stx 
 
 E459 
 
 S127 
 
 1865 
 
 

 i 
 
 , / 
 b 
 
 
 \ 
 
 <0 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE 
 
 PilOTEST AGAINST THE ATTEMPT OF TIIE YANKEE 
 RADICALS TO HAVE THEM AND THE OTHER 
 CONFEDERATE CHIEFS MURDERED: 
 
 % Dilatation of tire • 
 
 SOUTHERN STATES, CITIZENS, AND RIGHTS 
 
 BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND ITS MAKERS; 
 
 AND 
 
 AN EXPOSURE OF THE TER VERSIONS OF TIIE SAID CONSTITUTION, AND 
 TIIE FALSIFICATIONS OF HISTORICAL RECORDS, BY THE 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS EXPOUNDERS; 
 
 ALSO (INCIDENTALLY) 
 
 PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S SOUTHERN AND STATE-RIGHTS PRINCIPLES. 
 
 By P. C. CENTZ. Barrister. 
 
 It • * 
 
 ♦ • ft • 
 
 • • • • * 
 • * 4 • 
 
 I •< » * * 3 
 
 ‘We have no fear that Jeff. Davis will he acquitted on the merits of the case, as they will he 
 expounded by the Chief Justice, who will try him. llis chances rest merely on technical evasions 
 a:Kl on the perjury or perversity of jurymen. ... If Davis is convicted, the Constitution, as 
 understood by the loyal people of the land, will he vindicated, and the supremacy of the national 
 authority for ever established, in law as well as faet.’ Late New York Times 
 
 ‘It is true t hat narrow men, small mole-eyed men, men whose host gift is that of shunme** will 
 argue upon an instrument which was meant to be the perpetual charter of freedom for a self— overniiur 
 nation, as if it were a contract between two individuals. . . . Many an act which dulf. narrow 
 and cold-hearted persons esteem unconstitutional, is now seen by most men to he only the application 
 
 ^V'7’V n T*, CS of l - hG Co,,s V tU ,V-° n ’ as T gaill8t thc k , ttc I <> f . ifc —of the whole Constitution as against a 
 part ot it ot the main or contioiling part, as against the less important parts. 1 
 
 ‘Tins change from an immediate state of procuration and dclcgSion, toV™™‘5 < Mfin' l *M l from 
 tSViSeV 18 ° " " y *“ W "‘ dl 11,0 M'ular *»*Si»tr«=i<» in the world have been perve" t“ frZ 
 
 1 1 ‘ Edmund Burke. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 C MITCHELL & CO., 12 & 13 RED LION COURT, 
 
 FLEET STREET, E.C. 
 
 1865. 
 
 
 Price Two Shillum\ 
 
LONDON 
 
 riUNTFD BY C. MITCHELL AND CO., 12 AND 13 RED LION COURT, 
 
 FLEET STREET 
 
 • * e * r. • •••••• • 
 
 ► r # f 
 
 • . , i* • • • • • •• • * 4 
 
 
 
p II E F A C E. 
 
 The American Colonies of England were, at first, so many little flecks 
 of civilization, shining on a pagan shore, like glowworms in the dark. 
 These little societies were then separated, each from the others, by 
 hundreds of miles of unbroken forest. All grew rapidly spreading 
 like trees. Outer branches may have met, but there was no coalescence 
 politically. Each, from the first, was organized and governed by the 
 sovereign power of England, separately and apart fiom the lest. Such 
 organization was a body—fit for the indwelling of soveieignty waiting 
 for a soul. 
 
 The colonies, then, being so many branches of a great and vigorous 
 tree, each with the vital energy to grow, when lopped off, and planted 
 in its own free soil, severed themselves with rebellious swords, and each 
 “ became a living soul; ” each necessarily possessed sovereign political 
 will over its territory and its people. Sovereignty could not be out of 
 it, for there was no political organism, and no people, other than these 
 thirteen commonwealths. Each was untrammelled and free, like an 
 eagle that soars away from his broken bonds, and sees no shadow of 
 power between him and the sun! 
 
 And George III. could but have acknowledged, as he did, at the 
 instance of the American Commissioners, that each was a “ free, sove- 
 “ reign , and independent ” State. 
 
 And it was quite natural—nay, unavoidable—that these States should 
 all mutually covenant, declare, pledge, and guarantee, that “ each State 
 “ retains its sovereignty , freedom, and independence,” as they did do by 
 their federation or solemn league, which subsisted at the moment that 
 each entered the present Union. 
 
 294800 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The plain inference is, that as this was the character in which the 
 States united, it must he their character still, unless some authoritative 
 change can be shown. Of such change there is no proof. All pre¬ 
 sumptions are against it. 
 
 It will be seen that sovereignty dwells permanently down in the 
 people of these organized communities, and does not, as some suppose, 
 continually bob up and down with the successive delegations and with¬ 
 drawals of power, like the hammers of a piano, or the “ merry dancers ” 
 of the Aurora Borealis. It is the soul of each commonwealth, that 
 never leaves its tenement—the great inherent, inalienable, indivisible, 
 and illimitable right of supremacy—by virtue of which international 
 conventions are made; agencies, governmental or other, constituted; 
 powers delegated; and rights and privileges conferred. 
 
 And it will be seen that the phrase “ the people,” so frequently used 
 in the discussions and documents of the era of the Constitution, so far 
 as it has any significancy in this behalf, means the people of the then 
 existing political organizations. Their existence as thirteen distinct 
 commonwealths, comprising all the people of the country, rendered the 
 existence of a nation, composed of the same people, a legal impossibility. 
 
 And it will be plainly shown how the constitutional polity of America 
 has been perverted ; how a quiet, insidious, and fraudulent revolution 
 was effected, even before blood was shed; how a change was wrought 
 in the Federal system, “ from an immediate state of procuration and 
 “ delegation, to a course of acting as from original power how chains 
 were forged and imposed, though concealed—until recently, when they 
 were uncovered and riveted by ponderous blows of usurped authority ! 
 
 It will be seen that the Constitution has been “ darkened by words,” 
 by partisan speeches, by platforms, and by sectional and interested 
 commentaries. It is a mysterious oracle, which can only be heard and 
 understood through an interpreter. Few think of going to the instru¬ 
 ment itself, using common sense, and the common principles of inter¬ 
 pretation, and taking what the States did, and what the wise and 
 patriotic Fathers said, in making it, as the best possible, and the only 
 trustworthy commentary. 
 
 As, of course, it would be highly improper to compare the sparrow- 
 hawk to the lordly eagle, as to their natures, and the laws by which 
 they cleave the air and seize their prey; so (according to the good men 
 of Massachusetts) it is gravely wrong to compare “ the perpetual 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 « charter of freedom for a self-governing nation,” as “ small mole-eyed 
 “ men” sometimes do (see title-page hereof), with a sma l instrument 
 between shopkeepers and clodhoppers, and to apply to both, the same 
 rules of interpretation. 
 
 But, nevertheless, many, by sucli comparisons, think they understand 
 the American polity. And, regarding the States as the source of all 
 power, and the basis of the Federal system, and the Governments, State 
 and Federal, as their agencies of self-government—the association ot 
 States looks to them much like one of thirteen or more neighbouiing 
 proprietors, who form a society, and establish an agency, for ceitain 
 common purposes, while each, of course, retains entire control over his 
 home affairs, and loses none of his character of principal, or his freedom 
 of will, to adhere to or abandon the society; while the servants of the 
 home or general agency never become transmuted to masters, cl la mode 
 cle Federal Government. 
 
 And we shall see how and why these Massachusetts men, “ dressed in a 
 “ little brief authority,” with growing avarice, and lust of power, and elastic 
 consciences, attribute growing and stretchy qualities to the Constitution, 
 and advocate modes of interpretation which make it what they wish it to 
 be, instead of what it was and is; while all who are alike sane, intelligent, 
 and honest, know that it was made and finished more than seventy years 
 ago—was composed of words of technical and fixed meaning—is good for 
 nothing if it can be changed, added to, or diminished, by any other 
 than the constituting power—and certainly is in no part or degree sub¬ 
 ject to the discretion of the very functionaries whom it was framed to 
 control and limit. 
 
 And as we view the constellation of great and virtuous characters 
 who shine on the morning horizon of America, we can but rejoice to 
 see the contrast with the dominant men and teachings of to-day, and to 
 know that the wisdom and truth we revere, is not defiled by their pro¬ 
 fane lips; and we feel a strong hope that the people will henceforth, 
 like the Magi worshipping their sacred fires, guided by the shining 
 wisdom of the Fathers, bow at the shrine of Freedom, in the temple of 
 the Constitution ! 
 
 And, finally, we shall see herein that the Southern States were right in 
 their views and political action ; that the Federal Government was with¬ 
 out justification in warring upon them ; that Davis and Lee, and every 
 Southern man who did as they did, acted justifiably and nobly in obey- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ing and defending his State, and was guilty of no offence under the 
 Constitution, or constitutional laws. And while we see and admit that 
 treason is a great crime, and that traitors should be punished, we shall 
 also see the ever-recurring question, so aptly asked and so ably answered 
 by the White Republican of “ Frasers Magazine,” early in the war: 
 u Who is the Traitor ?”—a question which Andrew Johnson, judging 
 from his whole political record, is likely to answer in a similar way, 
 using such names as Sumner, Greeley, Beecher, and Chase, rather than 
 such as Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, Bishop Polk, and Robert 
 Lee! 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 TO J-N B -T, Esq., M.P., and W. E. F -R, Esq., M.P. 
 
 If, in a far-off town, a feud were raging between the Northenders 
 and the Southenders, and I had suddenly ceased my preachings and 
 prayings for “ peace on earth and goodwill to men,” and become 
 blatant as a liounder-on of the former and stronger party, who killed, 
 maimed, outraged, destroyed, desolated, and enslaved, till the ill-fated 
 Southend was a spectacle of wretchedness, it would add much to my 
 serenity and amour propre if some kind person would marshal conclu¬ 
 sive proofs that the victims had lost right, and that the victors, whose 
 might I had swelled with my whole endeavour, had simply by force 
 consummated a fraud under the town-charter, and a most flagrant viola¬ 
 tion of the sacred faith of their fathers. 
 
 TO W. E. B-R, Esq., M.P., and PROF. G-N S_H. 
 
 To exhibit several excerpts and facts which their dear American 
 friends failed to show them, and which they would not know, by simply 
 “ doing ” America, any more than men would become scholars by reading 
 title-pages of books, and looking at the pictures. 
 
 TO V-N II-T, Esq. (Historicus.) 
 
 To show that several things were said and done in America, besides 
 
 what Webster and Calhoun set forth in their “ great arguments ”_and 
 
 that merely reading these, is not that profound investigation which 
 
IV 
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 enables one, with credit to himself (especially if he be a young man), to 
 say dogmatically on which side of the great point at issue, “ the 
 deliberate judgment of a lawyer and a statesman should incline.” 
 
 TO HON. C-S F-S A-S, 
 
 Minister, &c. 
 
 To set forth the constitutional principles which will, in history, be for 
 ever attached to an illustrious name; and to express regret that he has 
 no seizin of that portion of his inheritance. 
 
 TO HORACE GREELEY, “ NEW YORK TRIBUNE.” 
 
 To present proofs still more pestilent, to certain characters, than 
 “ the pestilent heresy of State sovereignty,” and to express the hope 
 that the pestilence may spread, and prove fatal to all the leaders of the 
 great American gang of mischief-makers. It is just, that where one 
 stabs another to death, through the ccgis of right, his eyeballs should 
 be seared by the ever-flaming letters, describing the name and character 
 of the victim ! 
 
 TO PROFESSORS C. E. NORTON and J. R, LOWELL, 
 « NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.” 
 
 To assure them that Southern men are all “ mole-eyed ” to ascertain 
 their political obligations under the sacred engagements of their fathers 
 
 _ us ing the rules of interpretation applicable to all instruments alike; 
 
 and as industrious as moles ( <c I thank thee, Jew, for that word ) in 
 performing them; and that herein their “ sharpness ” differs from that 
 of Yankees, which is manifested—as herein shown—by misinterpreta¬ 
 tions. perversions, and evasions (see title-page). 
 
 To these brother truth-seekers and philanthropists—one and all—with 
 llie gracious permission of myself, this first instalment of my labour to 
 vindicate right, and give them ease of conscience, is dedicated. 
 
 And in order that an end of controversy may soon come, so that we, 
 as brothers, can harmonise in future works of philanthropy, I would 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 V 
 
 suggest, that it might be practicable to make the leading issues a subject 
 of stake—say 50/. or 100/. on each—the decision to be by chosen referees ; 
 the stakes to be given to some charity for juveniles in London : such 
 issues, for instance, as: Which, of right, is sovereign—the Federal 
 Government or the States ? which has original—which derivative power ? 
 It is only a matter of piling up proof, which is all on one side! This 
 course would at least be a test of sincerity, and would relieve some of 
 the poor “ black enough ” children of London, whom we philanthropists 
 have for some time been compelled to ignore, in responding to the 
 plaintive cry, “ Come over into” Borrioboola Glia “and help us”— 
 to supply our suffering children with “red flannel shirts and moral 
 pocket-handkerchiefs.” 
 
 If we can thus settle the above and other “angry points,” we can, for 
 the future, live “ in sweet communion joined;” and I pledge myself to 
 an endeavour, in order to fit myself for the confraternity, to get rid of a 
 depraved partiality I have for white men. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: 
 
 A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 •o* 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 As the American Constitution was made or constituted by the con¬ 
 current action of thirteen pre-existent States, each of which, during all 
 the time of that action , was solemnly declared by all to “retain its 
 “ sovereignty, freedom, and independence ”—as it calls itself a “ constitu- 
 “ tion for” “ UNITED STATES,” and characterises the arrangement 
 made as a “ union of STATES” (e.g. “ the several STATES which 
 “ may he included within this Union f Art. I. § 2; “ Every S TA TE 
 “in this Union,” Art. IV. § 4; “ Neiv STATES mag he admitted 
 “ into this Union ,” Art. IV. § 3)—as said constitution declared that it 
 was to take effect, and be established, “ between the STATES so rati - 
 “ fying the same ”—as its only powers were “delegated,” and hence must 
 be wielded by trustees and agents chosen by, and subordinate to, the 
 delegators—and as all “ powers not delegated” “are reserved to the States 
 “respectively, or to the people” thereof (Art. X. Amendments)—as 
 these are all obvious truths, it is a subject of wonder abroad how it 
 could ever have been declared that the constitution , instead of being 
 
 made by States, was made by an aggregate mass of people _ a nation; 
 
 and that the States were subdivisions or counties, with no power but what 
 this sovereign nation dispensed to them. It is also wondered how States 
 could be sovereign and not have the right to secede ! It is also anxious!/ 
 asked — What law, divine, international , or civil, will consign Davis (//id 
 Lee to death, when States as vehicles carried them, without their volition 
 out, of the Union, and constrained them to dejend their respective States 
 and the South, and when they in doing so were acting from what all 
 good men think the purest and noblest impulses of human nature ? 
 
 hogic will piove that two and tw r o make lour—that men cannot bear 
 children—and that sugar is, and vinegar is not, sweet. And the process 
 is sufficiently amusing, if not useful; and I was proceeding to ar«ue 
 upon the above points deliberately—though with the conviction tliat°all 
 honest and intelligent men should take them for granted—when from 
 across the far Atlantic came the ominous howl of wolves (or demons?) 
 for precious and innocent blood ; and the tidings that men “ more savage 
 
10 
 
 DAVIS AMD LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 GENERAL VIEW—SECESSION FROM GREAT BRITAIN- 
 STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RIGHT OF SECES¬ 
 SION—NO FEDERAL POWER OF COERCING STATES— 
 IDENTITY OF POLITICAL EDUCATION AND FAITH 
 OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, DAVIS, AND LEE—JUS 
 GENTIUM PROTECTS THESE—JOHNSON’S RECORD- 
 IIE WILL STAND TO IT—NO JURY WILL CONVICT 
 THE CLIIEFS — THE GREAT PROPOSITION TO BE 
 PROVED. 
 
 “ All Americans justify the thirteen colonies, led by Hancock, Wash- 
 “ ington, and others, for declaring independence, and fighting to maintain 
 “ it. This was a forcible wresting of provinces from the undenied 
 “ sovereignty that owned and governed them. But the recent movement 
 “ of the South was the self-segregation of a number of distinct, self- 
 “ governing, States from a federation with their equals, to form a new 
 “ federation and general government for themselves. They claimed to 
 “ be sovereign States. If they were so, no objection was possible. 
 “ But, leaving sovereignty out of the question, every American was 
 “ estopped from complaint by the solemn words—the ‘ self-evident 
 “ ‘ truths’—of the Declaration of Independence—that ‘the consent of 
 “ 4 the governed’ is the basis of all just government, and that ‘ it is the 
 “ right of the people to alter or to abolish any form of government,’ 
 “ and ‘ to institute a new one,’ when they think it necessary 4 to effect 
 “ ‘ their safety and happiness.’ 
 
 “ All Americans saw in the Greeks, in each of the States of South 
 “ America, in Mexico, Texas, Poland, and Hungary respectively, 
 
 ‘the people’ whose ‘consent’ was so indispensable to ‘just govern- 
 “ ‘ ment,’ and gave them countenance and aid. Abraham Lincoln, in 
 “ 1848, spoke the voice of all:—‘ Any people whatever have the right 
 “ ‘ to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits 
 “ ‘ them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.’ 
 
 a 
 
 it 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 “ Any people anywhere that wanted self-government were the people 
 that ought to have it, and for whom American sympathies gushed. 
 But Northern eyes could not so plainly see and understand the ‘ self- 
 ‘ evident truths ’ and ‘ most sacred rights,’ and their sympathies were 
 not quite so gushing, when 9,000,000 of their own countrymen— 
 ‘ the people ’ of the South—desired to go free. 
 
 “ Said ‘ people ’ were three times as numerous as ‘ the people ’ of the 
 Declaration of Independence. They occupied thirteen contiguous 
 States. They were imbued with a common sentiment, namely, a 
 yearnin'* for Southern autonomy and independence. They had in¬ 
 herited and exercised the right of self-government, and they asserted 
 serious causes for their desire to separate. But when they sought, 
 accordin'* to the ‘self-evident truths,’ to avail themselves ot their 
 ‘‘most sacred right,’ they found that the said ‘ truths’must be for 
 foreign, not home use, and that even Republicans could disiegard the 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 11 
 
 ‘“consent of the governed,’ and fight just as hard and as wickedly as 
 « monarchists and aristocrats to keep power and advantageous po 1 < 
 
 “ ari^ngements.^^ g South, with the population and territory of 
 
 « an empire, has been, despite the above principles and by the most 
 « vehement utterers of them, brought by force under a dominion she 
 « disowned and hated. Is this self-government ? Is this consent ot 
 
 *' *« Therel™no doubt that all the architects of American constitutional 
 « liberty, and all the master workmen who built the temple, all the pie- 
 « sidents who left any record down to 1860, with perhaps a single 
 « exception, and all the respectable statesmen, except a few who weie 
 « more partisans and advocates than statesmen, regarded the Union as a 
 
 “ federation of self-governing sovereignties. . 
 
 « These sovereignties ratified the constitutional compact sepaiately, 
 
 “ iust as European sovereignties would ratify a treaty. They thereby 
 “ created the Federal government, and 4 delegated’ to it the only power 
 
 4 ‘ it ever held or could hold. . _ . . , , , , , , 
 
 44 Of course the Federal functionaries, having only this delegated 
 
 44 power, could not become masters of the States. They are described 
 44 in the "State constitutions as 'substitutes and agents/ as every dictionary 
 44 shows the possessors of delegated power to be.. They are appointed 
 44 by or for the people of the States, and hold theii places for one, two, 
 
 44 three, or four years, or during good behaviour, or at the will of the 
 44 constituents. How can anyone be so lost to ti uth, sen^e, and decency 
 44 as to say that these ephemeral creatures can, the next day after being 
 44 vested with their 4 delegated ’ power, force their creators and delcgatoi s, 
 
 44 the States, into obedience, and that, too, with the very army and navy 
 44 the said States had given them authority and money to procure and 
 44 control ? Not only was no provision made for the Federal autho- 
 44 rities to coerce the States (their only coercive authority affecting 
 44 citizens, and being enforced by courts), but when the thoughtless 
 44 proposition was made in the Federal Convention to give the general 
 44 government coercive power over States it was unanimously rejected— 
 44 Madison and Hamilton stigmatising it as 4 visionary and fallacious/ 
 44 and 4 the maddest project ever devised.’ They also declared that it 
 44 would inevitably produce war, and was entirely incompatible with 
 44 the plan of union, which was a voluntary association of States, based 
 44 upon amity and mutual interest. 
 
 44 Where, then, is the rightful hindrance to secession ? No power is 
 44 lodged in the Federal compact to coerce States to remain. Their 
 44 accession to and acts in the Union could be but voluntary. Being 
 44 sovereign, they can at will recede from political arrangements. 
 
 44 And how absurd it is to hold individual citizens responsible for 
 44 secession—they having no more volition or power to stop the State 
 44 than the man in the moon has to stop that orb. In Virginia, for 
 44 instance, 150,000 voters, including General Lee, sent delegates to a 
 44 convention which duly deliberated and ultimately voted the State out 
 44 of the Union. As a citizen he was compelled to obey, and finally 
 44 defend the State. Opposition, after the convention had acted, would 
 
 / 
 
 
12 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 “ lia ve been punishable enmity. How, then, can President Johnson 
 who has a sound intellect, think of hanging any citizen for the seces- 
 “ S10n of his State? How could he hang Davis and Lee, even if they 
 had not, as the representatives of a de facto nation, passed under the 
 “jus gentium , and become entitled to its protection? 
 
 Andrew Johnson, Jefferson Davis, and Robert Lee were young men 
 “ acquiring their political knowledge about the same time. They learned 
 “ at school that George III. acknowledged the thirteen original States by 
 “ name t0 b e 4 sovereign, free, and independent.’ Also, that down to the 
 “ very moment each State ratified the present Federal constitution, these 
 “ Statesman declared each to be separately 4 sovereign, free, and indepen- 
 44 4 dent.’ They learned further that these sovereign States framed the 
 44 Federal constitution, severally ‘ratified’ it, and ‘delegated’ in it their 
 ' 4 authority to do certain things to a set of men, who, from the fact of their 
 “ wielding ‘delegated’ power, must be ‘substitutes and agents.’ They 
 44 found, in this constitution, not one word impairing the sovereignty of 
 “ the States, but much to support and strengthen it. As they grew older 
 44 they saw still more clearly the completeness of State sovereignty, for 
 44 they found it to be written in the State constitutions—for example, in 
 44 the Organic Law of Massachusetts—that the said States are absolutely 
 44 sovereign in the Union ; that all political power is inherent in the people 
 44 of the State; that the Federal government has only what authority is 
 44 expressly delegated—all the rest being reserved ; that all ‘magistrates 
 44 4 and officers,’ without exception, are the 4 substitutes and agents ’ of 
 44 said people, and at all times responsible to them ; and, finally, that said 
 44 people can make and unmake all constitutions and governmental arrange- 
 44 ments at will. Thus instructed and impressed, not only did they con- 
 44 sider the State the highest political power in the system, but they must 
 44 have thought themselves part of the State—subject to its will andcoer- 
 44 cive authority. This State citizenship they knew was the status of their 
 44 parents before the Union was made, which status was recognised, and 
 44 not changed in the Federal constitution, as the several provisions con- 
 “ cerning 4 the citizens of each State ’ most clearly showed. They could 
 44 not have dreamed that State sovereignty would ever be denied, or that 
 44 the Federal functionaries, vested only with 4 delegated ’ power, could 
 44 become sovereign over the very States that delegated said power, and 
 “ gave them their only official existence. Moreover, they read in history 
 44 that the thoughtless proposal to give the general Government coercive 
 44 power over States was, at the instance of Hamilton and Madison, 
 44 rejected by the Federal Convention as absurd. And, furthermore, the 
 44 Federal system had been in operation for about forty years, and yet 
 * 4 State sovereignty, and the consequent right of secession, were taken for 
 44 granted. The only books in which they could study constitutional law 
 44 ?aid down these doctrines as unquestionable. Said St. George Tucker, 
 “ in his Commentaries, published in 1802: 4 Each is still a perlect State, 
 
 4 4 4 still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion 
 “ 4 require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such, in the most 
 “ 4 unlimited extent.’ Said William Rawle, in his Commentaries (see 
 44 edition of 1829): 4 The States, then, may wholly withdraw from the 
 4 4 4 Union ; but while they continue they must retain the character of 
 
DAYIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 13 
 
 (i 4 representative republics. The secession of a State fiom the Union 
 
 * depends on the will of the people ol such State. -the people alone, as 
 « 4 we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.’ The 
 n above authors—one from the iNorth, and the othei fiom the South 
 <4 were among the ablest of the early American jurists, and theii statement 
 44 was taken as truth. 
 
 44 Thus these three now distinguished personages were educated and 
 44 impressed, and it is well known that the views of all of them remained 
 44 unchanged during thirty years of their manhood till 1860—the great 
 44 epoch of change. Before that, they would have deemed it a monstrous 
 44 idea that the Federal government could lawfully hang them because the 
 44 State irresistibly carried them out of the Union, and compelled them to 
 44 defend her ; while, at the same time, the State could have hung them 
 44 if they had opposed her ; and they could but believe that when the State 
 44 repealed its ordinance of 4 ratification,’ it could no longer be lawful for 
 44 the citizens to obey the Federal authorities, that ratification being 
 44 the only cause of Federal jurisdiction, and the power of repeal being by 
 44 all law and common sense exactly commensurate with that of enactment. 
 
 44 Under these circumstances, can there ever be consummated such a 
 44 horrible romance as that one of these boys, having passed to the evening 
 44 of life in ardent devotion to these principles, should have the power, and 
 44 should exercise it, to hang the other two—also become old, and among 
 44 the most distinguished men in the world—for honourable consistency 
 44 to these same principles, and for obeying and defending their States, 
 44 where were concentrated all the objects of a true heart’s devotion— 
 44 those objects which noble and brave souls are wont to prefer to all the 
 44 rest of earth, and to defend, even to the last drop of blood—neighbours, 
 44 friends, kindred, birthplace, hearthstones and altars, and the 4 green 
 4 4 4 graves of their sires ?’ 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 (6 
 
 U 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 66 
 
 44 Andrew Johnson is a politician of ability, as his rise from his origin 
 indicates. He is sagacious, desires high reputation and future honours, 
 knows mercy will be more popular than cruelty, wants to be consistent 
 with his life-long record, and to be en rapport with the great enduriim 
 and future-governing Democratic party. I do not think him vindictive 
 or ferocious like some others, or likely to be stimulated to stain his soul 
 with blood, innocent of any other crime than that of being educated as 
 he was, and of thinking as he did, and acting accordingly, lie will 
 never permit the execution of Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee! 
 
 44 Moreover, as a statesman and the head of a great nation, he must act 
 by the jus gentium and the laws of war; and he cannot, after reco^ * 
 nising these men for years as belligerents, and the representatives ofa 
 defacto nation, remit them to the status of citizens of the United States, 
 amenable to her municipal laws, for acts done in flagrante hello. Their 
 status has been fixed and recognised by the United States, and by the 
 other nations of .Christendom. President Johnson will probably avail 
 himself of this, and for the present pass sub silentio his unchanged 
 convictions on constitutional law. But the time will come when°he 
 will spurn the Northern Radicals and their heresies, and stand upon 
 his own constitutional platform. 
 
