CHAPTER V. SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. OINT V. The fathers considered that the states in the union POINT have the unlimited right of self-defence, by withdrawing delegations, and recalling their citizens from federal offices; by dissociation; and by fighting, if need be, the federal govern ment. The highest and most conspicuous authority. that which is most conclusive on the right to any mode of defence a state may choose, against the aggressions or menaces of power, and against federal coercion is the states themselves. Not only did they solemnly compact, and pledge faith and guaranty with one another, that each state was "sovereign, free, and independent," at the very moment they, as thus characterized, made the federal constitution; but they, the said states, did then have - - and they have ever since had in their respective constitutions the solemn declaration that "all political power is inherent" in them. Not a part, and not in any qualified manner, but all absolutely all. [See the state constitutions generally.] Surely, surely, if "all political power" is inherent in these communities, they could take the political step of separating or withdrawing their delegations of power from the federal government; and there could be no political authority out of them, to coerce them against their will, especially as they have made no expression to that effect. It is quite obvious, that if there was any political power out of them that they could not recall at will, they were neither sovereigns nor free states. Passing by this, let us see What the Fathers say on Self-defence of States. - Said DR. JOHNSON, one of the most eminent lawyers and statesmen of Connecticut, in the federal convention: "If states as such are to exist, they ought to have the means of defending themselves." [V. Ell. Deb. 255.] Said OLIVER ELLSWORTH united states afterwards the chief justice of the is essential to the small states. Said JOHN MARSHALL afterwards the celebrated chief justice of the united states — in the Virginia convention: "We [i. e. the people of Virginia] are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim that those who give may It is the people that give power, AND CAN TAKE IT BACK. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. The government is not supported by force, but depending on our FREE-WILL. When experience shall show us any inconvenience, we can then correct it." [III. Ibid. 233.] take away. Said CHANCELLOR PENDLETON, the president of said convention, on the same occasion: "Where is the cause of alarm? We, the people [of Virginia], possessing all power, form a government, which we think will secure happiness. And suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end. . . . In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. But, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of selfinterest. What then? We will assemble in convention [of Virginia, of course], WHOLLY RECALL OUR DELEGATED POWERS, or reform them, so as to prevent such abuse, and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument." [Ibid. 37.] MR. MADISON expressed the same views. So did George Nicholas and others. No one opposed them. And what is most decisive is, that, through this convention, the people of Virginia did, as a sovereign commonwealth, accompany the ratification with this solemn protest : "that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the united states [will] be RESUMED by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." [Ibid. 656.] Of right, she could only speak for herself in this matter, which she did, by uttering a general principle. As the delegated power came, by the ordinance of ratification, from each state, the withdrawal must be by each, and this is the only possible meaning of "resumed," or " reassumed," as New York expressed it; and it would be by virtue of an authority superior to the thing made an authority above any constitution or government· the jus summa imperii. There can be no "constitutional right to secede." Such right must be inherent, characteristic, and inalienable, as well as above the constitution. In those days nobody denied the right. It was an essential attribute of state sovereignty, which was supposed to be unquestionable. But let us pass on. JAMES IREDELL, afterwards of the supreme court of the union, in the convention of North Carolina, after saying that the senaɩe was required "to preserve completely the sovereignty of the states," said : "Those in power are their [the people's] servants and agents, and the people, without their consent, may new-model their government, when they think proper. . . . Let them [the people] be watchful over their rulers. . . . Should their liberties be in danger . . . they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. THAT POWER WHICH CREATED THE GOVERN... If the government want amendments, they can be made in the mode prescribed in it." [IV. Ibid. 9, 130.] Here is the right of secession again - brought forward too as an argument in favor of adoption. No one questioned it! MENT CAN DESTROY IT. ROGER SHERMAN, one of the great statesmen of Connecticut, wrote to John Adams, July 20, 1789, as follows: "I fully agree with you, sir, that it is optional with the people of a state, to establish any form of government they please - to vest the powers in one, a few, or many and for a limited or unlimited time; and the individuals of the state will be bound to yield obedience to such government WHILE IT CONTINUES; but I am also of opinion that THEY MAY ALTER their frame of government WHEN THEY PLEASE, any former act of theirs, however explicit, to the contrary notwithstanding." JOHN DICKINSON, after recognizing the commonwealths of people as the several and sovereign authorities constituting the new system, and intending to act under it, puts hypothetically the case of “bad administration," and asks: "What is then to be done? The answer," he continues, "is instantly found; let the fasces be lowered before the supreme sovereignty of the people. It is their duty to watch, and their right to take care, that the constitution be preserved: or, in the Roman phrase, on perilous occasions, to provide that the republic receives no damage." [See II. Pol. Writings John Dickinson.] Do the above authorities favor the idea that the commonwealth was, by its own compact, tied helplessly under governmental sovereignty? 