Nullification, Secession, Webster's Argument, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Considered in Reference to the Constitution and HistoricallyLoring, Caleb William
History
Nullification, Secession, Webster's Argument, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Considered in Reference to the Constitution and Historically
Loring, Caleb William
Nullification (States' rights); Secession
The question whether the States ever had individual sovereignty arose in
the convention chosen for deciding on the ratification of the
Constitution, and General Charles C. Pinckney[54] insisted that our
independence came from the Declaration of Independence made by the
Congress of the Confederacy, wherein in the name of the good people of
these colonies we were declared free and independent States. The
separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several States
was never thought of, not even mentioned by name in any part of it. The
same objection in South Carolina as in other States to the Constitution
as destructive of liberty was made. James Lincoln, a delegate from
Ninety-six, said: “From a democratic you are rushing into an
aristocratic government. Liberty! what is liberty? The power of
governing yourselves. If you adopt this Constitution have you this
power? No; you give it into the hands of a set of men who live one
thousand miles distant from you.”[55]
[54] 4 Elliot, 301.
[55] 4 Elliot, 313. The objections to the Constitution came very
generally from the interior western parts of the State. They were so in
Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York.
The words of ratification of the States are also conclusive on these
points. We will take the three important States whose acceptance was for
a long time doubtful. Massachusetts in her pious and reverential
ratification used the word compact, which numerous Southern writers,
Davis, Stephens, and others, bring up as proof that Massachusetts
considered the Constitution a mere confederacy and not a government.
To refute this it is but necessary to give the very words used:
“The Convention, acknowledging with grateful hearts the
goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in affording the
people of the United States, in the course of his providence,
an opportunity deliberately and peaceably without fraud or
surprise of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with
each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new constitution in
order to form a more perfect union, ... do, in the name and
behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United
States of America.”
It is _the people of the United States_, not the States, nor the people
of the State of Massachusetts, that enter into this explicit and solemn
compact with each other for a more perfect union. As we have said
before, a compact may be for a national government or for a confederacy.
If the convention understood that it was States making a confederacy,
they would have said the people of the State, and not the people of the
United States.
We come next to Virginia’s acceptance of the Constitution, which, to
Calhoun’s peculiar mind, was “a conditional one.” “A condition made in
the interest of all the States, and of which any State could avail.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account