Tke. pwr 
 
 5 £ C CS 5 i oro. 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
PRINTED FOR PERSONAL FRIENDS. 
 
 
 TH E 
 
 POLITICAL RIGHT 
 
 OF 
 
 SECESSION : 
 
 A 
 
 K li; S K Yi V. 13 P* O AV E I^ 
 
 ICNDER TIIK 
 
 CONSTITUTION. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 ] 8G2. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/politicalrightofOOunse 
 
I 
 
 P75 
 
 I 
 
 i SECESSION. 
 
 Secession, though often confounded with, is not 
 Nuliification. It was the doctrine of the latter, 
 that a State in the Union had the reserved power to 
 nullify within her own borders, the operation of a 
 law of Congress which she adjudged to he uncon- 
 stitutional. The doctrine of Secession is, that a 
 State is bound to obey all Constitutional laws ol‘ 
 Congress while in the Union ; but has the reserved 
 power to secede from it, when moved thereto of her 
 own volition. The exercise of the power, presup- 
 poses an adequate cause : of that, she, from the na- 
 ture of the case, is the sole judge. Federal legisla- 
 tion, so unscrupulous as to foster and protect the 
 ^material interests of other States by measures mani- 
 Siestly adverse and injurious to her oavu — persisted 
 -:in: or, the amity of other States superseded by 
 U hate, so virulent as to regard with complacency, 
 y ruffianly raids upon the lives and property of her 
 people : or, sentiments, repugnant to and repi'oach- 
 ful of them, adopted by such numbers as to dictate 
 laws of Federal and State legislation, hostile to 
 V and subversive of her Institutions- would, doulh- 
 ^ less, be a cause lor seceding from a compact with 
 States which thus repudiate the veiy desideiata, 
 guaranteed l)y the Union : namely, “To es'I'abltsh 
 
 JUSTICE, ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY AND ITJOMOTE 
 THE GENERAL WELFARE.’’ Sucli we Understand to 
 
4 
 
 AX KX POSITION OF SI-X’KSSIOX. 
 
 he the theory, and siieh tlie causes of iiractical Se- 
 cession. We do not now pause to eiupiire whetliei’ 
 tile States coin])osin<>' the Southern Confederacs' 
 had just cause for seceding-, nor if they had, 
 whether it was expedient. The ipiestion is, had 
 they tlie reserved power and ri^ht to do this. It 
 does not hecoine us holdly to assert they had, in 
 the face of' all that has been spoken and written 
 to the contrary ; hut this we may atlirin, that no 
 writer, within our knowledoe, has attem[)ted to 
 disprove the right lay reference to liistorical facts, 
 or l)y logical deductions from established premises. 
 They, one and all, assume its non-existence, and 
 from such assumption ai'gue their conclusions ; 
 for, sav thev, in the language of one of the most 
 eminent of them,* ‘‘ Concede this, and we have 
 no Union, no Government, no Country,’^ whereas, 
 on the contrary, we had just such an Union and 
 Government as the Constitution gave us ; not 
 only the best ever devised by the wisdom of man, 
 as we had proved for seventy years, hut lietter 
 calculated to withstand the mutations of time 
 than any which had preceded it, had we pos- 
 sessed the wit to comprehend, and the virtue to 
 appreciate the princijiles which constituted its 
 strength and glory. 
 
 We hold Secession to he a political right by 
 vii'tue of the Sovereignty ol‘ the States, and shall 
 show that they have never divested themselves 
 ol’it; and liirtliermore, while they maintain iheir 
 
 * U(;v. (Janiiiu'r Sinin", 1). 1). 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 5 
 
 political organizations as States, it is not in their 
 power to alienate the right, without first repudi- 
 ating the great principle established by the Revo- 
 lution of 1088, which placed William and Mary 
 on the throne of England, to wit : “ That Sov- 
 ereign power resides originally in the people of 
 every political coinmunity,’’ in contradistinction 
 to the dogma which had hitherto prevailed, and 
 still prevails in despotic governments, “ That kings 
 rule by divine right,” as illustrated by the King 
 of Prussia, in his late coronation speech at Konigs- 
 burgh, who said, The Kings of Prussia receive 
 their crowns from God ; I, therefore, place this 
 crown upon my head.” 
 