 “ ihs principles cannot be gathered from what he now feels lf.mself 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 compelled to do, in the exercise of extra-constitutional military power, 
 u id a condition of things entirely abnormal. His principles are those 
 of the South, and the Democracy, as expressed in the Virginia and 
 “ Kentucky resolutions of 1798, to the effect that the constitution is a 
 u compact between sovereign States, in which they delegated certain 
 powers to a Federal governmental agency; that powers exercised out- 
 “ s.de of those delegated are usurpations which the States have a 
 “ right to oppose and annul; and that the States are the judges of 
 “ infractions of the Federal compact, as well as of the mode and measure 
 “ of redress. Mr. Johnson has reiterated and amplified this a thousand 
 “ times—once in these words under his senatorial oath, May 21, 1860: 
 “ —‘ Resolved,—That, in the adoption of the Federal constitution, the 
 “ ‘ States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent 
 “ ‘ sovereignties, delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised 
 “ ‘ by the Federal government for the increased security of each [State] 
 u ‘ against dangers domestic as well as foreign/ &c. 
 
 “ Indeed, his speeches, in Congress and out, down to 1861, are full of 
 “ State sovereignty; and in the session of Congress of 1861, he argued 
 “ that 4 the Federal Government had no power to coerce a State; ’ and 
 “ proceeded to show that so jealous were the States on this point, that 
 “ they amended the constitution to prevent a State from being placed 
 £ before the Federal courts as a party—thus guarding against even 
 ‘judicial Federal coercion of a State. Of course he knew, too, the 
 « decisive fact hereinbefore mentioned, that the framers of the Federal 
 “ constitution purposely excluded coercive power over States. 
 
 “ With such principles as these, as to American popular government, 
 “ how can he punish Davis and Lee, who acted strictly upon them ? In 
 “ the beginning of the revolution he only differed with them as to 
 “ policy; but that placed him and them on the opposite sides of the rift 
 “ in the Union ; the gulf widened, *and they became divided by a sea of 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 “ blood ! . 
 
 “ But his principles remained the same. On April 18, I 860 , he said : 
 
 _< My opinions as to the nature of popular government have long 
 
 ‘ been cherished; and, constituted as I am, it is now too late in 
 
 “ ‘ life for me to change them.And to the history of my 
 
 “ ‘ past public acts, which is familiar to you, I refer for those principles 
 “ ‘ which have governed me heretofore, and which will guide me 
 
 n ‘ hereafter . 5 
 
 “ It is most probable, however, that as to the execution of the Con- 
 a federate chiefs he will never have choice, for if they be ever brought 
 « t0 tr ial, no regularly empannelled jury of twelve men can be found to 
 
 “ convict_the constitutional principles I have set forth being too 
 
 “ obvious, widely spread, and deeply-seated in the hearts of the mul- 
 “ titude, however much they may have been ignored or violated, in the 
 “ national delirium of the, last five years, and under the stress ol war 
 
 “ and Federal exigencies.” . . 
 
 It might reasonably be supposed that the above would amply vine ica e 
 
 the Southern cause, and assure the safety of llavis, Lee, and the o 
 Confederate chiefs ; but unfortunately Story, \\ ebster, and otheis, laid 
 down converse dogmas—upon which the Republican party gained pouei, 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 
 
 15 
 
 and destroyed the freedom of the South; and upon which they now 
 clamour for the blood of her chiefs, and for general spoliation. Hence 
 it becomes a painful duty to show that the dogmas on which said 
 
 PARTY STANDS AND ACTS, ARE SUPPORTED SOLELY BY A DELIBERATE 
 FALSIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, AND A PERVERSION OF THE CONSTITU¬ 
 TION OF THE COUNTRY. This proposition will be proved conclusively, 
 and disproof challenged—for the purpose—1. Of saving the lives of 
 said chiefs 2. Of strengthening President Johnson in restoring the 
 Constitution. 3. Of defeating and destroying the foulest confederacy 
 of traitors and hypocrites that ever handed FOR rule OR ruin. 4. UJ 
 showing the weight due to future Yankee political assertions —even 
 when proved by “ photographs that do not lie. 
 
 THE STATES—NOT CITIZENS—RESPONSIBLE FOR 
 
 SECESSION AND AVAR. 
 
 But before entering even the threshold of argument on the above 
 proposition, it must strike every one that States, having seceded as 
 bodies, and ipso facto carried all citizens out of the Union, Davis, Lee, 
 and others cannot be held responsible, as individuals, for secession , or 
 for the war which the said States waged against the Federal govern¬ 
 ment. Regardless of the condition, position, wishes, or acts of any 
 citizen, the State took the deliberate and solemn step of seceding from 
 the Union, and the further step of federating with other States, which 
 had seceded for the same causes, and about the same time. The important 
 act of secession was done in precisely the form, and with the so¬ 
 lemnities, adopted by the original States in their corporate act of “ as- 
 “ senting to” and “ ratifying ” the instrument of union called the Federal 
 Constitution—that is to say, a convention of each State, elected and 
 empowered by the sovereign people thereof, after due deliberation, 
 declared the will of that political entity or unit called “the State/’ to 
 be—withdrawal of the “ delegated ” authority of said State from the 
 Federal Constitution. This is secession. This State, which is the only 
 organisation in America capable of the indwelling of sovereignty, and 
 which once did, beyond dispute, possess it; which all citizens, including 
 Davis and Lee, were actually members and citizens of, as the Federal 
 constitution itself declares; which has actual possession of, and juris¬ 
 diction over them; and which no citizen can escape from, unless he 
 run away from home, estate, family, and everything dear, and become 
 an outlaw or an emigrant—this great repository of everything that 
 mortal heartstrings entwine themselves around, having, of its own 
 motion, withdrawn from the federation, Davis and Lee were ipso facto 
 carried out of the Union, having as little practical volition as the 
 infants of emigrating parents. Nay, more ; the State, with its hand 
 actually upon them, exacted their submission and obedience, under 
 penalties which could have been enforced. And, by the way, no one 
 knows better than Mr. Johnson, that such penalties did exist and were 
 enforced, and that malcontents were persecuted and driven out of their 
 respective States. Whether said State did right or wrong in these 
 
16 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 
 
 matters is not now the question. Citizens had no choice ! And further¬ 
 more, as to Mr. Davis, lie did not vote for secession, and it is doubtful 
 
 1 he even favoured the policy. If General Lee voted at all, lie voted 
 against it ! 
 
 Lut the State the cherishing mother—.was belligerently attacked 
 tor such political action ! I hen went forth her summons to all her sons 
 to defend her with arms. “ Breathes there a man with soul so dead” 
 tnat he will not in such a crisis stand by and defend his family, friends, 
 neighbours, fellow-citizens, and his State, against all, or any part, of 
 the outside world ? He who is not for his State is against her, and in 
 such an emergency he must obey her call, unless, like a recreant, he fly 
 abroad, or, like a traitor, go outside and turn the weapons of war 
 against her breast, against his own kindred, against even the mother 
 that bore him ! As for me, if there must be conflict, I would rather 
 sink with the commonwealth containing these dearest treasures of 
 earth, than swim with the concentrated excellence of a thousand Unions! 
 Let me, for them, rather be broken on the wheel, than live for one mo¬ 
 ment with the infamy of deserting them in their hour of need! I 
 merely mention, but do not dishonour mj^self by contending for s > 
 sacred a sentiment. It possesses the whole soul of every good man 
 and true statesman. 
 
 Said Alexander Hamilton : “ The constitution ought not to be so 
 formed as to prevent the States providing for their own existence, 
 
 and I maintain that it is not so formed.There are certain 
 
 social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most 
 solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and corn- 
 “ munities. We love our families more than our neighbours. We love 
 “ our neighbours more than our countrymen in general. The human 
 “ affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from 
 “ the centre, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the 
 “ circle on which they act. On these principles, the attachment of the 
 “ individual will be first and for ever secured by the State Government .” 
 
 Said John Dickinson, one of the leading statesmen of the Constitu¬ 
 tional era, in reply to the charge of danger in the proposed Federal 
 system, of extension of powers, to the detriment of the States: “ The 
 “ trustees or servants of the several States will not dare, if they retain 
 “ their senses, to violate that independent sovereignty of their respective 
 “ States—that justly darling object of American affections, to which 
 “ they are responsible.” 
 
 The letter containing this sentiment met the express and emphatic 
 approval of the great and good Washington. Indeed, none dissented in 
 those earlier and better days. All felt the holy flame. But since then 
 political tricksters, perverters of constitutions, corruptors of public 
 sentiment, and violators alike of sacred faith and common decency, have 
 risen like baleful exhalations, and for selfish purposes have introduced a 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 ii 
 
 U 
 
 or 
 
 of home- — _ - . .. _ . . 
 
 have their only political being and functions, and (just as other lanatical 
 
 idolaters leave home to bow at Mecca or at Lassa) wanders oft to bow 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHEKN EIGHTS. 
 
 17 
 
 tlie knee, and submit the neck to a mere political arrangement an 
 agency or commission only entitled to regard and devotion, just so far 
 as it affords the designed safety to the aforesaid commonwealth, and its 
 associates, and all the rights which they involve, and gives to citizens 
 a sense of present justice, and a satisfactory prospect.for their future 
 safety and happiness. 
 
 Now, besides the above considerations, I may add, it is not alleged that 
 Davis and Lee induced the States to secede; that they seceded individually 
 and of their own motion ; or indeed, that they acted in the premises at 
 all, before secession had become un fait accompli, and hostilities had 
 commenced. Hence there can be no jiroof oj that will , intention , and 
 act which must concur to constitute a crime . 
 
 Moreover, the only semblance of individual responsibility for these 
 acts must be in the members of a seceding Convention, by virtue of 
 whose act all citizens (including Davis and Lee) were alienated from 
 the Union; made belligerent; and forced, as well as commissioned, to 
 fight the Federal Government. No one ever hints at prosecuting them ! 
 Nobler blood is wanted —guilty or not guilty ! 
 
 And, as before intimated, these conventions were unlimited in their 
 power ; had actual control of all citizens ; made it treason to oppose 
 secession; and were able, ready, and willing to hang too troublesome- 
 opponents. Delightful country to live in ! where one authority can hang 
 you for doing , what another authority can hang you for not doing ! 
 
 Now, the utmost that the prosecutors—or persecutors—can do, is to 
 throw some doubt on the question, whether Davis and Lee should have 
 obeyed their States or the Federal government. 
 
 They could not be neutral, but must obey one, and hence commit 
 treason to the other ! This is the constitutional law of the Bedlamites. 
 But I hope to be able, in these pages, to remove all doubt, by showing 
 that the pre-existent State is original power, and IS the citizens thereof 
 zehose action , by convention , must be original and uncontrollable ; while 
 the Federal government is derivative , and necessarily subordinate 
 authority. 
 
 And I will venture to say that if Butler prosecute, and Judge Chase 
 try Davis, as is expected, they will ignore every leading authority 
 herein quoted ; unless they garble it into lit shape for their purpose, or 
 “ cook ” it in some way to their taste. Says the “ New York Times 
 Chase, C. J., is to preside, and he will lay down the law, so that Davis 
 cannot escape, “except by the perjury or perversity of jurymen.” Lag 
 dozen the laze indeed! Who will respect it ? Surely none but symptoms 
 of national delirium like himself! The law is already, through u perjury 
 4< or perversity,” laid dozen ! and all manner of “ higher-law ” knaves 
 have long tiampled on it i and it will only be set up again, when the 
 
 political atmosphere shall be cleared of mephitic and noxious vapours_ 
 
 as the physical one is by a sweeping, burning, and purifying tornado t 
 
 Chase, Butler, Stanton, Brownlow, Sumner, Beecher, McNeill, Turchi n 
 —et id omne genus —these thirst for the blood of Davis and’ Lee! I 
 deeply regret that Albert Sydney Johnston, Bishop Polk, and Stonewall 
 Jackson are not here to sweeten the cup ; and add richness to the crim¬ 
 son on their wolfish jaws, and to the stain on their souls! 
 
 B 
 
 ) 
 
 i 
 
18 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 IS NOT THE CRIME EXPIATED? 
 
 I would say, then, to President Johnson, who must have much power 
 over, and influence and control in, these matters : 
 
 “ Sir, it was 4 the people’ of the state—the very hody you, on your 
 senatorial oath, in 1860, declared to have 4 acted as cl free and inde- 
 “ ‘pendent sovereignty, in adopting the constitution it was this people, 
 it was their convention—in short, it was 4 the state’ that seceded. 
 “ States then committed the deed, and should be punished—not citizens ; 
 “ and they must he reached by the ultima ratio and punished as political 
 “ bodies. This is common sense, and requires no argument. 
 
 44 And now I ask, have not the States been punished enough ? Re- 
 44 member the multitudes of their children slain ; see them bowed in 
 44 mourning—literally 4 in sackcloth and ashes.’ Witness the wide- 
 44 spread ruin, the impending starvation. Consider, too, how they have 
 44 lost—in the manner of Poland and Venice—their political freedom of 
 44 will, and been forced back to the Union, lacerated, bleeding, manacled, 
 44 scowling, and pinned with bayonets to the Charter of Freedom ! and, 
 44 worse than all, doomed throughout the future to see, but not to enjoy, 
 44 these standing declarations: 4 All political power is inherent in the 
 44 4 people.’ 4 All just government is based on the consent of the 
 44 4 governed.’ 4 We ... to secure the blessings of liberty to us and 
 44 4 to our posterity, do establish this constitution.’ Ah, sir! is not ven- 
 44 geance sated? Would you have 4 the iron enter the soul’ of your 
 44 native South still more deeply ? 
 
 the true character of the union, and the 
 
 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Let us now set forth the real nature of the political arrangement 
 entered into by the American States in 1787-90. I undertake to 
 show that the Architects and Master-builders of this great citadel of 
 American Constitutional Liberty (as it was intended to be), considered 
 that they were making A UNION OF THIRTEEN SOVE¬ 
 REIGN STATES , the general government of ivhich was to have only 
 the authority actually 44 delegated ” to it by the States , and ivas to exer¬ 
 cise the powers actually imparted to it—but no more—over the citizens 
 of the States; but of course not over tie sovereignty of the delegators, 
 to whom it must needs be subordinate. It was to have ample authority 
 for its purposes, as the Federal constitution shows; but the sovereign 
 right to delegate powers, and the necessary correlative and conterminate 
 one of ivithdrawing them, was not, and could not be, alienated or 
 impaired, but remained in the body-politic called the State, ; as its soul. 
 It would be absurd to say that the delegator could not withdiaw his 
 own delegations, or that the repealing is incommensurate with the 
 enactino- power. So with the assertion that the States ordaining and 
 establishing the Union could not repeal their respective ^ordinances. 
 The truth is, sovereignty has never been out oj 44 the people ” of a State 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 19 
 
 —even in the smallest quantity, or for a single moment- since the 
 American revolution was consummated by the treaty of 1/83, though 
 governments and delegations ot authority have ofttimes been constituted 
 and unmade, by virtue of said sovereignty (which was guaranteed by all 
 the States to each, in the federation subsisting from 1778 to the establish¬ 
 ment of the present one ; in the following words : “ Each State retains 
 “ its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power not 
 “ delegated,” &c.), just as any power is exercised or imparted without 
 alienating or impairing right, just as the player moves the hammers of 
 a piano, without lessening his will, or just as I might give a thousand 
 successive delegations or powers of attorney, to manage, improve, or 
 dispose of my estate, without ever impairing my plenary ownership, or 
 jus dispo?iendi. All this is necessarily so while a state remains a re¬ 
 public, or a self-governing body of people. The organised people then 
 are sovereign : governments and rulers are not so : all political function¬ 
 aries are substitutes and agents , and are called so by the States. These 
 political bodies may impart authority, i.e. “ delegate ” power, but not 
 sovereignty. Were this done, they would cease to be sovereign, and be¬ 
 come subject, from that moment. They would cease to be republics. 
 In short, the people of a State are the original, absolute, and uncontrol¬ 
 lable sovereignty—“the be-all and the end-all ” of the republic. These 
 are the fundamental ideas of American constitutional freedom, to be 
 always kept in view ; and they will become clearer as we advance. 
 
 PRESIDENT LINCOLN—HIS DECLARATION, IIIS CHARAC¬ 
 TER—DANE, STORY, AND WEBSTER—THEIR DOGMAS. 
 
 In 1861 President Lincoln declared in his speech in Indiana and in 
 his Inaugural Address, and otherwise, that the States are but Counties , 
 ivithout sovereignty ; that the Union made the States—not they the 
 Union; and that the Federal government is sovereign , and can rightfully 
 coerce the State to obey it. Merely the substance is given. He will be 
 explicitly quoted hereafter. 
 
 Upon this ground, the Southern States have been coerced vi et armis 
 
 for four years, and brought to writhe under the heel of military power! 
 
 At first it sounded like a huge joke ; and it was laughed at, till army 
 after army from the “Northern hive” marched down to perpetrate it 
 upon the South, and perpetuate it, whereupon the laugh changed. The 
 joke was the fat of the great party, that had just surged into power, 
 spoken through its authorised mouthpiece, President Lincoln. 
 
 Injustice, however, to that unfortunate man, I must say, I believe he 
 was more sinned against than sinning.” He was a person of fair 
 intellect, slight education, limited knowledge, no research, kind heart, 
 jocular disposition, and credulous and confiding nature—just the mail 
 with his inexperience in statesmanship, and his vague and hazy notions 
 of political ethics and constitutional history and law, to be misled 
 by the sophists of his party, and to be the instrument of crafty 
 political Jesuits. He was not a man to contrive wickedness—to wil- 
 lully subvert the constitution, and to build his greatness on his country’s 
 
 b 2 J 
 
 t 
 
20 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 ruin; but he could be moved under various plausible and delusive pleas 
 and pretexts to do what lie would have shrunk from with horror had he 
 seen the hearts and designs of the movers. 
 
 I therefore quote and combat those great Massachusetts Expositions, 
 or perversions, which Mr. Lincoln tried to reproduce, but caricatured; 
 and which he—no doubt reluctantly —reduced to bloody practice. 
 
 Nathan Dane, Judge Story, and Daniel Webster, are the great lights 
 of the Massachusetts school. I quote the clear and forceful expressions 
 of the last for all. 
 
 Said he in his celebrated speeches of 1830 and 1833, in reply to 
 Hayne and Calhoun : “ The Federal constitution does not say that it is 
 “ established by the people of the several States, but that it is esta- 
 “ blished by the people of the United States, in the aggregate.” “ The 
 “ Union ... is the association of the people, under a constitution of 
 “ government, uniting their power, joining together their highest 
 “ interests, cementing their present enjoyments, and blending, in one 
 “ indivisible mass, all their hopes for the future.” “ They ordained such 
 “ a government; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein 
 “ they established a distribution of powers between this their general 
 
 “ government and their several State governments.So far 
 
 i( as the people have restrained State Sovereignty by the expression of 
 “ their will in the constitution, so far State Sovereignty is effectually 
 
 “ controlled.” 
 
 And he caps the climax by asserting, not only that “ the Constitution, 
 “ Acts of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, and the public treaties, 
 are “ the supreme law of the land ” (which nobody denies), but that the 
 Federal Government is supreme (i.e. sovereign) over the States to the 
 full extent of its powers, and that “it rightfully belongs to Congress 
 “ and to the Courts of the United States to settle the construction of 
 “ this supreme law in doubtful cases or, in the language of a states¬ 
 man of the adverse school, that the Federal Government is “ the ex- 
 “ elusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, 
 making “ its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measiue of its 
 
 “ powers.” . ,, 
 
 Now, Sir, if this most untenable statement were correct, it would 
 
 come infinitely short of proving the great vital point requisite to'justify 
 the North, to wit, that the Federal Government has the rightful power 
 t0 C o e rce —vi et armis— the political bodies called States against their 
 political will , and into abject obedience to itself. It is certain that this 
 power is not in the Constitution, and that it was purposely excluded 
 
 therefrom, as will be seen further on. w . 
 
 But I shall now proceed to show that this doctrine of Mr. ’ 
 
 and the similar views of Dane and Story nTFT Y IT YTRUEin 
 FOUNDED in constitutional law, ABSOLUFELl UJS LtiUn 
 point of fact, and FLATLY CONTRADICTED by ^competent 
 authority of the Era of the Constitution , lo prove this, 1 fehal q 
 verycopiously/rok the Fathers who made the Constitution, from the 
 acts of\he States, and from the Federal Constitution itself. And as we 
 proceed the striking fact will be developed, that the very dogmas attend 
 Cl such an air of confidence by Dane, Story, and Webster, were in 
 
DAYIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 21 
 
 those days URGED AS OBJECTIONS by the enemies, and RE¬ 
 FUTED by the friends of the Constitution ; and that it was because, 
 upon examination, they proved to be completely unfounded that the 
 Constitution was adopted, the mere suspicion and fear of them neai V 
 causing its overwhelming defeat. 
 
 DECISIVE TESTIMONY OF MADISON AND HAMILTON. 
 
 Let us begin with Madison, commonly called 44 the fatliei of the 
 “ Constitution,” and universally recognised as the first of its authois and 
 expositors. Said he, in the ratifying Convention of Virginia, “ Who 
 “ are the parties to it? The people; but not the people as 
 “ posing one great society , but the people as composing !' 111R It-l. A 
 “ SOVEREIGNTIES. ... No State is bound by it without its own 
 “ consent . Should all the States adopt it, it will then be A GOVERN- 
 “ MENT ESTABLISHED BY THE THIRTEEN STATES 
 6i of America.” He declared the people of a State to be 4 the fountain 
 <c of all power.” He said, 44 They could alter constitutions as they 
 44 pleased.” He also spoke of 44 the power given to the general govern- 
 44 ment, being taken from the State governments.” 
 
 Alexander Hamilton (who is considered by all Americans as having 
 few peers, and no superiors as a statesman) stands next as an authority. 
 He characterised the Union as a 44 Confederacy of States,” and spoke 
 of the 44 accession ” of States to it. In the New York Convention, in 
 1788, he said: 4 While the constitution continues to be read, and its 
 48 principles known, THE STA TES must , by every rational man, 
 44 be considered as essential component parts of the Union ; and, there- 
 44 fore, the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter, is totally inad- 
 44 missible.” 
 
 44 The destruction of the States must be at once a political suicide. 
 44 Can the national government be guilty of this madness?” Again, 
 speaking of the dogmatic objection to the proposed constitution, that 
 no government but a despotism can exist in a very extensive country, 
 he says : 44 This application is wrong in respect to all representative 
 44 governments, but especially in relation to a confederacy of States.” 
 Again, he speaks of 44 the obvious and important principle in con- 
 48 federated governments, that whatever is not given to the federated 
 44 head is reserved to the members.” And he further said, with regard 
 to the jurisdiction of the two governments : 48 The constitution ought 
 44 not to be so formed as to prevent the States providing for their own 
 44 existence, and I maintain that it is not so formed.” In an address to 
 the supervisors of Albany, February 18, 1789—after the Union was 
 established—he said: 44 The People of this State are the sove- 
 44 reigns of it ; and being now called upon by their constitution to 
 44 appoint a chief magistrate, it cannot but be useful that so high an 
 44 act of sovereignty should be preceded by an 44 interchange of ideas 
 44 and sentiments.” 
 
 Now recur to the above-quoted dogmas of Mr. Webster, and compare 
 them with these few words of the very authors of the constitution. 
 How completely the former, as well as every syllable that Webster and 
 
 t 
 
22 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 Story ever wrote upon the subject, are refuted. One Madison or 
 Hamilton as an authority outweighs a thousand Storys and Websters! 
 What those affirmed or denied it was absurd for these to controvert! 
 and they never did so, ex professo , though often ignoring , suppressing , 
 or misquoting the golden words of the fathers. But let us introduce the 
 testimony of all the leading constitutionists, to see how they represented 
 the proposed constitution to the people of their respective States, and 
 what grounds the said people acted upon in ratifying said instrument 
 bj' their respective conventions. Let us proceed by States, introducing 
 their testimony also. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE STATESMEN AND THE STATES. 
 
 I will, for obvious reasons, introduce them in a different collocation 
 from that of their ratifications, but will, with the name ot each, present 
 the real order of accession, with the date of its ordinance ol assent. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS—VI. in order—Ratified Feb. 7, 1788. 
 
 She is entitled to be first examined, she being, probably, the most 
 influential in making, as she certainly was in destroying, the constitution. 
 
 It will be seen that, like an exemplary mother, she corrects her sons. 
 She directly contradicts their theory that the people of the United States 
 are a nation_one sovereign people, which has made a Federal govern¬ 
 
 ment, and several State governments, and distributed its powers among 
 them—the former being supreme (so far as its vested powers go) and 
 the exclusive judge of the extent of its authority. In those days she 
 was the stickler par excellence for State sovereignty; took the lead in 
 demanding amendments to secure it—and had a boasted influence to that 
 
 end—on the subsequently ratifying States. 
 
 Let us see what her great men say in the Convention that ratified the 
 
 Federal constitution. 
 
 Fisher Ames, the great Massachusetts statesman and orator, said in 
 ratifying the convention of that State: “No argument against the 
 “ new plan lias made a deeper impression than this, that it will produce 
 “ a consolidation of the States. This is an effect which all good men 
 « (lpm-pcatp . The State governments are essential parts ot the 
 
 system .‘Tim senators represent THE SOVEREIGNTY OF 
 “THE STATES .... in the qualities of the ambassadors . . . . 
 “ Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. 1 lie State 
 « governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests 
 “of the people.” He further said that they would “ afford sheltei 
 
 would he ” in practice, “ asm theory, A FEDERAL ELI UR Lit. 
 
 Theophilus Parsons, one of the greatest men of Massachusetts, after¬ 
 wards Chief Justice of the State, in the same convention, characterized 
 fhe new political arrangement as “ a Government to be administered for 
 “ the common good, by the servants of the people, vested with delegated 
 
 « 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 23 
 
 “ powers, by popular elections, at stated periods. Hie Federal con- 
 « stitution establishes a Government of this description, and in this case 
 44 the people divest themselves of nothing ; the government and powers 
 44 which the Congress can administer, are the mere result of a compact 
 44 made by the people,” &c. He speaks of the powers of government 
 being taken by the people from their State governments, and put in 
 the Federal, to secure national prosperity and happiness. 44 If,” said 
 he, 44 there'should be usurpation, it will be upon thirteen legislatures, 
 44 completely organized, possessed of the confidence of the people, and 
 44 having the means, as well as inclination, successfully to oppose it. 
 
 James Bowdoin, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, considered 
 the Federal constitution as the 44 key-stone of a grand and magnificent 
 44 arch ” composed of the States. 
 
 Christopher Gore, one of the most eminent of the Massachusetts states¬ 
 men, said : 44 The Senate represents the sovereignty of the States ; 
 44 the House of Representatives the people of the United States.” 
 
 Rufus King, one of the ablest members of both Federal and State 
 Conventions, said, on the same occasion, that the State Legislatures , if 
 they find their delegates [Senators in Congress] erring , can and will 
 44 instruct them .... when they [the delegates] hear the voice of the 
 44 people, solemnly dictatmg to them their duty , they will be bold men 
 44 indeed, to act contrary to it.” He regarded the Federal Constitution 
 as a 44 Commission ” of government. 
 
