Constitution ?* "I came hither," says Mr. Innes, "under the persuasion that the felicity of our country required that we should accede to this system,"† (the new Constitution.) "Our new Constitution," says Franklin, who next to Washington was the most illustrious member of the Convention of 1787, "is now established with eleven States, and the accession of a twelfth is soon expected."‡ And, finally, George Washington himself, who, watching the States as one after another adopted the new Constitution, says: "If these, with the States eastward and northward of us, should accede to the Federal Government," &c.§ Thus, while the transaction was passing before their eyes the fathers of the Constitution of the United States, with the great father of his country at their head, described the act by which the new Union was formed as "the accession of the States;" using the very expression which, in the resolution of Mr. Calhoun, is so vehemently condemned as "unconstitutional language," as 66 a new word," invented by the advocates of secession for the vile purpose of disunion.

To these high authorities, may be added that of Chief Justice Marshall; who, in his Life of Washington, notes the fact, that "North Carolina accedes to the Union."|| This was many months after the new Government had gone into operation. Mr. Justice Story, is, in spite of his artificial theory of Constitution, a witness to the same fact. "The Constitution," says he, "has been ratified by all the States;" "Rhode Island did not accede to it, until more than a year after it had been in operation;" just as if he had completely forgotten his own theory of the Constitution.

* "The Madison Papers," p. 1099.

"Elliot's Debates," vol. iii.

"Franklin's Works," vol. v..

P. 409.

"The Writings of Washington,1 vol. ix., p. 280.

Vol. v, chap. iii.

Book iii, chap. xliii.

If it were necessary, this list of authorities for the use of the word in question, and for the precise application made of it by Mr. Calhoun, might be greatly extended. But surely we have seen enough to show how very illinformed was "the great expounder" with respect to the language of the fathers. Not only John C. Calhoun, but Washington, Franklin, Wilson, King, Morris, Randolph, Madison, and all the celebrated names of the great Convention of 1787, came under the denunciation of this modern "expounder of the Constitution."

There is, as Mr. Webster says, more importance to be attached to the word in question than may at first sight appear. For if "the States acceded" to the Constitution, each acting for itself alone, then was it a voluntary association of States, from which, according to his own admission, any member might secede at pleasure. Accordingly this position of the great oracle of the North is echoed and re-echoed by all who, since the war began, have written against the right of secession. Thus, says one of the most faithful of these echoes, Mr. Motley-"The States never acceded to the Constitution, and have no power to secede from it." It was "ordained and established" over the States by a power superior to the States, by the people of the whole land in their aggregate capacity.* If, with the fathers of the Constitution, in opposition to its modern expounder and perverter, he had seen that the new Union was formed by an accession of the States, then he would have been compelled, on his own principle, to recognise the right of secession. For he has truly said, what no one ever denied, that "the same power which established the Constitution may justly destroy it." Hence, if the Constitution was established by the accession or consent of the States, then may the Union be dissolved by a secession of the States. This conclusion is, as we have seen, expressly admitted by Mr. Webster and Mr. Justice Story.

*Rebellion Record, vol. 1, p. 211.

† Ibid. p. 214.

Mr. Webster has well said that a true conclusion may be avoided, or a false one reached, by the substitution of one word or one phrase for another. This offence, however, has been committed, not by Mr. Calhoun, but by "the great expounder" himself. The one has not reached a false, but the other has shunned a true conclusion by "the adroit use of language." Instead of saying and believing with the authors of the Constitution, that the new Union was formed by "an accession of the States," he repudiates both the language and the idea, preferring the monstrous heresy that it was ordained and established by "the whole people of the United States in their aggregate capacity "* or as one nation—a heresy which may, with the records of the country, be dashed into ten thousand atoms.

I agree with Mr. Webster, that "words are things, and things of mighty influence." It is, no doubt, chiefly owing to the influence of language, in connection with the passions of men in a numerical majority, that the words and views of the fathers became so offensive to the Northern expounders of the Constitution. "Words," says the philosopher of Malmesbury, "are the counters of wise men, but the money of fools." To which I may add, if this last phrase be true, as most unquestionably it is, then is there scarcely a man on earth without some touch of folly; for all are, more or less, under the influence of words. A far greater than either Mirabeau or Hobbes has said that we are often led captive by the influence of words, even when we think ourselves the most complete masters of them. Mr. Webster was himself, as we shall frequently have occasion to see, a conspicuous instance and illustration of the truth of the profound aphorism of Bacon. Of all the dupes of his own eloquence, of all the spell-bound captives of his own enchantments, he was himself, perhaps, at times, the most deluded and the most unsuspecting victim.

When, from his high position in the Senate, Mr. Webster *Mr. Webster's Speech of 1830.

assured the people of the United States, that it is " unconstitutional language" to say "the States acceded to the Constitution;" he was no doubt religiously believed by the great majority of his readers and hearers. He was supposed to know all about the subject; and was, therefore, followed as the great guide of the people. But, as we have seen, he was profoundly ignorant of the facts of the case, about which he delivered himself with so much confidence. The "new word," as he called it, was precisely the word of the fathers of the Constitution. Hence, if this word lays the foundation of secession, as Mr. Webster contended it does, that foundation was laid, not by Calhoun, but by the fathers of the Constitution itself, with "the father of his country" at their head.

So much for the first link in "the great expounder's " argument against the right of secession. His principles are right, but his facts are wrong. It is, indeed, his habit to make his own facts, and leave those of history to take care of themselves. He just puts forth assertions without knowing, and apparently without caring, whether they are true or otherwise. We shall frequently have occasion to notice this utter, this reckless unveracity in "the great expounder."

CHAPTER IV.

The first Resolution passed by the Convention of 1787.

MR. WEBSTER lays great stress on the fact, that the first resolution passed by the Convention of 1787 declared, "That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive." But the fact only shows that the Convention, when it first met, had the desire to establish "a national government," rather than a federal one. This resolution was passed before the Convention was fully assembled, and by the vote of only six States, a minority of the whole number. After the members had arrived, and the Convention was full, the resolution in question was reconsidered and rescinded. The Convention, when filled up, changed the name of their offspring, calling it "the government of the United States."* A fraction of the Convention named it, as Mr. Webster says; but the whole Convention refused to baptise it with that name, and gave it another. Why then resuscitate that discarded name, and place it before the reader, as Mr. Webster does, in capital letters? Is it because "words are things; and things of mighty influence"? or why persist, as Mr. Webster always does, in calling "the government of the United States" a national one? If the Convention had called it a national government, this name would have been so continually rung in our ears that we could neither have listened to the Constitution itself, or to its history, whenever these proclaimed its federal character. Nay, *The Madison Papers, p. 908.