 If, in 1787, the people comprised in the original 
 thirteen States had been without political organ- 
 ization, and were owing allegiance to no political 
 power, there had been devised for them a form of 
 government based on a Constitution like that of 
 the United States, including the reserved as well 
 as the conferred powers of that Instrument, and 
 this had been submitted to and adopted by the 
 people, we should then have had a consolidated 
 government, under which questions of ^Mleserved 
 Powers, State Rights and Secession,” would never 
 have arisen. But such was not the condition of 
 the people, nor such the government adopted by 
 them. Instead of a people in a state of nature, 
 owing allegiance nowhere, the whole population 
 were gathered into thirteen distinct communities, 
 each having a separate political organization under 
 
0 
 
 AN KXPOSri’ION OF SKOKSSION. 
 
 M State govei'niiuMitj l)ase(l on a (Constitution oi* 
 rnndainental Ijiw, wliicli elial longed tli(‘ nn(|nali- 
 (ied alle^iaiu'e ol’ t heii* sndjeets, and each acknow- 
 ledi^ed sov(‘i‘eign and independent l)y the otliei's, 
 and were so acknowledged and i-eco^’nized hy the 
 (‘ivilized nations of the world. 
 
 dhiKATV OF lh<:A(’K WITH (lliFAT HlUTAIN, 
 
 Fauis. Si- I’TKM incFi •), ITS”). 
 
 Article Fh'^f . His Britannic Majesty a(*know- 
 ledges th(‘ said United States, viz.: New llainp- 
 shire, Mass<ndinsetts, Bhode Island, Connecticut, 
 ‘‘ Ncnv Voik, New Jei’sey, Pennsylvania, Mary- 
 hind, Vii'oinia, North (Jarolina, South Carolina, 
 and (Jeoi*gia^ to he IVee, sovereign, and independ- 
 ‘‘ent States; that he treats with them as such, 
 “ and lor himselt, his heii’s and successors, relin- 
 “ (pushes all claims to the government, propriety, 
 and territ(3rial rights of the same, and every 
 “ part thereof.’’ 
 
 The Confedei'ate Goveinment, then existing, 
 had never been (dothed with the sovereign powders 
 ot the States, as Avill appear from Marshall’s Lite 
 of Washington, Vol. 4, page 414 : ‘‘ Thei’e were 
 several ])ersons at that time in (Congress Avho 
 “ pei’ceived the advantages Avhich would result 
 “ Iroin liestowing on the Federal head the full 
 pow(‘i* of iT‘gnlating commerce, and conse- 
 ‘Upumlly of increasing th(‘ imjiosts, as importa- 
 “ tions might nmdi'r ad visahh‘ ; hut State inlluence 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 i 
 
 predominated, and they were ov^er-ruled by great 
 majorities. Even the inadeijuate plan which 
 they did recommend was never adopted, not- 
 “ withstanding tlie greatness of the exigency, the 
 pressure of the national want, and henelicial 
 intluence which a certain revenue in the hands 
 of the (tovernment would obviously have upon 
 “ the war ; yet never, during the existence of 
 “ the Congress, did all the States unite to vest in 
 “ Congress tlie powers required, so iinwilliiig are 
 “ men possessed of power, to place it in the hands 
 “ of others^ and so dilhcult is it to elfect any ob- 
 ‘yjects, however important, which are dejiendent 
 ‘‘ on the concurrent assent of many distinct Sov- 
 ereignties*’’ The nominal powers of the (h)v- 
 ernnient had suthced, and barely suthced to carry 
 the country through the perils and exigencies (■[' 
 the Revolution; but that danger past, tlicw were 
 found wholly inade([uate for carrying on the Cov- 
 ernment in a time of peace. Congress, thus 
 embarrassed, adopted a resolution i ecomiuending 
 a Convention of the States, to consider the expe- 
 diency of conlerring on that body additional 
 powers. Twelve States I'cspomled by sending 
 delegates to the Convention, which met in Phila- 
 delphia, in May, 17ST, and organized b\’ choosing 
 Wasl 1 i n g t( in , Pres i de n t . 
 
 It should be noticed, that tliis was not a, Con- 
 vention of the Peo})le, but of the States in their 
 Sovereign capacity ; each State having tlie same 
 voice and vote in the proceedings. If on any 
 
8 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 (jiiestion tiiere was a tie vote in the State delega- 
 tion, the vote of that State was lost. 
 
 Curtis’ History of the Origin, Formation, jind 
 Adoption oi* the Constitution of the United 
 States, Vol. 2d, page 28, says: — “As the States 
 “ had eonterred certain powers ii[)on tlie Conted- 
 “ eration, so it was erpially competent to them to 
 “ enlarge and add to those powers. ddiey' Inid 
 “ formed State governments, and had established 
 “ written Constitutions. But the peojile of the 
 “States, and not their governments, held the 
 “ supreme, absolute and nncontrollable ])ower. 
 “ They could create, and they could niodity or 
 “destroy; they could withdraw the power con- 
 “ ferred upon one class of agents, and bestow 
 “ them upon another class.” 
 
