legitimate, we obtain one of the purest compacts for the organization of
human society that probably ever existed. The ancient allegiance, under
which the colonies had grown up to importance, had been extinguished by
solemn treaty, and the States met in Convention sustained by all the law
they had, and backed in every instance by institutions that were more or
less popular. The history of the world cannot, probably, furnish another
instance of the settlement of the fundamental contract of a great nation
under circumstances of so much obvious justice. This gives unusual
solemnity and authority to the Constitution of 1787, and invests it with
additional claims to our admiration and respect.
'The authority which formed the Constitution admitted, we come next to
the examination of its acts. It is apparent from the debates and
proceedings of the Convention, that two opinions existed in that body;
the one leaning strongly toward the concentration of power in the hands
of the Federal Government, and the other desirous of leaving as much as
possible with the respective States. The principle that the powers which
are not directly conceded to the Union should remain in first hands,
would seem never to have been denied; and some years after the
organization of the Government, it was solemnly recognized in an
amendment. We are not disposed, however, to look for arguments in the
debates and discussions of the Convention, in our view often a deceptive
and dangerous method of construing a law, since the vote is very
frequently given on even conflicting reasons. Different minds arrive at
the same results by different processes; and it is no unusual thing for
men to deny each other's premises, while they accept their conclusions.
We shall look, therefore, solely to the compact itself, as the most
certain mode of ascertaining what was done.
'No one will deny that all the great powers of sovereignty are directly
conceded to the Union. The right to make war and peace, to coin money,
maintain armies and navies, etc., etc., in themselves overshadow most of
the sovereignty of the States. The amendatory clause would seem to
annihilate it. By the provisions of that clause three fourths of the
States can take away all the powers and rights now resting in the hands
of the respective States, with a single exception. This exception gives
breadth and emphasis to the efficiency of the clause. It will be
remembered that all this can be done within the present Constitution.
It is a part of the original bargain. Thus, New York can legally be
deprived of the authority to punish for theft, to lay out highways, to
incorporate banks, and all the ordinary interests over which she at
present exercises control, every human being within her limits
dissenting. Now as sovereignty means power in the last resort, this
amendatory clause most clearly deprives the State of all sovereign power
thus put at the disposition of Conventions of the several States; in
fact, the votes of these Conventions, or that of the respective
Legislatures acting in the same capacity, is nothing but the highest
species of legislation known to the country; and no other mode of
altering the institutions would be legal. It follows unavoidably, we
repeat, that the sovereignty which remains in the several States must be
looked for solely in the exception. What, then, is this exception?
'It is a provision which says, that no State may be deprived of its
equal representation in the Senate, without its own consent. It might
well be questioned whether this provision of the Constitution renders a
Senate indispensable to the Government. But we are willing to concede
this point and admit that it does. Can the vote of a single State, which
is one of a body of thirty, and which is bound to submit to the decision
of a legal majority, be deemed a sovereign vote? Assuming that the whole
power of the Government of the United States were in the Senate, would
any one State be sovereign in such a condition of things? We think not.
But the Senate does not constitute by any means the whole or the half of
the authority of this Government; its legislative power is divided with
a popular body, without the concurrence of which it can do nothing; this
dilutes the sovereignty to a degree that renders it very imperceptible,
if not very absurd. Nor is this all. After a law is passed by the
concurrence of the two houses of Congress, it is sent to a perfectly
independent tribunal to decide whether it is in conformity with the
principles of the great national compact; thus demonstrating, as we
assume, that the sovereignty of this whole country rests, not in its
people, not in its States, but in the Government of the Union.
'Sovereignty, and that of the most absolute character, is indispensable
to the right of secession: nay, sovereignty, in the ordinary acceptation
of the meaning of the term, might exist in a State without this right of
secession. We doubt if it would be held sound doctrine to maintain that
any single State had a right to secede from the German Confederation,
for instance; and many alliances, or mere treaties, are held to be
sacred and indissoluble; they are only broken by an appeal to violence.
'Every human contract may be said to possess its distinctive character.
Thus, marriage is to be distinguished from a partnership in trade,
without recurrence to any particular form of words. Marriage, contracted
by any ceremony whatever, is held to be a contract for life. The same is
true of Governments: in their nature they are intended to be
indissoluble. We doubt if there be an instance on record of a Government
that ever existed, under conditions, expressed or implied, that the
parts of its territory might separate at will. There are so many
controlling and obvious reasons why such a privilege should not remain
in the hands of sections or districts, that it is unnecessary to advert
to them. But after a country has rounded its territory, constructed its
lines of defence, established its system of custom houses, and made all
the other provisions for security, convenience, and concentration, that
are necessary to the affairs of a great nation, it would seem to be very
presumptuous to impute to any particular district the right to destroy
or mutilate a system regulated with so much care.