 Stillman, after showing that the President, the Senate, and the House 
 of Representatives, are to be elected by or for 44 the people of the several 
 *■ States continues: 44 It will be their own fault, then, if they do not 
 44 choose the best men IN THE COMMONWEALTH. Who are 
 44 Congress, then ? They are ourselves—the men of our choice, in whom 
 44 we confide ; whose interest is inseparably connected with our own.” 
 
 John Hancock, the immortal President of the Colonial Congress that 
 made the Declaration of Independence—whose bold signature every 
 American could swear to—was the President of this Massachusetts 
 Convention, as well as the Governor of the State. He considered the 
 Federal Constitution as the delegating of power by 44 the people” 
 44 to men who were dependent on them frequently for eleetion.” To 
 guard more carefully against the danger that Ames adverted to, and 
 that was generally feared, that of consolidation, he proposed that Massa¬ 
 chusetts, on ratifying the Federal Constitution, should require “that it 
 
 be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressIt/ delegated to Con- 
 44 gress are reserved to the several STATES , to be by them exercised.” 
 He gave his assent to the compact, hoping the amendments proposed 
 would become part of the system, and he thought that, as they were 
 44 calculated to give security and ease alike to all the States ” 44 nil 
 44 ivoidd agree to them.” 
 
 Samuel Adams, one of the great Revolutionary leaders of Massachu- 
 
24 I)AYIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 setts, said in the same Convention, in reference to the above amendment, 
 proposed by Hancock: “ This appears to my mind to be a summary 
 “ of a bill of rights ... IT IS CONSONANT WITH the 
 “ second Article in the present Confederation, that EACH STATE 
 “RETAINS ITS SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, AND IN 
 66 DEPENDENCE, AND EVERY POWER, jurisdiction, and right 
 u which is NOT by this Confederation EXPRESSLY DELE - 
 “ GA TED to the United States in Congress assembled .” 
 
 Why did not some of the Danes, Storys, Websters, and Curtises of 
 that day get up and correct Mr. Adams, saying: “ Oh, no, States are not, 
 “ but the nation is sovereign ; and is just now dispensing power to a 
 “ Federal government ? ” The truth is, the view of Hancock and Adams 
 —dissented to by none—completely belies the Massachusetts school of 
 expounders; and we can now see what a reader must exclaim at every 
 line of the record, that “this is why Story, Webster, and Curtis never 
 “ quoted from so proper a source of authority.” 
 
 These explanations of Hancock and Adams practically closed the 
 debate, and made success possible. The latter, who was the great and 
 influential leader of the opposition, yielded upon this very point, as did 
 others, so that ratification was carried—by the meagre majority, however, 
 of 19, in a membership of 355 votes, the firm and formidable minority 
 still vaguely fearing that the instrument might be susceptible of the 
 very meaning that Dane, Story, and Webster afterwards, by perversion, 
 put upon it. 
 
 It is certain, then, that Massachusetts, as a political body-a unit, 
 acting from her own free will—“ assented to,” and “ratified” the Con¬ 
 stitution precisely as any sovereign State of Europe would have given 
 her assent to any agreement with coequal States. She saw that the 
 States were the actors from beginning to end—were intact as States— 
 were sovereign delegators ; and that the Constitution was the voice of 
 their power, providing for the self-government and self-protection of 
 the States and their people in specified general matters, and that the 
 government functionaries, having only “ delegated ” power, were to be 
 (as they always must be) “ delegates ” and “ agents,” without coercive 
 power over their sovereigns, creators, principals, or masters—the States ; 
 but possessed of simple legal jurisdiction, to be enforced by legal means, 
 
 over the individual citizens of the States. 
 
 Now, suppose the great men whom I have just quoted had, arguendo, 
 uttered the Websterian dogmas—would a single vote have been ob¬ 
 tained ? But no such ideas could have been held by anybody. Why ? 
 liecause Massachusetts, at that moment, had a standing declaration in 
 her Organic Law—and she and all the other States solemnly agreed and 
 declared in the then existing “ Federal Constitution ”—that she was a 
 “ sovereign, free, and independent State f and she ivas, in the precise 
 character indicated by these superlative and unambiguous words, then 
 in convention, determining her will—independently of all the world— 
 as to a general government for herself, and other agreeing States, and 
 their people (just as she had done years before in organising her own 
 State Government); and, in that precise character, she was then and 
 
DAVIS AND LEE*. A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 25 
 
 there “ delegating ”—not sovereignty, but—“ powers ” to “delegates,” 
 “representatives,” “substitutes,” “agents,” “servants,” “trustees,” &c., 
 as they were uniformly called. 
 
 Mark well the two following extracts : one her own standing declara¬ 
 tion, in her constitution, of her sovereign character and rights ; and the 
 other, from the act of her convention ratifying the Federal Constitution. 
 
 Declaration of Rights, Sec. 4 :—“ The people of this commonwealth 
 “ have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free , 
 “ sovereign , and independent State ; and forever hereafter shall exercise 
 “ and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right; which is not, or may 
 “ not hereafter be by them, expressly delegated to the United States of 
 
 “ America in Congress assembled.Sec. 7 : —The people alone have 
 
 “ an incontestable, unalienable , and indefeasible right to institute Govern- 
 “ ment, and to reform , alter , or totally change the same, when their 
 “ protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” 
 
 “ The Convention .... do, in the name, and in behalf of the people of 
 “ the commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said con- 
 “ stitution for the United States of America.” 
 
 Such is her character as a political body, and such is her act in adopt¬ 
 ing the Federal Constitution; the only act that gives that instrument 
 force in Massachusetts, and the Federal Government jurisdiction and 
 legal coercive power over her citizens. 
 
 Now, please recur to, and read over, the views of Dane, Story, and 
 Webster as heretofore quoted from the latter. These men knew this 
 recoid, but dared not quote it, as it refuted their dogmas, which were 
 
 mere inventions. Not an applicable line of it—fairly set forth_will 
 
 sustain them. As we proceed, every State will be found to flatly con¬ 
 tradict them, as Massachusetts is here shown to do. 
 
 CONNECTICUT—Y.— Jan. 9, 1788. 
 
 Roger Sherman, one of the leading members of the Federal Conven¬ 
 tion, said in the ratifying convention of Connecticut: “ The Government 
 “ of the United States being Federal, and instituted by a number of 
 „ S0V ™ Sta™ for the better security of their rights, and the ad- 
 vancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars 
 
 Chief Justice Law, in the same convention, spoke of the eeneral 
 government as resting on the States, and compared it to “ a vast and 
 magnificent bridge, built upon thirteen strong and stately pillars.” 
 
 C j] lver Wolcott in the same convention : “The constitution 
 „ f. ect “ all y secures the States in their several rights. It must secure 
 
 “ system.” US ° Wn Sak6 ’ ^ they arG the pil ' arS which u P h oM the general 
 
 Judge Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice of the United 
 moved ,1.« Federal e.nventiou ,o expunge the word « miSu t 
 
^0 DAYIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 the Constitution, and substitute the words “ Government of the United 
 
 States, which was agreed to nem. con. In the ratifying convention of 
 Connecticut he characterized the Union as a “ Confederation,” and said, 
 “ the Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies,— States 
 in their political capacity; ” but that the only coercion contemplated 
 was the same as that of the State governments—legal coercion of indi¬ 
 vidual citizens. 
 
 Sherman and Ellsworth, in a report to the governor of Connecticut, 
 said that the Federal Convention aimed “ to provide for the energy of 
 “ government on the one hand, and suitable checks on the other, to 
 “ secure the rights of the particular States, and the liberties and pro- 
 “ perties of the citizens. We wish it may meet the approbation of the 
 “ several States, and be a means of securing their rights and lengthen- 
 “ ing out their tranquillity.” 
 
 Her delegates to the “ convention of States” that matured the Con¬ 
 stitution, having insisted with others upon a Federal Government instead 
 of a national one, and upon preserving the integrity and sovereignty of 
 the States, and securing the limitation and subordination of the 
 “ delegated ” power, asserted their success so positively, and showed it 
 so conclusively, that the State, by her convention, adopted the constitu¬ 
 tion by a majority of 88 in 168 members—such convention speaking as 
 follows in the ratification: “ In the name of the people of the State of 
 “ Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of said State, in general 
 “ convention assembled, &c., do assent to and ratify,” &c. 
 
 This is the only way the Federal constitution got into Connecticut, 
 and yet Dane, and Story, and Webster ventured to represent that it was 
 made by the people of all the States as a mass or nation, and not by the 
 people of the States acting separately. 
 
 NEW YORK—XI .—July 26, 1788. 
 
 In the convention of this State, the contest was long, severe, and 
 doubtful, principally turning upon the existence or non-existence in the 
 constitution of the principles now asserted by Webster and others. 
 These were then urged as serious charges. Indeed, lates and Lansing 
 had left the Federal Convention because they were “ opposed to any 
 “ system, however modified, which had in view the consolidation of the 
 “ United States into one government; ” and they feared the system 
 
 proposed had a tendency to that evil. 
 
 But the leading constitutionists, Hamilton (heretofore quoted), Jay 
 (afterwards the first Chief Justice of the United States), Chancellor 
 Livingston, and others, with masterly ability refuted the charges; and 
 showed that the States were to be preserved intact, as necessary parts— 
 nay, as the very basis of the system, that the people of the States were 
 the actors, and were sovereignly dividing the powers they chose to 
 delegate between their States, and their Federal governments; and that 
 the functionaries who were to do the Federal “ business were to 
 « receive that business to manage—not for themselves, and as then ow n, 
 “ but as the agents and overseers for the people, to whom they are con- 
 
27 
 
 DAY IS AND LEE: 
 
 A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 u 
 
 “ stantlv responsible, and by whom they are to be appointed. ’ In the 
 same address to the people of New York from which these words are 
 onoted Mr. Jay said: “ The States of Georgia, Delaware, Jersey, and 
 “ Connecticut have adopted the present planand he earnestly advises 
 
 the State of New York to do so. „ , 
 
 All their arguments, however, would have been futile, but for the 
 
 understanding that the dreaded danger should be specially forefended by 
 amendment. In the circular letter to the other States, dated July 28th, 
 1788, signed by Gov. George Clinton, “ by unanimous order ot the 
 “ convention;” it was stated that « several articles” were “ so excep- 
 “ tionable to a majority of us, that nothing but the fullest confidence o 
 “ obtaining a revision, .... and an invincible reluctance to sepaiating 
 u from our sister States, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number 
 « to ratify it without stipulation for previous amendments.” 
 
 And the convention, in the very act ratifying the constitution, did 
 i( declare and make known ” the following, among 24. ai tides, declaratory 
 of State rights : 
 
 I. “ That all power is originally vested in , and consequently derived 
 iC from, the people; and that government is instituted hy them lor their 
 <4 common interest, protection, and security. ’ 
 
 III. 44 That the power of the government may he RE-ASSUMED hy 
 44 the people , whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; 
 44 that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not , by the said 
 44 constitution, clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, 
 44 or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people 
 44 of the SEVERAL STATES, or to their respective State govern- 
 44 ments, to whom they may have granted the same.” 
 
 The act of ratification concludes thus: 44 Under these impressions, 
 44 and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, 
 44 we, the delegates, in the name and behalf of the people of the State 
 44 of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said 
 44 constitution.” 
 
 The ratification was carried by a majority of 3 in a membership of 
 55. Suppose Dane, Story, and Webster, had been there, to talk of the 
 nation or aggregate sovereign people distributing their powers between 
 their State governments and their Federal government—the said nation 
 sovereign, and the States subordinate—why, they would have been 
 hooted at, and the Federal constitution spurned from the convention ! 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA—II.— Dec. 7, 1787. 
 
 In the convention of this State, the new system was opposed on the 
 same grounds; 23 of the 69 members issued an able address, in which 
 they asserted that 44 consolidation pervades the whole instrument.” 
 They, as others, feared that the power of the new system would over¬ 
 shadow and gradually destroy the States, and they were intensely 
 anxious to preserve State integrity and sovereignty intact. 
 
 Tench Cox, one of the ablest members of the Convention, wrote as 
 follows in reply to the address:— 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 “ Had the Federal Convention meant to exclude the idea of ‘union ’ 
 “ —that is, of several and separate SOVEREIGNTIES JOINING 
 “ IN A CONFEDERACY— they would have said ‘we, the people of 
 “America;’ for union necessarily involves the idea of competent 
 “ states, which complete consolidation excludes.” 
 
 Again, he presents many tacts which he “conceives secure the States 
 “ from a possibility of losing their respective Sovereignties.” Again, 
 he explains that the Constitution is to “ be the act of the people, yet it is 
 “ to be done in their capacities as citizens of the several members of 
 “ our Confederacy, who are declared to be the people of the United 
 “ States.” 
 
 James Wilson, a leading member of both the Federal and State Con¬ 
 ventions, one of the very first statesmen of the period, and afterwards 
 on the supreme bench of the Union; in the ratifying convention, charac¬ 
 terized the general government as “ A FEDERAL BODY of our own 
 “ creation ”—i.e., the creation of the people of the State. To allay the 
 fear that the State governments might not be preserved intact, he 
 declared “ that upon their existence depends the existence of the FE- 
 “ DEIIAL plan.” In answering the question where sovereigntyresided, 
 he said “ The SUPREME , ABSOLUTE , AND UNCONTROL - 
 “ TABLE POWER is in the people [of the State] before they make a 
 “ constitution , and, REMAINS IN THEM AFTER it is made.” He 
 said further: “ The SOVEREIGNTY resides in the people. This 
 “ principle settled, they can take from the State governments powers 
 “ with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place them in the 
 “ general government, if it is thought they will there be productive of 
 “ more good/’ Again, speaking in reference to the political power of 
 the people of Pennsylvania, he said : “ My position is that the ABSO - 
 “ LUTE SOVEREIGNTY never goes from the people .” 
 
 The great Dr. Franklin proposed, in the Federal convention, a second 
 branch of the Congress, in which “ each state should have equal 
 “ suffrage,” in all cases or questions “ wherein the SO VEREIGNT1ES 
 “ of the individual ST A TES may be affected, or whereby their authority 
 “ over their own citizens may be diminished.” He wrote on Nov. 5th, 
 1789, “ Our new constitution is now established with eleven STATES. 
 “ The accession of a twelfth is soon expected.” 
 
 Chief Justice McKean, afterwards governor, said in the ratifying 
 convention, “ The POWER of this convention is derived from the 
 “ people of Pennsylvania .” The members, he said, had been chosen by 
 the people “for the sole purpose of assenting to or ratifying the consti- 
 “ tution proposed for the future government of the United States, with 
 “ respect to their general and common concerns, or of rejecting it .” 
 
 Enough! I only quote the very highest authorities. We find no 
 support'for Dane, Story, and Webster here. These extracts show that 
 their false and dangerous notions were feared as dangers, but lound no 
 advocates, and the sequel shows that the convention acted upon the 
 obvious and correct idea, that sovereign States were the actors in forming 
 and empowering the new system, and that the constitution was their 
 breath of delegation, for by a large majority they enacted the following 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 29 
 
 ordinance of ratification : “ In the name of the people of Pennsylvania 
 “ . . . . We, the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of 
 
 “ Pennsylvania, in general convention assembled, .... by these pre- 
 “ sents do, in the name, and by the authority of the same people .... 
 “ assent to and ratify the foregoing constitution for the United States of 
 “ America. Done Dec. 12th, 1787.” 
 
 VIRGINIA—X.— June 25, 1788. 
 
 Her convention was an assembly of great men—all attached to the 
 “ Old Dominion ” as to a mother ; all determined to preserve intact her 
 integrity and her sovereign will over her interests and destiny ; and all 
 fearing a too powerful Federal government, under which the sovereign 
 rights of the States, and the liberties of the people, might finally be 
 lost. The great all-comprehensive idea of the constitutionists in the 
 convention was, that Virginia and her sister States were creating a 
 Federal system, to which they were to give each a separate and inde¬ 
 pendent sanction, and sufficient delegations of power for its purposes. 
 
 As in other States, the system was attacked from the fear that it was 
 pregnant with the monster consolidation. Patrick Henry was the most 
 active and denunciatory, but George Mason and others ably backed 
 him. They assailed the very clauses as dangerous and treasonable to 
 liberty and self-government , which Dane, Webster, and Story have since 
 deduced consolidation or national sovereignty from. For instance, they 
 attacked the phrase in the preamble: “ We, the people of the United 
 “ States, do ordain and establish this constitution,” as reducing States 
 to subordination, and erecting a national supremacy over them ; the 
 clauses making the constitution laws and treaties the “ supreme law of 
 “ the land,” as a specific abdication of sovereignty by the States to the 
 nation ; and the clause giving power to call out the militia for certain 
 
 purposes, as giving the general government unlimited military power to 
 execute its will—even over States. Other objections were made, but 
 these were the main ones. They were all, in fact, misrepresentations, 
 and were then and there fully exposed and refuted by Madison, Ran¬ 
 dolph, Pendleton, Marshall,* Nicholas, Corbyn, and others. 
 
 I have already quoted Madison, where, in direct reply to Henry (and 
 the reply is equally good for Webster et als ), he said it was, of course, 
 “ the people ” who were making the federal instrument, not however' 
 “ as one S reat society,” but “ as thirteen sovereignties ; ” and “ that 
 “ it was to be binding on the people of the State [of Virginia] only bu 
 “ their own separate assent .” I will further observe that he constantly 
 spoke of, and treated the federal Constitution as a “ Compact.” 
 
 . Jud S e Edmund Pendleton, the distinguished President of the conven- 
 
 ^rrVrr^l \° Heriry ’ Mas01 b and others, said : “ If the Union of the 
 <5 y .. be necessai 7> government must be equally so. 
 
 “ But n 18 represented to be a consolidated government . . . which so 
 „ extensi ve a territory as the United States cannot admit of, without ter- 
 min a ting in despotism. If this be such a government, I will confess 
 
 “ nft/ “w i V ° rt i hy frieild ’ that ifc is inadmissil) le* • • • It is the interest 
 “ exi-1 1 ^ t0 preserve the State governments. Upon the latter the 
 existence oi tlie former depends. 
 
 “ The 1,eo l )1(i are the fountain of all power. They must, however, 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 4 C 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 << 
 
 a 
 
 4 i 
 
 << 
 
 a 
 
 “ delegate it to agents, because .... they cannot exercise it in person 
 .... When ice were forming our State Constitution, we were con¬ 
 fined to local circumstances. In forming a government for the Union, 
 “ we must consider our situation as connected with our neighbouring 
 States. We have seen the advantages and blessings of the Union 
 .... If ice find it to our interest to be intimately connected with the 
 “ other twelve States , to establish one common government , and bind in one 
 “ ligament the strength of THIRTEEN STATES , we shall find it 
 “ necessary to delegate powers proportionate to that end ; for the dele - 
 “ gation of adequate powers in this government is no less necessary 
 than in our State government. To whom do we delegate these 
 powers ? To our own representatives. Why should we fear greater 
 “ dangers from our representatives there, than from those WE have 
 44 here ?” 
 
 John Marshall the great jurist, afterwards for many years the distin¬ 
 guished Chief Justice of the United States, said, in reply to Henry: 
 44 We ” (that is the people of Virginia, whom alone we represent in this 
 Convention, and whose independent political will we have been elected, 
 and convened to determine and express), “ we are threatened with the 
 44 loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding 
 “ the maxim that those who give may take away. It is the people 
 [of a state] that can give power, and take it back. What shall re¬ 
 strain then ? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the 
 “ servants hold it.” Please mark this well ! There never could 
 have been a more complete assertion of the right of secession. It was 
 the j)eoj)le of the State of Virginia whose liberty and safety they were 
 deliberating upon. It was she that was being asked to 44 give power ” 
 by delegation, for 44 the common defence and general welfare ” of the 
 States. It was she that did “ give power ” by the ultimate act of her 
 convention. But let us continue the quotation. 
 
 “ It is an absurdity, says the worthy member [Patrick Henry], that 
 “ the same man should obey two masters, that the same collector should 
 « gather taxes for the general government and the State legislature. 
 « Are they not both the servants of the people ? Are not Congress and 
 “ the State legislatures the agents of the people, and are they not to 
 
 “ consult the good of the people ? . . . . 
 
 “ If you adopt it, what shall restrain you from amending it, if, in 
 “ trying it, amendments shall be found necessary. The govern - 
 “ ment is NOT SUPPORTED BY FORCE , but depending on 
 “ OUR free-will. When experience shall show us any inconvenience, 
 
 44 we can then correct it.” ... . 
 
 Again, as to the need and safety of delegating certain powers to the 
 Federal government, he said : 44 When the government is drawn from 
 44 the people, and depending on the people lor its continuance, oppressive 
 “ measures will not be attempted, as they will certainly draw on their 
 44 authors the resentment of those on whom they depend. ( n this 
 44 government, thus depending on ourselves for its existence, I will 
 
 44 rest my safety.United we are strong-divided we fall. 
 
 “ It requires a superintending power, in order to call forth the resources 
 ‘ 4 of all to protect all. If this be not done, each State will fall a sacn- 
 44 fice. 5 This system merits the highest applause in this respect. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 31 
 
 A*ain, in defending the jurisdiction contemplated for the Federal 
 judiciary, “ between a State and the citizens of another State, he said: 
 “ Its jurisdiction has been decried with unusual vehemence. I hope 
 « that no gentlemen will think that A STATE will be called at the bar of 
 44 the Federal court. . . . It is not rational to suppose that THE SOYE- 
 “ REIGN POWER should be dragged before a court. The intent is to 
 “ enable States to recover claims ot individuals residing in other States. 
 “ I contend that this construction is warranted by the words.” An 
 amendment was afterwards added to the Federal constitution, lemoving 
 all doubt, and affirming Judge Marshall’s interpretation (see Amend¬ 
 ments, Article xi.) 
 
 But enough has been quoted—the arguments of the constitutionists 
 being all to the same purpose. The contest was long and animated. 
 The enemies, by the false ascriptions, that in subsequent years were 
 made so attractive by the logic and eloquence of a Webster, though 
 overwhelmingly beaten in argument, were barely overcome in voting— 
 the majority for ratification being only ten in a house of 168. The 
 enacting words of the ordinance are as follows: “ We, the delegates 
 44 of the people of Virginia , duly elected .... and now met in con - 
 44 vention , .... in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, 
 44 do, by these presents assent to and ratify the constitution .... hereby 
 44 announcing to all whom it may concern, that the said constitution is 
 44 binding on said people, &c. Done June 25th, 1788,” 
 
 44 The said constitution ,” THEN, and BY THAT ACT, became 
 44 binding on said people ” of Virginia . Nothing could be plainer. 
 Now, is it not incredible that the statesmen, judges, and historians of the 
 modern Massachusetts school should ignore or suppress the sovereign 
 act of Virginia (and the similar one of Massachusetts), and assert that 
 the nation made the constitution, and that it was not made by the people 
 of the several States . And they also ignore or suppress the all-im¬ 
 portant fact that the thirteen States at that moment were under a 
 solemn compact—all with e?cli—and each with all—that 44 each State 
 44 retains its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and independence,” and hence 
 that they did not, and could not, act otherwise than as sovereigns, and 
 that no aggregate people did or could exist with authority to put a general 
 constitution in force, in and over one of these States ! If 13 sovereign 
 States did, a sovereign nation did not, then exist. If the former did then 
 dispense power, the latter did not . 
 
 But furthermore, Virginia, in her absolutely sovereign action by 
 convention, aiming to guard against those dangers to her integrity, which 
 Massachusetts had been so careful to forefend, and which she herself 
 was so earnestly premonished of, seconded the demand of Massachusetts 
 on the States, for amendments (as New Hampshire simultaneously did), 
 the main one being: “ that EACH STATE shall respectively retain 
 44 every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this constitution 
 44 delegated to the United States,”—the same amendment which all the 
 States desired, and which is now in the Federal instrument, constituting 
 
 with the Preamble, and Article vii., full proof of present State sove¬ 
 reignty. 
 
32 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 Moreover, the convention, speaking with direct reference to Federal 
 functionaries, declared “ that all power is invested in, and derived from 
 “ the people ; that magistrates are therefore their TRUSTEES AND 
 “ AGENTS , at all times amenable to them.” 
 
 And finally she embodied in the ordinance of ratification, still speaking 
 for herselt, the following words: “ That the powers granted under the 
 “ constitution, being DERIVED FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE 
 “ UNITED STATES, (may) BE RESUMED BY THEM when- 
 “ soever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” 
 This passage, Judge Story, in his Commentaries, uses as a leading proof 
 that these “ powers ” are “ derived from the people” as a nation, when, 
 as he knew, every word and action of Virginia contradicts it, and the 
 passage itself is susceptible of no such interpretation. He knew that 
 such meaning of this and the equivalent passage in the preamble of 
 the Federal constitution was charged and feared ; but that Madison 
 made the explanation which the whole convention assented to (the same 
 that he, Hamilton, and Jay, were making in the Federalist), that it was 
 “ not the people as composing one great society , but the people as compos- 
 “ ing THIRTEEN SOVEREIGNTIES,” —the people of thirteen 
 States, that were to be united, and who were just then engaged as sove¬ 
 reigns, in fixing rights, defining duties, and delegating powers in the 
 instrument of union or federation before them—each by its own conven¬ 
 tion, and in its own good time, assenting to the new political arrangement 
 which was three years (after the plan was perfected) in being consum¬ 
 mated, owing to this very independence of State will ; the first State 
 ratifying in 1787, the last in 1790. 
 
 Such perversions are hardly entitled to respectful exposure ; but let us 
 plod patiently on. Look at the ludicrous position and silly act these Massa¬ 
 chusetts philosophers attribute to Virginia, as well as to their own State. 
 In this trying and solemn hour, when high debate was raging, and all 
 hearts were fervently wishing to secure her “pearl of great price”— 
 sovereignty, and the freedom of her children, and her children’s children, 
 against consolidation and arbitrary power, Virginia, by her great states¬ 
 men and lawyers—“and there were giants in those days”—forgot 
 herself, and her simultaneous sovereign act, and declared that the nation 
 gave and could take away the powers granted . While denying and 
 guarding against it, she confesses an outside sovereignty that swallows 
 herself! While engaged in preserving her political life, she commits 
 the most inconsistent and remarkable suicide in histciy ! 
 
 Now, Sir, let us wind up the case of Virginia by contemplating for a 
 moment the conduct of Massachusetts towards her. She and Virginia 
 foreboded the same dangers. They asserted—acted with—and secured 
 their sovereignty in the same mode; the former leading the way. They 
 pledged solemn faith for mutual protection, declaring and guaranteeing 
 each other to be—“sovereign, free, and independent States.’ . 
 
 Virginia kept the faith ! She was incapable ol doing otherwise. Lut 
 Massachusetts, to promote selfish ends, became the Peter the Hermit of 
 a new crusade. She perverted the faith, and the solemn compacts oi 
 the fathers ; inflamed the North to hunger and thirst for Southern 
 carnage and blood ; and finally led an overwhelming host to dragoon the 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SGUTIIEEN EIGHTS. 
 
 33 
 
 South into submission, and to darken her sunny landscapes with desola¬ 
 tion and mourning. ei The land was as the Garden of iLden before her, 
 “ and behind her, a desolate wilderness! ” Yes ; she issued forth from 
 her own unassailed and unbroken walls, which shielded her own plenty 
 and peace, and, like a demon of destruction, razed Virginia’s citadel to 
 the earth, and drove the ploughshare of ruin through all its foundations ! 
 And now the vile weeds of despotism rankly cover the fallow and blood- 
 manured soil! 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA—VIII.— May 23, 1788. 
 
