But, we are told, there is no mention made of secession in the
Constitution. Mr. Everett says: "The States are not named in it; the
word sovereignty does not occur in it; the right of secession is as much
ignored in it as the procession of the equinoxes." We have seen how very
untenable is the assertion that the States are not named in it, and how
much pertinency or significance in the omission of the _word_
"sovereignty." The pertinent question that occurs is, Why was so obvious
an attribute of sovereignty not expressly renounced if it was intended
to surrender it? It certainly existed; it was not surrendered; therefore
it still exists. This would be a more natural and rational conclusion
than that it has ceased to exist because it is not mentioned.
The simple truth is, that it would have been a very extraordinary thing
to incorporate into the Constitution any express provision for the
secession of the States and dissolution of the Union. Its founders
undoubtedly desired and hoped that it would be perpetual; against the
proposition for power to coerce a State, the argument was that it would
be a means, not of preserving, but of destroying, the Union. It was not
for them to make arrangements for its termination--a calamity which
there was no occasion to provide for in advance. Sufficient for their
day was the evil thereof. It is not usual, either in partnerships
between men or in treaties between governments, to make provision for a
dissolution of the partnership or a termination of the treaty, unless
there be some special reason for a limitation of time.
Pages:
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290