In Those Early Days,
When The Constitution Was Being Framed, There Was Nothing To Force
The Small States Into A Union With Those Whose Populations
Preponderated.
Each State was sovereign in its municipal system,
having preserved the boundaries of the old colony, together with the
liberties and laws given to it under its old colonial charter.
A
union might be and no doubt was desirable; but it was to be a union
of sovereign States, each retaining equal privileges in that union,
and not a fusion of the different populations into one homogeneous
whole. No State was willing to abandon its own individuality, and
least of all were the small States willing to do so. It was,
therefore, ordained that the House of Representatives should
represent the people, and that the Senate should represent the
States.
From that day to the present time the arrangement of which I am
speaking has enabled the Democratic or Southern party to contend at
a great advantage with the Republicans of the North. When the
Constitution was founded, the seven Northern States - I call those
Northern which are now free-soil States, and those Southern in which
the institution of slavery now prevails - were held to be entitled by
their population to send thirty-five members to the House of
Representatives, and they sent fourteen members to the Senate. The
six Southern States were entitled to thirty members in the Lower
House, and to twelve Senators. Thus the proportion was about equal
for the North and South. But now - or rather in 1860, when secession
commenced - the Northern States, owing to the increase of population
in the North, sent one hundred and fifty Representatives to
Congress, having nineteen States, and thirty-eight Senators; whereas
the South, with fifteen States and thirty Senators, was entitled by
its population to only ninety Representatives, although by a special
rule in its favor, which I will presently explain, it was in fact
allowed a greater number of Representatives, in proportion to its
population, than the North. Had an equal balance been preserved,
the South, with its ninety Representatives in the Lower House, would
have but twenty-three Senators, instead of thirty, in the Upper.*
But these numbers indicate to us the recovery of political influence
in the North, rather than the pride of the power of the South; for
the South, in its palmy days, had much more in its favor than I have
above described as its position in 1860. Kansas had then just
become a free-soil State, after a terrible struggle, and shortly
previous to that Oregon and Minnesota, also free States, had been
added to the Union. Up to that date the slave States sent thirty
Senators to Congress, and the free States only thirty-two. In
addition to this, when Texas was annexed and converted into a State,
a clause was inserted into the act giving authority for the future
subdivision of that State into four different States as its
population should increase, thereby enabling the South to add
Senators to its own party from time to time, as the Northern States
might increase in number.
* It is worthy of note that the new Northern and Western States have
been brought into the Union by natural increase and the spread of
population. But this has not been so with the new Southern States.
Louisiana and Florida were purchased, and Texas was - annexed.
And here I must explain, in order that the nature of the contest may
be understood, that the Senators from the South maintained
themselves ever in a compact body, voting together, true to each
other, disciplined as a party, understanding the necessity of
yielding in small things in order that their general line of policy
might be maintained. But there was no such system, no such
observance of political tactics among the Senators of the North.
Indeed, they appear to have had no general line of politics, having
been divided among themselves on various matters. Many had strong
Southern tendencies, and many more were willing to obtain official
power by the help of Southern votes. There was no bond of union
among them, as slavery was among the Senators from the South. And
thus, from these causes, the power of the Senate and the power of
the government fell into the hands of the Southern party.
I am aware that in going into these matters here I am departing
somewhat from the subject of which this chapter is intended to
treat; but I do not know that I could explain in any shorter way the
manner in which those rules of the Constitution have worked by which
the composition of the Senate is fixed. That State basis, as
opposed to a basis of population in the Upper House of Congress, has
been the one great political weapon, both of offense and defense, in
the hands of the Democratic party. And yet I am not prepared to
deny that great wisdom was shown in the framing of the constitution
of the Senate. It was the object of none of the politicians then at
work to create a code of rules for the entire governance of a single
nation such as is England or France. Nor, had any American
politician of the time so desired, would he have had reasonable hope
of success. A federal union of separate sovereign States was the
necessity, as it was also the desire, of all those who were
concerned in the American policy of the day; and I think it way be
understood and maintained that no such federal union would have been
just, or could have been accepted by the smaller States, which did
not in some direct way recognize their equality with the larger
States. It is moreover to be observed, that in this, as in all
matters, the claims of the minority were treated with indulgence.
No ordinance of the Constitution is made in a niggardly spirit. It
would seem as though they who met together to do the work had been
actuated by no desire for selfish preponderance or individual
influence.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 79 of 140
Words from 79500 to 80517
of 142339
