72

SECT. 60. decide and make it? Any twenty fifth part of the nation whenever that part pleases? Secession, not assented to, draws the sword.—A state's right to secede is new as is South Carolina's nullification.-Neither has ever been admitted or claimed north of South Carolina. Col. Drayton says a majority may be a faction as well as a minority.-Does he reflect that in a nation of vast extent, and of various sectional interests, the laws of hon est majorities may often bear hard on minorities; and that each minority may, and probably will, have its turn ?-the East had its turn seven years and found relief but in Union, as abové stated. The East thought the majorities that voted the embargo in an error, but not factions; Those majorities were mainly, land and slave holders, South Carolina included. Will she say, they were factions. Clearly as much factions, as tariff, road and canal majorities are.-In neither case, were or are the majorities factions;-but larger sectional interests in both cases, acting on the principles of human nature, and bearing hard on minorities, in which men best learn wisdom, if they only have some reflecting men to control mad ones.

When the constitution was formed, the great sectional interests were those of Eastern commerce and fisheries; of the public creditors, mostly east of the Potomac, and of southern planters, men rich in land and slaves; not in money, or as creditors; hence, naturally, opposed to taxes and plans that require money; sometimes a useful check to prevent a waste of it-Since a great manufacturing interest has grown up in the Eastern, middle and western States-and a great road and canal interest in the Western and other States. Some early foresaw some great sectional interest, might by Union or otherwise, oppress the smaller; hence specially to be guarded against.--From early times, two ways have been adopted (besides our usual checks) to prevent hasty enactments of law, improper treaties; too many impeachments and amendments; one way requires a vote of two thirds; the other the veto of the first magistrate— two thirds in great cases in the confederation; so in the constitution to amend it; to ratify treaties and to convict on impeachments-the veto in all legislation.-Like caution of two thirds has been often recommended-by Virginia, &c. to regulate commerce and pass navigation acts-by several amendment writers in other cases-by Eastern States in January, 1815, to interdict commerce with other nations; to declare offensive war, and to admit new States.-The first sectional oppression severely felt, was of Eastern commerce and fisheries-reducing the value of real estates, in many seaports, from two to three hundred per cent. The veto is a common American principle and in the hands of a firm and judicious first magistrate, state or federal, may be often used to 'good purpose, to restrain majorities less than two thirds going too far.-The other way requiring two thirds in certain cases affecting vital interests, especially, geographical and sectional, I do not think has been carried far enough.

If a State has a constitutional right to secede as asserted by

Col. Drayton and Col. Hamilton,-seceding it becomes entirely Szer. 60. separate, a new nation free to act as it pleases.-On this ground a State in time of war can rightfully secede, and of course make a separate peace or join the enemy.-Surely such was not the opinion, when some absurdly thought Eastern States meant to Becede.

If South Carolina severs herself from the Union, by her own act, what will she do with the public debt and her federal creditors? Clearly she can take with her no part of the United States property or treaties?-The treaties, navy, and navy yards, public lands and buildings, posts of fortifications, &c. &c. must remain to the Union.-In fine, near all the threatened evils of secession arise from denying that the Judiciary is the common tribunal to decide if acts of Congress are constitutional or not-the Eastern States admitting it to be such a tribunal tended greatly to prevent extreme measures when they were suffering under the embargo, &c.

74

NOTES.

NOTE A.

As after the lapse of 43 years, some for the first time, claim the ordinance of July 13, 1787, as a Virginia production; in substance Mr. Jefferson's, it is material to compare it with his plan or resolve (not ordinance) of April, 1784, in order to show how very groundless the assertion of Senator B. is, that the ordinance of '87 was chiefly copied" from his plan.To those who make the comparison, not a word need be said to refute his assertion-On the face of them the difference is so visible and essentialBut thousands read his speeches, extensively published, where one makes this comparison. It is surprising, at this late day, that this claim is made for Virginia, never made by herself.

As but few possess the Journals of the Old Congress, in which Mr. Jefferson's plan of '84 and the ordinance of '87, formed by the author, are recorded, it is proper here, concisely to point out the material difference between them.-1st. The plan of '84 is contained in two pages and a half; the ordinance of '87 in eight pages.-2d. The first page in the plan, or resolve, of '84, is entirely omitted in the ordinance of '87.

3d. From the remaining page and a half of the plan there appears to be transferred to the ordinance in substance, these provisions, to wit. 1st. "The said territory and the states which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the articles of confederation." 2d. "To all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto." 3d.

"And

"The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay their part of the federal debts, contracted, or to be contracted, to be apportioned on them, by Congress, according to the same common rule and measure, by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other states." 4th. "The legislatures of those districts, or new States shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil, by the United States in Congress assembled; nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary, for securing the title to such soil to the bona fide purchasers." 5th. "No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States." 6th. in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents."It will be observed the provisions 4, 5 and 6, some now view as oppressive to the west, were taken from Mr. Jefferson's plan-The residue of the ordinance of '87 consists of two descriptions, one original as the provisons to prevent legislatures enacting laws to impair contracts, provisionally made-pre to secure to the Indians their rights and property-part of the titles to property made more purely republican and more completely divested of feudality than any other titles in the union were in July, 1787-The temporary organization was new-no part of it was in the plan of '84-The other description was selected mainly from the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, as any one may see who knows what American law was in '87-as 1st. Titles to property, by will, by deed, by descent, and by delivery, cited ver batim in the 7th Volume of this Abridgement, pages 389-390.-Here it

may be observed that titles to lands once taking root are important, as they are usually permanent.-In this case they were planted in 400,000 square miles of territory, and took root as was intended. 2d. All the fundamental, perpetual articles of compact, except as below, as 1st. Securing forever religious liberty. 2d. The essential parts of a bill of rights declaring that religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. These selections from the code of Massachusetts, as also the titles to property have created for her an extensive and lasting influence in the West, and of the most republican, liberal and beneficial kind.

