USA > North Carolina > North Carolina in the War Between the States > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
There is much in a word. The title United States, which has now come to mean a geographical division of the surface of the earth. was employed to designate sovereigns before the adoption of the articles. It was retained in the same identical sense in the articles, and brought forward with the same signification in the new Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall said the Union was nothing but " a league " between sovereign States. The Supreme Court has often decided that the Union was a compact. Lord Brougham said the Union was a " treaty," a " great league." All the great European writers on international law unite in saying that in confederate republics, sovereignty resides in the several States that compose it. Hamilton said the Union was a " Confederate Republic."
It may be mentioned in this connection that. from 1822 to 1861, Raule on the Constitution was a text-book at West Point .* It was introduced into the course when Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of War. This work assumes throughout the sovereignty of the States, and as Gen. D. H. Maury says, " the right of secession is distinctly set forth by him." +
* Thus, the Confederate Generals who received their education at West Point were simply carrying out in good faith what was taught them there.
+ So. His. Papers, vol. 6, p. 249.
44
INTRODUCTORY.
Mr. Justice Story may be regarded as the father of the school of consolidation. We have already seen that there were nationalists, or consolidationists, in the Convention which framed the Constitution, and we have seen also that when these inen failed to establish the kind of government they desired, they loyally admitted their defeat and recognized the federal character of the Constitution.
In 1832-33, when the North had become the great manu- facturing and commercial section, and the Union had con- sequently become a source of immense profit to its people, and the South, as a beast of burden, loaded to the earth with protective tariffs, it was feared that the further recognition of the federal principle might be dangerous to the perpetuity of the Union and to protective tariffs. So that principle must be rooted out. Mr. Story undertook to do it. It is unnecessary to remark further upon his effort in this direction than to say, that it exhibits all the petty sharpness of the special pleader, that it was written for a sectional purpose and in a sectional interest, that it notoriously perverted the truth of history, and was in diametrical opposition to the teachings of all the fathers who had given a contemporaneous interpretation of the Constitution. But it was reserved for another to sow broadcast the seeds of poison, which have already yielded for a harvest one civil war, which has pro- duced a radical revolution in the character of the Govern- ment, comprising, among other things, the practical abolition of the States and the establishment of a " Nation " upon their ruins. This was Mr. Webster.
. Of Mr. Webster, personally. it is hardly necessary to speak. He was a man of brilliant talents, but destitute of genius and incapable of profound reflection. He acquired a vast fund of information with great ease, and held it in a ready memory, to be arranged and classified as might best suit the immediate object he had in view. This, united with quick perception, a vivid imagination, and a wonderful faculty of rapid combi- nation and arrangement, rendered him a skillful extempore debater, and a dangerous opponent before the masses. His
45.
INTRODUCTORY.
mental characteristics were of the same nature as his moral habits. Both were loose and versatile. He was powerti before a jury-weak before the Supreme Court of the United States. He was not without some Hashes of heroism, but these were mere transitory gleams. He lacked a sturdy manhood. There was no fixed star, towards which he pur- sued his path. regardless of the ground, unswerving to the right or left. He lacked a well-grounded and abiding polit- ical principle, by which to steer a straight-forward course. He moved by fits and starts-now on this side of the line and now on the other. He was fiekle, inconsistent and un -. certain ; but always brilliant. He was gifted with the power of oratory in a remarkable degree, and was immensely pop- ular. Above all things he was the advocate, speaking for Massachusetts and the interests of Massachusetts, in the Sen -. ate, not as a statesman, not as a virtuous judge upon the bench, but as the feed attorney in a cause at law. He was, in every respect, the direct opposite of Mr. Calhoun, whose strength rested upon the granite foundation of the truth as set forth in the Constitution, as explained by the men who framed it, and as interpreted in one voice and language by the fathers and founders of the Government.
Mr. Webster said, in his rejoinder to Mr. Hayne, in the Senate in 1830: " When the gentleman says the Constitu- tion is a compact between the States he uses language ex- actly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact: the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other General Government. But that was found insufficient and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it and undertook to estab- lish a better. They undertook to form a General Govern- ment, which should stand on a new basis-not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitu- tion."*
* Gales and Seaton's " Register of Congressional Debates," vol. 6, part I, p. 93.
46
INTRODUCTORY.
