Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 14.djvu/80

 74 Southern Historical Society Pcqjei^s.

which repeatedly swept the country, and which elected Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson to the Presidency.

Even the Supreme Court of the United States had declared that the Constitution was a compact to which the States were parties.

The first purely juridical work on the Constitution was published in 1825 by William Rawle, an eminent jurist of Philadelphia, who, writing as a jurist and not as a politician, did not hesitate to declare that "the Union was an association of Republics;" that the Constitution was a compact between the States ; that " it de- pends on the State itself whether it continues a member of the Union;" that "the States may withdraw from the Union," and that " the secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the people."

At a later period, De Tocqueville, who, in his great work on Democracy in America, brought to the study of our institutions a patient and impartial spirit, reached the same conclusions, and declared that "the Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality. * * jf one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so."

I must halt here in the enumeration of the plain historical facts and overwhelming authorities upon which rested the great doctrine that the Constitution of the United States was purely a federal compact between sovereign and independent States, deriving its force and au- thority from the free and individual consent of the several States in their separate political capacities. In these essential respects it did not differ from the articles of confederation, but only, as before stated, in the extent and mode of execution of the powers granted to the general government.

The entire argument against the right of secession rested on a de- nial of this doctrine.

That denial was never made by any respectable authority until, during the nullification and agitation of 1831-3, Webster and Story stepped into the lists as champions of an indissoluble Union.

These were great men and great lawyers. They saw, and indeed a reference to their works will show that they admitted that, if the doctrine above stated was correct, the right of secession could not be successfully disputed.

They therefore took bold ground against it. They denied that the Constitution was a compact at all. They denied that, even if a com- pact, it was one to which the States were the parties. They asserted