 We do not propose to trace the proceedings of 
 the (Jonvention through its long session. The 
 idea of conferring additional powers on the Confed- 
 eration, was early aliandoned, and in lieu, the pro- 
 ject of a Federal Covernment, with its Executive, 
 Legislative and Judiciary Dcpai-tments, was ar- 
 rived at without much diversity of opinion. 
 
 (Jnrtis, Vol. 2d, page o8, says : “ From that 
 “ discussion it ap])ears that the idea was already 
 “ entertained of t'orming a, g()vernment tlnit should 
 “ liav(‘ a, vigoi’ous authority derived directly tVoni 
 “ the peoj)le ol‘ the States — one that should j)os- 
 “ sess hotli the force and sense ot‘ the [leople at 
 “ liirge. For tlie formation of such a govern- 
 “ immt, one of two courses was necessary; either 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 9 
 
 to abolish the State governments altogether, or 
 leave them in existence, and to regard the peo- 
 pie of each State as competent to withdraw 
 from their local governments such portions of 
 their political power as they might see lit to 
 bestow upon a National Government. The lat- 
 ter plan was, undoubtedly, a novelty in political 
 “ science, for no system of government had yet 
 been constructed in which the individual stood 
 in the relation of subject to two distinct Sov- 
 “ ereignties, each possessed of a distinct sphere, 
 ‘‘ and each supreme in its own sjihere. But if the 
 “ American doctrine were true, that all supreme 
 ‘‘ power resides originally in the people, and that 
 all governments are constituted by them as the 
 “ agents and depositaries of tliat power, there 
 could be no incompatibility in such a system. 
 The people who had de])osited with a State 
 government the sovereign power of their com- 
 mimity could withdraw it at their pleasure ; 
 
 “ and as they could withdraw the whole, they 
 could withdraw a part of it. It a ])art only 
 were withdrawn, or rathei', if the supreme 
 “ power in relation to particidai* objects were to 
 “ be taken from the State governments and vested 
 in another class of agents, leaving the authority 
 ot‘ the former undiminished, except as to those 
 “ particular objects, the individual might owe a 
 double allegiance, but there could be no confu- 
 ‘‘ sion in his duties, provided tlie powers Avith- 
 drawn and revested were clearly delined.’’ 
 
10 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 The Preamble to the Constitution, as originally 
 leported by the Coininittee, spoke in the name of 
 the people of the separate States^ as, New Hamp- 
 shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, &c., who were 
 said, “ Do ordain and establish it,’’ &c. In this form 
 it was unanimously adopted by the Convention on 
 the 7th of August. At a subsequent period, after 
 the Seventh Article” had been agreed upon (it 
 maybe inferred), under which the Union would be 
 formed, on the Constitution being adopted by nine 
 of the States, it was perceived, if any of the States 
 did not adopt it, their enumeration in the Preamble 
 would be an incongruity, to remedy which, it was 
 referred to another Committee to revise ; as re- 
 vised, it was adopted, the phraseology having 
 been changed to ‘‘We, the people of the United 
 States, do ordain,” &c., obviously, not for the pur- 
 pose of modifying the import of the original lan- 
 guage, but to provide for a contingency likely to 
 arise. The Preamble is often quoted as if a fund- 
 amental article of the Constitution — the phrase, 
 “ We, the people of the United States, do ordain,” 
 &c., implying its adoption by the whole people, 
 whereas, the Preamble is simply an introduction to 
 it, enumerating the objects for which it was estab- 
 lished. The people of the United States at large had 
 nothing to do with the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion ; they would have had everything to do, had 
 they been in the condition indicated in a, previous 
 paragra])h. Nor had the people of one State any- 
 thing to do with its adoption in another State ; 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 11 
 
 for the obvious reason, that neither one nor the 
 other were adequate to the work. It could be 
 adopted only by evoking the sovereign power of the 
 State, which power only was competent to with- 
 draw from the local government the powers which 
 the act of adoption would confer on the Federal 
 Government. 
 
 In the Virginia Convention for the adoption of 
 the Constitution, Mr. Madison said: 
 
 ‘‘ The parties to it were to be the people, 
 
 “ BUT NOT THE PEOPLE AS COMPOSING ONE GREAT 
 “ SOCIETY, BUT THE PEOPLE AS COMPOSING THIRTEEN 
 “ SOVEREIGNTIES. If IT WERE PURELY A CONSOLI- 
 “ DATED GOVERNMENT, THE ASSENT OP A MAJORITY 
 
 OF THE PEOPLE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTAB- 
 
 LISH IT.” 
 