'The only manner in which the right of secession could exist in one of
the American States, would be by an express reservation to that effect
in the Constitution, There is no such clause; did it exist it would
change the whole character of the Government, rendering it a mere
alliance, instead of being that which it now is--a lasting Union. But,
whatever may be the legal principles connected with this serious
subject, there always exists, in large bodies of men, a power to change
their institutions by means of the strong hand. This is termed the right
of revolution, and it has often been appealed to to redress grievances
that could be removed by no other agency. It is undeniable that the
institution of domestic slavery, as it now exists in what are termed the
Southern and Southwestern States of this country, creates an interest of
the most delicate and sensitive character. Nearly one half of the entire
property of the slaveholding States consists in this right to the
services of human beings of a race so different from our own as to
render any amalgamation to the last degree improbable, if not
impossible. Any one may easily estimate the deep interest that the
masters feel in the preservation of their property. The spirit of the
age is decidedly against them, and of this they must be sensible; it
doubly augments their anxiety for the future. The natural increase,
moreover, of these human chattels renders an outlet indispensable, or
they will soon cease to be profitable by the excess of their numbers. To
these facts we owe the figments which have rendered the Southern school
of logicians a little presuming, perhaps, and certainly very
sophistical. Among other theories we find the bold one, that the
Territories of the United States are the property, not of the several
States, but of their individual people; in other words, that the native
of New York or Rhode Island, regardless of the laws of the country, has
a right to remove to any one of these Territories, carry with him just
such property as he may see fit, and make such use of it as he may find
convenient. This is a novel copartnership in jurisdiction, to say the
least, and really does not seem worthy of a serious reply.'
'SLAVERY.
'The American Union has much more adhesiveness than is commonly
imagined. The diversity and complexity of its interests form a network
that will be found, like the web of the spider, to possess a power of
resistance far exceeding its gossamer appearance--one strong enough to
hold all that it was ever intended to enclose. The slave interest is now
making its final effort for supremacy, and men are deceived by the
throes of a departing power. The institution of domestic slavery cannot
last. It is opposed to the spirit of the age; and the figments of Mr.
Calhoun, in affirming that the Territories belong to the States, instead
of the Government of the United States; and the celebrated doctrine of
the equilibrium, for which we look in vain into the Constitution for a
single sound argument to sustain it, are merely the expiring efforts of
a reasoning that cannot resist the common sense of the nation. As it is
healthful to exhaust all such questions, let us turn aside a moment, to
give a passing glance at this very material subject.
'At the time when the Constitution was adopted, three classes of persons
were 'held to service' in the country--apprentices, redemptioners, and
slaves. The two first classes were by no means insignificant in 1789,
and the redemptioners were rapidly increasing in numbers. In that day it
looked as if this speculative importation of laborers from Europe was to
form a material part of the domestic policy of the Northern States. Now
the negro is a human being, as well as an apprentice or a redemptioner,
though the Constitution does not consider him as the equal of either.
It is a great mistake to suppose that the Constitution of the United
States, as it now exists, recognizes slavery in any manner whatever,
unless it be to mark it as an interest that has less than the common
claim to the ordinary rights of humanity. In the apportionment, or
representation clause, the redemptioner and the apprentice counts each
as a man, whereas five slaves are enumerated as only three free men. The
free black is counted as a man, in all particulars, and is represented
as such, but his fellow in slavery has only three fifths of his
political value.'
'THE LOVE OF UNION.
'The attachment to the Union is very strong and general throughout the
whole of this vast country, and it is only necessary to sound the tocsin
to bring to its maintenance a phalanx equal to uphold its standard
against the assaults of any enemies. The impossibility of the
Northwestern States consenting that the mouth of the Mississippi should
be held by a foreign power, is in itself a guarantee of the long
existence of the present political ties. Then, the increasing and
overshadowing power of the nation is of a character so vast, so
exciting, so attractive, so well adapted to carry with it popular
impulses, that men become proud of the name of American, and feel
unwilling to throw away the distinction for any of the minor
considerations of local policy. Every man sees and feels that a state is
rapidly advancing to maturity which must reduce the pretensions of even
ancient Rome to supremacy, to a secondary place in the estimation of
mankind. A century will unquestionably place the United States of
America prominently at the head of civilized nations, unless their
people throw away their advantages by their own mistakes--the only real
danger they have to apprehend: and the mind clings to this hope with a
buoyancy and fondness that are becoming profoundly national. We have a
thousand weaknesses, and make many blunders, beyond a doubt, as a
people; but where shall we turn to find a parallel to our progress, our
energy, and increasing power? That which it has required centuries, in
other regions, to effect, is here accomplished in a single life; and the
student in history finds the results of all his studies crowded, as it
might be, into the incidents of the day.'
