FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOWN TO 1830, BOTH THE NORTH
AND THE SOUTH HELD THE CONSTITUTION TO BE A COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES.
One of the great difficulties in arguing the question of the relative
power of the States and of the Federal Government, consists in the fact
that the present generation has grown up under the shadow of the great
Federal monster, and has been blinded by its giant proportions. They see
around them all the paraphernalia and power of a great government--its
splendid capital, its armies, its fleets, its Chief Magistrate, its
legislature, and its judiciary--and they find it difficult to realize the
fact, that all this grandeur is not self-created, but the offspring of the
States.
When our late troubles were culminating, men were heard frequently to
exclaim, with plaintive energy, "What! have we no government capable of
preserving itself? Is our Government a mere rope of sand, that may be
destroyed at the will of the States?" These men seemed to think that there
was but one government to be preserved, and that that was the Government
of the United States. Less than a century had elapsed since the adoption
of the Constitution, and the generation now on the theatre of events had
seemingly forgotten, that the magnificent structure, which they
contemplated with so much admiration, was but a creature of the States;
that it had been made by them for their convenience, and necessarily held
the tenure of its life at sufferance. They lost sight of the fact that the
State governments, who were the creators of the Federal Government, were
the governments to be preserved, if there should be any antagonism between
them and the Federal Government; and that their services, as well as
their sympathies, belonged to the former in preference to the latter. What
with the teachings of Webster and Story, and a host of satellites, the
dazzling splendor of the Federal Government, and the overshadowing and
corrupting influences of its power, nearly a whole generation in the North
had grown up in ignorance of the true nature of the institutions, under
which they lived.
This change in the education of the people had taken place since about the
year 1830; for, up to that time, both of the great political parties of
the country, the Whigs as well as the Democrats, had been State-Rights in
doctrine. A very common error has prevailed on this subject. It has been
said, that the North and the South have always been widely separated in
their views of the Constitution; that the men of the North have always
been consolidationists, whilst the men of the South have been
secessionists. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Whilst the North and
the South, from the very commencement of the Government, have been at
swords' points, on many questions of mere construction and policy,--the
North claiming that more ample powers had been granted the Federal
Government, than the South was willing to concede,--there never was any
material difference between them down to the year 1830, as to the true
nature of their Government. They all held it to be a federal compact, and
the Northern people were as jealous of the rights of their States under
it, as the Southern people.
In proof of this, I have only to refer to a few of the well-known facts of
our political history. Thomas Jefferson penned the famous Kentucky
Resolutions of '98 and '99. The first of those resolutions is in these
words: "_Resolved_, That the several States comprising the United States
of America are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to
their general Government; but that by a compact, under the style and title
of the Constitution of the United States, and of amendments thereto, they
constitute a general Government for special purposes; and that whensoever
the general Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are
unauthoritative, void and of no force; that to this compact each State
acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to
itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was
not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers
delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, not the
Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all cases of
compact among persons having no common judge, each party has an equal
right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and
measure of redress."
It is unnecessary to quote the other resolution, as the above contains all
that is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show that Mr. Jefferson was
a secessionist, and that _with this record_ he went before the American
people as a candidate for the Presidency, with the following results: In
1800 he beat his opponent, John Adams, who represented the
consolidationists of that day, by a majority of 8 votes in the Electoral
College. In 1804, being a candidate for re-election, he beat his opponent
by the overwhelming majority of 162, to 14 votes. In the Northern States
alone, Mr. Jefferson received 85 votes, whilst in the same States his
opponent received but 9. This was a pretty considerable indorsement of
secession by the Northern States.
In 1808, Mr. Madison, who penned the Virginia Resolutions of '98, similar
in tenor to the Kentucky Resolutions, became a candidate for the
Presidency, and beat his opponent by a vote of 122 to 47; the Northern
majority, though somewhat diminished, being still 50 to 39 votes. Mr.
Madison was re-elected in 1812, and in 1816, James Monroe was elected
President by a vote of 183 to his opponent's 34; and more than one half of
these 183 votes came from the Northern States. In 1820, Mr. Monroe was
re-elected over John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, by a majority of 231
votes to 13. Besides Monroe and Adams, Crawford and Jackson were also
candidates, but these two latter received only 11 votes between them. This
last election is especially remarkable, as showing that there was no
opposition to Jefferson's doctrine of State-Rights, since _all_ the
candidates were of that creed. The opposition had been so often defeated,
and routed in former elections, that they had not strength enough left to
put a candidate in the field.
John Quincy Adams succeeded Mr. Monroe, and his State-Rights doctrines
are well known. He expressed them as follows: "The indissoluble link of
union between the people of the several States of this confederated
nation, is, after all, not in the _right_, but in the _heart_. If the day
should ever come (may heaven avert it) when the affections of the people
of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal
spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or _collision of interests
shall fester into hatred_, the bands of political association will not
long hold together parties, no longer attracted by the magnetism of
conciliated interests, and kindly sympathies; and _far better will it be
for the people of the dis-united States to part in friendship with each
other, than to be held together by constraint_. Then will be the time
for reverting to the precedents, which occurred at the formation, and
adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by
dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated
parts to be reunited _by the law of political gravitation to the centre_."
