按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
ry subject to the Union。 This is true of all the States formed out of the Territory of the Northwest； and out of the domain ceded by France； Spain； and Mexico to the United States。 All these cessions were held by the United States as territory immediately subject to the Union； before being erected into States； and by far the larger 289 part is so held even yet。 But Texas was an independent foreign state； and was annexed as a State without having been first subjected as territory to the United States。 It of course lost by annexation its separate sovereignty。 But this annexation was held by many to be unconstitutional； it was made when the State sovereignty theory had gained possession of the Government； and was annexed as a State instead of being admitted as a State formed from territory belonging to the United States； for the very purpose of committing the nation to that theory。 Its annexation was the prologue； as the Mexican war was the first act in the secession drama； and as the epilogue is the suppression of the rebellion on Texan soil。 Texas is an exceptional case； and forms no precedent； and cannot be adduced as invalidating the general rule。 Omitting Texas； the simple fact is； the States acquire all their sovereign powers by being States in the Union； instead of losing or surrendering them。
Our American statesmen have overlooked or not duly weighed the facts in the case； because； holding the origin of government in compact； they felt no need of looking back of the constitution to find the basis of that unity of the American people which they assert。 Neither Mr。 Madi… 190 son nor Mr。 Webster felt any difficulty in asserting it as created by the convention of 1787； or in conceding the sovereignty of the States prior to the Union； and denying its existence after the ratification of the constitution。 If it were not that they held that the State originates in convention or the social compact； there would be unpardonable presumption on the part of the present writer in venturing to hazard an assertion contrary to theirs。 But； if their theory was unsound； their practical doctrine was not； for they maintained that the American people are one sovereign people； and Mr。 Quincy Adams； an authority inferior to neither； maintained that they were always one people； and that the States hold from the Union； not the Union from the States。 The States without the Union cease to exist as political communities： the Union without the States ceases to be a Union； and becomes a vast centralized and consolidated state； ready to lapse from a civilized into a barbaric； from a republican to a despotic nation。
The State； under the American system； as distinguished from Territory； is not in the domain and population fixed to it； nor yet in its exterior organization； but solely in the political powers； rights； and franchises which it 291 holds from the United States； or as one of the United States。 As these are rights； not obligations； the State may resign or abdicate them and cease to be a State； on the same principle that any man may abdicate or forego his rights。 In doing so； the State breaks no oath of allegiance； fails to fulfil no obligation she contracted as a State： she simply forgoes her political rights and franchises。 So far； then； secession is possible； feasible； and not unconstitutional or unlawful。 But it is； as Mr。 Sumner and others have maintained； simply State suicide。 Nothing hinders a State from committing suicide； if she chooses； any more than there was something which compelled the Territory to become a State in the Union against its will。
It is objected to； this conclusion that the States were； prior to the Union； independent sovereign States； and secession would not destroy the State； but restore it to its original sovereignty and independence； as the secessionists maintain。 Certainly； if the States were； Prior to the Union； sovereign States； but this is precisely what has been denied and disproved； for prior to the Union there were no States。 Secession restores； or reduces； rather； the State to the condition it was in before its admission into the Union； but that condition 292 is that of Territory； or a Territory subject to the United States； and not that of an independent sovereign state。 The State holds all its political rights and powers in the Union from the Union； and has none out of it； or in the condition in which its population and domain were before being a State in the Union。
State suicide； it has been urged； releases its population and territory from their allegiance to the Union； and as there is no rebellion where there is no allegiance； resistance by its population and territory to the Union； even war against the Union； would not be rebellion； but the simple assertion of popular sovereignty。 This is only the same objection in another form。 The lapse of the State releases the population and territory from no allegiance to the Union； for their allegiance to the Union was not contracted by their becoming a State； and they have never in their State character owed allegiance to the United States。 A State owes no allegiance to the United States； for it is one of them； and is jointly sovereign。 The relation between the United States and the State is not the relation of suzerain and liegeman or vassal。 A State owes no allegiance； for it is not subject to the Union； it is never in their State capacity that its population and territory do or 293 can rebel。 Hence； the Government has steadily denied that； in the late rebellion； any State as such rebelled。
But as a State cannot rebel； no State can go out of the Union； and therefore no State in the late rebellion has seceded； and the States that passed secession ordinances are and all along have been States in the Union。 No State can rebel； but it does not follow therefrom that no State can secede or cease to exist as a State： it only follows that secession； in the sense of State suicide； or the abdication by the State of its political rights and powers； is not rebellion。 Nor does it follow from the fact that no State has rebelled； that no State has ceased to be a State； or that the States that passed secession ordinances have been all along States in the Union。
The secession ordinances were illegal； unconstitutional； not within the competency of the State； and therefore null and void from the beginning。 Unconstitutional； illegal； and not within the competency of the State； so far as intended to alienate any portion of the national domain and population thereto annexed； they certainly were； and so far were void and of no effect； but so far as intended to take the State simply as a State out of the Union； they were 294 within the competency of the State； were not illegal or unconstitutional； and therefore not null and void。 Acts unconstitutional in some parts and constitutional in others are not wholly void。 The unconstitutionality vitiates only the unconstitutional parts； the others are valid； are law； and recognized and enforced as such by the courts。
The secession ordinances are void； because they were never passed by the people of the State； but by a faction that overawed them and usurped the authority of the State。 This argument implies that； if a secession ordinance is passed by the people proper of the State； it is valid； which is more than they who urge it against the State suicide doctrine are prepared to concede。 But the secession ordinances were in every instance passed by the people of the State in convention legally assembled； therefore by them in their highest State capacityin the same capacity in which they ordain and ratify the State constitution itself； and in nearly all the States they were in addition ratified and confirmed； if the facts have been correctly reported； by a genuine plebiscitum； or direct vote of the people。 In all cases they were adopted by a decided majority of the political people of the State； and after their adoption they were 295 acquiesced in and indeed actively supported by very nearly the whole people。 The people of the States adopting the secession ordinances were far more unanimous in supporting secession than the people of the other States were in sustaining the Government in its efforts to suppress the rebellion by coercive measures。 It will not do； then； to ascribe the secession ordinances to a faction。 The people are never a faction； nor is a faction ever the majority。
There has been a disposition at the North； encouraged by the few Union men at the South； to regard secession as the work of a few ambitious and unprincipled leaders； who； by their threats； their violence； and their overbearing manner； forced the mass of the people of their respective States into secession against their convictions and their will。 No doubt there were leaders at the South； as there are in every great moveme