 In the Massachusetts Convention, Mr. Chief 
 Justice Dana said : 
 
 If the Constitution under consideration 
 
 “ WAS IN FACT WHAT ITS OPPOSERS HAD OFTEN CALLED 
 “ IT, A CONSOLIDATION OF THE StATES, HE SHOULD 
 “ READILY AGREE THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 
 “ PEOPLE WAS TOO SMALL ; BUT THIS WAS A CHARGE 
 ‘‘ WITHOUT FOUNDATION. So FAR FROM IT, IT IS AP- 
 “ PARENT TO EVERY ONE, THAT THE FeDERAL GoVERN- 
 “ MENT SPRINGS OUT OF, AND CAN ALONE BE BROUGHT 
 “ INTO EXISTENCE BY THE StATE GOVERNMENTS ! DE- 
 “ MOLISH THE LATTER AND THERE IS AN END OP THE 
 “ FORMER.” 
 
 If the Convention had selected the first of the 
 two courses indicated in the quotation given, as 
 
12 
 
 AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 necessary to the forination of’ a ^overnnient pos- 
 “ sessing a vio’oroiis aiitlioi-itv derived directly 
 from the peo])le,” had incorporated an arti(;le in 
 the ])roposed Constitution to aliolish the State 
 i.^overiiments, obliterate their geo^ra])hical bounds 
 and resolve their ])olitical organizationi i > el(‘- 
 mentary principles, whereby the whole population 
 would be blended in one great coinmunity, instead 
 of thirteen ; its adoption Avould luive given us, 
 what so many erroneously assert we now have, 
 a consolidated government. We hazard nothing 
 in aiHrming, that a Constitution witli such pi-ovi- 
 sions, would have been rejected by every State in 
 the Confederacy. In reading the debates in the 
 Conventions of Virginia and Massachusetts, we 
 cannot fail to perceive the Constitution would not 
 have been adopted by either of those States, but 
 for the distinct recognition of their sovereignty, 
 by the eminent men we have quoted. There is 
 
 NO HIGHER MANIFESTATION OF SOVEREIGNTY THAN IN 
 REPOSING ONE GOVERNMENT, AND CONFERRING ITS 
 POWERS UPON ANOTHER ! HENCE THE ADOPTION OF 
 
 THE Constitution, by the people of each sep- 
 arate State, was itself, an act of the highest 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 11 aving framed the Constitution, it was resolv- 
 ed tliat it be submitted to a Convention of dele- 
 gates of each State, chosen by the people thereof, 
 under the recommendation of the Legislature, for 
 their assent and adoption. In due time, though 
 at ditfereut periods, such Conventions were held 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 18 
 
 in all the States, each representing the sovereign 
 power of its own State, to which was coinmitted 
 the responsible duty of adopting or rejecting the 
 proposed Constitution. In the discharge of the 
 high trust devolved on it, and the exercise of its 
 supreme power, eacli Convention did, hy solemn 
 vote, adopt the C( nstituticn of the United States 
 of America, and thereby did divest its own State 
 government of such portion of its sovereign pow- 
 ers as were, by this act of adoption, conferred on 
 the Federal Government, which, under the Con- 
 stitution, would lie clothed with paramount au- 
 thority over all matters to which those powers 
 appertain, and to that extent would also chal- 
 lenge the unqualitied allegiance of the subjects of 
 that St{\te ; not for the reason it represented 
 sovereign powers of all the States, but that it 
 represented those of that particular State : whose 
 sovereignty only, Avherever deposited, and how- 
 ever associated with others it might be, could 
 rightfully claim the allegiance of its subjects 
 Thus, by the sovereign act of each separate State 
 was the Federal Government ushered into being 
 — the creature of the Stiites ; born of their sove- 
 reign will, and not of the will of the people, only, 
 as that was expressed through organs representing 
 the sovereignty of their respective political organ- 
 izations. The Federal Government had no self- 
 creating, nor has it any constitutional self-sus- 
 taining, power. It was, and is, dependent on the 
 States for both. 
 
14 
 
 AN EXPOBITTON OF SECEBBTON. 
 