General Jackson succeeded Mr. Adams in 1828, and was re-elected in 1832.
It was during his administration that the _heresy_ was first promulgated
by Mr. Webster, that the Constitution was not a compact between the
States, but an instrument of government, "ordained, and established," by
the people of the United States, in the aggregate, as one nation. With
respect to the New England States in particular, there is other and more
pointed evidence, that they agreed with Mr. Jefferson, and the South down
to the year 1830, on this question of State rights, than is implied in the
Presidential elections above quoted. Massachusetts, the leader of these
States in intellect, and in energy, impatient of control herself, has
always sought to control others. This was, perhaps, but natural. All
mankind are prone to consult their own interests. Selfishness,
unfortunately, is one of the vices of our nature, which few are found
capable of struggling against effectually.
The New England people were largely imbued with the Puritan element. Their
religious doctrines gave them a gloomy asceticism of character, and an
intolerance of other men's opinions quite remarkable. In their earlier
history as colonists, there is much in the way of uncharitableness and
persecution, which a liberal mind could wish to see blotted out. True to
these characteristics, which I may almost call instincts, the New England
States have always been the most refractory States of the Union. As long
as they were in a minority, and hopeless of the control of the Government,
they stood strictly on their State rights, in resisting such measures as
were unpalatable to them, even to the extremity of threatening secession;
and it was only when they saw that the tables were turned, and that it was
possible for them to seize the reins of the Government, that they
abandoned their State-Rights doctrines, and became consolidationists.
One of the first causes of the dissatisfaction of the New England States
with the General Government was the purchase of Louisiana, by Mr.
Jefferson, in 1803. It arose out of their jealousy of the balance of power
between the States. The advantages to result to the United States from the
purchase of this territory were patent to every one. It completed the
continuity of our territory, from the head waters of the Mississippi, to
the sea, and unlocked the mouths of that great river. But Massachusetts
saw in the purchase, nothing more than the creation of additional Southern
States, to contest, with her, the future control of the Government. She
could see no authority for it in the Constitution, and she threatened,
that if it were consummated, she would secede from the Union. Her
Legislature passed the following resolution on the subject: "_Resolved_,
That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, transcends the
Constitutional power of the Government of the United States. It formed a
new Confederacy, to which the States [not the people of the United States,
in the aggregate] united by the former compact, are not bound to adhere."
This purchase of Louisiana rankled, for a long time, in the breast of New
England. It was made, as we have seen, in 1803, and in 1811 the subject
again came up for consideration; this time, in the shape of a bill before
Congress for the admission of Louisiana as a State. One of the most able
and influential members of Congress of that day from Massachusetts was Mr.
Josiah Quincy. In a speech on this bill, that gentlemen uttered the
following declaration: "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion
that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the
States from their moral obligation, and as it will be the right of all, so
it will be the duty of some definitely to prepare for separation,
amicably if they can, violently if they must."
Time passed on, and the difficulties which led to our War of 1812, with
Great Britain, began to rise above the political horizon. Great Britain
began to impress seamen from New England merchant ships, and even went so
far, at last, as to take some enlisted men from on board the United States
ship of war Chesapeake. Massachusetts was furious; she insisted that war
should be declared forthwith against Great Britain. The Southern States,
which had comparatively little interest in this matter, except so far as
the federal honor was concerned, came generously to the rescue of the
shipping States, and war was declared. But the first burst of her passion
having spent itself, Massachusetts found that she had been indiscreet; her
shipping began to suffer more than she had anticipated, and she began now
to cry aloud as one in pain. She denounced the war, and the Administration
which was carrying it on; and not content with this, in connection with
other New England States, she organized a Convention, at Hartford, in
Connecticut, with a view to adopt some ulterior measures. We find the
following among the records of that Convention: "Events may prove, that
the causes of our calamities are deep, and permanent. They may be found to
proceed not merely from blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence
of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to
implacable combinations, of individuals, _or of States_, to monopolize
office, and to trample, without remorse, upon the rights and interests of
the commercial sections of the Union. Whenever it shall appear, that these
causes are radical, and permanent, _a separation by equitable arrangement,
will be preferable to an alliance, by constraint, among nominal friends
but real enemies, inflamed by mutual hatred, and jealousy, and inviting,
by intestine divisions, contempt and aggressions from abroad_." Having
recorded this opinion of what should be the policy of the New England
States, in the category mentioned, the "Journal of the Convention" goes on
to declare what it considers the right of the States, in the premises.
