The Crisis of Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-One in the Government of the United States.: Its Cause, and How It Should Be MetStreight, Abel D.
History
The Crisis of Eighteen Hundred and Sixty-One in the Government of the United States.: Its Cause, and How It Should Be Met
Streight, Abel D.
Secession; United States -- Politics and government -- 1857-1861
"This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the
constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so
will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the
constitution or any law of the United States. But who shall decide
this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This,
sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring '_that the
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the
constitution and laws of the United States_.' These two provisions,
sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the
arch. With these it is a government; without them it is a confederacy.
In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress
established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode
for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of
constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. It
then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of
self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have
been now among things which are passed. Having constituted the
government, and declared its powers, the people have further said,
that since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the
government shall itself decide--subject always like other popular
governments, to its responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I
repeat, how is it that a State legislature acquires any right to
interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people,
'We, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake
to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for
another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them?' The
reply would be, I think, not impertinent, 'Who made you a judge over
another's servants. To their own masters they stand or fall.'"
He then went on to show that a State could not make treason against the
United States legal, and, says he, when I maintain these sentiments, I am
but asserting the rights of the people; I state what they have declared
and insisted on as their right to declare it. They have chosen to repose
this power in the general government, and I think it my duty to support it
like other Constitutional powers.
In referring to the importance of having but one tribunal, whose decisions
should be final--Sir, said he:
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account