University of Virginia Library

TO WILLIAM CABELL RIVER.

Dear Sir I have recd. your very kind letter
of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail
a copy of your late Speech in the Senate for which
I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected,
that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its
subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming
to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth
of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves,
those who now Contend that the States have never
parted with an Atom of their sovereignty; and
consequently that the Constitutional band which
holds them together, is a mere league or partnership,
without any of the characteristics of sovereignty
or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to
disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine; and
stranger still that those who deny it should be
denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates.
Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation
—a real nondescript. Its character therefore must
be sought within itself; not in precedents, because
there are none; not in writers whose comments are
guided by precedents. Who can tell at present
how Vattel and others of that class, would have
qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound
& peculiar system with such an example of it
as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that
the States as united, are in no respect or degree,

a Nation, which implies sovereignty; altho' acknowledged
to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns,
and maintaining with them, all the international relations,
of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on
the other hand and at the same time, to say that the
States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns;
although they can separately neither speak
nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it
any of the international relations whatever and
would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves
in that character.

The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves
under a distinction between a delegation and a
surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes
of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them
be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not
otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according
to the extent of the grant are effectually
transferred by it, and a dispute about the name,
is but a battle of words. The practical result is not
indeed left to argument or inference. The words
of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution
& laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution
& laws of the several States; supreme in
their exposition and execution as well as in their
authority. Without a supremacy in those respects
it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier
without a sword in it. The imagination itself is
startled at the idea of twenty four independent
expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a
meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not
only the question of nullification; but the more
formidable one of secession. It is asked whether
a State by resuming the sovereign form in which
it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw
from it at will. As this is a simple question whether
a State, more than an individual, has a right to
violate its engagements, it would seem that it might
be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance
given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly
dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably
attach the people composing a State, to its authority
and importance, are at present too much excited
by the unnatural feelings, with which they have
been inspired agst. their brethren of other States,
not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into
erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the
interest they have in it. One thing at least seems
to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State
remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its
citizens from the operation of the Constitution &
laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession
without the Consent of the Co-States, the course
to be pursued by these involves questions painful
in the discussion of them. God grant that the
menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not
be followed by positive occurrences requiring the
more painful task of deciding them!

In explaining the proceedings of Virga. in 98–99,
the state of things at that time was the more properly
appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked.

The doctrines combated are always a key to the
arguments employed. It is but too common to read
the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern
meaning of them, & to omit guards agst. misconstruction
not anticipated. A few words with a
prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in
the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is
equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the
midst of interruptions added to other dangers of
inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return
the letter after perusal, I have latterly taken
this liberty with more than one of my corresponding
friends. And every lapse of very short periods
becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the
promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we
flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very
distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint
& affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few
days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I
submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure.
It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen
& interesting. A like task as well executed in every
State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples
might both prompt & guide researches,
not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.