66 And even JAMES WILSON, the leading statesman of Pennsylvania, afterwards one of the federal supreme jndges, advances the same idea, as was unavoidable from the nature of things. He asserted that the absolute sovereignty never goes from the people," but "remains in them after a constitution is made"; that making constitutions is "dispensing such portions of power" as "the public welfare" requires; that ratifying the federal constitution was "delegating federal powers"; and that the general government is "a federal body of our own creation." And, said he: The constitution "receives its political existence from their [the people's] authority; they ordain and establish. What is the necessary consequence? THOSE WHO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH HAVE THE POWER, if they think proper, TO REPEAL AND ANNUL." [II. Ell. Deb. 435.] This of itself, taken in connection with the fact that Pennsylvania was then "sovereign and independent," and as such was then in convention determining her will for or against delegating or dispensing portions of her power to a federal government, ought to convince any one that the sovereignty of the states, and the necessary right of secession, were taken for granted, and were intended to be preserved. Let us now introduce, as testimony on this all-important point of the right of self-defence in states, The ancient faith of Massachusetts, as set forth by her chosen sons in her great ratifying convention. Such views as the above met therein no dissent whatever. REV. SAMUEL STILLMAN said: "After all, if this constitution were as perfect as the sacred volume is, it would not secure the liberties of the people, unless they watched their own liberties. Nothing written on paper will do this. Should the general government become so lost to all sense of honor, and the freedom of the people, as to attempt to enslave them, they, who are the descendants of a race of men who have dethroned kings, would make an American congress tremble; strip them of their public honors, and reduce them to the lowest state of degradation." [II. Ell. Deb. 169.] JUDGE PARSONS, afterwards "the celebrated chief justice of Massachusetts," took the same view in the convention. Speaking of the federal government, he said: "They are the servants of the people, vested with delegated powers ;. . . in this case the people divest themselves of nothing." Again he said: "An increase of powers by usurpation is clearly a violation. of the federal constitution;" and the oath to support the instrument "obliges the officers of the several states" to oppose it. He also spoke of another check, founded on the nature of the union, superior to all the parchment checks that can be invented. . . . "If there should be a usurpation, it will be upon thirteen legislatures completely organized, possessed of the confidence of the people, and having the means, as well as inclination, successfully to oppose it." And he characterized this as an appeal to arms! [II. Ell. Deb. 94.] Said FISHER AMES, on the same occasion: "The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests of the people. They will afford a shelter against the abuse of power; and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights." [II. Ell. Deb. 46.] What! can the states fight the federal government, if it attempt coercion? This treason comes from Massachusetts ! It is true and sound principle. Similar Treason from Virginia. Said EDMUND RANDOLPH, the then governor of Virginia, afterwards attorney-general, and secretary of state under Washington's administration, in the Virginia ratifying convention: Congress cannot "possibly assume any other power but what is contained in the constitution, without absolute usurpation. Another security is, that if they attempt such a usurpation, the influence of the state governments will nip it in the bud of hope. The government will be cautiously watched, and the smallest assumption of power will be sounded in alarm to the people, and followed by bold and active opposition." [III. Ell. Deb. 206-7.] 66 MADISON not only often spoke of the states as sovereigns, and superior to the government they formed, but as possessing the absolute right of self-defence. For instance, he said Virginia acceded to the compact as a sovereign state," and that the said compact was to be binding on the people of the state only by their own separate assent." And in speaking, in the Virginia convention, upon the federal provision for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, he said: "If we [the people of Virginia] be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this [the trained militia] is an additional safeguard to our defence." [Ibid. 414.] This means nothing, if it does not mean that we can renounce the national government if we choose, and that the militia is ours [i. e. the people of Virginia's] for defence against all comers. Indeed, both Madison and Marshall stated in substance that the militia, of original and paramount right, belonged to, and could be controlled by, the states. Hamilton's Testimony. - When Hamilton and Madison concur, it matters little what others say; but none of the fathers dissented. Said HAMILTON, in No. 28 of the Federalist: "It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the state governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by national authority. In a confederacy, the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely masters of their own fate." "The constitution," said he, in the New York convention, "ought not to be so formed as to prevent the states from providing for their own existence, and I maintain that it is not so formed." And in No. 26 of the Federalist he said: "The state legislatures" are to be the "guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments of the general government, . . . to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice but, if necessary, the arm of their discontent." And he had previously said in the New York assembly (February 19, 1787): "Each state possesses in itself full powers of |