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 7: The stereotype plates of _The Spirit of the Fair_, in which
the Cooper articles originally appeared, are owned by Mr. Trow. Bound
volumes of these interesting papers, containing a record of days so full
of patriotism, charity, and incident, may be obtained on application to
him. We give this piece of information to our readers, not doubting that
many of them will be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity to
possess them--an opportunity which may soon pass away in the rapid
development of present events.--EDITOR CONTINENTAL.]
APHORISMS.--NO. VIII.
'We shall never know much while we have so many books.'
Such was my thought, many years ago; and such does all my observation
and experience still confirm. Knowledges we may have, even if we do read
much: but not much knowledge.
But, some will ask, if one has true ideas, though derived from
others--is not that knowledge? Yes, if he has ideas: but propositions
expressing them are not enough: one may have many of these, and know but
little. For example, let us suppose Locke right about the mind's coming
into existence as a sheet of white paper--a man may receive this, and
yet not know it. See how easily this may be tested. White paper will
receive any impression you please: can the human mind receive the
impression that two and two are five, or that a part is equal to the
whole? Locke could have answered this, and seemed to save his theory.
The borrower from Locke cannot.
THE RESURRECTION FLOWER.
If a traveller in Egypt were to bow before the Sphynx, and receive a nod
in return, he could scarcely be more surprised than I was to-day, upon
seeing a little, dried-up thing--the remains of what had once bloomed
and faded ''mid beleaguering sands'--spring into life and beauty before
my very eyes. All the Abbott Collection contains nothing more rare or
curious. Old, perhaps, as Cheops, and apparently as sound asleep, it is
startled at the touch of water, and, stretching forth its tiny petals,
wakes into life as brightly as a new-born flower.
No one could believe, upon looking at this little ball, hanging on its
fragile stem, and resembling both in color and shape a shrunken
poppy-head, or some of the acorn tribe, what magical results could arise
from merely wetting its surface--yet so it is.
Sleeping, but not dead, the flower is aroused by being for an instant
immersed in water, and then supported in an upright position. Soon the
upper fibres begin to stir. Slowly, yet visibly, they unfold, until,
with petals thrown back in equidistant order, it assumes the appearance
of a beautifully radiated, starry flower, not unlike some of the Asters
in form. Resting a moment, it suddenly, as though inspired by some new
impulse, throws its very heart to the daylight, curving back its petals
farther still, and disclosing beauties undreamed of even in the
loveliness of its first awakening.
To say that, in general effect, its appearance resembles the
passion-flower is to give but a poor description, and yet one searches
in vain for a more fitting comparison. Lacking entirely the strong
contrasts in color of the latter, it yet wears a halo of its own, unlike
any other in the whole range of floral effects.
When viewed through a powerful lens, the heart of the flower, which, to
the naked eye, lies flooded in a warm, colorless light, assumes the most
exquisite iridescent hues, far more beautiful than the defined tints of
the passion-flower. Melting to the eye in its juiciness and delicacy,
yet firm in its pure outline and rounded finish, it bears the same
relation to that chosen type of the great Suffering, that peace bears to
passion, or that promise bears to prayer.
Soon the aspect of the flower changes. As though over the well-spring of
its eternal life hangs some ruthless power forcing it back into
darkness, before an hour has passed, we can see that its newly-found
vigor is fading away. The pulsing light at its heart grows fainter and
fainter--slowly the petals raise themselves, to drop wearily side by
side upon its bosom--and finally, its beauty vanished, its strength
exhausted, it hangs heavy and brown upon its stem, waiting for the touch
that alone can waken it again.
This rare botanical wonder, blooming one moment before admiring eyes,
and next lying dried and shrivelled in a tomb-like box, is not without
its legendary interest, though the odor of its oriental history has, by
this time, been nearly blown away by that sharp simoom of investigation,
which has already whirled so many pretty fables and theories into
oblivion.
The story of the flower, as given in 1856, by the late Dr. Deck, the
naturalist, is as follows:
While travelling on a professional tour in Upper Egypt, eight years
before, engaged in exploring for some lost emerald and copper mines, he
chanced to render medical service to an Arab attached to his party. In
gratitude, the child of the desert formally presented to him this
now-called 'Resurrection Flower,' at the same time enjoining upon him
never to part with it. Like the fabled gift of the Egyptian, it was
supposed to have 'magic in the web of it.' The doctor was solemnly
assured by the Arab, and others of his race, that it had been taken ten
years before from the breast of an Egyptian mummy, a high priestess, and
was deemed a great rarity; that it would never decay if properly cared
for; that its possession through life would tend to revive hope in
adversity, and, if buried with its owner, would ensure for him hereafter
all the enjoyments of the Seventh Heaven of Mahomet. When presented,
this flower was one of two hanging upon the same stem. Dr. Deck
carefully preserved one; the twin specimen he presented to Baron
Humboldt, who acknowledged it to be the greatest floral wonder he had
yet seen, and the only one of its kind he had met with in the course of
his extensive travels.