F Again he says: "The word 'accede,' not found either in the Constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any one of the States, has been chosen for use here, doubtless not without a well-considered purpose. The natural converse of accession is secession ; and, therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the Union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede from it. If, in adopting the Constitution, nothing was done but acced- ing to a compact. nothing would seem necessary in order to break it up but to secede from the same compact. But the term is wholly out of place. Accession, as a word applied to political associations, implies coming into a league, treaty, or confederacy, by one hitherto a stranger to it, and secession implies departing from such league or confederacy. The people of the United States have used no such form of ex- pression in establishing the present Government .* * This is the reason, sir, which makes it necessary to aban- don the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary, and to substitute in the place of plain historical facts a series of assumptions. This is the reason why it is necessary to give new names to things ; to speak of the Constitution not as a Constitution, but us a compact; and of the ratifications by the people, not as ratifications, but as acts of accession."t
It was to this speech, more than to any other effort of his life, that Mr. Webster owed the title of the " Great Expounder of the Constitution." To say the least, it was late in the day when the "Great Expounder" first appeared-over forty years since the adoption of the instrument. To use the plain truth, if the word "perverter " be substituted for " expounder," then Mr. Webster is characterized with exact precision. But the truth demands that more than this be said. It demands that the duplicity of Mr. Webster be exposed. This is no pleasant duty, and it is approached with reluctance and re- gret.
* Congressional Debates, vol. 9, part 1, p. 556.
tIbid, pp. 557, 558.
47
INTRODUCTORY.
Mr. Webster was the idol of his section. He was there regarded as the greatest statesman that America had ever produced. The shades of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madi- son ; yes, of Jay. of Hamilton, of Gouverneur Morris, paled be- fore the glory of his renown. The teachings of these fathers were cast aside, and men received with rejoicing the new light of this bright star, which now for the first time made its appearance above the horizon. A true prophet had at length arisen, and after waiting for more than a generation, the Constitution had at last found an interpreter! The old truths were tame when compared with his fervid utter- ances. The old theory of the relation of the States to the General Government appeared small and narrow, when con- trasted with his enlarged views. The vision of a great nation, the obliteration of State lines, except as geographical bound- aries, and the absolute rule of the numerical majority, un- tramelled by constitutional restrictions, was now clearly out- lined for the first time. The people hung with rapture upon his artistic combination of language and the graces which accompanied its expression. It was as if one of the gods had come down and spoken with men. And yet in this very speech, the essence of which has been above quoted, and which was the crowning effort of Mr. Webster's life, he was guilty of a willful perversion of what he knew to be the true meaning of terms, he intentionally misrepresented the facts, and deliberately, and with a purpose prepense, imposed upon and deceived the people. He says: "They (the people) un- dertook to form a General Government which should stand on a new basis-not a confederacy, not a league, not a com- pact between States, but a Constitution." What is a constitu- tion ? What is the plain and unambiguous meaning of that word? It means nothing more or less than a form of govern- ment-any form. The term constitution is a noun substan- tive, and is employed to denote the manner in which a thing is constituted. When applied to government it signifies the mode or manner in which the government is constituted.
.
48
INTRODUCTORY.
The constitution may be democratie, aristocratic or monarch- ical ; it may be national or it may be confederate. The con- stitution of the German confederation, of the Dutch repub- lie, and of the American States, under the old articles was that of a "confederacy." a " league," a "compact." The term constitution was applied to them with the strictest accuracy and propriety. Mr. Webster knew this, and vet he wrests the word from its true meaning, coins for it a new signification, before unheard of, employs it as opposed to " a confederacy." "league." or " compact," and attempts to palm off the fraud upon the public mind! If this is not a perver- sion of language, what is it ? The supposition that Mr. Web- ster did this through ignorance is too gross a reflection upon his intelligence, to be entertained for a moment. It is proper to remark in this connection. that Noah Webster. the lexi- cographer, was a staunch States-rights man. His own die- tionary was published in 1844. and its political vocabulary had States-rights definitions. In 1864 a work, purporting to be the same, was published by a noted writer of school- books, especially histories, in which new definitions of the consolidated school were forged to these words. and the book was, and still is, passed off as the work of the original author. This caused its indorsement by the Departments of the Gov- ernment and added largely to its sale-and the profits of the editor.
It is not surprising that erroneous political views should obtain even at the South. when we are indebted to the North not only for our school-books, but for a knowledge of the English language. So sedulously has this perverted mean- ing of words been employed by Northern writers, and with such effect have these false significations been driven into the public mind of the North, through school-books and all the methods of popular instruction, that, were you to ask one of "the cultured," in that region, the meaning of the word "State," you would be smiled upon in pity for your ignor- ance, or, if an answer were vouchsafed, you would be told
49
INTRODUCTORY.
that a State was a part of the United States: that New York or Massachusetts was a State. If you should mildly suggest that Great Britain was a State, that France was a State, you would be corrected, by an amazing condescension and com- placeney of self-conceit, and informed, that these were " Na- tions," not "States" So. too, the word " Federal" has been wrenched from its etymology and true meaning, and has now come to be understood in the cery opposite sense from that in which it was used by the framers of the Consti- tution. So much for Northern writers and torged diction- aries. But to return. Mr. Webster says : " This word 'ac- cede,' not found in the Constitution itself, or in the ratifica- tion of it by any one of the States, has been chosen for use here, doubtless not without a well-considered purpose."
