You will find every item of sovereignty
claimed for the State, except what can be
shown by the record to have been surren-
dered.
Two governments were formed. That idea
was scouted at. Some gentlemen could not
understand it. We have not all of us, during
all our lives, been examining such questions.
Some have been following one pursuit, and
Borne another; and it is not remarkable that
the idea should be to some gentlemen unin-
telligible. As Mr. Webster said, we have a
political theory of our own, and institutions
of our own. There is nothing in Europe
analogous to it. This shall not rest upon
my ipse dixit. I will read Mr. Webster's lan-
guage :
" The people, sir, in every State, live under
two governments. They owe obedience to
both. These governments, though distinct,
are Hot adverse. Each has its separate sphere,
and its peculiar powers and duties. It is not
a contest between two sovereigns for the same
power, like the wars of the rival houses in
England; nor is it a dispute between a gov-
ernment de facto and a government dejure.
It is a case of a division of powers between
two governments made by the people, to
which both are responsible."
The people in the several States made a gov-
ernment for the regulation of the whole Union,
to conduct their foreign intercourse. So far
they surrendered their sovereignty. They
retained everything else. Who protects you,
gentlemen have asked, when you go abroad ?
The government of the United States. But
what proportion of your citizens go abroad ?
Not one in 5,000, Now, I ask, if any one
seizes my property—my negro, I was about to
say, but any other property except my negro—
or assails my reputation, who defends and
protects me? Can a citizen of the United
States now boast of the protection of the
Government of the United States? It is like
the negro—it is a post obit concern,
I believe that the Constitution is the act of
the people of the different States; and I be-
lieve it is binding upon them. I believe in
the doctrine that the people as well as indi-
viduals can bind themselves. I believe that
as in a contract between individuals, where
that contract has been fairly entered into, one
party cannot legally release himself from it.
So I believe here, that the people of the dif-
ferent States, as members of the States, and
in their character as citizens of the several
States, having entered into this agreement
with each other, and having assented to it,
as Mr. Webster argues in this speech, it be-
comes obligatory upon them, and no one
State, any more than an individual, can
withdraw himself from it. Though this
Convention with one united voice may take
me to Washington to swear allegiance to
the government of the United States—not
to the United States and the laws made |
in pursuance thereof, but to the Govern-
ment ;—
Mr. PUGH. The Constitution of the United
States and the laws made in pursuance
thereof.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am willing to do that.
I am willing to acknowledge allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States. I stand
recorded upon that in 1850. I have lived by
it, and God willing I will die by it. I can-
not say the "Government" now, though I
might have said it in 1850; for in 1850 abo-
litionism meant the worst crime a citizen of
Maryland could perpetrate against the State.
Now, gentlemen boast that it will be enacted
by the majority of the representatives of the
people,—immediate, direct, uncompensated
emancipation and abolitionism. Inasmuch as
these changes have taken place, I cannot now
declare my allegiance to the Government. I
hear it all around me, that the President is
the Government—no, I am wrong; the Gov-
ernment is now the President's bayonets. I
cannot swear allegiance to the Government as
the term is now understood.
For these reasons I differ from those gen-
tlemen, if there be any, who think that the
right of secession is involved here. I go for
the right acknowledged by every man, and
avowed from the time the declaration of
rights was written by Mr. Jefferson in 1776
down to the present hour, without an excep-
tion, (and I do not know the man that denies
it,) the right of revolution, whenever the
people are so oppressed that they can no longer
submit; the right of revolution, no matter
what the consequences are, fight or no fight,
death or no death. The people have, must
have this right to this revolutionary move-
ment, if they are so oppressed as not to be
able to tolerate longer the inflictions imposed
upon them.
But it is said, who is to judge of it? Is
it not self-evident that if the party who im-
poses the restraints is allowed to judge of it
exclusively, there will never be oppression.
is it possible to suppose that any administrators
of government would ever say there was
oppression, created by themselves on their own
subjects whom they have sworn to protect ?
Mr. Lincoln says that this proclamation of
his was unconstitutional; but it was issued.
Was that oppression? Not at all. It was
necessary. All these things are necessary.
Bonaparte thought it necessary to assume the
imperial crown. King John thought it neces-
sary to exercise all the prerogatives he claimed,
until he was forced by the barons of England
to relinquish them. It is unreasonable to
suppose that there can be such a thing as
toleration of the idea that you are to surren-
der the right of revolution. Did Lord North
doubt the propriety of what he did? Did
his master, George III, doubt the propriety
of what be did? Were the colonists to wait
for them to decide that it was oppressive? |