For years the doctor carried his treasure with him everywhere, prizing
it for its intrinsic qualities, and invariably awakening the deepest
interest whenever he chanced to display its wondrous powers. During the
remainder of his life he caused the flower to open more than one
thousand times, without producing any diminution of its extraordinary
property, or any injury to it whatever. It is proper to state that,
though closely examined by some of the most eminent naturalists, both at
home and abroad, no positive position in the botanical kingdom was ever
assigned to it--indeed to this day it remains a waif in the floral
world, none having determined under what classification it belongs.
I need not say that the doctor, while gratefully accepting the gift of
his Arab friend, quietly rejected the accompanying superstitions.
Subsequent trials and proofs positive confirmed his doubts of its
hope-inspiring power, while his inclination and good old prejudices
tempted him to forego the delights of the Seventh Heaven by bequeathing
his treasure to his friend and pupil, Dr. C. J. Eames, of New York, than
whom none could regard it with a truer appreciation, or recognize its
exquisite perfection with a feeling nearer akin to veneration.
It has now been in the possession of Dr. Eames for several years, and
has, in the mean time, been unfolded many hundred times, still without
any deterioration of its mysterious power. It opens as fairly and
freshly to-day, as when, under Egyptian skies, more than sixteen years
ago, its delicate fibres, heavy with the dust of ages, quivered into a
new life before the astonished eyes of Dr. Deck.
Well-named as, in some respects, it seems to be, this marvel of the
botanical world has already given rise to not a few discussions among
the scientific and curious, some earnestly proclaiming its right to the
title of 'Resurrection Flower,' and others denying that it is a flower
at all. Indeed, in its unfolded state, its resemblance to a flattened
poppy-head, and other seed vessels, offers strong argument in favor of
the latter opinion. In alluding to it, one uses the term 'flower' with
decided 'mental reservation'--beautiful flower, as it seems to be when
opened--and speaks of its 'petals' with a deprecating glance at
imaginary hosts of irate botanists. Some, it is true, still insist that
it is a _bona fide_ flower; but Dr. Deck himself inclined to the belief
that it was the pericarp or seed vessel of some desert shrub, rare
indeed, as few or none like it have appeared in centuries, yet not
without its analogies in the vegetable world.
The famous Rose of Jericho (not that mentioned in the Apocrypha, or the
very common kind peculiar to the far East, but that long-lost variety
prized by the Crusaders as a holy emblem of their zeal and pilgrimage)
was, in all probability, a member of the same genus to which the
'Resurrection Flower' belongs. This opinion is supported by the fact
that resemblances of the 'flower,' both open and closed, are sculptured
upon some of the tombs of the Crusaders--two, in the Temple Church of
London, and several in the Cathedrals of Bayeux and Rouen in Normandy,
where lie some of the most renowned followers of Peter the Hermit.
A brother of Dr. Deck, engaged in antiquarian research in the island of
Malta, discovered the same device graven upon the knights' tombs, and
invariably on that portion of the shield, the 'dexter chief,' which was
considered the place of highest honor. This gentleman has also furnished
the following quotation from an old monkish manuscript, describing 'a
wonder obtained from Jerusalem by the holy men, and called by them the
'Star of Bethlehem,' as, if exposed to the moon on the eve of the
Epiphany, it would become wondrous fair to view, and like unto the star
of the Saviour; and with the first glory of the sun, it would return to
its lowliness.'
Doubtless the old chroniclers, had they lived in these days of evidence
and 'solid fact,' would have given some credit to the heavy dews
peculiar to moonlight nights, an exposure to which would assuredly have
produced all the effect of immersion upon the flower.
The fact of so close a representation of the 'Resurrection Flower' being
upon the tombs of the Crusaders, added to the circumstance that in his
Egyptian researches he had never met with any allusion to it, induced
Dr. Deck to discard the story of its Egyptian origin as untenable. 'I
have unwrapped many mummies myself,' he wrote, 'and have had
opportunities of being present at unrolling of others of all classes,
and have never discovered another Resurrection Flower, nor heard of any
one who had; and in the examination of hieroglyphics of every age and
variety, I never discovered anything bearing the remotest resemblance to
it. Those who are conversant with the wonderful features of the Egyptian
religion and priestcraft, will observe how eagerly they seized upon and
deified anything symbolical of their mysterious tenets, and transmitted
them to posterity, figured as hieroglyphics; and it is but natural to
presume that this homely-looking flower, with its halo, so typical of
glory and resurrection, would have ranked high in their mythology, if
it, and its properties, had been known to them. Moreover, an examination
of the elaborate works of Josephus, Herodotus, King, and Diodorus, so
full in their description of Egyptian mythology, has failed to elicit
any description or notice of it whatever.'