After intimating that this purpose was secession, he pro- ceeds : * "This is the reason, sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary and to substitute, in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions. This is why it is necessary to give new names to things; to speak of the Constitution, not as a constitution, but as a compact : and of the ratifications by the people, not as ratifications, but as acts of accession."
It will be observed, in the first place, that in this passage Mr. Webster again perverts the term "constitution," and em- ploys it as opposed to compact. The thoughtful reader will also perceive the straits to which he is reduced by the use of the terms " ratifications" and " acts," in the plural. If the adoption of the Constitution was the work of the people as an aggregate unit. then there would be but one ratification, but one act. To use these terms in the plural necessitates the use of the term "people " in the plural, but this would be to admit that the ratification was by the States-which was the fact-but which he impliedly denies.
Mr. Webster was sharp. He was a lawyer by profession, and employed the same method in the United States Senate
* Congressional Debates, vol. 9, part 1, pp. 557, 558.
4
50
INTRODUCTORY.
that he employed before a jury. He often hints more than he expresses, and cunningly creates a false impression by an insinuation. He thus shields himself from attack. and can. deny making a positive statement. Thus, because the words "accede " and "compact." are not found in the Constitution or in the ratifications. he would have us infor that the States. did not accede, and that the Constitution was not a compact. Such a pretense of argument is either puerile or dishonest. A bank check does not bear upon its face the words, " this is a bank check." nor does the revealed word of God any- where call itself the .. Bible." The question of compact or not is a question of fact to be ascertained from the circum- stances attending the framing and adoption of the instrument,. and from its general character and aim. The old Articles of Confederation. which Mr. Webster himself says was a league or compact, nowhere declares it to be such. And Mr. Web- ster's argument is equally valid to prove that it was not a compact. But these very terms. " accede " and " compact," are the very terms which were in constant use by the framers of the Constitution and their contemporaries.
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts. said in the convention of 1787 : " If nine out of thirteen can dissolve the compact, six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one here- after."
Mr. Gouverneur Morris* said, in the same convention : "He came here to form a compact : "and he employed the term repeatedly.
Mr. Madison + said : " The nature of the pact has always been understood." &c.
Mr. Hamilton.# who was the strongest of all the advocates for a consolidation. speaks of the new government repeat- edly, in the Federalist, as a " Confederacy," as a " Confeder- ate Republic." and calls the Constitution "a compact." General Washington referred to the Constitution as a com-
* Madison Papers. pp. 1081, 1982.
+ Ibid. p. 11×4.
+ Federalist, Nos. IX, LXXXV.
51
INTRODUCTORY.
paet or treaty, and employs the terms " accede" and "acces- sion." New Hampshire, Mr. Webster's native State, declared, in her act of ratification. that she accepted it (the Constitu- tion) as a " compact of the States with each other."
Massachusetts, on her ratification, declared that she was entering into " a solemn compact."
All this Mr. Webster knew. and yet he had the effrontery and dishonesty to declare that the employment of the terms "accede " and " compact" was the introduction of a " new vocabulary," and the substitution, "in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions !"
Mr. Webster says again, in the same speech : " It can not be shown that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, on its very front, re- futes that proposition : it declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the governments of the sev- eral States, it does not even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces that it is es- tablished by the people of the United States in the aggregate."
The fact which explains the expression, " we, the people of the United States," has already been stated, and Mr. Web- ster knew it, or ought to have known it. Without any ex- planation of the expression at all, it is not true that it refutes the doctrine of a compact.
It is people who constitute a State, and taking this expres- sion, isolated and alone, without another single fact to aid in its interpretation. it is as fair to construe it " ire, the people of the States united" (which is the French and Spanish idiom), as, " we, the people of the United States, in our aggregate ca- pacity as a unit."
Mr. Webster had, all through this speech, been weighing his language in golden seales, so as to insinuate the false, with- out expressing it in direct language. In this passage, how- ever, he seems to forget himself for a moment, in the torrent of declamation, and declares that the Constitution " pro-
52
INTRODUCTORY.
nounces that it is established by the people of the United States in the aggregate." The addition of the words " in the aggregate " is the Webster addition, and nowhere to be found in the instrument itself. Mr. Webster here states what is positively not true-and he knew it.
