按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
celebrated doctrine of the equilibrium； for which we look in vain
into the Constitution for a single sound argument to sustain it；
are merely the expiring efforts of a reasoning that cannot resist
the common sense of the nation。 As it is healthful to exhaust all
such questions； let us turn aside a moment； to give a passing
glance at this very material subject。
｛Calhoun = Senator John C。 Calhoun （1782…1850｝ of South Carolina｝
At the time when the Constitution was adopted； three classes of
persons were 〃held to service〃 in the countryapprentices；
redemptioners； and slaves。 The two first classes were by no means
insignificant in 1789； and the redemptioners were rapidly
increasing in numbers。 In that day； it looked as if this
speculative importation of laborers from Europe was to form a
material part of the domestic policy of the Northern States。 Now
the negro is a human being； as well as an apprentice or a
redemptioner； though the Constitution does not consider him as
the equal of either。 It is a great mistake to suppose that the
Constitution of the United States； as it now exists； recognizes
slavery in any manner whatever； unless it be to mark it as an
interest that has less than the common claim to the ordinary
rights of humanity。 In the apportionment； or representation
clause； the redemptioner and the apprentice counts each as a man；
whereas five slaves are enumerated as only three free men。 The
free black is counted as a man； in all particulars； and is
represented as such； but his fellow in slavery has only three
fifths of his political value。
This is the celebrated clause in which the Constitution is said
to recognize slavery。 To our view the clause is perfectly
immaterial in this sense； making the simple provision that so
long as a State shall choose to keep a portion of her people in
this subordinate condition； she shall enjoy only this limited
degree of representation。 To us； it appears to be a concession
made to freedom； and not to slavery。 There is no obligation；
unless self…imposed； to admit any but a minority of her whites to
the enjoyment of political power； aristocracy being； in truth；
more closely assimilated to republicanism than democracy。
Republicanism means the sovereignty of public THINGS instead of
that of PERSONS； or the representation of the COMMON interests；
in lieu of those of a monarch。 There is no common principle of
popular sway recognized in the Constitution。 In the government of
the several States monarchy is denounced； but democracy is
nowhere proclaimed or insisted on。 Marked differences in the
degrees of popular control existed in the country in 1789； and
though time is lessening them； are still to be found among us。
The close consideration of all these facts； we feel persuaded
will give a coloring to some of the most important interests of
the country； differing essentially from those that have been
loosely adopted in the conflicts of parties； and many heresies
appear to us to have crept into the political creed of the
Republic； purely from the struggles of faction。 When men have a
specific and important purpose in view； it is but natural they
should bend most of its collateral connections to the support of
their own objects。 We conceive that the Constitution has thus
been largely misinterpreted； and they who live at the epoch of
the renowned 〃equilibrium〃 and of the 〃rights of the people of
the Sovereign States；〃 will have seen memorable examples of the
truth of this position。
The first popular error； then； that we shall venture to assail；
is that connected with the prevalent notion of the sovereignty of
the States。 We do not believe that the several States of this
Union are； in any legitimate meaning of the term； sovereign at
all。 We are fully aware that this will be regarded as a bold； and
possibly as a presuming proposition； but we shall endeavor to
work it out with such means as we may have at command。
We lay down the following premises as too indisputable to need
any arguments to sustain them： viz。； the authority which formed
the present Constitution of the United States had the legal power
to do so。 That authority was in the Government of the States；
respectively； and not in their people in the popular
signification； but through their people in the political meaning
of the term； and what was then done must be regarded as acts
connected with the composition and nature of governments； and of
no minor or different interests of human affairs。
It being admitted； that the power which formed the government；
was legitimate； we obtain one of the purest compacts for the
organization of human society that probably ever existed。 The
ancient allegiance； under which the Colonies had grown up to
importance； had been extinguished by solemn treaty； and the
States met in Convention； sustained by all the law they had and
backed in every instance by institutions that were more or less
popular。 The history of the world cannot； probably； furnish
another instance of the settlement of the fundamental compact of
a great nation under circumstances of so much obvious justice。
This gives unusual solemnity and authority to the Constitution of
1787； and invests it with additional claims to our admiration and
respect。
The authority which formed the Constitution admitted； we come
next to the examination of its acts。 It is apparent from the
debates and proceedings of the Convention； that two opinions
existed in that body； the one leaning strongly toward the
concentration of power in the hands of the Federal Government；
and the other desirous of leaving as much as possible with the
respective States。 The principle that the powers which are not
directly conceded to the Union should remain in first hands；
would seem never to have been denied； and some years after the
organization of the Government； it was solemnly recognized in an
amendment。 We are not disposed； however； to look for arguments to
the debates and discussions of the Convention； in our view often
a deceptive and dangerous method of construing a law； since the
vote is very frequently given on even conflicting reasons。
Different minds arrive at the same results by different
processes； and it is no unusual thing for men to deny each
other's premises while they accept their conclusions。 We shall
look； therefore； solely to the compact itself； as the most
certain mode of ascertaining what was done。
No one will deny that all the great powers of sovereignty are
directly conceded to the Union。 The right to make war and peace；
to coin money； maintain armies and navies； &c。； &c。； in
themselves overshadow most of the sovereignty of the States。 The
amendatory clause would seem to annihilate it。 By the provisions
of that clause three fourths of the States can take away all the
powers and rights now resting in the hands of the respective
States； with a single exception。 This exception gives breadth and
emphasis