s, pledged itself and its supporters to maintain, protect, and defend, separately and unitedly, those great principles of public liberty and national safety against all enemies at home and abroad.
Its nominees were John Bell of Tennessee and Edward Everett of Massachusetts, both of whom had long been distinguished members of the Whig party.
The people of the United States now had four rival tickets presented to them by as many contending parties, whose respective position and principles on the great and absorbing question at issue may be briefly recapitulated as follows:
1. The Constitutional-Union party, as it was now termed, led by Bell and Everett, which ignored the territorial controversy altogether, and contented itself, as above stated, with a simple declaration of adherence to the Constitution, the Union, and the enforcement of the laws.
2. The party of popular sovereignty, headed by Douglas and Johnson, who affirmed the right of the people of the territories, in thei
endence of communities traced from Germany to great Britain, and from great Britain to America
Everett's provincial people
origin and continuance of the title United States
no such political commto the wilds of America, and it found expression in many forms among the infant colonies.
Edward Everett, in his Fourth-of-July address delivered in New York in 1861, following the lead of Judge St people, or that the Peruvians and the Patagonians belonged to the same political community.
Everett, it is true, quotes two expressions of the Continental Congress to sustain his remarkable propoe people, hitherto well disposed to peaceable measures, into hostilities.
From this expression Everett argues that the Congress considered themselves the representatives of a people.
But, by refereirginia, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or the Baptists of Rhode Island.
The other citation of Everett is from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human even
eory, was binding upon her, as a majority of the whole people had adopted it. A fortiori, North Carolina and Rhode Island were in a state of rebellion in 1789-‘90, while they declined to ratify and recognize the Constitution adopted by the other eleven fractions of this united people.
Yet no hint of any such pretension—of any claim of authority over them by the majority—of any assertion of the supremacy of the Union—is to be found in any of the records of that period.
It might have been unnecessary to bestow so much time and attention in exposing the absurdity of the deductions from a theory so false, but for the fact that it has been specious enough to secure the countenance of men of such distinction as Webster, Story, and Everett, and that it has been made the plea to justify a bloody war against that principle of state sovereignty and independence, which was regarded by the fathers of the Union as the corner stone of the structure and the basis of the hope for its perp
Revival of old errors
Mistakes and misstatements
Webster, Story, and Everett
who ordained and established the Constitution?
In the progressive growth of sectionists rather than statesmen.
Two such may suffice as specimens:
Edward Everett, in his address delivered on July 4, 1861, and already referred to, says ofeneral Government and expressly prohibited to the States.
See address by Edward Everett at the Academy of Music, New York, July 4, 1861.
Mr. Everett afterward Mr. Everett afterward repeats the assertion that the States are not named in it.
But a yet more extraordinary statement of the one people theory is found in a letter addressed east important— of these misstatements is that which is also twice repeated by Everett —that the name of no state is mentioned in the whole document, or, as he puts
Webster says it was done by the people of the United States in the aggregate; Everett repeats substantially the same thing; Motley, taking a step further, says that
to suppose that people so chary of the delegation of specific powers or functions could have meant to surrender or transfer the very basis and origin of all power—their inherent sovereignty—and this, not by express grant, but by implication?
Everett, following, whether consciously or not, in the line of Webster's ill-considered objection to the term compact, takes exception to the sovereignty of the states on the ground that the word sovereignty does not occur in the Constitution.
He admited by implication—that everything was reserved unless expressly delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states?
Here is an attribute which they certainly possessed—which nobody denies, or can deny, that they did possess—and of which Everett says no mention is made in the Constitution.
In what conceivable way, then, was it lost or alienated?
Much has been said of the prohibition of the exercise by the states of certain functions of sovereignty, such as making treaties, declar
sovereign powers—negotiating, arbitration, or, in the failure of these, by war, with which unfortunately, Christianity and civilization have not yet been able entirely to dispense.
But the suggestion of possible evils does not at all affect the question of right.
There is no great principle in the affairs either of individuals or of nations that is not liable to such difficulties in its practical application.
But, we are told, there is no mention made of secession in the Constitution.
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 e
Dred Scott case.
Decision of Supreme Court, 70-71.
Early, Gen. Jubal A., 305, 306, 330.
Extracts from narrative of Bull Run, 322-28.
Extracts on retreat from Centreville, 401.
Elgin, Col., Gustavus, 369.
Ellis, Gov. of North Carolina.
Reply to U. S. call for troops, 355.
Restoration of forts to U. S. government, 355.
Ellsworth, Oliver, 84, 123. Opposition to armed force against states, 150-51.
Elzy, General, 305,328.
Evans, Gen. N. S., 376, 377.
Everett, Edward, 44, 101, 108, 111, 112, 125, 145.
Extracts from address, July 4, 1861, 100-01, 110.
Ewell, General, 323.
Fairfax Court House. Conference between Davis and generals and correspondence thereon, 383-91.
Featherston, Colonel, 376.
Federal Constitution (See Constitution Federal).
Federal party (See Whig party).
Fessenden, —, 465.
Fillmore, Millard, pres. U. S., 52, 141.
Fitzpatrick, Benjamin, 43, 189.
Florida. Ordinance of secession, 189.