We have still stronger evidence of his dishonesty, and out of his own mouth is he condemned. On a previous occasion, when he had arrived at the full vigor of his mental powers, and had served several years in Congress, he said, relative to the admission of Missouri, that the States enjoy " the ex- clusice possession of sovereignty," and again, "as between the original States, the representation rests upon compact and plighted faith."
At a later period, in 1851, he said, in his speech at Capon Springs, Virginia:"*
" If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North any longer be bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually and of fixed purpose, to disre- gard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations ? How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision and expect nevertheless the other to observe the rest!
"I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side."
Again, in his letter to Colonel Hiekey in 1850, in his letter in 1851 to Mr. Cooper, of Georgia, and in his address to the young men of Albany, in the same year, he calls the Union a compact.
*Curtis' Life of Webster, Chap. XXXVII, pp. 518, 519.
53
INTRODUCTORY.
In the vigor of his best manhood he said : " The original parties to the Constitution were thirteen confederated States," and furthermore, that their constitutional obligations "rest on compact and plighted faith." These, his exact words, he recanted in the interest of protective tariff legislation in 1830-'33. In his later years he reiterated the same words. But it was too late : he had already produced those " public convictions," as Mr. Curtis calls them, which brought their fruit of war and woe.
This statement of Mr. Webster's position, though probably tedious, is necessary to a full understanding of the question. For Mr. Webster distinctly admits, as stated by Mr. Davis in his history, " that if the Constitution were a compact; if the Union were a Confederacy ; if the States had, as States, severally acceded to it-all which propositions he denies- then the sovereignty of the States and their right to secede from the Union would be deducible."
Mr. Webster's own language is: "Such, sir, (secession, &c.,) are the inevitable results of this doctrine, beginning with the original error that the Constitution of the United States is nothing but a compact between sovereign States." It is proper to remark in this connection, that there was no vote taken on Calhoun's States-rights resolution in 1833. But the consolidation movement was checked. In Decem- ber, 1837, the same resolutions, varied only verbally, were introduced by Mr. Calhoun in the Senate. They were passed by a vote of two-thirds of the States, thus affirming the doctrines which Mr. Webster declared meant secession.
That the States, and not the people in their aggregate capacity, framed and established the Constitution appears from the facts that the States appointed the delegates to the convention, and that, in that convention, each State had one vote; that the Constitution was submitted to the States, and not to the people at large, for ratification ; that it should go into effect when ratified by nine States; that it should be established-not over the whole people-but "between the
45
INTRODUCTORY.
States so ratifying the same." That the States retained their sovereignty is evidenced by the facts; that it is universally conceded that they were sovereign under the old Confedera- tion, and that there has been no surrender of sovereignty since; that the objections of the States to the adoption of the Constitution arose from the fear, that in some way or other they might lose their sovereignty; that it was only after they had been convinced that such fear was without foundation that they entered into the compact; that three of the States, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island, to make assurance doubly sure, in express language reserved the right to with- draw from the compact when they entered into it; that New Hampshire, in her constitution of 1792, declared that she was a free, sovereign, and independent body politie, or State; that Massachusetts declared the same thing, in the same lan- guage ; that Mr. Madison said, in the Virginia convention, "we, the people who were to establish the Constitution, were the people of thirteen sovereignties."
Hamilton declared in the Federalist that the States were sovereign. Franklin, James Wilson, of Pennsylvania ; Gouv- erneur Morris, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth, spoke of the States as sovereign bodies. This doctrine was not denied in the earlier years of the Republic. The tenth amendment to the Constitution was adopted at the express instance of the States, in order to secure their sovereignty beyond all possible doubt.
Chief Justice Marshall gives an opinion, in these words, to wit: "The State governments did not derive their powers from the General Government, but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given. Would any gentleman deny this?
* Could any man say that this power was not retained by the States, as they had not given it away? For does not a power remain until it is given away?"* Finally, is it possi- ble to conceive that an independent State would part with the priceless jewel of sovereignty by implication ?
* Elliott's Debates, vol. 3, pp. 369, 381.
45
INTRODUCTORY.
States so ratifying the same." That the States retained their sovereignty is evidenced by the facts; that it is universally conceded that they were sovereign under the old Confedera- tion, and that there has been no surrender of sovereignty since; that the objections of the States to the adoption of the Constitution arose from the fear. that in some way or other they might lose their sovereignty; that it was only after they had been convinced that such fear was without foundation that they entered into the compact; that three of the States, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island, to make assurance doubly sure, in express language reserved the right to with- draw from the compact when they entered into it; that New Hampshire, in her constitution of 1792, declared that she was a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or State; that Massachusetts declared the same thing, in the same lan- guage ; that Mr. Madison said, in the Virginia convention, "we, the people who were to establish the Constitution, were the people of thirteen sovereignties."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.