"That acts of Congress, in violation of the Constitution, are absolutely
void, is an indisputable position. It does not, however, consist with the
respect, from a _Confederate State_ toward the General Government, to fly
to open resistance, upon every infraction of the Constitution. The mode,
and the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of
the violation, the intention of the authors, the extent of the evil
inflicted, the determination manifested to persist in it, and the danger
of delay. But in case of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions
of the Constitution, _affecting the sovereignty of the State_, and
liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the _duty_, of each
State _to interpose its authority_ for their protection, in the manner
best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur, which are
either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of
the delay incident to their forms, _States_, which have no common umpire,
_must be their own judges_, and _execute their own decisions_." These
proceedings took place in January, 1815. A deputation was appointed to lay
the complaints of New England before the Federal Government, and there is
no predicting what might have occurred, if the delegates had not found,
that peace had been declared, when they arrived at Washington.
It thus appears, that from 1803-4 to 1815, New England was constantly in
the habit of speaking of the dissolution of the Union--her leading men
deducing this right from the nature of the compact between the States. It
is curious and instructive, and will well repay the perusal, to read the
"Journal of the Hartford Convention," so replete is it with sound
constitutional doctrine. It abounds in such expressions as these: "The
constitutional compact;" "It must be the duty of the State to watch over
the rights _reserved_, as of the United States to exercise the powers
_which were delegated_;" the right of conscription is "not delegated to
Congress by the Constitution, and the exercise of it would not be less
dangerous to their liberties, than hostile to the _sovereignty of the
States_." The odium which has justly fallen upon the Hartford Convention,
has not been because of its doctrines, for these were as sound, as we have
seen, as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of '98 and '99, but because
it was a secret conclave, gotten together, _in a time of war_, when the
country was hard pressed by a foreign enemy; the war having, in fact, been
undertaken for the benefit of the very shipping States which were
threatening to dissolve the Union on account of it.
Mr. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, himself,
as is well known, a Massachusetts man, speaking of this dissatisfaction of
the New England States with the Federal Government, says: "That their
object was, and had been, for several years, a dissolution of the Union
and the establishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from
unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law; and that in
case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain, to effect that purpose,
would be assuredly resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to
their design." See Mr. Adams' letter of Dec. 30th, 1828, in reply to
Harrison Gray Otis and others.
We have thus seen, that for forty years, or from the foundation of the
Federal Government, to 1830, there was no material difference of opinion
between the sections, as to the nature of the league or compact of
government which they had formed. There was this difference between the
sections, however. The South, during this entire period of forty years,
had substantially controlled the Government; not by force, it is true, of
her own majorities, but with the aid of a few of the Northern States. She
was the dominant or ruling power in the Government. During all this time,
she conscientiously adhered to her convictions, and respected the rights
of the minority, though she might have wielded her power, if she had been
so inclined, to her own advantage.
Constitutions are made for the protection of minorities, and she
scrupulously adhered to this idea. Minorities naturally cling to the
guarantees and defences provided for them in the fundamental law; it is
only when they become strong, when they throw off their pupilage, and
become majorities, that their principles and their virtues are really
tested. It is in politics, as in religion--the weaker party is always the
tolerant party. Did the North follow this example set her by the South?
No; the moment she became strong enough, she recanted all the doctrines
under which she had sought shelter, tore the Constitution into fragments,
scattered it to the winds; and finally, when the South threw herself on
the defensive, as Massachusetts had threatened to do, in 1803 and 1815,
she subjugated her.
What was the powerful motive which thus induced the North to overthrow the
government which it had labored so assiduously with the South to
establish, and which it had construed in common with the South, for the
period of forty years? It was the motive which generally influences human
conduct; it was the same motive which Patrick Henry had so clearly
foreseen, when he warned the people of Virginia against entering into the
federal compact; telling them, that interested majorities never had, in
the history of the world, and never would respect the rights of
minorities.
The great "American System," as it has been called, had in the meantime
arisen, championed by no less a personage than Henry Clay of Kentucky. In
1824, and again in 1828, oppressive tariffs had been enacted for the
protection of New England manufacturers. The North was manufacturing, the
South non-manufacturing. The effect of these tariffs was to shut out all
foreign competition, and compel the Southern consumer to pay two prices
for all the textile fabrics he consumed, from the clothing of his negroes
to his own broadcloth coats. So oppressive, unjust, and unconstitutional
were these acts considered, that South Carolina nullified them in 1830.
Immediately all New England was arrayed against South Carolina. An entire
and rapid change took place in the political creed of that section. New
England orators and jurists rose up to proclaim that the Constitution was
not a compact between the States. Webster thundered in the Senate, and
Story wrote his "Commentaries on the Constitution." These giants had a
herculean task before them; nothing less than the falsifying of the whole
political history of the country, for the previous forty years; but their
barren and inhospitable section of the country had been touched by the
enchanter's wand, and its rocky hills, and sterile fields, incapable of
yielding even a scanty subsistence to its numerous population, were to
become glad with the music of the spindle and the shuttle; and the giants
undertook the task! How well they have accomplished it, the reader will
see, in the course of these pages, when, toward the conclusion of my
narrative, he will be called upon to view the fragments of the grand old
Constitution, which has been shattered, and which will lie in such
mournful profusion around him; the monuments at once of the folly and
crimes of a people, who have broken up a government--a free
government--which might else have endured for centuries.