A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEW
OF THE LATE
WAR BETWEEN THE STATES;
ITS
CAUSES, CHARACTER, CONDUCT AND RESULTS

PRESENTED IN A
SERIES OF COLLOQUIES
AT LIBERTY HALL

BY
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Times change and men often change with them, but principles never!

IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

[1868]

PUBLISHED BY
THE NATIONAL PUBLISHING CO.,
PHILADELPHIA, PA., CHICAGO, ILL., ST. LOUIS, MO.
AND ATLANTA, GA.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 7

COLLOQUY I.

MR. STEPHENS'S UNION SPEECH OF 1860 THE SUBJECT ON WHICH THE DISCUSSION BEGINS — THE MOST THOROUGH DEVOTION TO THE UNION CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOGNISED SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEVERAL STATES — THE UNION ITSELF IS A UNION OF SOVEREIGN STATES — THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF THE WAR, ITS CAUSES, NATURE, AND CHARACTER, OPENED UP BY A QUESTION PROPOUNDED, HOW MR. STEPHENS WITH HIS SENSE OF DUTY COULD GO WITH HIS STATE ON SECESSION AGAINST THE UNION? — BEFORE GOING INTO A FULL ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, TWO PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS MADE, ONE RELATING TO CITIZENSHIP, THE OTHER TO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND — CITIZENSHIP PERTAINS TO THE STATES — OBEDIENCE IS DUE TO THE SUPREME LAW WHILE IT IS LAW, BUT ALLEGIANCE IS DUE TO THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY — OBEDIENCE TO LAW WHILE IT IS LAW, AND ALLEGIANCE WHICH IS DUE TO THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY WHICH CAN RIGHTFULLY MAKE AND UNMAKE ALL LAWS, CONSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS OTHERS, ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS — THE QUESTION PROPOUNDED REQUIRES A THOROUGH INQUIRY AS TO WHERE, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, THIS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY RESIDES ........................................... 17

COLLOQUY II.

INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE UNION — A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH — THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE — THE FIRST CONFEDERATION — A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES — JUDGE STORY REVIEWED .......................................................... 50

COLLOQUY III.

HISTORY OF THE UNION TRACED — ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION — THE DEFECTS IN THEM TREATED OF — THE CALL OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION TO REMODEL THEM — THE SOLE OBJECT OF THIS CONVENTION WAS TO REVISE THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND NOT TO CHANGE THE BASIS OR CHARACTER OF THE UNION — THIS APPEARS FROM THE CALL ITSELF AS WELL AS THE RESPONSES OF THE STATES TO IT — THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CHANGE THE FEDERAL CHARACTER OF THE UNION .................................................... 82

COLLOQUY IV.

THE NATURE OF THE UNION NOT CHANGED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION — ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY UNDER IT RESIDES WHERE IT DID UNDER THE CONFEDERATION — JUDGE STORY ON THE FIRST RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — THE CONSTITUTION, AS THE CONFEDERATION, IS A GOVERNMENT OF STATES AND FOR STATES — THIS APPEARS FROM THE PREAMBLE ITSELF — THE UNION OF THE STATES WAS CONSOLIDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT ARROGATED AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BY A GENERAL MERGER OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTIES — IT FORMS A CONFEDERATED REPUBLIC — SUCH A REPUBLIC IS FORMED BY THE UNION OF SEVERAL SMALLER REPUBLICS EACH RESPECTIVELY PUTTING LIMITED RESTRAINTS UPON THEMSELVES BY VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENTS WITHOUT ANY IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR SEVERAL SOVEREIGNTIES, ACCORDING TO MONTESQUIEU AND VATTEL .................... 116

COLLOQUY V.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES — ANALYSIS OF ITS PROVISIONS, MUTUAL COVENANTS, AND DELEGATIONS OF POWER, AS IN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION ........................................... 171

COLLOQUY VI.

THE ACTION OF THE SEVERAL STATES ON THE CONSTITUTION — DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS — COMMENTS THEREON............. 207

COLLOQUY VII.

WEBSTER ON THE CONSTITUTION — COMMENTS.................................... 298

COLLOQUY VIII.

CALHOUN ON THE CONSTITUTION — COMMENTS................................... 343

COLLOQUY IX.

