d 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. Indeed, in
treaties, the usual formula includes a declaration of their
_perpetuity_; but in either case the power of the contracting parties,
or of any of them, to dissolve the compact, on terms not damaging to the
rights of the other parties, is not the less clearly understood. It was
not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession,
because it was an attribute of sovereignty, and the States had reserved
all which they had not delegated.

The right of the people of the several States to resume the powers
delegated by them to the common agency, was not left without positive
and ample assertion, even at a period when it had never been denied. The
ratification of the Constitution by Virginia has already been quoted, in
which the people of that State, through their Convention, did expressly
"declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution,
being derived from the people of the United States, _may be resumed by
them_, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or
oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them
and at their will."[92]

New York and Rhode Island were no less explicit, both declaring that
"the powers of government _may