The organization, providing officers to select or make, to decide on and execute laws, being temporary, was not deemed an important part of the ordinance of '87. Charles Pinckney assisted in striking out a part of this in 1786.

The 6th article of compact, the slave article, is imperfectly understood-Its history is--in 1784 a committee, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Chase, and Mr. Howell, reported it, as a part of the plan of 1784. This Congress struck out; only two members south of Pennsylvania supported it--all north of Maryland, present, voted to preserve it, so to exclude slavery. It was imperfect, First, as it admitted slavery till the year 1800. Second, it admitted slavery in very considerable parts of the territory forever, as will appear on a critical examination, especially in the parts owned for ages by French, Canadian and other inhabitants, as their property, provided for only in the ordinance of '87. In this ordinance of '87 slavery is excluded from its date, and forever from every part of the whole "territory of the United States, North West of the River Ohio," over all which the ordinance established government.

The amended slave article, as it is in the ordinance of '87 was added on the author's motion as the Journals shew-was not reported.

In the said 7th Volume published in 1824 full credit is given to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. King, on account of their slave article, too limited-amended in July '87 by extending the ordinance of that date, so the slave article in it, over the whole territory and to take effect from the date. In 1802 the Indian article was made a fundamental part of a Southern compactThe provision as to impairing contracts was afterwards adopted into the constitution of the United States, also into the several state constitutions, and after forty years experience into that of Virginia.

In the great Missouri debate in 1820, &c. one Southern member, at least, viewed this ordinance as a Northern usurpation; especially, as to the six articles of compact. Mr. B. in 1830 claims it as an honor to Virginia and Mr. Jefferson. Col. Carrington, of Virginia, as chairman, of the committee pro forma, reported the ordinance, but formed no part of it. Of late years this ordinance has been made a subject of particular importance, as proving the authors of it have afforded essential means in promoting the prosperity and rapid growth of the West-It was found in the great Missouri debate the Southern attempt to run it down would not do. As a western Senator said, in that debate, in Congress, it had been the cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night in settling the country-Others to the same purpose. On this and some other discoveries, this Northern usurpation, as Charles Pinckney viewed it, is now claimed as a Southern production to prove Southern friendship to the West-also to prove even in '87 the East did nothing in building up the West. In this point of view the East will

76

not readily yield its just claim in that business a claim not denied for 40 years and more.

On the whole, if there be any praise or any blame in this ordinance; eşpecially in the titles to property and in the permanent parts; so the most important, it belongs to Massachusetts; as one of her members formed it and furnished the matter with the exceptions, following. First, he was assisted in the committee of '86 in the temporary organization; almost solely by Mr. C. Pinkney, who did so little he felt himself at liberty to condemn this ordinance in that debate. Secondly, the author took from Mr. Jefferson's resolve of '84 in substance the said six provisions in the fourth article of compact as above stated. Thirdly, he took the words of the slave artiele from Mr. King's motion made in 1785, and extended its operation, as to time, and extent of territory, as is above mentioned as to matter his invention furnished the provisions respecting imposing contracts and the Indian security, and some other smaller matters, the residue, no doubt, he selected from existing laws, &c. In regard to the matter of this note, it is a portion of American law properly and conveniently placed in this appendix.The particular form of this note is in answer to many requests, lately made, by members of Congress and others to be informed respecting the formation, the detail and authorship of this ordinance, which in forty years has so often restrained insolvent acts, stop laws, and other improper legislation impair ing contracts.

NOTE B.

As in the foregoing pages, many States and public bodies and public men, are brought into view-some of them as being correct and some not; it has been thought best to name each, acting, speaking or writing in the case; so that any thing said or done by either, in each case, may be correctly ascribed to the real actor, speaker or writer.

NOTE C.

According to Mr. Madison, as cited by Mr. Hayne, the individual states may interpose to arrest the progress of usurpation of the General Government; first" where the violation of the Constitution shall be of a nature dangerous to the great purposes for which it was established." 2d. It must be a case 66 not obscure or doubtful, but plain and palpable." 3d. It must be a case "l stampt with deliberate consideration and final adherence.” How interpose? Mr. Madison does not say how therefore we may suppose he meant the states may interpose, in the manner the Constitution directs. If so his opinions are correct. The states did very properly interpose in 1793, as stated above, and effected their purpose.

Mr. Madison's second position states it must be a case not obscure and doubtful, but plain and palpable. His third position states it must be stampt with deliberate consideration and final adherence.

Now, for instance, is the tariff of 1828, a plain palpable violation of the Constitution? How stands the evidence? We see how it stands in the preceding pages. One Congress passed the tariff act of 1828, a succeeding Congress supports it. It was executed by the late executive; also is executed by the present, and for any thing that appears it is supported by the whole judiciary, state and federal and especially, nine state legisla tures have given their opinions respecting it--Six of them hold it constitutional and only three unconstitutional; there is no pretence that Mr. Madi