 Not less decisively speaks the record of this State. All her sons were 
 opposed to any interference with State sovereignty; the enemies 
 charging danger, and the friends declaring the fear to be groundless. 
 Rawlins Lowndes was the leading opponent. So earnest was he, that, 
 seeming to look forward to the lost liberties of his State, to justify his 
 opposition, and prove his words of warning true, he wished his epitaph 
 to be—“ Here lies the man that opposed the constitution, because it was 
 “ ruinous to the liberty of America.” Were he, Patrick Henry, Luther 
 Martin, and the other opponents, wiser than the rest of the fathers ? 
 Did they fear the propensities of the Puritans, and the perversions of 
 their “ cute ” statesmen ? 
 
 The leading constitutionists were Charles Pinckney, General C. C. 
 Pinckney, Pierce Butler, John Rutledge, Chancellor Rutledge, and 
 others, all able statesmen, and leading spirits of South Carolina. General 
 Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, one of the most distinguished of South 
 Carolina’s sons, afterwards a candidate of the Federal party for the Presi¬ 
 dency, said, towards the close of the Federal convention, of which he 
 was a member, “ The STATES and general government must stand 
 “ together. On this plan have I acted throughout the whole of this 
 “ business.” In the ratifying convention of South Carolina, replying to 
 Lowndes and other objectors, he said: “The general government has 
 “ no powers hut what are expressly granted to it. It therefore has no 
 “ power to take away the liberty of the press. ... By delegating ex - 
 “ press powers , we certainly reserve to ourselves every poiver and right 
 not mentioned in the constitution . Again : “ The Southern States 
 “ are wea, k • • • • we are so weak by ourselves, we could not form a 
 “ Union stron g enough for the purpose of effectually protecting each 
 “ other. Without UNION with the other STATES , South Carolina 
 “ must ? oon falL ” Again he said : “ There exists a power from which 
 “ tliere 1S no a PPeal .... absolute and uncontrollable,” and that this 
 “ sovereign or supreme power of the state with us ” “ resides” in the people. 
 
 Charles Pinckney, a member of both Federal and State conventions 
 and much distinguished as a statesman, said that the small States con¬ 
 tended in the federal convention: “That as the States were the 
 “ pillars upon which the general government must ever rest their 
 State governments must ever remain and that “no inducement 
 whatever should tempt them to unite on any other terms.” He further 
 said they were afraid of representation according to population as cA 
 culated to give the control of the Union to three or four States. FinaVlyi 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 it was arranged that one branch of the Federal legislature was to be 
 elected by the people ot the States in proportion to numbers ; and that, 
 m the other, the States , as political bodies, were to have equal repre¬ 
 sentation. He further said: 44 In a Union as extensive as this is, 
 “ composed of so many State governments , [he meant States] and in¬ 
 habited by a people who are watchful and jealous of power, an 
 in\ asion of State rights hy the Federal head seemed to him 44 the 
 lemotest of all our public dangers. . . . Jill power being immediately 
 “ derived from the people , and the STATE GOVERNMENTS [he 
 means States] BEES G 1 HE BASIS of the general one, it will 
 easily be in their power to hiterfere , and to prevent its injuring or in - 
 “ vading their rights.” 
 
 The constitutionists all expressed similar views. Friend and foe alike 
 deprecated the principles since advocated by Webster—if dogmas so 
 unprincipled can be called principles at all! 
 
 The convention finally ratified the constitution by 149 to 73, the 
 enacting clause of the ordinance being as follows : “ The convention 
 “ . . . . do, in the name and behalf of the people of this State, hereby 
 44 assent to and ratify the said constitution.” Done May 23, 1788. 
 
 She also joined Massachusetts in demanding amendments for the 
 security of State integrity and sovereignty, particularly the one declaring 
 that the State reserves all power not 44 delegatedA 
 
 Moreover, one of the declarations accompanying this ratification was, 
 that it is essential to State rights and the freedom of the people, 44 that 
 44 the right of prescribing the manner, time, and places of holding the 
 44 elections to the Federal legislature, should be forever inseparably annexed 
 “ to the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEVERAL STATE ST 
 Not one word of support for the assertions of Dane, Story, and 
 Webster! They are contradicted in the most direct and positive 
 manner. 
 
 DELAWARE—I.— December 7, 1787.—NEW JERSEY—III.— 
 December 18, 1787.—GEORGIA—IV.— January 2, 1788. 
 
 As there was little opposition in these States, no demand for amend¬ 
 ments, and little or no record of discussion, I will simply quote their 
 acts of ratification. 
 
 Delaware was the first State that ratified. She ordained as follows: 
 “ We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware State, in convention 
 “ me t,.do approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said 
 
 44 constitution. Done December 7, 1787.” 
 
 New Jersey.— 44 We, the delegates of the State of New Jersey, . . . . 
 44 do hereby, for, and on behalf of the people of the said State of New 
 (( Jgj’ggY, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same —i.e. the constitution. 
 
 44 Done December 18, 1787.” 
 
 Georgia._ 44 We, the delegates of the people of the State M Georgia, 
 
 44 in convention met,.by these presents, do, in virtue of the 
 
 44 powers and authority to us given by the people of the said State foi 
 44 that purpose .ratify and adopt the said constitution.” 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 35 
 
 MARYLAND—VII.— April 28, 1788. 
 
 In this State, there was little or no record of debates. Luther Martin, 
 one of the great statesmen of America, strenuously opposed the con¬ 
 stitution, on the same general grounds heretofore indicated. He feared 
 that dangers lurked in its various provisions, which, in later years, would 
 emerge to destroy liberty, and he warmly urged its rejection. He 
 would, he said, make every personal sacrifice, 44 if, on those terms only, 
 “ he could procure his country to reject those chaws which are forged 
 “ for it.” However, the “ chains” he inveighed against did not exist 
 in the constitution. They were 44 forged ” in the intellects of the 
 “ cute ” men of Massachusetts, and foisted on the constitution in after 
 years,—the clauses feared by Martin, Henry, and others, being used as 
 pretexts. And, indeed, it is not unlikely Massachusetts acted upon 
 their hints. But as, by this time, the understanding had become 
 general, that safeguards to State integrity would be added to the con¬ 
 stitution, Maryland assented, by a large majority, as follows: 44 In 
 44 convention of the delegates of the people of the State of Maryland, 
 
 44 we, the delegates of the people of the State of Maryland,.do, 
 
 44 in the name and on behalf of the people of this State , assent to and 
 44 ratify the said constitution.” 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE—IX.— June 21, 1788. 
 
 This State made up the complement required for the constitution 
 according to Article vii. thereof, which declared that ratificaton by 44 the 
 44 conventions of NINE STA TES ” should suffice to establish it 
 “ BETWEEN THE STATES SO RATIFYING THE SAME.” 
 She, like Massachusetts, insisted on amendments to preserve intact her 
 character as a sovereign State, and to prevent the lederal government 
 from extending its powers, and absorbing those she and the other 
 creating STATES had reserved. 
 
 The character aforesaid was not only well established by the sacred 
 pact, commonly called the articles of confederation—the first “ Federal 
 constitution,” as the States called it—in which each STATE was de¬ 
 clared and guaranteed, by all, to 44 retain its SO VEREIGNTY , freedom 
 4< and independence but she described herself, in her own constitution’ 
 in 1784, several years before she and the others formed the Federal one 
 
 -as a “ free, sovereign, and independent body-politic, or State, called the 
 State of New Hampshire, and she reiterated this description in 1799 
 several years after the Federal constitution was formed, and it remains 
 her standing description of herself to this dag ! Nay more, she has in her 
 constitution, at this moment, this remarkable declaration- “Articlp VIT 
 •; Bill of Riehts-57,, p ,opU of Hi, State hao, the ,ole and„e,Z£ e 
 nght oj governing themselves as a free, SOVEREIGN and ind„ 
 “ P endent State j and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy 
 every power which is not, and may not hereafter be, by them, expressly 
 
 c 2 
 
36 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 “ delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled.” 
 How much that looks like a sovereign nation, allotting certain powers to 
 its municipality, New Hampshire! But she goes further, and like 
 Massachusetts, declares, that she has the inalienable and incontestible 
 right to institute , alter , or abolish all government at pleasure ; and that 
 “ all magistrates and officers of government ” are her people’s u substi- 
 “ tutes and agents ; and at all times accountable to them.” 
 
 Of course, it was in this unmistakeable character she acted. Her 
 ratification, accompanied by the same demand for amendments, and for 
 the same reasons, as Massachusetts expressed, reads as follows : “ The 
 “ convention .... do, in the name and behalf of the people of the 
 “ State of New Hampshire , assent to, and ratify the said constitution 
 
 for the United States of America.” 
 
 Her convention was most deliberate in action, adjourning at one time 
 for several months. But for this, and the timely supervention of the 
 general understanding in regard to conservative amendments, as well as 
 the favourable action and influence of other States, the constitution 
 would probably have been rejected. Coupled with the ratification, was 
 the following, among other demanded amendments, which the conven¬ 
 tion declared were indispensable “ to quiet the apprehensions ” of the 
 people, and “ to guard against an undue administration of the Federal 
 “ government— f ‘ That it be explicitly declared that all powers not 
 “ expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are 
 “ reserved to the several STATES , to be by them exercised.” 
 
 However, all the prospective safeguards, and all the arguments ot 
 the constitutionists, only abated the “ apprehensions ” sufficiently to 
 give a majority of 11 in a vote of 103. Suppose Mr. Webster, natively 
 of New Hampshire, though adoptively of Massachusetts, had flourished 
 in his greatness, and conspicuousness in those days, and had “ ex- 
 “ pounded ” the constitution as he did fifty years later, viz.: that, a 
 great, undivided, and indivisible nation designed to “ establish a dis- 
 
 tribution of powers between this their general government, and their 
 “ several State governments ;” and that what New Hampshire was to 
 hold and wield was just that which the aforesaid nation “ reserved ” in 
 its general constitution for her, as the municipality, province, department, 
 county, or State of New Hampshire; suppose, I say, these absurd and 
 unprincipled notions, which the Massachusetts school profess, to have 
 believed for the last thirty or forty years, had been authoritatively ex¬ 
 pressed to New Hampshire in those days, would she not have spurned 
 the constitution unanimously from her. borders ? Would she not have 
 disowned her unworthy son, for insulting her with such degrading pio- 
 
 positions ? 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA—XII. 
 
 This State which rejected the constitution at first, but accepted it 
 after satisfactory amendments had been secured, most completely 
 demonstrated the sovereign self-will of the States, and the absurdity of 
 any controlling power in a supposititious nation. All the btates, the 
 
DAYIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. o7 
 
 people of which must have constituted the supposed nation, had declared 
 that she was “ sovereign, free, and independent; and so she acted. 
 Her constitutionists had to combat the same set of objections. 
 
 James Iredell, a distinguished lawyer and statesman, afterwards on 
 the Supreme Bench of the Union, said: “The senate is placed therefor 
 “ a very valuable purpose, as a guard against any attempt o 
 “ tion. It ought to exist in order to preserve completely the SOIE- 
 “ REIGNTY OF THE STATES .” He further said: “ Men in 
 44 power are the people’s servants and agents, and the people of the 
 44 State, without their consent, may new-model their government when 
 44 they think proper, not merely not because it is oppressively exercised, 
 
 44 but because they think another form will be more conducive to theii 
 44 welfare. It is upon the footing of this very principle, that we aie 
 44 now met to consider of the constitution before us. 
 
 Such principles as these, were most ably vindicated by Messrs. Davie, 
 Spaight, Williamson (members of the Federal convention), Maclaine, 
 Spencer, and others, but the apprehensions of impairing State existence, 
 and her sovereign will over her interests and destiny, by consolidation, 
 or by placing too much power and discretion in a Federal government, 
 caused the rejection of the Federal system by a vote of 188 to 88. 
 
 The following record shows how r completely the sovereign State she 
 acted all through. It will be seen that she rejected, and subsequently, 
 in her own time and manner, and on her own terms, ratified the consti¬ 
 tution—no power or influence exhibiting itself, in any quarter, to 
 operate on her sovereign will: 
 
 44 In convention, August 1, 1788 : 44 Resolved, that a declaration of 
 44 rights, .... together v 7 ith amendments, .... ought to be laid 
 44 before Congress, and the Convention of States, that shall or may be 
 44 called, previous to the ratification of the constitution aforesaid, on the 
 44 part of the State of North Carolina.” And she proceeded to make 
 such declarations, and to join Massachusetts in demanding further safe¬ 
 guards for State integrity. 
 
 On the 13th of September 1788, the congress of delegates of the 
 States resolved to put the new government in operation, which was duly 
 done: whereafter, to wit, on November 21, 1789—the government 
 having been organized—Washington elected President by all the States 
 that had joined the Union—and the desired amendments assured, North 
 Carolina ratified the constitution as follows: 
 
 44 Resolved, that the convention, in behalf of tin 1 , freemen , citizens , 
 44 and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina , do adopt and ratify 
 u the said constitution and form of government.” 
 
 Was not this acting like a 44 sovereign, free, and independent State,” 
 as she, and all the other States, solemnly agreed she was? 
 
 Why did not the great We-the~people nation—the great supposititious 
 sovereign commonwealth, that 44 once upon a time in Mr. Webster’s 
 imagination—so sovereignly distributed its powers between its 44 general” 
 and its 44 local ” governments, give North Carolina her share, and comped 
 her to take it? Was it just and merciful to her people, to allow her to 
 remain as long as she chose to be contumacious—utterly destitute of 
 power for their protection and welfare ?—for be it understood that 
 
38 DAYIS and lee : A VINDICATION of southern rights. 
 
 “ our States had their status in the Union, and no other legal status ! ” 
 and “ neither more nor less power than that reserved to them 
 “ by the constitution ”! So said Mr. Lincoln—rather emphasizing 
 the views of the great Massachusetts law-firm of Dane, Story, and 
 Webster. 
 
 RHODE ISLAND—XIII. and last. 
 
 This little State rejected the constitution by a direct vote of her 
 people, in March 1788. The vote was 2,708 to 232, many citizens 
 declining to vote. Two years afterwards, when the amendments deemed 
 necessary to secure State sovereignty had been adopted by the States 
 already united—she meanwhile having acted with “ absolute sovereignty ” 
 out of the Union; she called a convention, which, after due delibera¬ 
 tion, ratified the constitution ; the enacting part of her ordinance being 
 as follows : “ We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and 
 “ Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, . . . . 
 “ in the name and in the behalf of the people of the State , .... do, 
 “ by these presents, assent to and ratify the said constitution.” 
 
 She made simultaneously 17 declarations of right, and proposed 21 
 amendments. The first of these was as follows: “ The United States 
 “ shall guarantee to each State its SOVEREIGNTY , freedom, and 
 “ independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not 
 “ by this constitution expressly delegated to the States.” 
 
 Why did not the great nation order a few of her regiments from 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut, to force the little province or county to 
 ratify the constitution? If those States had then had any ol the 
 patriotic, loyal, and chivalrous spirit recently displayed, it would hav e 
 been quite an agreeable task—a pastime ! 
 
 We have now patiently gone through all the original States, and 
 ascertained from the testimony of their leading statesmen, and from the 
 acts of the States themselves, that the constitution was formed and 
 vitalized by 13 independent and concurrent wills—each with no superior 
 on earth ; and we have seen no great nationality, or national will, exerting 
 itself on the matter of government, in any sense. The dogmas of Dane, 
 Story, and Webster have been shown to be utterly UNTR UE ; and 
 the conclusion is inevitable, that they, and the other apostles ot the 
 Massachusetts creed, must have known that all history Jalsified their 
 
 utterances ! 
 
 TESTIMONY OF MADISON, HAMILTON, JAY, WASHING¬ 
 TON, AND FRANKLIN. 
 
 I shall now quote, as a key-stone to the arch of proof, fi\e of the 
 Fathers, who— concurring—are of more weight than all otliei authority, 
 in any question involving the origin and nature of the constitution, 
 riiey are Madison, Hamilton, and J ay— the great triumvirate , who wro e 
 lie series of papers in 1788, afterwards called the Federalist and 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A YIN DICATION 
 
 OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 39 
 
 Washington and Franklin. The- “ Federalist ” is universally regarded 
 as the most authoritative of all commentaries on the Federal constitution, 
 as it was written by the very ablest of the framers, at the time that the 
 States were in process of deciding, and as it powerfully aided in ovei- 
 comino- the charges against, and the apprehensions concerning, the pro¬ 
 posed system. 1 wish it particularly noted that every word contradicts 
 Messrs. Dane, Story, and Webster, in the most direct and posithe 
 
 manner. - „ 
 
 Said Madison, in Article 39, speaking of “ the foundation on which 
 
 the constitution was to be established: 44 ibis assent and ratification U 
 “ to be given by the people, not cis individuals , composing ^ 0 EE 
 44 ENTIRE NATION, but as composing the DISTINCT AND 
 44 INDEPENDENT STATES to which they respectively belong, 
 
 44 It is to be the assent and ratification of the SE VENAL ST AI AS, 
 44 derived from the SUPREME AUTIIORIIY IN EACH 
 44 STATE—the authority of the people themselves. The act, there- 
 44 fore, establishing the- constitution, will not be a national, but a 
 44 FEDERAL ACT. . . . Each STATE, in ratifying the constitu- 
 44 tion, is considered as A SOVEREIGN BODY , independent ol all 
 44 others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this re- 
 44 lation, then, the new constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL 
 44 and NO T a national constitution .” 
 
 In Article 40, he said: 44 THE STATES are regarded as distinct 
 <4 and independent SOVEREIGNS , by the constitution proposed .” 
 
 In Article 85, Hamilton said that 44 every constitution for the United 
 44 States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in 
 44 which THIRTEEN INDEPENDENT STATES are to be 
 44 accommodated in their interests, or opinions of interest. . . . Hence 
 44 the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars, which are 
 44 to compose the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the PAR TIES 
 44 to the COMPACT.” Mark the phrase, 44 parties to the compact ”— 
 one quite natural to the Fathers, but very distasteful to the Massa¬ 
 chusetts school. 
 
 John Jay (whose views I take from his address to the people of New 
 York, not having a copy of the 44 Federalist ” at hand) speaks of the 
 constitution as 44 the Union of STA TESf and the adoption of the 
 constitution as 44 the establishment of a government able to perpetuate, 
 44 protect, and dignify ” this 44 Union of STA TES .” lie further said: 
 44 Some time must yet elapse before all the States will have decided on 
 44 the present plan. If they reject it, ... . some time must pass 
 
 44 before a new convention [of States] can be brought about.If 
 
 44 ... . the new convention should offer us one still less pleasing, . . . 
 
 4 4 4 To your tents, O Israel,’ would be the word. Then every band of 
 44 Union would be severed. Then ever// STATE would be a little 
 “NATION.” 
 
 Here we see that these three greatest of the architects of the con¬ 
 stitution had no other idea of its origin than that it was a comnart of 
 SOVEREIGN STATES. 
 
 Washington left numerous evidences that he precisely agreed with 
 the statesmen heretofore quoted. One or two extracts will'sudice for 
 
40 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 the present, especially as I shall have occasion to quote other extracts 
 hereafter. 
 
 In a letter to Lafayette, dated June 17, 1788, he said: “ I mentioned 
 
 “ the accession of Maryland to the proposed government.The 
 
 “ accession of one State more will complete the number [nine] needed 
 “ to establish it.” 
 
 In one to General Pinckney, June 28, 1788, he speaks of the Virginia 
 convention having adopted the constitution by 89 to 79 ; of the people 
 of Alexandria rejoicing ; of their enjoyment being heightened by the 
 news that “ New Hampshire had, on the 21st instant, acceded to the new 
 “ CONFEDERACY , by a majority of 11 voices;” and of “pouring 
 “ a libation to the prosperity of the TEN STATES that had actually 
 “ adopted ” the constitution. 
 
 Washington frequently speaks of the Union of States —of States ac¬ 
 ceding to the Union—and gives ample evidence that he participates in 
 the common idea of the constitution being a compact between the States. 
 
 So with Dr. Franklin, as one or two quotations will show. 
 
 Writing June 9, 1788, he said: “An eighth STATE has since 
 “ acceded , and when a ninth is added, the constitution will be carried 
 “ into execution.” On November 5, 1789, he wrote : “ Our new 
 “ constitution is now established with ELEVEN STATES , and the 
 “ accession of a twelfth is soon expected.” “ It has an appearance,” 
 said he subsequently, “ that promises permanency, but in this world 
 “ nothing can be said to be certain but death and taxes.” 
 
 In all he said and wrote, he held that the constitution was a compact 
 between sovereign States. Indeed, as I have shown, he proposed in the 
 Federal convention a second branch of the Federal Congress, to secure 
 the “ SOVEREIGNTY of the individual STATE ST 
 
 All the utterances I have quoted, are those of the very authors of 
 the great movement , and of the constitution itself: these are the very 
 men who laboriously matured each and all of its provisions;—who 
 represented “ the people,” knew their will, and tried to do it; whose 
 every explanation was corroborated, and position sustained, by the final 
 sovereign acts of their respective States—as quoted and shown ; and 
 who were all selected afterwards, by the people, to carry the organised 
 system into effect. Not a mole-hill can be built up opposite to this 
 mountain of testimony. If any respectable person thinks contrariwise, 
 he may regard this as a challenge it teims be agieed on. 
 
 If such testimony could be strengthened, it is done by Cuitis, the 
 great Massachusetts historian of the constitution, whose admissions de¬ 
 rive additional force, not only from his great ability and opportunities 
 for knowledge, but from his being the friend and disciple of Story and 
 Webster • from his representing Massachusetts and the North; and 
 finally from his most conspicuous wish to discover, under the present 
 Federal polity, some sign of sovereignty out of the States, and in a 
 nation comprising them. Says he : I he “ meeting oj the S FA FLS 
 to form a constitution “was purely voluntary: they met as equals, and 
 
 they were sovereign political communities, whom no power could 
 « rinhtfully coerce into a change of their condition ; and with whom such 
 “ a change MUST T> E the result of their own free and intelligent choice. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 41 
 
 And he quotes, with high approval, the language of Judge Wilson in 
 the ratifying convention of .Pennsylvania, that * it has b( j en incontro- 
 vertible since the revolution, that the SUPREME, ABSOLUTE, 
 “ AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER, is in the people , before 
 “ they make a constitution, and REMAINS in them after it is made.” 
 Furthermore, he states it as the “ American doctrine/’ “ that ALL 
 “ SUPREME POWER resides originally in the people-, and that all 
 “ governments are constituted by them to be the depositaries and 
 “ AGENTS of that power” —so far, of course, as the people choose to 
 impart it. “ And/’ continues he, “ the people can withdraw at their 
 pleasure,” the power “ deposited with a State government/’ and f< vest 
 “ it in another class of agents [the Federal ones], leaving the authority 
 “ of the former undiminished, except as to the particular objects of the 
 
 c< powers withdrawn.” 
 
 And, as if to strike his friends after he had struck them down, he 
 says, subsequently, of one of the States (Rhode Island—the smallest), 
 in accounting for her tardiness in ratifying the present constitution : 
 “ When the revolution was fairly accomplished, the State had assumed 
 “ its position of absolute sovereignty/’ and was very reluctant to 
 “ part with any power to the Confederated States.” 
 
 So this great Massachusetts historian of the constitution (who has 
 singularly avoided all the quotations I have above presented, except 
 such as he could—following the examples of his great masters—make 
 to fit an unfit purpose), writing at the present day, admits away the 
 whole case of himself and the Massachusetts school! 
 
 No thanks to him, for we have a vast superabundance of testimony 
 without him ; but he alone establishes the absolutely sovereign character 
 in which the States acted in forming the Federal constitution, and 
 the consequent non-existence of any sovereign nation as an actor in 
 the premises; and, to cap the climax, he calls them “ the Confederated 
 “ STATES .” So, without the vast mass of testimony I have quoted, 
 but on the authority of Curtis alone, we see that there is not one word 
 of truth or foundation for the following—heretofore more fully quoted : 
 
 “ I he Federal constitution.is established by the people of the 
 
 “ United States IN THE AGGREGATE . They ordained 
 
 “ such a government; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and 
 
 therein THEY established a distribution of powers between this, 
 ‘‘their general government, and their several State governments! 
 
 ... So far, State sovereignty is effectually controlled.” 
 
 Hence we see the great Massachusetts expounders crushed between 
 the upper and nether millstones of the Massachusetts ratifying con¬ 
 vention, and the great Massachusetts historian of the constitution. 
 Indeed, Curtis s admissions are so completely destructive of the Massa- 
 chusetts theory, that we are led to believe she has determined to quit 
 perversion admit the truth—and hereafter trust to brute force in 
 voting or fighting, for what she wants. The transition is quite easy in 
 a moral point of view, from cheating to highway robbery— and her 
 recent success vindicates the wisdom of her decision. 
 
 Lut she may see—and she is very likely to see hereafter—that the 
 precedent ot throwing down State bulwarks, and entering the close, and 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION 
 
 OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 trampling on State rights, is a bad one for her : for so odious is she to 
 the larger portion ot Americans, that upon provocation, hundreds of 
 thousands would volunteer to trample out the last spark of her life ! 
 
 The day of vengeance may come, and the great American nuisance be 
 abated ! 
 
 In conclusion of this systematic citation of the fathers, as there is 
 no other record than that so copiously quoted from, of any political 
 action towards constituting the Union or Constitution—and absolutely 
 none of any nation so acting, we must come to this plain common-sense 
 conclusion, viz. : That the States constituted a compact , which they ccdled 
 a constitution , and which in common parlance has ahvays been ccdled a 
 FEDERAL constitution —from fcedus, a league, and constituo , to consti¬ 
 tute—the whole meaning a league constituted, or a constituted league_ 
 
 just exactly what sovereign states coidd and, would make : and it will be seen 
 presently that the Constitution itself entirely supports this conclusion. 
 
 I will conclude this branch of the subject by gratefully accepting 
 another Massachusetts admission—a most excellent definition—that of 
 the great Webster himself, unintentional though it may have been. 
 Keeping in mind that Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and others 
 styled the great political arrangement they were making a “ Confederacy 
 44 of States,” and a 44 Union of States,” in totidem verbis —to say nothing 
 of the vast mass of other proof quoted, mark the following from 
 Webster’s celebrated speech of 1833 : 44 Where sovereign communities 
 44 are parties, there is no essential difference between a compact, a con- 
 44 federation, and a league. They all equally rest on the plighted faith 
 44 of the sovereign party. A league or confederacy is but a subsisting 
 44 or continuing treaty.” 
 
 Here we have the right of secession conclusively proved by Washing¬ 
 ton, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and—Webster! 44 Nihil magis consen- 
 44 taneum est quam ut iisdem modis res dissolvatur quibus cons tit uiturT 
 (Law Maxim.) 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. 
 
 The testimony of the Constitution itself must be of the utmost im¬ 
 portance as evidence in such a case. And it conclusively shows that it 
 is a compact of STATES —being exactly consistent with the above 
 testimony. 2nd. That the States voluntarily act under it, as the sources 
 and controllers of all power. 3rd. I hat the ledeial functional ies aie 
 all agents of the political communities called States, and not of a mighty 
 mass of people—a nation . 4th. That these functionaries enter, and 
 exercise jurisdiction in, States—coercing citizens thereof, if necessary, 
 solely by virtue of the power the States 44 delegated ” in the Constitu¬ 
 tion 5th. That the instrument was, as Mr. Webster admits, Hike a 
 - deed drawn but not executed,” till the States sovereignly and severally , 
 sanctioned it, and gave it the force of a 44 deed executed. All these 
 things the Constitution itself shows, as do all the history, and all the 
 
 records of the States, and of the federation. . . . 
 
