But the new government had hardly been inaugurated before it was
disturbed by the pestilent pretension of State Rights, which, indeed,
has never ceased to disturb it since. Discontent with the treaty between
the United States and Great Britain, negotiated by that purest patriot,
John Jay, under instructions from Washington, in 1794, aroused Virginia,
even at that early day, to commence an opposition to its ratification,
_in the name of State Rights_. Shortly afterwards appeared the famous
resolutions of Virginia and those of Kentucky, usually known as the
"Resolutions of '98," declaring that the National Government was founded
on a compact between the States, and claiming for the States the right
to sit in judgment on the National Government, and to interpose, if they
thought fit; all this, as you will see, _in the name of State Rights_.
This pretension on the part of the States increased, till, at last, on
the mild proposition to attach a prospective prohibition of Slavery as a
condition to the admission of Missouri into the Union as a new State,
the opposition raged furiously, even to the extent of menacing the
existence of the Union; and this, too, was done _in the name of State
Rights_. Ten years later, the pretension took the familiar form of
Nullification, insisting that our government was only a compact of
States, any one of which was free to annul an act of Congress at its own
pleasure; and all this _in the name of State Rights_. For a succession
of years afterwards, at the presentation of petitions against
Slavery,--petitions for the recognition of Hayti,--at the question of
Texas,--at the Wilmot Proviso,--at the admission of California as a Free
State,--at the discussion of the Compromises of 1850,--at the Kansas
Question,--the Union was menaced; and always _in the name of State
Rights_. The menace was constant, and it sometimes showed itself on
small as well as great occasions, but always _in the name of State
Rights_. When it was supposed that Fremont was about to be chosen
President, the menace became louder, and mingling with it was the hoarse
mutter of war; and all this audacity was _in the name of State Rights_.
But in the autumn of 1860, on the election of Mr. Lincoln, the case
became much worse. Scarcely was the result of this election known by
telegraph before the country was startled by other intelligence, to the
effect that certain States at the South were about to put in execution
the long-pending threat of Secession, of course _in the name of State
Rights_. First came South Carolina, which, by an ordinance adopted in a
State convention, undertook to repeal the original act by which the
Constitution was adopted in this State, and to declare that the State
had ceased to be one of the States of the Union. At the same time a
Declaration of Independence was put forth by this State, which proceeded
to organize itself as an independent community. This example was
followed successively by other States, which, by formal acts of
Secession, undertook to dissolve their relations with the Union, always,
be it understood, _in the name of State Rights_. A new Confederation was
formed by these States, with a new Constitution, and Jefferson Davis at
its head; and the same oaths of loyalty by which the local functionaries
of all these States had been bound to the Union were now transferred to
this new Confederation,--of course, in utter violation of the
Constitution of the United States, but always _in the name of State
Rights_. The ordinances of Secession were next maintained by war, which,
beginning with the assault upon Fort Sumter, convulsed the whole
country, till, at last, all the States of the new Confederation are in
open rebellion, which the Government of the United States is now
exerting its energies, mustering its forces, and taxing its people to
suppress. The original claim, _in the name of State Rights_, has swollen
to all the proportions of an unparalleled war, which, _in the name of
State Rights_, now menaces the national life.
But the pretensions in the name of State Rights are not all told. While
the ordinances of Secession were maturing, and before they were yet
consummated, Mr. Buchanan, who was then President, declined to
interfere, on the ground that what had been done was done by States, and
that it was contrary to the theory of our government "to coerce a
State." Thus was the pretension of State Rights made the apology for
imbecility. Had this President then interfered promptly and loyally, it
cannot be doubted that this whole intolerable crime might have been
trampled out forever. And now, when it is proposed that Congress shall
organise governments in these States, which are absolutely without loyal
governments, we are met by the objection founded on State Rights. The
same disastrous voice which from the beginning of our history has
sounded in our ears still makes itself heard; but, alas! it is now on
the lips of our friends. Of course, just in proportion as it prevails
will it be impossible to establish the Constitution again throughout the
Rebel States. State Rights are madly triumphant, if, first, in their
name Rebel governments can be organized, and then, again, in their name
Congressional governments to displace the Rebel governments can be
resisted. If they can be employed, first to sever the States from the
Union, and then to prevent the Union from extending its power over them,
State Rights are at once a sword and buckler to the Rebellion. It was
through the imbecility of Mr. Buchanan that the States were allowed to
use the sword. God forbid that now, through any similar imbecility of
Congress, they shall be allowed to use the buckler!