FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641  
642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   >>   >|  
e, give double confirmation to those parts not embraced in the exceptions. If it was the _design_ of the proviso to restrict congressional action on the subject of _slavery_, why is the _soil alone_ specified? As legal instruments are not paragons of economy in words, might not "John Doe," out of his abundance, and without spoiling his style, have afforded an additional word--at least a hint--that slavery was _meant_, though nothing was said about it? But again, Maryland and Virginia, in their acts of cession, declare them to be made "in pursuance of" that clause of the constitution which gives to Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the ten miles square--thus, instead of _restricting_ that clause, both States _confirm_ it. Now, their acts of cession either accorded with that clause of the constitution, or they conflicted with it. If they conflicted with it, _accepting_ the cessions was a violation of the constitution. The fact that Congress accepted the cessions, proves that in its views their _terms_ did not conflict with its constitutional grant of power. The inquiry whether these acts of cession were consistent or inconsistent with the United Status' constitution, is totally irrelevant to the question at issue. What with the CONSTITUTION? That is the question. Not, what with Virginia, or Maryland, or--equally to the point--John Bull! If Maryland and Virginia had been the authorized interpreters of the constitution for the Union, these acts of cession could hardly have been more magnified than they have been recently by the southern delegation in Congress. A true understanding of the constitution can be had, forsooth, only by holding it up in the light of Maryland and Virginia legislation! We are told, again, that those States would not have ceded the District if they had supposed the constitution gave Congress power to abolish slavery in it. This comes with an ill grace from Maryland and Virginia. They _knew_ the constitution. They were parties to it. They had sifted it, clause by clause, in their State conventions. They had weighed its words in the balance--they had tested them as by fire; and, finally, after long pondering, they adopted the constitution. And _afterward_, self-moved, they ceded the ten miles square, and declared the cession made "in pursuance of" that oft-cited clause, "Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such Distr
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641  
642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
constitution
 

clause

 

Virginia

 

Maryland

 

Congress

 

cession

 
legislation
 

slavery

 

pursuance

 

exclusive


cessions
 

question

 

conflicted

 
States
 
whatsoever
 
square
 

recently

 
afterward
 

magnified

 

adopted


delegation

 

southern

 

pondering

 

equally

 

CONSTITUTION

 
interpreters
 

understanding

 
authorized
 

declared

 

exercise


parties

 

District

 

abolish

 

supposed

 
sifted
 

holding

 
finally
 

forsooth

 

tested

 

balance


conventions

 

weighed

 

spoiling

 
confirmation
 

abundance

 
afforded
 
additional
 

double

 
economy
 
paragons