Transcriber’s Notes:
Spelling has been retained as it appears in the original publication exceptas marked likethis in the text. The original text appears when hovering the cursorover the marked text. A list of amendments isat the end of the text.
| NEW YORK | LONDON |
| 27 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET | 24 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND |
I was much shocked a few years ago, in readinga Life of Webster, by the statement of itsable and distinguished author that really Haynehad the right of the argument in the renowneddebate on nullification. In reply I prepared astatement of Webster’s argument. Besideswhat Webster had so ably said, I found in theConstitution itself other proofs of the nationalityof our government, of the intent of thosewho made it to establish a nation, of their fullbelief that they had done so, and that, historically,there was no contention as to this.
The vital question is whether a nationalunion was established by the States, or a confederacyof independent nations formed withthe right of each to decide upon the validity ofthe acts of the General Government and leaveit at its pleasure.
The superiority in men and wealth that gavethe North the victory did not decide the rightor wrong of secession: it may have shown itsimpracticability; but if the right ever existedit remains to-day.
There are many authors who have at greatlength discussed this matter on the side of the[iv]South, but the case of the North, it seems tome, has not been fully set forth. The ideaappears to be creeping into history, a recent fadof some Northern writers and commentators,that the nationality of our government was aquestion from its inception, and that theUnited States Judiciary and Congress by assumptionshave largely extended its powers.
The nation, as Pallas Athene full grown andarmed from the brain of Zeus, sprang tolife from the Constitution with the sovereignauthority necessary for its existence and thepower to enforce its rule. In the beginningthere was no debate, no question of its nationality.The early commentators on the Constitution(and Story wrote three volumes uponthat matter) did not even mention that therewas a doubt of it.
To those who so often quote the Kentuckyresolutions, it will perhaps be a matter of surpriseto learn that their purport and existencewere forgotten from the time they were promulgateduntil South Carolina’s threat in 1830of nullification.
That Virginian of Virginians, Patrick Henry,who so strenuously opposed his State’s adoptionof the Constitu