 That soverch^n ])()\voi- resides origiiiall^^ in the 
 ])eoj)le, is an admitted dogma. It does so by nat- 
 mal and inlierent i-iglit; and governments ;ire con- 
 stituted by them as the agents and de])ositaries of 
 tliat power. Tlie stream cannot rise above its 
 source, nor can a j)i-incipal, supreme or subordin- 
 ate, delegate power superior to its own, and which 
 may not be revoked at pleasure. As the people 
 of each State had clothed their local government 
 with supreme powei', as theii* agent, had, in the 
 exercise of their sovereignty, withdrawn a portion 
 ol* such })owers, and had conferred them on tlie 
 Federal Government, as their agent also, and as 
 the latter possessed no ])owers under the Constitu- 
 tion, but such as were so conferred, so, also, is it 
 the prerogative of each State to withdraw from 
 the Federal Government the powers conferred, 
 whenever, in the exercise of its sovereign will, it 
 so elects to do ; and thus is demonstrated the right 
 ot Secession ; the practical demonstration of which, 
 through the appropriate action of the sovereign 
 power, evoked for that special object, takes the 
 State without the pale of the Union, revests her 
 local government with her original poAvers, where- 
 by she is a sovereign, and to the United States an 
 elien ])ower ; as such, she extends her supreme 
 juitliority over all places within her territorial 
 limits, and claims the undivided allegiance of her 
 subjeads, who ai e no longer under, or amenable to 
 Ibe laws ol‘ the Union. The Southern Confede- 
 I'acy is as trul\' an alien power to the United States 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 15 
 
 as Spain or Mexico. If they wage war with her, 
 it must be as against aliens, and not rebels; and if 
 thej' would not forfeit tlie character of a civilized 
 people, they must, in prosecuting the war, observe 
 the comities of civilized warfare. 
 
 The Constitution is reticent on the term of the 
 Union, and manner of withdraAving from it. It 
 was needless to fix the duration of the one, or 
 prescribe the mode of the other, for the reason 
 that the parties to it were sovereign poAvers, and 
 as such controlled by no bond other than their 
 own Avill. Some men speak and Avrite as if the 
 Federal Government itself Avas the soA^ereign 
 poAver ; Avhereas it is simply the representative 
 and agent of that poAver. The sovereign poAver 
 resides in the people, an imprescriptible right, 
 Avhich cannot be lost by non-nse, nor tahen from 
 them by force Despotic poAver may restrain the 
 free exercise of it, as it does at this time in 
 Poland and in the Venetian States, and as it may 
 do in the Southern Confederacy, should it 1)e sub- 
 jugated b}^ the North ; but it still exists, ready - 
 for action, vAdienever the restraint is remoA^ed. It 
 is also inalienable — the people cannot alienate it 
 from themseh^es, nor place it beyond their poAver 
 of control. Had it been possible for a State (k)n- 
 vention which adopted the Constitution in 1787, 
 to bind the people of that generation, beyond the 
 poAver of a subsecpient Convention of the same 
 generation to annul, it could not bind the genera- 
 tions of another period and age. The Federal 
 
AN EXPOSITION OF SECESSION. 
 
 u; 
 
 Goveriiiiieiit liad no (constitutional powei's, l)iit 
 sucli as were conlei'i’ed on it by tlje States, and 
 these restricted to sucli only as are clearly and 
 ex])ressly delined ])y the Constitution. d\) lac- 
 s train a State from withdrawing from the Union, 
 is not one of the conferj’ed powers : to compel her 
 return hy military force, after she has withdraw]?, 
 is an assumj)tion of power unsanctioned ))y the 
 (Jonstitution. Hence the folly and in justice of at- 
 tempting to coerce the seceded States into an 
 union Avhich, as regards them, no longer exists, 
 and cannot re-exist until they can he induced, 
 thi'ough another series of conventions, oi’ganized 
 tor that special object, to readopt the Constitution. 
 Finally : Ttie Union was founded on the great 
 
 PRiNCIPLES OF MUTUAL PROTECTl ON, MUTUAL INTEREST, 
 AND EaUAL RIGHTS, IN WHATEVER CONCERNS OUR PER- 
 SONS, PRIVILEGES, AND PROPERTY. ThE LEAST DIS- 
 CRIxMINATION IN THE CONSTITUTION IN FAVOR OF, OR 
 AGAINST THE ENJOYMENT AND PROTECTION OF ANY ONE 
 OF THESE, IN A TERRITORY COMIVION TO ALL, WOULD 
 HAVE BEEN FATAL TO ITS ADOPTION, AS HAS THE DE- 
 ('LARED PURPOSE OF A DOMINANT SECTIONAL PARTY, 
 TO FORCE SUCH DISCRIMINATION, BEEN THE DISRUPTION 
 
 OF 1TIE Union. kSo long as the principles on 
 
 WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAIN- 
 'lAlNED INVIOLATE, SO LONG, BY FAIR IMPLICATION, 
 
 WOULD 'I’HE Union have been perpetuated. 
 
 New York, Dec. 18G1. 
 
Gaylord Bros. 
 Makers 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 PAT. JAN. 21, 1908