 When the States, one by one, as shown, ratified, oi, as it weie, signed 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 43 
 
 and affixed their respective seals to the “deed,” they were under a 
 description— of each by all— which all were bound by, and could not go 
 behind. The"then existing “ federal constitution ”—the articles of con¬ 
 federation-declared that “Each State ” is “ sovereign, free, and inde - 
 “pendent” and retains “ every power , jurisdiction, and right, not 
 “ expressly delegated to the United States/’ 4 here is no rubbing out 
 or going behind that description. What the States might have been 
 before it, is immaterial. Such were the parties that “ united themselves 
 
 in the Union, and “ delegated ” powers. 
 
 Before beginning to quote, it may be elucidating to notice a remark 
 of Mr. Lincoln, to show that the States had no “sovereignty said he, 
 “ the word , even, is not in the National Constitution. Ibis is a strong 
 reason why the thing is now in the States. Ihe essential character ot 
 the States, and in which they compacted, was settled as above, and they 
 were not making provisions for it, but for self-government and protec¬ 
 tion. They “ delegated” what was necessary to do so—“powers,” 
 “jurisdiction,” &c.—but not “ sovereignty,” as will be observed by noting 
 Art. I. § 8, and Art. X. of Amendments; also by noting that in the 
 above descriptive article of the first constitution, sovereignty is spoken 
 of as characteristic of the delegators, but power, jurisdiction, and rights , 
 are “delegated.” So in the present Constitution, “powers,” Sec. are 
 “delegated” by virtue of the “ sovereignty,” the possession of which 
 has been settled—is now taken for granted—and consequently is not 
 mentioned; just as an owner omits to declare that he is living, or to 
 assert his ownership in a power of attorney; or as the Powers of Europe 
 forbeai to mention their sovereignty in the treaties they make. 
 
 The present Federal Constitution begins: “We, the people of the 
 “ United States .... do ordain and establish this constitution,” &c. 
 This expression means : “ the people of the States hereby united ,” because 
 the last Article declares, that when “the Conventions of nine States” 
 ratify the Constitution, it is to be established “ between the STATES 
 so ratifying .” 
 
 Legislative Department, Art. I. :—“Representatives and direct 
 “ taxes shall be apportioned among the several STATES which may 
 “ be included within this UNION” according to numbers. Till an enu¬ 
 meration, New Hampshire chooses 3, Massachusetts 8, New York 6, 
 Virginia 10, &c. The members of the lower house of Congress are to 
 be chosen for two years “by the people of the several STATES ” who 
 are qualified to vote for State legislators. The Senate or upper house 
 
 is “two Senators from each STATE , chosen bn the legislature thereof 
 “ for six years.” 
 
 Tne congress, thus composed, is empowered to levy taxes ; regulate 
 commerce; coin money ; establish a postal system; declare war pro¬ 
 vide an army and navy, &c. &c., and to pass such laws as maybe 
 
 Congress ; keep troops or war-ships in time of peace ; or en<Gi<»v m war 
 unless actually invaded, &c. ° ° " ai ’ 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 So far we see the ideas of distinct and sovereign States ; of a volun¬ 
 tary compact by these States ; of States performing voluntary func¬ 
 tions in the Union ; and, finally, of States electing —by their voters_ 
 
 all the Members of Congress; this body having all the legislative 
 power! 
 
 Executive Department, Art. IT.: The President is to be elected 
 thus :— 6m Each ST A TE shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature 
 “ thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of 
 “ senators and representatives to which the STATE may he entitled in 
 “ the Congress .” These electors meet in the State, and cast the vote of 
 the State, and transmit it, sealed, to Congress, where, in due time, it 
 is opened and counted with the others. 
 
 Here again we see no idea but of federation of States. 
 
 Judicial Department, Art. III., with Art. XI. of Amendments, pro¬ 
 vide that “ the judicial power shall extend .... to controversies be- 
 “ tween two or more States ; between a State and citizens of another 
 “ STATE ; between citizens of different STATES ; between citizens 
 “ of the same STATE, claiming lands under grants of different States ; 
 “ and between a State and citize?is thereof and foreign states, citizens 
 “ and subjects;” but that (so provides the amendment) this power shall 
 not extend to any suit “against owe of the United STATES, by citizens 
 “ of another State,” or by foreign citizens or subjects. The judges of 
 the federal Judiciary are to be appointed by the President and Senate, 
 and to hold their offices during good behaviour. 
 
 Here again we find no other ideas than those of federation of States. 
 General Provisions, Art. IV.: “ Full faith and credit shall be given 
 in each State, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of 
 every other State .... The citizens of each STA TE shall be 
 “ entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 « STATE ST It provides also for the extradition of criminals and 
 fugitives from labour among the States. “ New STATES may be 
 “ admitted by Congress inA this UNION ; but no new State shall be 
 « formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State,” &c. 
 “ The United States shall guarantee to every ST A TE in this UNION 
 “ a republican form of government, and shall piotect each of II1EJSI 
 
 “ against invasion,” &c. # 
 
 Art. V. provides for amendments by the “ ratification of “ three- 
 
 “ fourths of the States.” TT . _ 
 
 Art. VI. provides that the debts and engagements of the United 
 
 States are as valid under this constitution as under the Confederation, 
 and that the Constitution, the laws made in pursuance of it, and the 
 treaties “ shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every 
 “ State shall be bound thereby,” &c. And all officers of both Federal 
 and State governments are to swear “to support this Constitution. . 
 
 We still see that States (and not a NA TJONof people) are consti¬ 
 tuents. It is their Constitution. It constitutes, a ‘ Union of 
 “ STATES” They declare it their “ Supreme law over their citi¬ 
 zens, and their officers (or agents of self-government), the latter bein » 
 required by them to take an oath to support it. ^o more palpable and 
 vile absurdity, however, could be uttered, than the assertion that it is 
 
 a 
 
 (( 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 
 
 tlie ii Supreme law ” over the S r FA FES, whose voice it is, to be enforced 
 vi et arrnis on said States, by the very functionaries they elect and dele - 
 gate poAver to, and who are their 66 representatives, u substitutes, 
 
 “ agents,” or “ servants ! ” 
 
 Art. VII. is the key-stone of the arch, and conclusively shows that 
 the Constitution is nothing but a compact: “The ratifications of the 
 “ Conventions of nine STA TES shall be sufficient for the establish- 
 “ ment of this Constitution between the STA TES so ratifying the 
 
 “ same.” 
 
 If States are not contemplated and treated as parties and constituents 
 in e\ r ery word of this instrument, the English language has lost its 
 accepted meaning. This is really as much of a federation as the first, 
 for the people of a State give their assent to this, as to that, in their 
 character as a commonwealth or sovereign political body, and more un- 
 mistakeably, as here, it is the people themselves ; there, their agents— 
 the legislature : here the u sovereignty ” directly delegated power, there 
 the delegation was by delegates. In both cases the State reserved all 
 not delegated. If I were to instance a complete federation, I would 
 name this rather than that, for here the forms and solemnities Avere of 
 a higher character ; the authority was more direct and pronounced, from 
 the associating sovereignties ; the architects Avere abler and more delibe¬ 
 rate ; the structure was nearer perfection, more practical, and much 
 better adapted to the ends in vieAv—the “ common defence,” “ general 
 “ welfare,” and “ preservation of liberty,” of the self-joined States. 
 
 It is well to observe here, that the entire voting power of the country 
 is under the exclusive control of the States, no one ever voting unless 
 authorised in State constitutions. This the federal compact expressly 
 recognises, and all federal functionaries, as do those of the State, get 
 their only authority, directly or indirectly, from this voting poAver. 
 This is the very core of the American governmental polity. Nay it is 
 the whole body and soul of the political system. These voters are the 
 very mass, who, as a State, declare “ 4 All political poAver is inherent ’ 
 “ in us: we have the ‘incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right 
 “ 4 to institute, alter, or totally change government’ at will ; and all 
 “ functionaries are our ‘ substitutes and agents/ and are ‘ amenable’ to us.” 
 This is republicanism, or self-government; and it cannot be limited at 
 all, without pro tanto reducing the people to subjection, and, to that 
 extent, destroying republicanism. Nay, more, I believe sovereignty to 
 be by nature indivisible, and that republican sovereignty must ever, in 
 to to, dAvell in, and remain with, the people ; all imparted authority being 
 necessarily “ delegated ” and subordinate, and revocable at will. All 
 that Ave lead about delegated sovereignty,” “sovereign poAA r ers vested 
 in the government, surrendering essential parts of sovereignty,” or 
 “ dividing sovereignty between the federal and the state governments ” 
 is palpably absurd, and the offspring of confusion of thought. There 
 never was a sovereign power in a federal or a State government any 
 more than there is in the government functionaries or employes of 
 England, who (officially) live, move, and have their being from the 
 Queen and Parliament, the ever-existent sovereignty and° invariable 
 source of all political power; as are the organised people of the several 
 
46 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 associated STATES, of the region lying along the southern border of 
 I ritifch America ; and this for the simple reason that there can be no 
 original power in an agency or delegation , or in any “ substitute 99 
 u trustee ,” or 44 servantA 
 
 This complete sovereignty of States, and independence of right and 
 action, are easily proved by a sort of experimentum crucis. Trace to its 
 source any given power or any officer’s authority, and you will inevitably 
 come to the State—the organised mass of voters alluded to. Represen¬ 
 tatives are elected by the people of a State. Senators are elected by the 
 legislature thereof (these together are, in common and correct parlance, 
 called 44 the delegation of a ST A TE ; ” and the body in which they con¬ 
 vene is constitutionally the 44 CONGRESS of [the delegations of] the 
 “ United STATES ”); the President is chosen by electors which 
 “ each STATE shall appoint ,” who vote the voice of their STATE ; 
 and all Federal judges (and, directly or indirectly, all other Federal 
 officers) are appointed—to hold during good behaviour, by the State- 
 elected President and senate. 
 
 The State-origin of the official capacity and power of all the Federal 
 functionaries was recognised by all the fathers, and was specially 
 explained as above, by Alexander Hamilton in the New York conven¬ 
 tion ; by Chancellor Pendleton, the President of the convention of Vir¬ 
 ginia ; and by Ames and Stillman in that of Massachusetts. ALL 
 power and official authority , then , coming from the ST A TES, of course 
 they must be sovereign. 
 
 In conclusion of this section, I ask momentary attention to Dane, 
 Story, and Webster. They had before them all the records I have 
 quoted from: and conspicuous in the very constitution they were per¬ 
 verting, were the phrases I have underscored—phrases recognising and 
 providing for STATES and their rights, and regarding them as the 
 sources of all power, and the PARTIES to the instrument—phrases of 
 the utmost significance concerning ST A TE S electing their own con¬ 
 gressional delegations, and “each STATE appointing"’ its own electors 
 for President; concerning the admission of “ new STATE S” “ into 
 “ this union ; ” concerning the guarantee of republican government to 
 “ every STATE in this Union ; ” concerning suits 41 against one of the 
 44 United STA TES ; ” concerning the “ ratification ” of amendments 
 “ by three-fourths of the STATES', ” concerning the 44 establishment ” 
 of the constitution 44 between the STATES so ratifying the same 
 concerning the reservation of 44 all power not delegated to the 
 “ ST A TES respectively A All these phrases and others equally signi¬ 
 ficant were blazing in their eyes. Nay, more ; they knew that the 
 STATES began and matured the constitution in a 44 convention of 
 “ STATESf and that it was consummated by the independent ratifica¬ 
 tion of each in its established character guaranteed to each by all, in the 
 following words : 44 Each ST A TE retains its sovereignty, freedom, and 
 “ independence ; ” and yet they had the hardihood to declare. Iheic 
 44 is no lanauaqe in the whole constitution applicable to a confederation 
 - Of Staus ; . . . . in the constitution it is the people who speak, and 
 « 7l0 t the STATESA 44 The Union is an association [not of States, 
 44 but] of the people, and is a constitution of government, uniting their 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 47 
 
 a 
 
 power .... their interests . . . . ; and blending in one indivisible 
 “ mass all their hopes of the future; .... and therein they established 
 “ a distribution of powers, between this their general government, 
 << and their several State governments : .... the people have restrained 
 “ State sovereignty by the expression of their will in the constitution. 
 “ So far State sovereignty is effectually controlled.” Their dogmas are 
 thus expressed by Mr. Webster. According to another form, of ex¬ 
 pression, to be hereafter brought to notice, these pre-existing and 
 constituent States, though declared by all at the moment of making this 
 constitution, to be “ sovereign, free, and independent,” have “no 
 
 “status” except “in the Union”—“ no one of them ever having been 
 “ a State out of the Union;” and “ neither more nor less power than that 
 44 reserved to them by the constitution.” 
 
 These outrageous and palpable perversions, unrelieved by even one 
 true word, have wrought as much woe as did the third vial. The South 
 is soaked with the blood of her children ; the precious rights, of which a 
 State constitution was the regis, are under foreign feet; and the once 
 “ sunny South” is in midnight gloom—in thraldom—and without hope! 
 Like her chief (lit type), she is shut up and slandered by floods, while 
 she has no vehicle for antidote to the poison. Hence the world must, 
 in charity, suspend its judgment, and say to sanitary commissions, and 
 other writers, pronely printing their wishes as truths, and presenting 
 their photographic evidences that 44 do not lie,” and their New York 
 names to galvanize the corpse of Yankee credibility : 4i We have seen 
 44 your greatest statesmen and judges perverting the organic law they 
 “ were sworn to support, and professed commentators disguising consti- 
 44 tutions, so that these could travel incog, among their best friends ; 
 “ and we can accept no further reports, or 4 damnable iterations cer¬ 
 tainly none from less reputable sources, except to file as evidence, 
 subject to examination when we can hear both sides ; and we must 
 adopt this course for self-protection against agencies created and 
 44 employed to accomplish political ends, and not to seek and promulgate 
 44 truth—agencies that, with their principals, belong to a school whose 
 44 cardinal maxim is— 4 All's fair in politics,’ and whose avowed rules of 
 44 action are a 4 higher law ’ than the Constitution (or perhaps the 
 44 Decalogue)—a law probably best characterised as the 4 supreme law ’ 
 44 of selhimerest.” 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 IIOW THE STATES ESTIMATE THEMSELVES, AND ACT 
 
 IN THE UNION. 
 
 Not less decisive proof of absolute sovereignty in States is found in 
 their action in original self-organisation, in constituting their funda¬ 
 mental laws, and in their characterisation of themselves. 
 
 From 1778 to the time of its joining the present Union in 1787-90 
 each State, as has been shown, was declared by all the thirteen asso¬ 
 ciated States (and, of course, by itself) to “retain” within itself “ /A 
 sovereignty, freedom, and independence:' This was a solemn treaty 
 
48 DAY IS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 its 
 
 stipulation, and, as will be seen, each State so described itself in 
 own constitution. 
 
 And each original State, independently of all the world, and certainly 
 without any national authority, constituted itself, estaolishing by far 
 the largest portion of the governing power it chose to delegate, in its 
 own constitution, or law of organism. It subsequently delegated a com¬ 
 paratively small portion of its governing power, for general purposes, 
 by the Federal constitution, to the Federal government. And ever since 
 that, each State, when it pleased, has held a convention (the usual organ of 
 a State’s sovereign will, the organ by which it made alike its State and 
 its Federal delegations of power), and changed its constitution, modify¬ 
 ing its dispensations of authority, and even its very organism, at will; 
 and all this without ever asking permission of, or even notifying, that 
 sovereign nation which, according to Mr. Webster, 44 distributed their 
 44 powers between their general government and their several State 
 44 governmentswithout, indeed, even notifying that suppositious 
 nation’s supposed representative—the Federal government. 
 
 How is this ? Let Massachusetts answer, and, if needs must, let her 
 belie her own sons : “ The people of this commonwealth have the 
 44 SOLE and EXCLUSIVE right of governing themselves , as a free , 
 
 44 SOVEREIGN ; and independent State ; and/or ever hereafter shall 
 44 exercise and enjoy every power , jurisdiction, and right, which is not, 
 
 44 or may not hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United 
 44 States of America in Congress assembled. ..... The people alone 
 44 have an incontestable, unalienable , and indefeasible right to institute 
 44 government , and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when 
 44 their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness lequiie it. 
 
 Here we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth 
 44 The people” of the State, as a sovereign political body, 44 distributed 
 44 their powers between their general government and their State 
 44 government.” Thus Massachusetts lias always done, and her sove- 
 reign declarations of right stand in her constitution to this day, as her 
 self-spoken warrant for so doing, “ for ever hereafter. She has de¬ 
 legated ” powers—mark the words!—to two “ federal governments 
 successively, withdrawing the delegations from the first to vest them in 
 the second and she can do so whenever she chooses hereaftei . A 
 it is safe to say, that no argument of general good wiU ever induce her 
 to yield her option of withdrawing and renewing such aelegatio • 
 
 For the proof, that by virtue of the essential character above estab¬ 
 lish 0 and described by her and all the States, she “delegated powers, 
 
 In? imnarted sovereignty, see her constitution above quoted ; also the 
 not lmpaitect sovereignly, present “Federal 
 
 “ Federal constitution of 1778 , Art. 11 ., also rue piesei 
 
 “ constitution ” Art. VII., and amendments of sani(\ Art X., hotl 
 
 constitution, J „ of the «Federal Constitution of 
 
 1778° is virtually a declaration of the supreme power, or a treaty agree- 
 ment between thirteen sovereigns, t u ' = uch “ fl ! ect . « Each State 
 
 44 jurisdiction, and r ^ , \ RETAINS its sovereignty V 
 
 44 in Congress assembled. Lack staie * 
 
DAVIS AND LEE.* A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 but in the same clause “ DELE GA TES power, jurisdiction, kail 
 
 anything be clearer? Just so in the present “ federal Constitution 5 
 all “ POWERS not delegated ” are “ reserved to the States ,” &c. 
 
 Here is absolute proof that the States are supreme, and that the 
 “ Federal Constitution ” and governments are the mere breath of their 
 power. Would to God a State’s force were commensurate with its 
 right, for it seems to be as necessary among republicans as among 
 “ the minions of despotism.” 
 
 Not less decisive are the self-descriptions of the other States. New 
 Hampshire repeating the declarations of Massachusetts, in totidem 
 verbis ; Vermont declaring that her people “have the sole, inherent, 
 “ and exclusive right of governing ” themselves; Connecticut, that 
 “ all political power is inherent in the people;” Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
 New Jersey, Illinois, Maine, Indiana, Oregon, Iowa, &c. he .—old States 
 and new—all asserting the same thing; New York declaring her 
 exclusive rights of “ sovereignty ”—eo nomine —in the most sovereign 
 manner; and, in short, all the States claiming sovereignty in some 
 superlative and unqualified form of expression. They further respec¬ 
 tively declare, that “ all government is founded on their authority,” and 
 that they, “the people” of the said declaring States respectively, “ have 
 “ at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right”—mark the words ! 
 —“ to institute government, and to reform or totally change the same ” 
 at will. Is any better authority wanted for secession than the constitu¬ 
 tions of these secession-fighting States? 
 
 Now we can appreciate the following table, which shows the date of 
 the original Organic Law of each State, and of the successive abroga¬ 
 tions of old, and adoptions of new constitutions by each, in its own 
 convention, and in its own time and manner. And we must keep in mind 
 that a constitution is what the word imports—the making up of a 
 State—the Law of Organism of a State; and that it is a depository of 
 delegated power, or the establishment of an agency of self-government. 
 
 Name of State 
 
 New Hampshire 
 Massachusetts 
 Rhode Island 
 Connecticut 
 New York 
 New Jersey 
 Pennsylvania 
 Delaware. 
 Maryland 
 Virginia . 
 North Carolina 
 South Carolina 
 Georgia . 
 Vermont . 
 Kentucky 
 Tennessee 
 Ohio 
 
 Louisiana 
 Indiana . 
 Illinois 
 
 First Constitu¬ 
 tion or Organic 
 Law 
 
 Second 
 
 Constitution 
 
 Third 
 
 Constitution 
 
 _ 
 
 1784 
 
 1792 
 
 
 1780 
 
 
 
 1663 
 
 1842 
 
 
 1662 
 
 1688 
 
 1818 
 
 1777 
 
 1822 
 
 1846 
 
 1776 
 
 1844 
 
 
 1776 
 
 1790 
 
 1838 
 
 1776 
 
 1831 
 
 
 1650 
 
 1776 
 
 1851 
 
 1776 
 
 1830 
 
 1851 
 
 1663 
 
 1693 
 
 17 1 6 
 
 1775 
 
 1790 
 
 
 1777 
 
 1785 
 
 1798 
 
 1777 
 
 1793 
 
 
 1790 
 
 1799 
 
 
 1796 
 
 1835 
 
 
 1802 
 
 1851 
 
 
 1812 
 
 1845 
 
 1852 
 
 1816 
 
 1851 
 
 1818 
 
 1817 
 
 • 
 
 D 
 
50 DAVIS AND LEE: 
 
 A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 And it cannot be too often repeated that a constitution and its concomi¬ 
 tants must always be subordinate to the constitutors. In looking over 
 this table, the question will naturally strike every one : Did the nation 
 act on each of these occasions to “distribute tlieir powers to tlieir State 
 
 governments ? If so, when? where? how? and by what means? 
 How ivas the national will expressed? Where is the record to prove 
 such action ? Every alleged State Act , in this behalf, is proved by a 
 solemn and univocal record , which can be exhibited, but there is no sign 
 of any national one ! 
 
 Dacli colony was ab origine organised for government, under the 
 English Crown, and was entirely separate from all the rest. But 
 I only mention the organic laws necessary to illustrate—those that 
 relate to the present Union. As to North Carolina, Lord Clarendon 
 and others, in 1663, organised a government on a plan of John Locke, 
 which, creating disorder, was superseded in 1693. The present con¬ 
 stitution, adopted in 1776, has been somewhat amended since, though 
 with no abatement of State sovereignty. Connecticut and Rhode Island 
 had charters from the Crown dated 1662 and 1663. They became 
 “ sovereign and independent,” and passed without change into the Union 
 in 1788 and 1790, delegating just the “powers” the Federal Constitution 
 contains ; and in 1818 and in 1842 respectively they held conventions 
 and established constitutions, delegating therein the most of their 
 governing power in the same manner that they had delegated the few 
 but important powers of the Federal Constitution. No nation acted 
 directly or by proxy; none was notified ; and none ratified or approved 
 the work that was done. There was no political power above them. Said 
 Rhode Island: “This constitution shall be the supreme law of the 
 “ State.” What said Connecticut ? Thanking God for permitting them 
 “ to enjoy free government,” they “do, in order more effectually to de- 
 “ fine, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights, and privileges they 
 “ have derived from their ancestors, hereby establish the following con- 
 “ stitution.” “ Derived from their ancestors ”—not from the mythic 
 nation. Where were the great people sovereignly “ distributing their 
 “powers to their State governments?” Only growing like a fungus in 
 a compost-heap of avarice and lust of power! Nay, it is only a figment 
 or mask to conceal and aid fraud and usurpation. 
 
 No sign of any national action distributing power to States. No 
 national permission, approbation, or even cognizance of the acts of States 
 in making constitutions. IIow is this ? Simply because, when the 
 Federal Constitution was formed, the States were pre-existent sovereign¬ 
 ties, and all constitutions (including the Federal) are tlieir creations and 
 dispensations of power—governments their agencies — and functionaries 
 their “substitutes and agents.” This is American republicanism or 
 self-government. 
 
 This was the view of all the Fathers. Besides the great abundance of 
 decisive proof heretofore quoted, see the following upon the special 
 point of the ST A TE dividing and distributing ITS powers. . 
 
 Said Hamilton in the New York Convention : “ The question of the 
 “ division of powers between the general and State governments is a 
 “question of convenience. It involves inquiry into the proper objects 
 “ of the two governments. This is the criterion by which we [the 
 
a 
 
 u 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 51 
 “ Convention of New York] shall determine the just distribution of 
 
 J Said Chancellor Livingston in the same convention : “ It is of little 
 “moment to them [the people of the States] whether that portion of it 
 « ("their power] which they must, for their own happiness, lodge in then 
 « rulers, be invested in the State governments only, or shared between 
 “ them and the councils of the nation: .. . . . . probably their liberty 
 “ acquires additional security from the division. See also what Chan¬ 
 cellor Pendleton (the President) and Judge Marshall said in the Con¬ 
 vention of Virginia, heretofore quoted; and what Judge Parsons ami 
 others said in the Convention of Massachusetts ; indeed, many pages oi 
 such testimony (including that of Madison, Wilson, Pinckey, ct cils) 
 mmht be given, and there was no dissent anywhere to these views. I he 
 idea of all”was : We are adding to our State constitution or government . 
 r pp 0 lam T ua£re of Judge Iredell in the North Caiolina Convention, 
 This constitution, when adopted, will become a part of our State con¬ 
 stitution,” expressed the general notion: and no one dissented. 
 Another idea, no less general, was this : WE, ivho in convention repre¬ 
 sent the sovereignty, are giving or DELEGATING POWER to 
 “ SUBSTITUTES and AGENTS” of the people of the STATE 
 which WE, or a subsequent CONVENTION, can withdraw AT 
 WILL. Thus said Judge Marshall: “ Those who give, may take away; 
 “ . . . . ivhat shall restrain them ? They are the masters who gave it, 
 “and of whom the servants hold it.” Said Judge Iredell: “ Should 
 “ their [the people’s] liberties be in danger, .... they have, thank 
 “ God, an ultimate remedy. TEA T PO WEB WIIICE CREA TED 
 “ the government CAN DESTROY it.” Said Judge Parsons: “The 
 “ Federal Constitution establishes a government .... and, in this case, 
 “ the people divest themselves of nothing : the government and powers 
 “ which the Congress can administer are the mere result of a compact,” 
 &c. Said Chancellor Pendleton: “In the same plan we point out an 
 “easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. But, 
 “ say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the 
 “hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-in¬ 
 terest. What then? WE WILL ASSEMBLE IN CONVEN- 
 “ TION; WHOLLY RECALL OUR DELEGATED POWERS, 
 “ or reform them, so as to prevent abuse; and PUNISIl THOSE 
 “ SER VANTS who have perverted powers, designed for our happi- 
 “ ness, to their own emolument.” 
 
 Note that these men speak not of amendment , according to the terms 
 of the Federal Constitution, but of ABROGATION, or a WITH¬ 
 DRAWAL of power, by the State that gave it —for each one, as the 
 context shows, speaks of the former separately, and in contradistinction. 
 Other leading constitutionists spoke similarly : no one dissented ; hence 
 these must have been the views of all. And there is no doubt that all 
 the Fathers believed in the right of secession, so far as they considered 
 the subject at all. It is hardly necessary to repeat that the State con¬ 
 stitutions all assume—some of them most explicitly—the riMit of 
 secession. 
 
 It is undeniable, then, that the sovereignty which establishes funda- 
 
52 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 mental laws acts only as a ST A TE , and through a contention . Nobody 
 ever heard of a National Convention, acting as a political body, with 
 power in these matters. No record of such action exists. 
 
