never was in this country any such union as you speak of; there never was any political union between the people of the several States of the United States, except such as resulted indirectly from the terms of agreement or Compact entered into by separate and distinct political bodies. The first Union so formed, from which the present Union arose, was that of the Colonies in 1774. They were thirteen in number. These were distinct and separate political organizations or bodies. After that the Union of States was formed under the Articles of Confederation, in 1777; and then, the modifications of the terms of this Union by the new Compact of 1787, known as the present Constitution. To this last Union, at first, only eleven of the original thirteen States became parties. Afterwards the other two (North Carolina and Rhode Island) also acceded and became members. The last of these (Rhode Island) rejoined her former associates in 1790. Subsequently, twenty new members were admitted into the association, on an equal footing with those first forming it. Whatever intimate relationships, therefore, existed between the citizens of the respective thirty-three States constituting the Union in 1860, they were created by, or sprung from, the terms of the Compact of 1787, by which the original States as States were united. These terms were properly called the Constitution of the United States; not the Constitution of one people as one society or one nation, but the Constitution of a number of separate and distinct peoples, or political bodies, known as States. The absolute Sovereignty of these original States, respectively, was never parted with by them in that or any other Compact of Union ever entered into by them. This at least was my view of the subject. Georgia was one of these States. My allegiance therefore was, as I considered it, not due to the United States, or to the people of the United States, but to Georgia in her Sovereign capacity. Georgia had never parted with her right to command the ultimate allegiance of her citizens. In that very speech this doctrine, or these principles, were clearly asserted and distinctly maintained. However strongly opposed I was to the policy of Secession, or whatever views I gave against it as a policy, or wise measure, yet in that very speech, which you considered so strong a Union speech, I declared my convictions to be, that if the people of Georgia, in their majesty, and in the exercise of their resumed full Sovereignty, should, in a regularlyconstituted Convention called for that purpose, withdraw from the Compact of Union, by which she was confederated, or united, with the other States under the Constitution, that it would be my duty to obey her high behest. That speech was made mainly, it is true, against the policy of Secession for then existing grievances complained of, but also against the unconstitutionality of measures proposed to be passed by the State Legislature, with a view of dissolving the Union. The Sovereign power of the people of the State, which alone could regulate its relations with the other States, was not vested in the Legislature. That resided with the people of the State: It had never been delegated either to the State authorities, or the authorities created by the Articles of Union. It could be exercised only by the people of the State in a regularly-constituted Convention, embodying the real Sovereignty of the State-just such Convention as had agreed to and adopted the Constitution of the United States. It required the same power to unmake as it had to make it. Hence, I said-"Let the sove * “Unum quoque dissolutur eo modo quo colligatur"—" Every thing is dissolved by the same means it is constituted."—Noy's Maxims, p. 11. reignty of the people of Georgia be first heard on this question of severing the bonds that united them with the other States ;" and that, whatever decision the State might thus and then make, "my fortunes would be cast with hers and her people." I indulged a strong hope that when the Sovereignty of the people should be so invoked that it would take the same view I did of the policy of Secession or Disunion. In this hope, however, I was disappointed. The Convention was called; it was regularly and legally assembled; the Sovereign will of the State, when expressed through its properly constituted organ, was for Secession, or a withdrawal of the State from the Union. The Convention passed an Ordinance repealing and rescinding the State Ordinance of the second of January, 1788, by which Georgia became one of the United States under the constitutional Compact of 1787. I was in this Secession Convention, which assembled on the sixteenth day of January, 1861. The rescinding Ordinance passed that body on the nineteenth day of that month; I voted against that OrdiIt was an Ordinance repealing and rescinding the Ordinance of a similar Sovereign Convention of the people of the State, passed the second day of January, 1788, as before stated, and placed Georgia just where she was, or would have been, if her Convention in 1788 had not passed the Ordinance by which she acceded to the Union under the Constitution of 1787. Such were my convictions. nance. After the passage of this Ordinance by the State Con Or, as the Institutes and Broom have it-" Nihil tam conveniens est naturali æquetati quam unum quoque dissolvi eo ligamene quo ligatum est"-"Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the same means that rendered it binding.”— Broom's Legal Maxims, p. 407; 2 Inst. 360. vention on the nineteenth day of January, 1861, withdrawing from the Union, I obeyed the high and Sovereign behest of my State, as I felt bound in duty and patriotism to do, and as I had on all occasions declared that I should do. My position, in that Convention and after, was the same that it would have been if I had been in the State Convention of 1788. Had I been in that Convention, I should have been warmly in favor of Georgia's entering into the Union under the Constitution; but it she had decided otherwise, I should, as a good citizen, have felt myself bound to obey her Sovereign will. This is a short statement of that matter, and how you, or any person who read that speech, could have drawn any other inference as to what my course would be, in case the people of Georgia, in Sovereign Convention, should determine to Secede, I cannot well imagine, but upon the supposition that I did not mean what I said. Moreover, however general the surprise and disappointment you speak of, may have been at the North, as to my course, yet it certainly was not universal; for Mr. Greeley, in his American Conflict, very clearly shows that he was not either surprised or disappointed at my course from any thing expressed in that speech. After quoting with commendation several extracts from it, he says: "This was frank and noble, yet there was a 'dead fly in the ointment' which sadly marred its perfume. That was a distinct avowal of the right of the State to overrule his own personal convictions and to plunge him into treason to the Nation."* However Mr. Greeley and I may differ as to what constitutes treason, and as to what he is pleased to call "the Nation," this shows conclusively that he at least was *American Conflict, vol. i, page 343. clearly and fully apprized of my position in case the State of Georgia should Secede, even against my earnest entreaty and utmost exertions in opposition to the measure. JUDGE BYNUM. That part of the speech, I must confess, escaped me; at least it was lost in the deep impression which the fervid appeals for the Union in other parts made upon my mind. MAJOR HEISTER. I recollect that part of the speech well, but I could not well reconcile it with your speech in the Secession Convention of Georgia, in January, 1861, in which you characterized Secession as the "height of madness, folly and wickedness, that could never get either your vote or sanction." MR. STEPHENS. I am not surprised at your difficulty in this respect. The ready solution to it, however, is this: no such speech as that you quote from was ever made by me. I did regard Secession as an unwise measure, but never questioned its Rightfulness. I thought the State had ample cause to justify her in Seceding, but I thought that a redress of her wrongs might be better secured by another line of policy. MAJOR HEISTER. Why, the speech is in Lossing's History* of the War, and in the Rebellion, by Botts.† MR. STEPHENS. I know that. I have read it in both; it may be in many other similar works, but it is an entire fabrication from beginning to end. No such speech was ever made by me in that Convention or anywhere else; I made but one speech on the subject in that Convention, which was extensively published in the newspapers of the day, and can be seen in the volume of my speeches which has been recently published. This speech was against the * The Civil War in America, by Lossing, vol. i, page 57. |