CHAPTER LXXXIX.

THE AUTHOR'S OWN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AS BEING A

UNION IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO A LEAGUE: PRESENTED IN A SUBSEQUENT

SPEECH ON MISSOURI RESOLUTIONS.

I do not discuss these resolutions at this time. That discussion

is no part of my present object. I speak of the pledge which they

contain, and call it a mistake; and say, that whatever may be the

wishes or the opinions of the people of Missouri on the subject of

the extension or non-extention of slavery to the Territories, they

have no idea of resisting any act of Congress on the subject. They

abide the law, when it comes, be it what it may, subject to the

decision of the ballot-box and the judiciary.

I concur with the people of Missouri in this view of their duty,

and believe it to be the only course consistent with the terms and

intention of our constitution, and the only one which can save this

Union from the fate of all the confederacies which have successively

appeared and disappeared in the history of nations. Anarchy among

the members, and not tyranny in the head, has been the rock on which

all such confederacies have split. The authors of our present form

of government knew the danger of this rock, and they endeavored to

provide against it. They formed a Union--not a league--a federal

legislature to act upon persons, not upon States; and they provided

peaceful remedies for all the questions which could arise between

the people and the government. They provided a federal judiciary

to execute the federal laws when found to be constitutional; and

popular elections to repeal them when found to be bad. They formed a

government in which the law and the popular will, and not the sword,

was to decide questions; and they looked upon the first resort to

the sword for the decision of such questions as the death of the

Union.

The old confederation was a league, with a legislature acting upon

sovereignties, without power to enforce its decrees, and without

union except at the will of the parties. It was powerless for

government, and a rope of sand for union. It was to escape from that

helpless and tottering government that the present constitution

was formed; and no less than ten numbers of the federalist--from

the tenth to the twentieth--were devoted to this defect of the old

system, and the necessity of the new one. I will read some extracts

from these numbers--the joint product of Hamilton and Madison--to

show the difference between the league which we abandoned and the

Union which we formed--the dangers of the former and the benefits of

the latter--that it may be seen that the resolutions of the general

assembly of Missouri, if carried out to their conclusions, carry

back this Union to the league of the confederation--make it a rope

of sand, and the sword the arbiter between the federal head and its

members.

Mr. B. then read as follows:

"The great and radical vice, in the structure of the existing

confederation, is in the principle of legislation for States or

governments, in their corporate or collective capacities, and as

contra-distinguished from the individuals of which they consist.

Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated

to the Union, yet it prevades and governs those on which the

efficacy of the rest depends. The consequence of this is, that,

though in theory constitutionally binding on the members of the

Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations, which the

States observe or disregard at their option. Government implies

the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law

that it be attended with a sanction, or, in other words, a penalty

or punishment for disobedience. This penalty, whatever it may be,

can only be inflicted in two ways--by the agency of the courts and

ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the

magistracy, or by the coercion of arms. The first kind can evidently

apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity be employed

against bodies politic, or communities, or States. It is evident

there is no process of a court by which their observance of the laws

can, in the last resort, be enforced. Sentences may be denounced

against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can

only be carried into execution by the sword. In an association where

the general authority is confined to the collective bodies of the

communities that compose it, every breach of the laws must involve a

state of war; and military execution must become the only instrument

of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve

the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit

his happiness to it."

Of the certain destruction of the Union when the sword is once drawn

between the members of a Union and their head, they speak thus:

"When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds

of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations

of irritated resentment, would be apt to carry the States, against

which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extremes necessary

to avenge the affront, or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The

first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of

the Union."

Of the advantage and facility of the working of the federal

system, and its peaceful, efficient, and harmonious operation--if

the federal laws are made to operate upon citizens, and not upon

States--they speak in these terms:

"But if the execution of the laws of the national government

should not require the intervention of the State legislatures;

if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens

themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their

progress without an open and violent exertion of unconstitutional

power. They would be obliged to act, and in such manner as would

leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An

experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of

a constitution in any degree competent to its own defence, and of a

people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise

and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would

require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but

the concurrence of the courts of justice, and of the body of the

people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the

legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority

to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and

void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State

representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the constitution,

would throw their weight into the national scale, and give it a

decided preponderance in the contest."

Of the ruinous effects of these civil wars among the members of a

republican confederacy, and their disastrous influence upon the

cause of civil liberty itself throughout the world, they thus speak:

"It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of

Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of disgust and horror

at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and

at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept

continually vibrating between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.

From the disorders which disfigure the annals of those republics,

the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against

the forms of republican government, but against the very principles

of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as

inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves

in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans."

And again they say:

"It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must

stand in need of no intermediate legislation; but must itself be

empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute

its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be

manifested through the medium of the courts of justice."

After reading these extracts, Mr. B. said: It was to get rid of the

evils of the old confederation that the present Union was formed;

and, having formed it, they who formed it undertook to make it

perpetual, and for that purpose had recourse to all the sanctions

held sacred among men--commands, prohibitions, oaths. The States

were forbid to form compacts or agreements with each other; the

constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, were declared

to be the supreme law of the land; and all authorities, State and

federal, legislative, executive, and judicial, were to be sworn to

support it. The resolutions which have been read contradict all

this; and the General Assembly mistook their own powers as much as

they mistook the sentiments of the people of Missouri when they

adopted them.

Thirty Years' View (Vol. 1 of 2) or, A History of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850 · 第 89 / 166 章