 Here we find the explanation of the striking fact, that few or no con¬ 
 flicts ever occurred between a State Constitution and the Federal one. 
 Both were to govern the same people^ but on different subjects ; and both 
 being made by the same body , and under the same authority , one was sup¬ 
 plementary to the other : both were the complement of delegated powers. 
 Speaking mathematically: suppose a State has S00 powers, of rather 
 subjects of power, distributed thus: those in the Federal Government— 
 say 25 + those in the State Government—say 125 + those reserved— 
 say 175 = 300. Those from 1 to 25 inclusive, having been disposed 
 of in the Federal Constitution, when a convention meets to form a State 
 Constitution, it has the residue of 275 to work upon, and these involving 
 almost every interest and relation of human beings in society, are 
 infinitely the most important. The whole were in the State originally. 
 The People were the State, and the State was the People. The 
 phrase “ the people,” then and there used, had a definite, fixed, and 
 technical meaning, which was—the people of the then existing and 
 acting States—each of which was most authoritatively characterised as 
 “ sovereign, free, and independent.” The solemn agreement: “Each 
 “ State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence ”—so often 
 quoted—proves it. That the only power in the Federal instrument is 
 “ delegated,” proves it. That the functionaries are all elected, and are 
 only “ representatives,” “ substitutes,” and “ agents,” proves it. That “all 
 “ powers, not delegated,” are “ reserved to the States and to the people ” 
 [of the States] proves it. These are incontestable proofs of State 
 sovereignty, and it is hardly credible that an honest man and a patriot 
 can deny it. 
 
 A convention of the State, then, represents the sovereignty. No 
 higher power than this is possible. It can but have a peifect light to 
 withdraw all delegations of authority, whether from the State government, 
 or the federation. If the State, by convention, cannot do this, there 
 is no supreme power ! for the “ delegated ” power, vested in the federation, 
 cannot be such. Before 1861, no State had done so, simply because the 
 political arrangement, called the Union, was a valuable one ; was a 
 matter of compact among many parties; and occasion had not arisen foi 
 the people to take such action. In 1860, perversions, aggressions, 
 dangers, fears, aroused the people, and they acted. If they had no light, 
 « self-defence is” not “the first law of nature,” and there is nowhere 
 any rmht to judge in the last resort, when self-defence is to be exercised ; 
 and hence they present the only anomalies in the world of free 
 beings with no right to judge when self-preservation is necessary, and 
 to act accordingly! How is this ? Simply that despotism has established 
 itself by fraud and force over once free beings. It is mere good luc v 
 that Johnson is President. Butler, Brownlow, Beecher, or Mrs. Beecher 
 
 Stowe, may be his successor! . , 
 
 But a convention (i.e. a State) has no right to withdraw some 
 and leave the rest of the powers, or to obstruct the execution o 
 a part, or to annul a law while adhering to the Union ; loi 1 10 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 53 
 
 Constitution, being a compact, is not to be partly suspended, and 
 partly executed, by one of the parties. Here was the great mistake ot 
 South Carolina in 1832 in nullifying the Federal tariff laws: and it 
 raised a fatal prejudice against secession, or the ultimate peaceful ng it 
 of self-preservation, which of course includes discretion as to occasion, 
 time, and manner. South Carolina should have protested, and, if 
 unheeded, withdrawn. Her false position gave Webster his gieat 
 vantage ground, of which he availed himself with charactei istic Yan¬ 
 kee “ ’cuteness ”—yoking “ nullification ” and u secession together, and 
 driving both to ruin. 
 
 Said he: “ In the Constitution it is the people who speak, and not the 
 “ States .... it does not exact from States any plighted public faith 
 “ to maintain it .... it makes its own preservation depend on indivi- 
 “ dual duty and obligation.” lie then proceeds to say that State legis¬ 
 lators, judges, and executive officers, like Federal functionaries, are bound 
 by oatii to support the Constitution (Art. VI. § 3), and hence are com¬ 
 pelled to elect senators, and provide for the election of representatives 
 and President. The functions of States in the Union, he argues, are 
 not voluntary; they have no discretion ; “ the people ” have bound 
 them inseparably to the Constitution, and under the controlling power ot 
 the Federal Government. Their sovereign will, and right of self-preser¬ 
 vation, are alienated and gone for ever. Hence (having made his pre¬ 
 mises, his conclusion is easy) both “ nullification ” and “ secession ” are 
 unconstitutional and inadmissible. But Mr. Webster finds it convenient 
 to ignore the most important fact: that members of a State Convention 
 are not mentioned, and are not under the obligation of taking such oath 
 (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). Why are not conventionists 
 required to take the oath ? Because immediately representing the 
 sovereignty— they MADE said Constitution (including this clause), and 
 are of necessity above it. States did not intend to subordinate them - 
 selves. They did not place themselves under the jurisdiction of the 
 Federal Government, as every line of the record shows ! Not only so, but 
 they provided against even judicial Federal control; and moreover, they 
 spurned the idea of Federal coercion of States from their “ Convention of 
 “ States,” while, at the same time, they gave to the governmental agency, 
 or commission for Federal affairs, just such relations to , and control over 
 their citizens as their State governments had—and nobody claims that 
 these have sovereignty over the States ! 
 
 When then the organised people—the State—call a convention, it is 
 the sovereignty that acts : it is uncontrollable—above all constitutions, 
 and in no degree bound by them, for it is the power that alike constitutes 
 and dissolves, makes and unmakes them. Massachusetts conclusively 
 proves this in her Constitution, as heretofore quoted : “ The people of 
 
 incontestable, unalienable 
 . . . totally change the 
 “ same when their safety and happiness require it. ,, This Constitution, 
 which is full of unqualified State sovereignty, is said to have been 
 written by John Adams, grandfather to the present Minister, who seems 
 
 to have retained little or none of the faith of his grandfather or father 
 ll lie ever had it. 
 
 this Commonwealth .... have an 
 “ right to institute government, and to 
 
04 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTIIEEN RIGHTS. 
 
 Now we can see quite plainly the distinction between nullification 
 and secession. 
 
 Nullification remains in the Union, enjoying its benefits, but only 
 obeying such part of its laws as it pleases; and sworn functionaries 
 necessarily violate their oaths. 
 
 Secession withdraws from the Union, revoking all powers “ delegated ” 
 thereto ; and State officials are relieved of all Federal obligations by the 
 supreme power that imposed them. 
 
 I think now that it is conclusively proved by the self-characterisation, 
 and the action of the States in the Union, that each original one bein«* 
 thoroughly organised and sovereign, did by virtue of its sovereignty, 
 federate , “ delegating ” a part of its governing power TO THE 
 AGENCY constituted in the act of federation. And it passed into the 
 Union, with no change whatever of its essential attributes and charac¬ 
 teristics. It was precisely the same State as before, absolutely sovereign 
 and independent, in full possession of its integrity, of every faculty, and 
 of uncontrolled will. And ever since its sovereignty came by revolu¬ 
 tion, as w r ell before as since the Federal Constitution was formed, it has 
 at discretion delegated a supplement of governing authority TO AN 
 AGENCY for home affairs by a State Constitution. 
 
 This is the American governmental polity. Whatever nation there 
 ivas , consisted of a UNION OF STATES , as the Constitution re- 
 peatedhf proves (see first, paragraph hereof), a CONFEDERACY OF 
 REPUBLICS , a FEDERATION OF SELF-GOVERNING 
 SOVEREIGNTIES , q.e.d. The new States do not differ from the 
 old, because they have been admitted into the Union, on an equal 
 footing, in every respect, with the original States. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 From the foregoing testimony, as to the formation of the Federal 
 Constitution, of statesmen and States—of the instrument itself—and of 
 the States as members of the Union, we derive the following necessary 
 
 conclusions :— . 
 
 1. That at the very moment of forming the Federal Constitution ot 
 
 government, each State did, in its own right, possess SOVEREIGNTY, 
 
 “ freedom , and independence .” # . 
 
 2. That this sovereignty must be presumed to remain intact, as there 
 is nothing in said Constitution impairing it ex vi termini, but much that 
 
 recognises it. 
 
 3 . - That a State means the people of it, as a body politic. Sovereignty 
 in the United States dwells and acts only in this organised form, and 
 never leaves it, but works its will by agents, with “ delegated powers 
 
 4. That thirteen sovereign wills concurred to constitute the Federal 
 
 Constitution of Government; each assenting to it of its own will, and in 
 its own time. This Constitution has no elements but those of a compact, 
 league, or federation, it being a concurrence oj independent wills Jor 
 
 certain j)urposes. 
 
DAYIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 55 
 
 5. That the only power in the Federal Government “ is delegated” 
 as is declared both in the Federal Constitution and by the States; and 
 that delegated power cannot be that of a principal or sovereign, as every 
 dictionary as well as common sense shows. 
 
 6. That the Federal functionaries are, as the States and statesmen 
 have always called them, “ servants,” “ substitutes,” “ agents,” 
 “ trustees,” “ representatives,” “ delegates,” &c., and hence coidd not be, 
 and act , as from original power. They are the people's agents of self- 
 government, in Federal matters, as the State functionaries are for State 
 affairs. The power of both governments is that of the people of a State, 
 and is dispensed through a convention . 
 
 7. That as the Federal Constitution declares itself to be “ established 
 “ between the States ratifying the same,” and shows that all its powers 
 are delegated by the States, that all not delegated are reserved by the 
 States, that the President, senators, representatives, and other function¬ 
 aries be chosen by and with the power of the States ; and as all the 
 power of the compact "was imparted by the States, in ratifying it, as 
 has been seen, for their “COMMON DEFENCE and general welfare 
 the oath “ to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United 
 “ States,” taken by the President and other functionaries, is nothing more 
 nor less than an oath to exercise no powers except those enumerated ; 
 not to usurp any of those reserved by the States , and “ to preserve , pro- 
 “ tect, and defend ” all constitutions —Federal and State— and all rights ; 
 all being strictly within the intendment of the phrase—“ the Constitu- 
 “ tion of the United States.” 
 
 8. That the States—being sovereign and possessing all power—de¬ 
 clared, through their conventions and by their statesmen, when they 
 made the Federal Constitution, that no power existed in the Federal 
 agency, except what they expressly delegated; that attempts to extend 
 it would be usurpatory and void; and that the States could rightfully 
 prevent, and defend themselves against, such attempts or acts. See p. 
 59 et seq . 
 
 9. That the States being sovereign, had necessarily the right to secede 
 at will, that is, to cease their voluntary functions, and withdraw their 
 delegated powers—as all sovereigns must have the unquestionable right 
 to do. “ Sovereignty is supreme, uncontrollable power. It is a tech¬ 
 nical term of fixed and superlative meaning, and was always used by 
 the Fathers, where quoted, without qualification. States must have the 
 i ight to secede, unless it can be shown that a power is lodged some¬ 
 where to control sovereignty! 
 
 10 . That there is no sovereignty in the Federal Government—which 
 
 only has a derivative, vicarious authority—and no rightful power to 
 coerce States ; the only coercive authority in the Federal Constitution 
 being that over individual citizens, by legal means, such as the State 
 functionaries me—the Federal officers entering and exercisinq authoritv 
 in a State SOLELY by virtue of the State's authority, evidenced by 
 Its ratification of the Federal compact. J 
 
 ! '• if > cl1 coercive power over States exists, it is not, and can- 
 
 X /,, e c/ 1 5 lt A 1 /v; any ? eS , ree ’ butmust S' 0 to the extent of destroying 
 the last State, killing the last citizen, and confiscating the last dollar of 
 
Ob DAY IS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 property , unless free will be previously crushed. This proposition has 
 been proved by recent events. 
 
 12 . That this horrible power was carefully excluded from the Consti¬ 
 tution as inconsistent with the plan of Union—being characterised by 
 the Fathers as preposterous and absurd, as “visionary and fallacious,” as 
 “ the maddest project ever devised,” and as “ war 1 ” 
 
 13. That hence, no matter who made the Constitution, those who, 
 entrusted with power under it, and sworn “ to preserve, protect, and 
 “ defend ” it, have waged war against the States, are perfidious and 
 perjured usurpers, and, moreover, are largely responsible for the manifold 
 crimes involved in unjustifiable war! 
 
 14. That the act of secession, and the war against the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment, were acts of States, who constrained citizens thereto, and hence 
 that Davis, Lee, ei cds , had not the volition and intent, which must ac¬ 
 company an act, to constitute a crime. 
 
 15. That the original allegiance of citizens to States, remained un¬ 
 changed, and was recognised by the Federal Constitution ; that as States 
 were the sole constituents of the Federal Government, there was no juris¬ 
 diction of the latter over citizens, or tie between them, except what the 
 State authorised by the act of ratification, which was the only warrant 
 for Federal functionaries entering a State and coercing its citizens ; and 
 that, hence, Davis, Lee, et als, were right in clinging to their mother 
 States, to the repository of all their most cherished blessings, to the only 
 political organisation they were ever members or citizens of, to ORI¬ 
 GINAL SOVEREIGN POWER ; and spurning the servants and 
 agents that were perfidiously claiming to he masters ! and that their 
 acts in this behalf were constitutional, legal, justifiable, and not rebel¬ 
 lion AND TREASON. 
 
 16. That, finally, the Union is the offspring of the amity and mutual 
 interest of equal States, and is a voluntary political arrangement, which 
 can and ought to be preserved only on the original motives; and that 
 American ConstitutionalLiberty canonly be perpetuated by the S TA TES 
 REMAINING , as they were originally, above the fundamental 
 laws they make, while citizens remain subject to them ; and by the 
 Federal Government being brought bach to ACTING AS FROM 
 DELEGATED AND VICARIOUS , INSTEAD OF ORIGINAL 
 
 POWER. . c i f 
 
 In further progress, I shall cumulate evidence on some of the above 
 
 points, which are here stated, somewhat anticipatorily, in order to have 
 all in one view ; but which have not yet been fully disposed of by cita¬ 
 tion of proof and argument. 
 
 SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES—LIGHT OF SECESSION- 
 NO FEDERAL COERCION OF STATES. 
 
 I shall now show that the right of self-defence in States, including 
 secession, was contemplated by the Fathers ; and that they actua ly de¬ 
 nounced the idea of Federal coercive power over States, and purposely 
 hept it out of the Constitution. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 57 
 
 The States possess sovereignty, that is, untrammelled will over their 
 interest and destiny ; and the Union is not a liundred-armed Briareus, 
 irresistibly grasping and holding the States together, for if it were, the 
 States would not be free. Where the hand of power constrains a man or 
 a State to do dr not to do, to stay or not to stay, freedom pro tanto is gone. 
 
 And it will now be more conclusively shown that those who have re¬ 
 strained the freedom of States have sinned against light and knowledge— 
 for the whole record of the country was blazing with proof and reproof; 
 and hence the Massachusetts school have been actually compelled to 
 hide and misrepresent it, in order that the people might support them in 
 their rapacity and crime ! 
 
 The highest and most conspicuous authority—that which is most con¬ 
 clusive on the right to any mode of defence a State may choose, against 
 the aggressions or menaces of power, and against Federal coercion, is the 
 States themselves. Not only did they solemnly compact, and pledge 
 faith and guarantee with one another, that each State was “ sovereign, 
 “ free, and independent,” at the very moment they, as thus characterised, 
 made the Federal Constitution; but before that, then, and ever since, the 
 said States have in their respective constitutions most solemnly declared 
 that “ all political power is inherent ” in them. Not a part, and not in 
 any qualified manner, but all, absolutely all! (see all the State constitu¬ 
 tions.) 
 
 Surely, surely, if “ all political power ” is inherent in these com¬ 
 munities, they could take the political step of seceding or withdrawing 
 their delegations of power from the Federal Government, and there 
 could be no political authority out of them, to coerce them against their 
 will, especially as they have made no expression to that effect. It is 
 quite obvious, that if there was any political power out of them that 
 they could not recall at will, they were not sovereigns. 
 
 We will now see the understanding of the Fathers on the right of 
 secession and Federal coercion ; and it will be perceived that the~point 
 on which the States were most sensitive and careful, was the power of 
 defence against Federal authority. This was quite natural, for self- 
 
 defence— u the first law of nature” for States, as well as persons_was 
 
 not to be alienated by wise and prudent men. 
 
 When the Federal convention, desiring to make a sufficiently stron 
 and a self-sustaining government, was considering the kind of coercic 
 
 o’ 
 
 cion 
 
 n . - , — precisely the mode and 
 
 ineans of exercising and enforcing jurisdiction on the individual citizens 
 
 o states, that was. already, and was to be, exercised by the State 
 governments—that is, courts, sheriffs, and, if necessary, the posse Corni¬ 
 shes, &c. it being considered by all, that the Federal, like the State 
 
 Wa / S n , part , of , the I )eo P le ’ s agency of self-government. 
 
 JUr. Madison (whom I have quoted supra, as saying, with the con¬ 
 currence of everybody of note, that the Constitution was made by “ the 
 people as composing THIRTEEN SOVEREIGNTIES” mil 
 tta « ft. **.«, „ :f *,1 », distinct and i»d« P e„,T«„, 
 
 .... by the Constitution proposed ’), declared, in reference to tlie 
 
58 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 proposed coercion : “ An attempt to coerce States would be a dissolution 
 “ ot all previous compacts. A union of States, containing such an 
 “ ingredient, seems to provide for its own destruction Again : 44 Any 
 
 government formed on the supposed practicability of using force against 
 “ the constitutional proceedings of States, would prove visionary and 
 44 FALLACIOUS.” 
 
 Hamilton, the advocate par excellence of a strong government, re¬ 
 peatedly expressed himself against such an idea. Said he: “ To coerce 
 
 44 States is one of the maddest projects ever devised.Here is a 
 
 44 nation at war against itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed 
 44 towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means 
 44 of supporting itself—a government that can exist only by the sword ? 
 44 This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peace- 
 
 44 able citizen against such a government.What, Sir, is the cure 
 
 44 for this great evil ? Nothing, but to enable the national laics to 
 44 operate on individuals in the same manner as those of States do .” 
 
 Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia, and Attorney-General of 
 the Administration of Washington, uttered the following, in the Vir¬ 
 ginia Convention: 44 But although coercion is an indispensable in- 
 
 44 gredient, it ought not to be directed against a State as a State, it 
 44 being impossible to attempt it, except by blockading the trade of the 
 44 delinquent, or carrying war into its bowels .... and [this] might 
 44 drive the proscribed State into the desperate resolve of inviting 
 
 44 foreign alliances.But how shall we speak of the intrusion of 
 
 44 troops ? Shall we arm citizens against citizens, and habituate them 
 44 to shed kindred blood ? Shall we risk the inflicting of wounds which 
 
 44 will generate a rancour never to be subdued ? AVould there be no 
 44 room to fear that an army accustomed to fight for the establishment 
 44 of authority, would salute an emperor ot their own ? Let us not 
 44 bring these things into jeopardy. Let us rather substitute the same 
 44 process bp which individuals are compelled to contribute to the govern- 
 44 ment of their own States .” 
 
 Said Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice, appointed by Wash¬ 
 ington : 44 Small States must possess the power of self-defence, or be 
 44 ruined.” Speaking further of possible antagonisms between the 
 States and the Federal Government, and the power vested in the latter 
 to enforce its laws, he said : 44 This Constitution does not attempt to 
 44 coerce sovereign bodies, States in their political capacities. 
 
 44 coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. . . . 
 44 But legal coercion singles out the guilty individual and punishes him 
 
 44 for breaking the laws of the T nion. . ri 
 
 William R. Davie, one of the leading statesmen of North Carolina, 
 and a member of both Federal and State conventions, said, in the lattei : 
 44 I know of but two ways in which the laws can be executed by any 
 44 a-overnment. The first mode is coercion by military force and the 
 « second is coercion through the judiciary.” He concludes : ‘I suppose 
 « n o man will support” the former, and the power ot the lattei is co- 
 
 “ extensive with the legislative.” 
 
 Said Judge Spencer, in the same convention The ’ a ' 0 ° 
 
 “ "eneral government must operate on individuals .... as law s co 
 
 O — 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. o9 
 
 “ not be put in execution against States without the agency of the 
 “ sword, which, instead of answering the ends of government, would 
 
 Said Bufus King, in the Convention of Massachusetts: “ Laws to be 
 « effective must not be laid on STATES, but on individuals ”„ He 
 further said he knew of “ no method to compel delinquent States ” 
 Other authorities might be quoted, but there was no word of dissent 
 anywhere, and these may be taken as the views of all. There was to 
 be NO COERCION OF STATES AGAINST THEIR POLITICAL WILL—NO MATTER 
 WHAT THAT WILL MIGHT BE. 
 
 SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. 
 
 Not only was coercive power over themselves withheld by the States 
 from the Federal Constitution, but it was understood and expressed by 
 the fathers that the States had the inalienable right of self-defence 
 against the 'Federal, Government. 
 
 Said Johnson of Connecticut, in the Federal Convention : “ If States 
 “ as such are to exist,” they “ ought to have the means of defending 
 4< themselves.” 
 
 Said Judge Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice of the United States, 
 in the same Convention: u The poiver of self-defence is ESSENTIAL 
 “ to the small States. Nature has given it to the smallest insect of 
 u the creation.” As to the relative value to the citizen of the Federal 
 and State Governments, he said : “ It [the Federal Government] could 
 “ only embrace objects of a general nature. lie turned his eyes, there- 
 “ fore, for the preservation of his rights, to the State governments. 
 “ From these alone he could derive the greatest happiness he expects 
 “ in this life. This happiness depends on their existence as much as a 
 11 new-born infant on its mother for nourishment.” 
 
 Said John Marshall, afterwards the celebrated Chief Justice of the 
 United States, in the Virginia Convention: “ We are threatened with 
 “ the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding 
 “ the maxim that those who give may take away. It is the people 
 “ that give power, and can take it bach. Wtiat shall restrain them ? 
 “ They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it.” 
 “. . . The Government is not supported by force, but DEPENDING 
 
 “ ON OUR FREE-WILL. When experience shall show us any in- 
 “ convenience we can then correct it. 
 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton, the President, on the same occasion : 
 “ Where is the cause of alarm ? We, the people [of Virginia], possessing 
 “ all power, form a government which we think will secure happiness! 
 “ And suppose in adopting this plan we should be mistaken in the end. 
 “ .... In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of rc- 
 “ forming what may be found amiss. But, say gentlemen, we have put the 
 “ introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will 
 “ interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then ? *. 
 
 A\ e will assemble in Convention [of \ irginia, of course], wholly 
 “ recall OUR delegated powers, or reform them, so as to prevent 
 
60 
 
 DA1IS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 « S 1 UC ! 1 ab , u ® e> and punish those servants who have perverted powers 
 * or ? ur happiness to their own emolument.” 
 iese assertions of the right of secession met with no dissent. In 
 those days nobody denied the right. It was an essential attribute of 
 blate sovereignty, which could not be questioned. 
 
 James Iredell, afterwards of the Supreme Court of the Union, in the 
 Convention oi North Carolina, after saying that the Senate was required 
 „ t0 P reserve completely the sovereignty of the States,” said : “ Those 
 in power are their [the people’s] servants and agents, and the people, 
 without their consent, may new-model their government, when they 
 
 «. l . i K P ro P er .Let them [the people] be watchful over their 
 
 l ulers - • • • • Should their liberties be in danger .... they have, 
 thank Coil, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the 
 ‘ Government can destroy it. . . . If the Government want amend- 
 menis, they can he made in the mode prescribed in it.” 
 
 Here is the right of secession again—brought forward too as an 
 argument in favour of adoption. No one questioned it ! 
 
 Ivogei Sherman, one of the great statesmen of Connecticut, wrote to 
 John Adams, July 20, 1789, as follows : “ I fully agree with you, Sir, 
 “ tliat is optional with the people of a State, to establish any form 
 
 “ government they please—to vest the powers in one, a few, or manij _ 
 
 “ and for a limited or unlimited time; and the individuals of the 
 State will be bound to yield obedience to such government while 
 “ it continues ; but I am also of opinion that they may alter their 
 “frame of government when twxly please, any former act of theirs, how- 
 “ ever explicit , to the contrary notwithstanding” 
 
 Does this look like a State being tied helplessly under Federal 
 sovereignty ? 
 
 And even James 'ft ilson, the leading statesman of Pennsylvania— 
 afterwards one of the supreme Federal judges—advances the same idea, 
 as was unavoidable from the nature of things, though he did not pro¬ 
 bably do it ex professo . He asserted, “ that the absolute sovereignty never 
 “ goes from the people but “ remains in them after a constitution is 
 “made;” that making constitutions is “dispensing such portions of 
 “ power” as “ the public welfare ” requires ; that ratifying the Federal 
 Constitution was “ delegating Federal powers ;” and that the general 
 government is “a FEDERAL body of our own creation And, said 
 he: The Constitution “receives its political existence from their [the 
 “ people’s] authority; they ordain and establish. What is the necessary 
 “consequence? THOSE WHO ordain and establish, have THE 
 “ POWER, if they think proper, to REPEAL AND ANNUL.” 
 
 This of itself, taken in connection with the fact that Pennsylvania 
 was then “ SOVEREIGN and independent,’’ and as such was then in 
 convention determining her will for or against delegating or dispensing 
 portions of her power to a Federal Government, ought to convince any 
 one that the sovereignty of the States, and the necessary right of 
 secession, were in those days taken for granted. 
 
 However, it is clear that this great authority considered the Federal 
 Government as composed of substitutes and agents, having no sovereign 
 power and no right of coercion, for he was refuting the adverse ideas 
 
OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 61 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION 
 
 as false charges and groundless apprehensions ; and if lie and Ins c . 
 patriots had not done so, the Constitution would not have been adopt . 
 
 Judo-e Parsons, afterwards, as Judge Story calls lnm, _ the celebrated 
 “ Chief Justice of Massachusetts,” took the same view in the Conven- 
 lion of that State. Speaking of the Federal Government, lie sau : 
 « They are the servants of the people, vested with delegated power; 
 “ .... in this case the people divest themselves of nothing. Again, he 
 said : “ An increase of powers by usurpation is clearly a violation oft ic 
 “Federal Constitution;” and the oath to support the instrument 
 “ obliges the officers of the several States ” to oppose it. He also spoke ot 
 “ another check, founded on the nature of the Union, superior to all 
 
 “ the parchment checks that can be invented.H there should be 
 
 “a usurpation, it will be upon THIRTEEN LEGISLATIVES 
 “ completely organised, possessed of the confidence of the people , an( l^ 
 “ having the means, as well as inclination, successfully to oppose it.” 
 And he characterised this as an appeal to arms! 
 
 Said Fisher Ames, on the same occasion : “ The State governments 
 represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests of the people. 
 “ They will afford a shelter against the abuse of poiver ; and will be 
 “ THE NATURAL AVENGERS OF OUR VIOLATED 
 “ RIGHTSr 
 
 And the above views correspond with what Hamilton said in the 
 New York Convention. One of his leading aims was to preserve the 
 States, as political bodies, intact, and leave in them the right and means 
 of self defence. “ The Constitution,” said he in the New York Conven¬ 
 tion, “ ought not to be so formed as to prevent the States from providing 
 “ for their own existence , and I maintain that it is not so formed.” And 
 as he considered State integrity INTACT under the new Constitution , 
 his view of the right and power of these commonwealths to defend 
 themselves may be derived from the following remarks in the New 
 York Assembly, February 19, 1787, before the Federal Convention met: 
 “ Each State fossesses in itself full powers of government, 
 “ and can at once, in a regular and constitutional way, take measures 
 “ for the preservation of its rights.” 
 