SUBJECT CONTINUED — WEBSTER'S SPEECH BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT — HIS LETTER TO BARING, BROTHERS & CO — HIS CAPON SPRINGS SPEECH — THE SUPREME COURT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY — INTERNATIONAL COMITY — DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNION OF THE STATES AND THE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND — EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SENATE IN 1838 — CALHOUN'S PRINCIPLES OF 1833 SUSTAINED BY TWO THIRDS OF THE STATES IN 1838 — EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SENATE IN 1860 — JEFFERSON DAVIS ............... 389

COLLOQUY X.

NULLIFICATION — GENERAL JACKSON ON THE UNION — JEFFERSON ON THE UNION — KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 — SETTLEMENT OF THE NULLIFICATION ISSUE — THE DEBATES IN THE SENATE — WILKINS, CALHOUN, GRUNDY, BIBB AND CLAY — THE COMPROMISE ON THE PROTECTIVE POLICY OF 1833 — THE WORKINGS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THAT COMPROMISE WAS MADE — THE GREAT PROSPERITY THAT FOLLOWED — NO PRESIDENT FROM JEFFERSON TO LINCOLN ELECTED, WHO DID NOT HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO BE A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES — MADISON, MONROE, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, JACKSON, VAN BUREN, HARRISON, POLK, TAYLOR, PIERCE, AND BUCHANAN, ALL SO HELD IT TO BE — THE SUPREME COURT NOT THE UMPIRE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT — MADISON, BIBB, MARSHALL, AND LIVINGSTON ON THIS SUBJECT — GENERAL JACKSON'S EXPLANATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE PROCLAMATION — HE HELD THE CONSTITUTION TO BE A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES — HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS................... 419

COLLOQUY XI.

THE GREAT TRUTH ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES — THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS STRICTLY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — EACH STATE FOR ITSELF HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE OF INFRACTIONS AS WELL AS THE MODE AND MEASURE OF REDRESS — THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE UNION UPON BREACH OF THE COMPACT BY OTHER PARTIES TO IT SPRINGS FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENT — THE COMPACT WAS BROKEN BY THIRTEEN STATES OF THE UNION — WEBSTER, STORY, TUCKER, RAWLE, DE TOCQUEVILLE, WADE, GREELEY AND LINCOLN UPON THIS RIGHT TO WITHDRAW OR SECEDE IN SUCH CASE ........................................................ 477

COLLOQUY XII.

CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT — IS A CONFEDERATED GOVERNMENT TOO WEAK TO SECURE ITS OBJECTS — ON THE CONTRARY, IS IT NOT THE STRONGEST OF ALL GOVERNMENTS — THE OPINIONS OF MR. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS AND MR. JEFFERSON — IN SECESSION WAS INVOLVED THIS GREAT RIGHT, WHICH LIES AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERATIVE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT — IT WAS OF INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANCE TO THE SOUTHERN STATES THAN SLAVERY, SO — CALLED, WITH ITS TWO THOUSAND MILLIONS OF CAPITAL INVESTED IN THAT INSTITUTION .............................................................................. 522

APPENDIX A.

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ................................................................. 545

APPENDIX B.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION BETWEEN THE STATES .......................................................................................... 549

APPENDIX C.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ........................ 557

APPENDIX D.

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 ................................................... 570

APPENDIX E.

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798-99 — DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES AND MADISON'S REPORT THEREON — IN THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, FRIDAY, DEC. 21, 1798 ................................................. 576

APPENDIX F.

EXTRACTS FROM AN ADDRESS BY THE HON. JAMES P. HOLCOMBE, DELIVERED BEFORE THE VIRGINIA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, AT ITS SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETING, NOVEMBER 4, 1858 ......................... 621

APPENDIX G.

A LECTURE BY HON. ROBERT TOOMBS, DELIVERED IN THE TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY 24, 1856 — SLAVERY — ITS CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS — ITS INFLUENCE ON THE AFRICAN RACE AND SOCIETY .............................................................. 625

Home » Liberty Library » Constitutional Commentary
Original URL: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ahs/consview.htm
Maintained:
Jon Roland of the Constitution Society
Original date: 2003/6/6 — 




Popular Pages

More Info