story on the Constitu-
tion 207.
Again, he continues, "Sovereignty, abstract-
edly resides in the body of the Nation, and be-
longs to the people: strictly speaking in our
Republican forms of Government, the abso-
lute sovereignty of the Nation is in the people
of the Nation; and the RESIDUARY SOVER-
EIGNTY of each State, not granted to any of
its public functionaries is in the people of the
State."—Homier, 533.
Here then is an accepted definition of the term
"sovereignty," from the highest authority.
Now, sir, will any gentleman upon the
other side contend that the States which
formed the Constitution parted with no attri-
bute of sovereignty, coneeding that antece-
dently they were each sovereign? Will it be
contended that they invested in that meta-
physical entity, of which they speak, no or-
ganic power; that the United States, as such,
was merely an agent created by power of at-
torney; which power was subject to reclama-
tion at the will of the principal? if that be
so, what must be the conclusion to be reached,
referring to the same authority to afford us
the light of interpretation? Did not that
very people, these very constituents, these so-
called principals, which created this agency,
put themselves and even the judges of their
courts under an obligation by oath lo sup-
port that Constitution? And will it be said
by reasonable men that a principal will obli-
gate itself by oath to the support of an agent,
and thereby create an agent far, infinitely far,
above their control, irresponsible and with-
out restraint? And yet that is the absurd
conclusion reached by the argument, that
the principal is subordinate to the agent, |