 Here is the whole case of the South proved by these great Fathers. 
 The States were perfect organised political entities under the first 
 Federal Constitution. Mr. Hamilton says: “Each State possesses in 
 “ itself full powers of government,” which is precisely equivalent to the 
 declaration of the States themselves, that “ each retains its sovereignty 
 “ and independence.” Each delegated some powers in the first Federal 
 Constitution: it delegated more in the second—the present one. In 
 either there were none but delegated powers, as the instruments them¬ 
 selves, as well as the States, explicitly declare. Note, that the 
 States delegated “ powers,” “ jurisdictions “ rights ”—NOT SOVE¬ 
 REIGNTY ,; EXISTENCE, or the PREROGATIVE OF SELF- 
 DEFENCE— THE GREA TEST OF ALL NA TUR 11 
 RIGHTS—UNALIENABLE and ILLIMITABLE. 
 
 Nay, more; these great men all recognise not only the right, but the 
 duty of the State , when it deems its existence , its sovereignty, or the 
 essential rights of itself or its people endangered by the acts or menaces 
 
62 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 of the Federal Government , to oppose them , and if said Government 
 persist , to do it by arms l Why? Because THE STATE IS THE 
 PEOPLE , and fAe only people in the land , organised into a political 
 commonwealth or corporation ; and & A as all original jurisdiction over 
 every possible matter of life , liberty , and property — « jurisdiction 
 coupled with the responsibility of protection and defence , and if the 
 Federal “ substitutes and agents” by virtue of the small modicum of 
 derivative power that has been given them, forget their derivative , 
 
 “ as from original power f transcending their bounds, and menacing 
 
 the liberties of the people , THE STATE MUST interpose its cegis , 
 and say: 44 I sent you forth as delegates, agents, and servants $ you shall 
 44 not come back as sovereigns, principals, and masters, and dominate in 
 44 matters you were not charged with, and spoliate and murder if re- 
 44 sisted P 
 
 Said John Dickinson, of Delaware, one of the ablest and most influen¬ 
 tial statesmen of the constitutional era, a member of the Federal Conven¬ 
 tion ; It will be the States' own fault if they permit the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment to 44 interfere in things of their respective jurisdictions. An 
 44 instance of such interference in regard to any single State will be a 
 44 dangerous precedent in regard to all, and therefore will be guarded 
 44 against by all: and the trustees and servants of the several States 
 44 will not dare , if they retain their senses, to violate the independent 
 44 SO VE REIGN TY of their respective States , that JUSTLY DAR- 
 44 LING OBJECT OF AMERICAN AFFECTIONS , to which 
 44 they are responsible.” He wrote this in a series of papers to the public 
 while the Constitution was under discussion, and it received the marked 
 approval of Washington in a letter dated April 27, 1788. 
 
 The views of these greatest of the Fathers were undisputed, and may 
 be taken as the universal understanding of that day. 
 
 They establish :— 
 
 1. That the Federal Government has no power to coerce States against 
 their political will, and that the coercion vi et armis of the last four 
 years was wrongful and perjured, q.e.d. 
 
 2. That States have the right and are in duty bound to resist usur¬ 
 pation, and defend themselves and their precious charge-^-the lives, 
 liberties, rights, and privileges, of the people, q.e.d. 
 
 3. That the States have the unqualified right of secession, they to bo 
 
 judges of occasion or cause, q.e.d . 
 
 PERVERSIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL. 
 
 Havino' shown what the Fathers did, in organising the Federal system, 
 by the light of what they said, I will proceed to expose the leading mis¬ 
 chievous perversions of the Massachusetts school, and the means they 
 used. By reason of former respect for the great men who wrought 
 these perversions, or put them in plausible and attractive shape, I will 
 forbear to characterise them as Yankee tricks, but call them Massachu¬ 
 setts 44 ’cutenesscs.” 
 
dayis and lee : a yindication of southern rights. 
 
 63 
 
 « "Cuteness ” No. 1. That of adopting the refuted allegations of the 
 original enemies of the Constitution, Henry, Mason, Martin, Lowndes, 
 Yates Lansing, and others, that the constitutiomsts declared and proved 
 baseless, and the States guarded against by amendment; as the real 
 meaning of the instrument, and ignoring or suppressing the refutations. 
 One of several specimens of this peculiar “ cuteness, ]s the following. 
 
 Judge Story, arguing to prove that the United States did not consist 
 of States, but of a great mass of people, an undivided nation, who, fiom 
 the plenitude of their political power, formed alike federal and State 
 constitutions—but fairly citing no leading authority, for none existed— 
 proceeds as follows, in vol. i. of his Commentaiies . . 
 
 a It is also historically known, that one of the objections taken by 
 « the opponents of the Constitution was, that it is not a confederation of 
 « States, but a government of individuals .” I his fact is mentioned as 
 a corroboration of his view. He then quotes as evidence the remarks 
 of Patrick Henry, as follows : 4 ‘ That this is a consolidated government 
 « is demonstrably clear. The language is, ‘ We the people,’ instead ot 
 “ 4 We the States.’ States are the characteristics and soul of a con- 
 44 federation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must 
 44 be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the 
 44 States.”^ But he forgets to add, that 44 it is also historically known ” 
 that these very charges came near defeating the Constitution , and would 
 have done so, but that Madison, Marshall, Pendleton, Randolph, and 
 others whom I have quoted supra , but whose defence he ignores, most 
 triumphantly refuted them . He also neglects to say, that it is his- 
 44 torically known ” that nothing can be more unstatesmanlike, un¬ 
 christian, and ungentleinanly, than to characterise a man, or an insti¬ 
 tution, by the slanders of its enemies, to the exclusion of the represen¬ 
 tations of its friends ! 
 
 44 ’Cuteness ” No. 2. Not less unworthy is the attempt to prove 
 their dogmas by a single phrase, separated from the context of the 
 Federal compact, and misconstrued. 
 
 To prove that the Federal Constitution is made by, and rests upon, the 
 aggregate people of the ^United States, who were, or who became 
 thereby, a consolidated nation, sovereign over States , the national 
 majority wielding the sovereignty, Nathan Dane writes as follows: 
 The instrument of union 44 is, as the people have named it truly, a Con- 
 44 stitution, and they properly said, 4 WE, THE PEOPLE of the United 
 44 States , do ordain and establish this Constitution,’ and not, We, the 
 44 people of each State.” 
 
 Judge Story quotes him approvingly, and then sets his own views forth 
 as follows (Commentaries, vol. i. § 352) : 44 There is nothing in the 
 
 44 Constitution intimating it to be a compact. . . . The language 
 
 44 is, 4 WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States , do ordain and 
 44 establish this Constitution for the United States of America/ 
 
 44 THE PEOPLE ordain and establish a Constitution , not a Con - 
 “federation.” 
 
 Looking forward to this exposure, I have hereinbefore quoted the 
 acts or ordinances of ratification of each and all the States; each 
 holding its independent convention in its own time, and acting as a 
 
DAYIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 SOVEREIGN political body —a unit, which at that moment was 
 thus described by the highest and most solemn compact, the Articles of 
 Confederation : 44 Each State retains its sovereignty - , freedom, andin- 
 
 “ dependence.” This must have been the character of each at the 
 moment of ratification. 
 
 Now, let me quote Article VII.—the most characterising one of the 
 whole Constitution—one about which there can be no mistake, and one 
 that Story and Webster seem disposed to ignore. 44 The ratification 
 
 of the Conventions of nine STATES shall be sufficient to establish 
 “ this Constitution between the STATES so ratifying the same.” 
 
 Not only nine, but thirteen ratifications were finally given; the first 
 in 1787, the last in 1790. 
 
 Why did not the sovereign 44 nation ” 44 ordain ” it over all? Why 
 did thirteen independent Conventions act, each in its own time ? Is there 
 nothing in the Constitution 44 intimating it to be a compact ? ” What 
 is an instrument involving the rights, and interests, and welfare of 
 THIR TEEN PAR TIES ivho have had it prepared , and who sanction 
 it consecutively , and each of his or ITS OWN FREE-WILL , by 
 signature, proxy, delegation, convention, commissioner, or ambassador? 
 
 44 'Cuteness ” No. 3. To complete the exposure of this 44 We-the- 
 people ” deception, I must bring to view another 44 ’cuteness.” To 
 consummate his purpose, the following was written by Judge Story 
 (Commentaries, vol. i.). 
 
 44 It was, nevertheless, in the solemn instruments of ratification by 
 44 the people of the several States, assented to as a Constitution. The 
 44 language of these instruments uniformly is, 4 We, &c. do assent to, 
 44 4 and ratify the said Constitution.’ ” 
 
 He further states that the language of the Conventions of Massachu¬ 
 setts and New Hampshire is peculiar, and professes to quote it as 
 follows : 44 The Convention, &c. acknowledging with grateful hearts the 
 44 goodness of the Supreme Euler, .... do assent to, and ratify 
 44 the said Constitution.” 
 
 I have seen the same quotation made by several writers of the 
 Massachusetts school—always in the same peculiar way, with the same 
 mysterious and suspicious 44 &c.”—the following being the most notable 
 within reach. An enterprising individual in England gets up a 44 Bacon’s 
 44 Guide to American Politics,” in which the same story is reiterated : “All 
 44 the ratifications commence with 4 We the delegates of 1 ill PEOPLE , 
 44 and all terminate by making the ratifications 4 in the name of oui 
 44 4 constituents TIIE PEOPLE: Thus, the States in their official 
 44 capacity, proposed the Constitution .... but it leccives its 
 44 SANCTION AND VALIDITY" FROM THE WHOLE 
 
 PEOPLE IN THEIR SOVE- 
 
 44 REIGN CAPACITY. 
 
 
 Now what does “ he.” mean in all these quotations ? or rather what 
 does it hide? Simply this : it conceals words which 
 the. assertions made, and conclusively prove that J HE ,/ 'J 7 
 SUCH, AND NOT THE PEOPLE, are (he parses to the I LDL- 
 PAL Constitution, and that this instrument is a C 0 Ml AC Tforming 
 a FEDERATION OF STATES. And the very fact of the in¬ 
 variable suppression shows that these writers thought so. Indeed they 
 could not have believed otherwise. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 65 
 
 Referring generally to the acts of ratification nil quoted nbo\ e foi 
 the suppressed words, I will here quote those ot Virginia and Massa¬ 
 chusetts, so as to place the garbled and the true expressions in 
 juxtaposition: 
 
 u We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected 
 
 “.and now met IN CONVENTION .... IN THE 
 
 « NAME AND BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA , 
 “ do , by these presents, assent to , and RA TIL V the constitution 
 “ recommended .... hereby announcing to all those whom it may 
 iC concern, that the said constitution is binding on said people. how, 
 how did the said constitution reach, and become “ binding ” on, said 
 people ? 
 
 But let us exhibit the suppressed words of the ratification of Judge 
 Story’s own State of Massachusetts : “ TI1E CONVENTION . . . 
 “ do in the name and in behalf of TILE PEOPLE OF TI1E 
 “ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, assent to and 
 i{ RATIFY the constitution for the United States of America.” Of 
 course correct quotation would have defeated the object! 
 
 The purpose of these garblings is obvious. Suppose these Massa¬ 
 chusetts men had written and printed the suppressed passages! 
 
 “ Cuteness ” No. 4. An American politician considers himself 
 quite fortunate if he can quote a forcible passage from the “ Federalist” 
 in support of his argument. In continuing his citations to prove his 
 theory, Judge Story adds : ‘‘It was truly remarked by the ‘Federalist,’ 
 “ [Article 39] that the Constitution was the result neither from the 
 “ decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a 
 “ majority of the States. It resulted from the unanimous assent of the 
 “ several States that are parties, differing no otherwise from their or- 
 “ dinary assent, than its being expressed, not by the legislative autho- 
 “ rity, but by that of tiie people themselves.” 
 
 He professes to give the substance, but abstracts what is merely 
 
 prefatory to the gist of the passage, and leaves off,\ so as to convey the 
 
 impression of a national constituency, the “ We-the-people ” idea. I 
 
 now quote what next follows, and which shows directly the reverse : 
 
 “ Were THE PEOPLE regarded in this transaction as forminq 
 a DATF AT A r rrr\ at _• _ c xi_v i i n N 
 
 A 
 
 J vyvuoutuiiun, to I'Unaiuci tu ua u O l J V II 11*1 Lrl\ U U X , 
 
 “ INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHERS , and only to bo bound by 
 “its own voluntary act. In this relation, TIIE NEJV CONSTI- 
 TUTION willy it established, be A FEDERALy and not (i national 
 Constitution." And the very next Article (40 of the “Federalist”) 
 declares that “ the States were regarded as distinct and independent 
 “ SOVEREIGNS .... by the CONSTITUTION proposed.” 
 
 A FEW CONCLUSIVE HISTORICAL FACTS. 
 
 . B . ut this is not, and never was, a case of doubt or ambiguity reemir- 
 ing hermeneutics. The facts are so plain and decisive against these 
 
 E 
 
 
®VVIS AND DDE l A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 advocates, that, as is evident, they have laboured to evade or suppress 
 thenn They knew that the phrase “ the people,” so far as political action of 
 the highest nature was concerned, must have meant THE PEOPLE 
 of the then-existent political organisations , and not an unformed mass, 
 01 nation, with unitied power, and modes of acting ; because the same 
 people they would fain consider as a nation, was just them, and had 
 always been, divided into thirteen most distinct political bodies , which 
 wei e acknowledged by (Treat Britain to be respectively sovereign, and 
 were, at the moment of final action on the Federal Constitution, de¬ 
 scribed as follows : “ Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and 
 u independence Hence, “ We, the people of the United States,” 
 meant, We, the people of the States that are united. 
 
 Now, we are prepared for the historical fact well known to, but not 
 mentioned by, Dane, Story, and Webster, that the preamble UNA NT 
 MOUSLY adopted by the Federal Convention for the proposed Con¬ 
 stitution, was as follows : “ We, the People of the States of New 
 “ Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
 <f New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 
 “ Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, DO ORDAIN ’ DECLARE', 
 
 AND ESTABLISH the following Constitution for t lie government 
 “ of ourselves and our posterity : Art. I. The style of the government 
 “ shall be 4 The United States of America/ ” &c. But the whole in¬ 
 strument, when agreed upon and adopted, article by article, was 
 placed in the hands of a committee of revision, who reported it back 
 considerably changed and improved in mere form. As to the preamble, 
 the generalisation “ We, the people of the United States ,” was sub¬ 
 stituted as an equivalent to the specification of the States. This was 
 proper ; for the reason, that the Constitution was to take effect when 
 ratified by nine States, and it might result that some would be named, 
 
 though not in the Union. 
 
 It should further be explained, that the phrase, “ We, the people,” 
 was used to contradistinguish this Constitution from the previous pact, 
 which had been ratified or acceded to by the State governments—the 
 mere creatures of the people ; whereas, in this case, it was intended to 
 connect the Federal Government directly with, and base it upon, the 
 very source of power—the sovereign ty itself making I HIR TEEN 
 SO VEREIGNTIES, as Madison and all the fathers understood, the 
 CONSTITUTORS of the new pact—the constituents or principals of the 
 new agency. The States being obliged to act as organisations, and 
 according to the law of their natures, they gave separate assents, and 
 hence the new was not less a compact than the old constitution, though 
 the powers vested by it in the government created were more extensive. 
 
 (See letter of Hamilton to Pickering, 1803.) 
 
 And the Convention accepted the Constitution, as revised, as their 
 work, and never reversed their solemn and unanimous approval of the 
 phrase, We, the people of the States. Messrs. Dane and Story must 
 have known this, when the former penned, and the latter quoted ap¬ 
 provingly, the following, in reference to the meaning of the preamble: 
 E They properly said, We, the people of the United States, do ordain 
 “ and establish, and not We, the people of each State. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 67 
 
 Furthermore, so determined is history to contradict these pciveiteis, 
 that she furnishes this most decisive fact. While all the projects of 
 a Constitution, at the beginning of the Convention, were strongly 
 national, and contained national expressions (though the States were 
 always contemplated as constituents), at the close of the Convention, 
 and in the Constitution agreed upon, such expressions had all dis¬ 
 appeared, so afraid of consolidation were the fathers, and so careful 
 were they to preserve the States intact, and make a Federal Govern¬ 
 ment. Witness the following extract from the Journal of the Federal 
 Convention :— 
 
 44 Wednesday, June 20, 1787.—Judge Ellsworth: I propose, and 
 “ therefore move, to expunge the word 4 national ’ in the first resolve, 
 44 and to place in the room of it, 4 Government of the United States,’ 
 44 which was agreed to nem. con.” 
 
 And it is an all-important corroborative fact, that the delegates to the 
 44 Convention of States” that framed the instrument were commissioned 
 by the States, 44 for the sole and express purpose of” making 44 such 
 44 alterations and provisions” as will 44 render the Federal Constitu- 
 44 tion adequate to the exigencies of government, and preservation of 
 44 THE UNION.” This is the language of Massachusetts. Virginia’s 
 instruction to her delegates was, to 44 devise and discuss all such altera- 
 44 tions and further provisions as may be necessary to render the 
 44 Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” 
 
 Now look at the preamble of the present 44 Federal Constitution” 
 —as it is universally called: 44 We, the people of the United ST A TES , 
 44 in order to for?n A MORE PERFECT UNION .... do ordain,” 
 &c. Here is the language of comparison. 41 More perfect Union ”— 
 than what ? The one under the previous 44 Federal Constitution.” 
 44 Union”—of what ? States, of course, as before. 
 
 Hence we find the fathers : 1. Commissioned to form a Federation. 
 2. Trying to do so. 3. Declaring on tiie face of their work that they 
 have done so. 
 
 And doubt or denial that they did so, seems folly or knavery, when 
 we look into the body of the instrument, and see the constant naming 
 and recognition of STATES—the repeated mentions of the STA TES 
 in the Union —The provisions for the protection of the States, and for 
 their political action—and, finally, 44 the establishment of the Constitution 
 44 between the STATES ratifying the same together with the total 
 absence oj any 4 * NA110NAL” expression , or provision for ‘ 4 NA- 
 44 TIONAL ” jyolitical action ! 
 
 And the conclusion is irresistible, that the fathers and the original 
 States intended to AVOID the very thing Dane , Story, and Webster 
 predicate of the Constitution — A CONSOLIDATED NATION or 
 A SOVEREIGN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ; and to MAKE 
 the very thing these men deny —A FEDERAL COMPACT or 
 UNION OF STATES'. * 
 
 Indeed, from the very nature of things, they could not have done 
 otherwise. There was no other way of binding the States too-ether than 
 by the separate assent of each. It would have been an “unqualified 
 mob-procedure, partaking of the nature of riot and rebellion, for the 
 
 E 2 
 
68 DAVIS and LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 people to have resolved themselves into, and acted as, a mass or nation, 
 despite their own Constitutions—the very laws of their political being ! 
 And there is no record, or other evidence, that they ever did enmass 
 themselves, no indication of such unity of feeling, movement, and final 
 action, as would be characteristic of a nation—the same, for instance, 
 with regard to a nation, as was exhibited in regard to a State. And, in 
 short, there is no evidence whatever , except of State action and State 
 authority , in the establishment of the American constitutional polity . 
 
 These conclusions, then, may be defiantly stated :— 
 
 1. The States held a “ Convention ” of States. 
 
 2. The States therein matured the Constitution. 
 
 3. They sent it to the Congress of States. 
 
 4. Said Congress submitted it to the States respectively. 
 
 5. Each State, of its own free will, ratified it. 
 
 6. Each State was “ SO VEREIGN^free, and independent 
 
 7. Hence what they made was a federation of States— a union of 
 States —united States. The Constitution declares itself to be a union 
 of States, and to be established between States. 
 
 8 . And hence, the idea that the created tiling, and the agents of it, 
 are sovereign over the States, in any particular or degree, is simply 
 absurd. 
 
 THE « SUPREME-LAW ” PERVERSION. 
 
 We can now appreciate the main ground upon which the Massachu¬ 
 setts school predicate, of the Federal Government, sovereign power, 
 and place it in supremacy above its makers. 
 
 « ’Cuteness ” No. 5. Says Mr. Webster, in his speeches of 1830 and 
 1833, in reference to the clause that “ This Constitution, and the laws 
 a made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made .... shall 
 
 “ be the supreme law of the land,” &c. “ The people of the United 
 
 a States have decla 7 'ed that this (Constitution shall be THE SO 
 “ PREME LAW OF THE LAND .The States are un¬ 
 
 questionably sovereign,” except so far as “ THE PEOPLE have 
 “ restrained State sovereignty by this supreme law. So far State 
 
 “ SOVEREIGNTY IS EFFECTUALLY CONTROLLED.” 
 
 The concession he makes about States being “ unquestionably sove- 
 « re i<rn ” except, &c. amounts to nothing, because, he say>, it light¬ 
 en fully belongs to Congress, and to the Courts of the United States, to 
 “ settle the construction of this supreme law in doubtful cases 1 his 
 claim fas Jefferson wrote) amounts to this, that “ the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers 
 “ delegated to itselfor, in other words, it is sovereign in some par¬ 
 ticulars and has the final right to decide what those particulars are. In 
 fact he’virtually asserts that it is an all-swallowing sovereignty, such 
 as it has recently proved itself to be. However, it is somewhat satis¬ 
 factory to said States to know that they are - unquestionably sove- 
 
DAYIS AND LEE : A YIN DICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 69 
 
 “ reign,” except when they are not, especially after the exception has 
 
 swallowed the general rule ! . c 
 
 As by proving that the whole Federal system is the creation ot the 
 
 States, I have shown who the makers of this “ supreme law ” are, I 
 need only observe that the lawgiver must be above the law, and that 
 the power of repeal is commensurate with that of enactment, so that 
 the sovereign that gives the law can never become subject to it. Mr. 
 Webster might as well have said : “ The Jaws made by the Queen and 
 “Parliament are ‘the supreme law of the land;’ and the said law- 
 « makers 4 are unquestionably sovereign/ except so far as controlled by 
 
 As 1 have expressed it before : 44 The States, being sovereign, 
 
 « declared this Constitution, &c. to be their paramount law over their 
 “ citizens and functionaries, though of course not over their own 
 44 Sovereignties.” The constitutors of the Constitution simply decree 
 that this particular organic law of theirs, and the laws and treaties 
 under it, shall be above any other law, organic or statutory, that may 
 conflict—all laws of every character being, as heretofore shown, the 
 expression of the same sovereign will—that of the State. 
 
 But what said Hamilton—meeting this very claim of Messrs. Webster 
 and Story— then , A CHARGE ', by enemies , of danger in the clause: 
 
 44 The word 4 Supreme’ imports no more than this, that the constitution 
 44 and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated 
 
 44 by any other law. But the laws of Congress are restricted to 
 
 44 a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no 
 44 longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the States [govern- 
 44 ments] have certain independent powers, in which their laws are 
 44 supreme.” Again, he said: 44 The laws of the United States are 
 44 supreme , as to all their proper Constitutional objects. The laws of the 
 44 States are supreme in the same wayC 
 
 Said Judge Iredell, in the North Carolina Convention, about said 
 44 Supreme law:” 44 What is the meaning of this? .... It is saying 
 44 no more than that, when we adopt the government, we will maintain 
 44 and obey it; in the same manner, as if the Constitution of the State 
 44 had said, that when a laic is passed , in conformity to it , ice must obey 
 44 that law. Would this be objected to ? Then when Congress passes a 
 44 law , consistent with the Constitution , it is to be binding on the people. 
 44 If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, 
 44 usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” 
 
 Said William It. Davie in the same Convention : 44 Every power 
 
 44 ceded by it must be executed.It is not the 4 Supreme law 9 in 
 
 44 the exercise of a power not granted.To vest the Federal 
 
 44 Government with power to legislate, and then deny supremacy in the 
 44 laws, is a solecism in terms.” 
 
 It is unnecessary to quote further. There was no dissent. These 
 were the opinions of all The truth is, the 44 Supreme law” phrase of 
 the Constitution was a mere emphasis of a fact or principle_the enun¬ 
 
 ciation of a truism. Any and every law is supreme, where there is no 
 conflicting law above it—the orders, for instance, of a parent to a child 
 or a master to a servant. Any rule within an authorized sphere, and on 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHEKN EIGHTS. 
 
 a rightful subject, is supreme, from the decree of an autocrat, down to 
 the ordinance of a town council, or the arrest by a policeman. 
 
 Just so far as the “delegated” federal powers went, they were 
 supreme—that is all! 
 
 . “ Sovereignty effectually controlled ” by a “ supreme law” of 
 
 its own making, indeed ! 
 
 Now see the egregious absurdity of Mr. Webster’s position. A 
 
 supieme law effectually controlling State Sovereignty” must have 
 some means of execution. But Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, Ells¬ 
 worth in fact all the fathers—say coercion of States is inadmissible 
 and they purposely and carefully exclude it from the “ supreme law,' 9 
 and declare that it does not exist there ! So where is the good of the 
 “ supreme law controlling State sovereignty ?” 
 
 Nay more, all the fathers agreed that the judicial was precisely co¬ 
 extensive with the legislative power, and that there was no judicial 
 power over the sovereignty of States . Said Judge Marshall, for 
 instance: “ I hope that no gentleman will think that a STATE will 
 
 “ be called at the bar of a Federal Court . It is not rational to 
 
 “ suppose that the SOVEREIGN POWER should be dragged before 
 “ a Court.” 
 
 So far “ State sovereignty effectually controlled,” indeed ! 
 
 And—to make the proof complete—it is historical that the Constitu¬ 
 tion was amended to prevent the possibility of judicial Federal control 
 and coercion of State sovereignty. —See Amendments, Article XI. 
 
 Undoubtedly the Federal Constitution, &c. is “ the supreme law of 
 “ the land.” In reference to what ? The subjects confided to it. In 
 reference to whom? The individual citizens of States, and all func¬ 
 tionaries, State and Federal. Is it to operate on States ? No. Not 
 only is there no provision for it , but it teas carefully guarded against , 
 and coercion of them ivas withheld ; and even judicial coercion was pre¬ 
 vented by amendment. 
 
 The Sovereign Judiciary.—“ ’Cuteness” No. 6. —Having established 
 his “ supreme law,” and stated the unlimited discretion of Congress 
 and the Federal Courts, Mr. Webster was too powerful a quoter not to 
 be able to compel the Constitution to support him. Hamilton had said, 
 
 “ The laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they 
 “ depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding 
 Parsons had said, “ An act of usurpation is not obligatory : it is not lawT 
 Madison, Marshall, Iredell, Livingston, Davie, Pinckney—in short all 
 the fathers held the same idea ; and that the judicial power was precisely 
 coextensive with the legislative ; but Mr. Webster, ignoring them all, 
 quotes the Constitution (Art.III. § 2) as saying: “Thejudicial power 
 “ shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of 
 “the United States, the treaties made,” &c. And hence—he might 
 have added—all that usurpers of power need do, is to, assume any 
 authority or jurisdiction they desire — thus making a “case (i.e. it any¬ 
 body dared to complain) to be referred to the Federal Courts for final 
 
 decision. 
 
 But I must he 
 original with M 
 
 3 just. This quotation, so peculiarly Yankee, was not 
 r. Webster. Rhode Island, replying to the Virginia 
 
DAYIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTIIEEN EIGHTS. 71 
 
 resolutions of 1798, which she could not meet by argument—based her 
 declaration of the unlimited and final jurisdiction of Federal Courts, on 
 said article, which she declared, was “in these words: 4 The judicial 
 44 4 power shall extend to all cases arising under the laws of the United 
 44 4 States.’ ” 
 
 Both quoters leave out the very essential words, 44 in laic and equity ” 
 after 44 cases,” which 44 circumstances alter cases” very materially, be¬ 
 cause: 1 These “cases” are confined to suits arising in the ordinary 
 administration of justice. 2. They are such as may occur between the 
 few parties specified in the Constitution. 3. No case involving political 
 questions, e. g. usurpation, boundaries of political jurisdiction, the 
 sovereignty and existence of a State, could be said to come within the 
 intendment of the phrase 44 law and equity,” or to 44 arise under the 
 constitution,” and it could never have been intended that such were to 
 be decided by the 44 agents” or 44 servants” whose power might be used 
 to annihilate their principals or masters. Such a construction would 
 make Seneca’s maxim truly applicable— Quot servi, tot hostes. 
 
 Questions must arise which cannot take the form of a suit so as to 
 give the Courts jurisdiction either ratione materice or ratione personce . 
 1 liese are to be settled by amicable arrangement or separation—or bv 
 the ultima ratio. If a party is to settle such, surely it must be the 
 sovereign or master, and not the agent or servant. Even Edward 
 
 oclamation against 
 iymg in 1830 : 44 If the 
 act be one of the few, which in its operation cannot be submitted to 
 44 the Supreme Court, and be one that will, in the opinion of the ST A TE , 
 “justify the risk of a withdraival from the Union , this last extreme 
 44 remedy may be resorted to.” 
 
 ii umoici, emu nui lug client ur servant. 
 Livingston, the very writer of President Jackson’s prod; 
 South Carolina nullification, recognized this, saying in 
 
 EFFECT OF THE PERVERSIONS ON MR. LINCOLN— 
 
 EXPOSURE OF ABSURDITIES. 
 
 After it became evident that Mr. Lincoln was to be, and act. as Pre¬ 
 sident, he had no time, even if competent, to investigate for himself, and 
 deduce correct conclusions ; and moreover the “ platform ” and the very 
 soul of his party, were the views in question. He took the dogmas and 
 arguments ol Story and Webster as he found them, and they, more than 
 he, are responsible for the bloody consequences ! But for them he would 
 probably never have permitted coercion of States ! 
 
 It will be seen that his notions of constitutional law and governmental 
 ethics, were exceedingly vague and crude. Suppose, said he-adoptin- 
 
 'fcolmrV'U a << he C ? u l d comprehend them—“ « STATE ’ and 
 a t O C/A 1\ are -equal in territory and inhabitants;' -in what 
 
 on principle, is a State better than a county ? Would an exchanae of 
 
 names be an exchange of rights?” Common sense, if present would 
 have answered : All the original States were declared by themselves t i 
 be separately “Sovereign, free, and independent ” at tfV ' 8 t0 
 
 “7 — *■» Federal Co,Min,lie,, 
 
 and every old and new, las now, as part of its oegini^ Lv, tUal 
 
72 DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 “ all politicalpower is inherent in its people,'* or equivalent words: a 
 County is a mere subdivision of such State, incorporated by it, with 
 municipal powers, and repealable at will. The State is the creator, and 
 
 the creature. Was ever anything so gross? He was the victim of 
 sophists ! 
 
 ( ‘Uucli, says he, “ is said about the ‘sovereignty’ of the States, but 
 “ the word even is not in the National Constitution : nor, as is believed, 
 “ \ n an y of the State Constitutions. ... No one of our States, except 
 <c Texas, ever was a sovereignty.” 
 
 dhe original thirteen States declared in their first Federal Constitu¬ 
 tion, which existed for ten years, and was superseded by the present one, 
 that “ each State retains its sovereignty , freedom, and independence.” 
 This was a part of the organic law of each, and was a solemn treaty sti¬ 
 pulation at the very time the present Constitution was made. New 
 T ork, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, in their Constitutions , de¬ 
 clared their “ sovereignty" eo nomine , as I have shown; and all the 
 States make equivalent declarations—some of them heretofore quoted— 
 including Mr. Lincoln’s own State of Illinois, which with all the other 
 North-western States were, according to express stipulation in the treaty 
 of cession by Virginia to the United States, to be admitted into the Union 
 with “the same rights of sovereignty , freedom, and independence, with 
 “ the other States,” and Illinois is now—though Mr. Lincoln does not 
 seem to have been aware of it—“ a sovereign , free, and independent 
 “ State,” with all political power, rights, and jurisdiction, except what of 
 these is expressly “ delegated ” to the United States—and so she sub- 
 tantially declares in her Constitution,*- 
 
 What a deplorable want of knowledge and research is here exhibited. 
 “As is believed!” A President ought to have known whether such 
 momentous assertions were true or not! 
 
 “ The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other 
 
 “ legal status .The Union is older than any of the States, and, 
 
 “ in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent co- 
 “ lonies made the Union, and, in turn, the Union threw olf their old 
 “ dependence for them, and made them States, such as they are.” “ Our 
 “ States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in 
 “ the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a 
 “ State out of the Union.”— President's Message , Extra Session , 1861. 
 
 These substantially were known to be the views of the fanatical mob 
 that called itself a party, and surged like the many-voiced ocean against 
 the barriers of the Constitution, long before the South moved ; and of 
 themselves, under the circumstances—which can only be appreciated by 
 Americans—they would have justified revolution instead, of secession. 
 No State in Europe would have been patient and forbearing one-tenth 
 of the time that the South waited, hoping against hope, and growing 
 relatively weaker every day, for this culmination of violated faith, out¬ 
 rage, and treason. I do not think it right to hold responsible Air. 
 Lincoln, or the unthinking herd of suffragists. I hey were an instru¬ 
 ment, played upon by cunning fingers, possibly yielding music to the 
 performers, but as distressful to every thinking and proper-minded 
 patriot, as would be the shrieks of demons! 
 
DAVIS AND LEE : 
 
 A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 73 
 
 A few words will suffice to dispose of Mr. Lincoln’s Con¬ 
 
 founding law and fact, lie commits the’.manifest absurdity oi. attnbi ^ » 
 
 corporate existence, and supreme pohtica po > ' w ;ii s coalesced 
 
 thirteen mrties agreed to cooperate. Llietr independent wills coatesceu. 
 
 TheD»i» ™ a.« offspring of those wills, and ton, the»..u«: of 
 
 thines must be subordinate to them, and terminable at then pleasure. 
 
 Not The Union, but the Articles of Federation, and the Government 
 
 provided for therein, possessed whatever power or jurisdiction was o 
 
 Re parties, and those Articles declared, not that the Union had 
 
 supreme, or, indeed, any power, but that “each State retains is 
 
 “ reignty, freedom, and independence, and every power not ex¬ 
 pressly delegated” to the Government. And this solemn tieaty 
 stipulation necessarily superseded any authority the Union had, if such 
 existed. This declaration remained the fundamental law horn 1778 to 
 the moment each State, in the character described, assented to the 
 
 present Union, between 1787 and 1790. # _ 
 
 In the paragraph following the one just quoted, Mr. Lincoln uses t le 
 word “ Union ” seven times in nine lines. Why the priests of Lnion- 
 olatry use the term so much, and so vaguely, is obvious. . It the Union 
 were located on, and identified with, Articles of federation, oi a Con¬ 
 stitution, even ninnies would limit their ideas of it, and its attributes, 
 by the limitations of the instrument—they would know that all the 
 powers were delegated, and could not be sovereign ; and that such 
 powers must be vested in a tangible Government and not in the mere 
 incorporeal fact of Union. But priests of idolatry would be foolish to 
 confine the attention of devotees to the statue of wood or stone, instead 
 of sending their imaginations, filled with fear and awe , in vain quest of 
 some huge phantom , while retaining their useful acuities for service! 
 
 The Union “created the States” said Mr. Lincoln. Washington, 
 Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, and all the fathers without exception— 
 the very builders who builded the temple—say THE STATES 
 created the Union ! 
 
 “ Our States ” only have “ the power reserved to them by the Con- 
 “ stitution.” On the contrary, all the fathers, all the States, and the 
 very Constitution itself, declare that that instrument contains no 
 power whatever, except what is expressly delegated by these very 
 States. 
 
 Would to God these perversions had been as harmless as they are 
 amusing ! They are only equalled by those of the philosophers who 
 contend that the sun diurnally circuits the earth ; or that of the boosy 
 wight, standing on the wrong side of the square, awaiting the arrival of 
 his house, so that he can step in ; or that of the Irishman digging away 
 a bank “ to let the dark out of his cellar ! ” 
 
 These are called “constitutional views!” If “views” at all, they 
 are “ views ” afar off —through the moral mirage of platforms, partizan 
 speeches, and sectional commentaries, which distort everything, and 
 turn it upside down. Why ! if Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Hancock, 
 Franklin, and all those fathers who were so fortunate as to die earlv, 
 were to revisit their beloved America, such “views” would astonish 
 them as much as to see all Americans standing on their heads, all houses 
 
74 DAVIS AND lee: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 inverted, every ship i( walking the waters like a thing of life, with 
 masts for legs, rivers running to their sources, babes giving birth to 
 parents, servants controlling masters, creatures dominating creators, &c. 
 Not only so, but, upon being told that the voluntary Union had giown 
 indissoluble and sovereign, they would naturally expect all riotous 
 gatherings to be at least joint-stock companies, and all respectable 
 meetings 0 and organised assemblages to spontaneously become perpetual 
 corporations; and that if a man ventured to walk and talk with a 
 plurality of women, he would be liable to an indictment lor polygamy ! 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 I have shown incontrovertibly where American sovereignty resides, 
 and lienee where American citizenship and allegiance must be. Geneia 
 Lee is reported to have recently said, that “ as a firm and honest believer 
 “ in the doctrine of State rights, he considered his allegiance due pri- 
 « niarily to the Stale in which he was born, and where he always 
 
 1 In''truth General Lee’s only allegiance was due to his State. The 
 only citizenship originally existent in the States that jomet t he^elves 
 in union was citizenship of a State; and citizenship of, and allegiance 
 
 ZTZ’iZorl n.lio.S (OP Federal) G.—““J”" 
 for, if it "..even .1, ought * 
 
 clauses: “ The citizens of each SI A - « f ” ( Art IV. § 2). 
 
 leges and immunities of citizens m the several States ^ 
 
 tu iudicial power of the United States shall extend . . . to tout o 
 lhe judicial puwei u e r rA r !'KS- between citizens of 
 
 “ versies between citizens of different S 1 1 ’ citntps* and 
 
 A err a 'ri7 nU\m\n o- binds under grants of ditierent btates, ana 
 
 “ the same S TA y ° citizens THEREOF , and foreign States, 
 
 ‘ between a b L A IF, ■ g als0 Amendments, Art. XI. 
 
 “ citizens, or subjects (Art. 111. $/D- not rec0 gnised or pro- 
 
 If there were any citizens of a nation t y tl J>. flf each 
 
 vided for. There were no othei c,t, “ ns , ] t ‘ , “ was neve r trans- 
 “ STATE," and tlieir citizenship the constituents of 
 
 ferred. The reason is quite obvious. Stat*s w ^ ^^_ each being 
 
 the Federal system ; and these ' . j if - Slictl transfer had taken 
 
 a member-an integral part ot his Sta "" ,d ” S f each State.” 
 
 place, there would have been noc uui of e* ^ ded t0 
 
 But there is a provision, wind somej.^ citize 0 ll8 y p , when really, 
 think, referred to, or pio\idt > .strongest possible evidence to 
 
 the contrary. The C n k EnvoUaqtion and uniform Jaws on the 
 “ to establish a uniform rule ot matuta &a• gtale8 » As to citizen- 
 
 “ subject of bankruptcies tlnoug to , uniformity and homo- 
 
 ship, the object ol the chmse was ^Vro^ce^ 0F Lch State” 
 geneousness throughout the St.i ■ • thirteen States were the 
 
 were to be made of iramigranta, and 08 ^ 1 ^.mity, they “ dele- 
 
 necessary actors in naturalising, t)) cre ated, “to establish a 
 
 ga BmUrule,” 0 whk-h,°of course, they obligated themselves to act by. 
 
 Ill) 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN EIGHTS. 75 
 
 But though this is the plain and obvious meaning, Congress—so 
 prone is power to magnify itwlf—began then the “ change as.Burke 
 phrases it “ from an immediate State of procuration and delegation, to 
 “ a course of acting as from original power;” and took the exclusive 
 jurisdiction of the whole subject; acted as the sovereign natinalising 
 authority, and secured allegiance of the new citizens to the Federal 
 Government, thus making a second class of citizens, and defeating the 
 very uniformity the two clauses quoted above were intended to produce. 
 One class was the whole body of original citizens and their descendants, 
 whose allegiance to the State was never changed ; and the other com¬ 
 prised such foreigners as, being naturalised by law of Congress, swore 
 allegiance to a pseudo-sovereignty; became members or citizens ot a 
 supposititious nation; and in due time furnished a large portion of the 
 Janizaries hy which USURPERS overcame and destroyed many oj the 
 REAL SOVEREIGNS of the country ! 
 
 Even if vve suppose tlie second class to have been legalised by lapse 
 of time, or the silence ot the States, still the first class, including Lee, 
 Davis, Beauregard, Johnston, and other Confederate chiefs, remained in 
 unquestionable allegiance to their respective States, and were hence 
 compelled to obey and defend them. How then can they be punished 
 for rebellion and treason ? 
 
 If anyone doubt this view, let him answer when ? where ? how ? and 
 to whom the allegiance was changed from the State ? Where is the 
 record of such change ? He will see, the moment lie attempts an answer, 
 that the claim of allegiance for the Federal agency is false and prepos¬ 
 terous ! There could be no allegiance to those who at best were 
 “ representatives,” delegates,” “ trustees,” “ substitutes,” “ agents,” 
 44 servants,” as all the fathers invariably called them, and as they have 
 always been characterised by the States and people ! 
 
 And, amazing as it may seem, Massachusetts again supplies the 
 highest and most solemn record evidence to belie her own sons, to vin- 
 dicate the subdued States, and convict herself, and her boasted 153,000 
 soldiers, of the manifold murders and other crimes involved in unjusti¬ 
 fiable war ! For many years, under the Union, and probably to this 
 day, her Constitution has provided this oath for all her officials: “I, 
 “ A. B., do solemnly swear that 1 tcill hear true faith and ALLEG1 - 
 “ ANCE to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the 
 
 Constitution thereof. So help me God.” 
 
 And all the States either obviously assume allegiance to be due to 
 them, or expressly declare it. I think New Hampshire’s provision is 
 like the above. Vermont, which acceded after the Union was formed, 
 has the following: 44 Every person of good character, settling in the 
 46 State, having first taken an oath of ALLEGIANCE to the same , 
 “ may purchase, hold, transfer land,” &e. 
 
 U.O All VV11MJI1 cliu lilt; 
 
 tutes and agents” of the State; and the operation of which is in¬ 
 tended to be directly on “ the citizens of the State.” 
 
 Hence we are forced to these conclusions:— 
 
76 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 1. The State is the citizens thereof. 
 
 2. “ All political power is inherent” in them. 
 
 3. Each State, as all declared, is “ sovereign.” 
 
 4. I he citizens ol the State are the sovereignty, 
 o. This is what is meant by a Republic. 
 
 6 . While this lasts, sovereignty remains intact. 
 
 7. Sovereignty possesses all political power. 
 
 8. None but delegated power has ever been imparted. 
 
 9. Delegations can, at will, be withdrawn. 
 
 10. Hence the Federal Government is not sovereign. 
 
 11. Each State ratified the Constitution of its own will. 
 
 12. This brought all the citizens of the State under it. 
 
 13. These all remained “ citizens of each State.” 
 
 14. So the Constitution repeatedly declares. 
 
 15. Their allegiance is the social compact itself. 
 
 16. Changing this tie would be dissolution of a State. 
 
 17. In fine, the nature of things will only allow of citizenship of, ‘ and 
 allegiance to , A STATE : and a citizen’s obligation of obedience to 
 the Federal Government, is solely imported by the State’s act of ratify¬ 
 ing the Constitution, and delegating power. It is virtually a self-im¬ 
 posed obligation. This is what is meant by self-government. 
 
 MOSAICS—“ COMPACT ” AND “ ACCESSION.” 
 
 Want of space will compel me to defer an exposure of the “ ’cuteness” 
 of forming a mosaic platform of Federal sovereignty, by adding “ line 
 upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little,” from 
 the loose, inaccurate, and unexplained expressions of the fathers, or by 
 such garblings and misquotations as I have already exposed. It is not 
 strange that in those days of republican experiment, there should be 
 many"crude expressions about sovereignty when, at the present, we hear 
 intelligent State-rights men and able statesmen speak of “ delegating 
 6( sovereignty,” “ distributing powers of sovereignty, i two co-existent 
 “ sovereignties,” &c. 
 
 u ’Cuteness ” No. 7.—I come now to Mr. Webster’s chef d oeuvre of 
 criticism, that on “compact” and “secession.” I notice it because it 
 involves the whole basis of liis theory, and admits of the introduction of 
 Washington, Hamilton, and other fathers, and finally of himself, in 
 direct contradiction. He severely inveighs, in his speech of 1833, 
 against Mr. Calhoun’s use of the phrase “constitutional compact, and 
 charges him with “ abandoning the use of constitutional language for a 
 “new vocabulary.” -If,” says he, “ in adopting the Constitution, 
 “ nothing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing would seem 
 “ necessary, in order to break it up, but to secede from the same compact. 
 
 “ . . . . This is the reason 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 is acts of accession. There is no language in the whole 
 
 “ Constitution applicable to a confederation of Mates. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 77 
 
 liHtpr lie sDeaks of Vermont’s “ ACCESSION to the Lnion, an 
 becoming “a MEMBER OF THE CONFEDERACY. !” I» Art. 
 LXXXY of the “ Federalist,” he calls the Constitution a compact, 
 and says that “thirteen INDEPENDENT STATES” are the 
 
 ie parties to the COMP ACT' . , , 
 
 So we see Mr. Hamilton “ abandoned the use of constitutional lan- 
 
 “ guage for a new vocabulary ! ” 
 
 Said Governor Randolph, in the Virginia Convention : ere I con- 
 
 “ vinced that the ACCESSION of eight States did not render our 
 “ ACCESSION also necessary to preserve the Union, I would not 
 “ ACCEDE to it till it should be previously amended.” 
 
 Said Judge Parsons, in the Massachusetts Convention : “ The govern- 
 u ment and powers which the Congress can administer are the mere 
 “ result of a COMPACT ,” &c. 
 
 Washington and Franklin have been heretofore quoted copiously on 
 this very point. A few extracts from the former will be here added. 
 In a letter of Oct. 17th, 1787, he speaks of the Union as a compact, and 
 says “there must be reciprocity or no union.” 
 
 To Bushrod Washington he writes. Nov. 10, 1787: “ Is it best for 
 “ THE STATES to unite ? .... If the union of the whole is a de¬ 
 sirable object, TIIE COMPONENT PARTS must yield a little 
 “ in order to accomplish it.” He then asks what the opponents in 
 Virginia would do “if nine other States should ACCEDE to the 
 “ Constitution.” 
 
 • Writing to Madison, Dec. 7, 17S7, he speaks of “ the States ACCED- 
 “ ING to the Federal Government,” &c. To the same, Jan. 10, 1788, 
 he says : “Nine States will have ACCEDED to it.” 
 
 To Gen. Knox, June 17, 1788, he speaks of “ the ACCESSION of 
 “ South Carolina,” and hopes “ that the States which may be disposed 
 “to make a SECESSION \\\W think often and seriously on the conse- 
 “ quences.” 
 
 To Marquis de Lafayette, June 17, 1788, he speaks of “ the ACCES - 
 “ SION of Maryland to the proposed government,” and says, “ the 
 “ ACCE SSIOjS of one State more will complete the number needed to 
 “ establish it.” 
 
 To John Jay, July 18, 1788, he speaks of “the ACCESSION of ten 
 “ States; ” and July 20, 1788, to Sir Edward Newenham, of the States 
 “having formed a CONFEDERATED Government 
 
 Writing to Gouverneur Morris, in 1789, he hopes “the NON - 
 “ ACCEDING States will very soon become members of the Union.” 
 
 And on July 1, 1790, he writes to Count de Segur : “ THE UNION 
 “ OF STATES is now complete under the new Government, by the 
 “ late ACCESSION of Rhode Island to the Constitution.” 
 
 In a letter to the Earl of Buchan—recently first published in the 
 “ Autographic Mirror” — dated April 22, 1793, lie said: “I send 
 
78 DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 you the plan of a new city about the centre of the Union of these 
 44 States/’ 
 
 Much more of like character could be quoted from the fathers, for they 
 all 44 abandoned the use of constitutional language for anew vocabulary” 
 —-just as Mr. Calhoun did, and all evidently thought there was 44 no 
 
 language in the Constitution ”—not 44 applicable to a confederation of 
 44 States! ” 
 
 But towards the close of his life, Mr. Webster seemed to fear the 
 consequences of his teachings, and to wish to retrace his steps to more 
 solid ground. His letter to Baring Brothers and Co. exhibits this, and 
 shows the jurisconsult predominating over the politician; and with a 
 proper gloss, it is not unsatisfactory to a State-rights man. 
 
 To Mark A. Cooper, of Georgia, about 1850, he wrote : 44 The States 
 44 are united—confederated, 4 not chaos-like, together crushed and 
 44 bruised.’ ” 
 
 And in 1851, to the young men of Albany, he said: f4 . . . . here is the 
 44 Constitutional Compact nevertheless still binding; .... when 
 44 called upon to fulfil a compact, the question is, will you fulfil it ? I 
 44 for one am ready.” Again he speaks of 44 the Compact of the 
 44 Constitution ” being a 44 fair ” one. 
 
 So we see that he himself drew quite freely from the 44 new vocabu- 
 44 lary,” and, moreover, used precisely the remarkable phrase he had so 
 chided Mr. Calhoun about, and in the same sense ! And this amounts 
 to a giving up of his whole case. He confesses that the FEDERAL 
 CONSTITUTION is a COMPACT , q.e.d. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I believe the following concise points are proved by a superabundance 
 of incontestible evidence, and that no right-minded and competent per¬ 
 son will controvert them : — 
 
 1 . The Union was a federation of self-governing sovereignties. 
 
 2. Each had the rights of self-defence, including secession. 
 
 3. The Federal Government was their agency. 
 
 4 . It had no right to control or coerce them. 
 
 5 . Davis and Lee were citizens of their respective States. 
 
 6 . They owed allegiance to them alone. 
 
 7. They were helplessly carried out of the Union. 
 
 8 . States, as such, seceded and made war. 
 
 9. Citizens did not secede in any sense. 
 
 10 Their hostile acts were under, and by, political authonty. 
 II*. Not one had choice, as a person, on secession or war. 
 
 12. Volition, intention, and act are the elements of crime. 
 
 13 These did not concur in any citizen. . 
 
 14.’ Hence no citizen can be punished for secession and war. 
 
DAVIS AND LEE: A VINDICATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 79 
 
 15. The States were sovereign, in the hour and act of uniting. 
 
 16. Without adverse proof, they are presumed to remain so. 
 
 17. If they are still republics, they have sovereign y now. 
 
 18. Any control whatever of their will is unrepublican. 
 
 19. All restrictions upon State will should be removed and inhibited. 
 
 20. Only thus can the original Union be restored. 
 
 I now believe 1 have demonstrated what I undertook at the beginning, 
 that the claim of forfeiture of the political birthright, the estale, and 
 life of Davis or Lee or any other citizen ol a Southern State, upon any 
 r>]ea involving secession and war, is based bOLLLi Ui\ 
 
 II ODD FRAUD , AND VIOLENCE ; and that it is only on ground 
 composed of these detestable ingredients that their gibbet can be erected ; 
 for there is not a word in the Federal Constitution, or in any constitu¬ 
 tional law, that jeopardises them: and it harmed at all, it will be by 
 
 the perjury or perversity ? ot those who cause the deed ! 
 
 And it is a God-send to them, and to the South, that the President is 
 Andrew Johnson, a State-rights man, and a u strict consti uctionist, 
 with Southern sympathies, and without a puritanic conscience! dhey 
 only ask for justice, and the South only asks for the Constitution. She 
 never wished for a better, as she testified by adopting it in 1861. Gut, 
 like almost any human invention, it can be made good or bad in the 
 using, and she simply asks that it shall be used according to the inten¬ 
 tion of the fathers—according to their solemn agreements, and then- 
 pledges of sacred faith ! 
 
 President Johnson has vast power and influence, in his chief command 
 of all forces, his executive authority, and his veto power ; and my con¬ 
 fidence has since his advent been growing, that he would restore the 
 statu quo, save the South from her inveterate enemies, “with glistening 
 “ teeth and slavering jaws,” and attract her heart back to the Union. 
 And his plan seems simply to be, to do as lie has sworn, “ preserve , 
 “ protect , and defend the Constitution”—ALL OF IF! 
 
 And he seems to be endeavouring to gradually retract and confine all 
 Federal power within the Constitution. And it is strange that so lew 
 statesmen in America remember, that the reason of establishing con¬ 
 stitutions, is to coniine power, and limit ruling discretion; that when 
 power transcends a constitution it has no limits ; and that the difference 
 between power in and out of a constitution, is just that between a tiger 
 in and out of a cage. Inside, his strength, if not utilised, is harmless ; 
 outside, there is no calculating the damage the beast may do. An official 
 who passes constitutional bounds, or appeals to a “ higher law,” should 
 be regarded as an outlaw, or an unmarked Cain ! And as the Constitu¬ 
 tion is a rule of faith and practice as essential to the temporal welfare, 
 as the Bible is to the eternal, I would liurl the same denunciation against 
 the perverters of either: 
 
 “ If any man preach,” [or teach any other constitution, or] “ any other 
 “ Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed !” 
 
 I will wind up with four extracts, which, without comment, I respect¬ 
 fully commend to the attention of the statesmen of America, who wish 
 
b(J DAVIS AND LEE : A VINDICATION OE SOUTHERN RIGHTS. 
 
 to find the truth and do right. Disinterested judgments based upon 
 profound study, by great publicists, are of much importance. Says 
 Lord Brougham: “ It is plainly impossible to consider the constitution 
 “ which professes to govern this whole Union, this federacy of States, 
 “ as anything other than a treaty, .of which the conditions are to be 
 “ executed for them all.” Says M. de Tocqueville : “ The Union was 
 “ formed by the voluntary agreement of the States , and in uniting to- 
 i( gether they have not forfeited their nationality ; nor have they been 
 reduced to the condition of one and the same people.” And the 
 practicability and character of such union of Sovereign States was 
 precisely forecasted by Vattel: “ Several sovereign and independent 
 “ States may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy 
 u without each in-particular ceasing to he a perfect State. They will 
 ec form together a Federal Republic : the deliberations in common will 
 f< offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may, 
 “ in certain respects, put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue 
 “ of voluntary engagements.” 
 
 Said Edmund Burke: “ This change from an immediate state of 
 “ procuration and delegation to a. course of acting as from original 
 “ power, is the way in which all the popular magistracies in the world 
 “ have been perverted from their purposes .” 
 
 LONDON” I 
 
 FLEET STREET. 
 
The Ohio State University 
 
 3 2435 00951 7483 
 
 AH778S12 001 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE 
 
 THE OHIO S 
 
 RSITY BOOK D 
 
 POS TORY 
 
 D AISLE SECT SHLF SIDE POS ITEM C 
 8 03 23 01 8 13 009 5