ties with multiplied and important infractions of the Articles of Confederation. But a more direct answer was given to them by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case, to the great principle of self-preservation, to the transcendent law of God and nature, which declares the safety and happiness of society to be the objects which all political institutions should aim to accomplish, and for which they may all be sacrificed; and from what is known of the state of public affairs at that portentous crisis, we cannot doubt that this answer was felt to be conclusive. It is, however, well worthy of observation, that it was not pretended on this occasion that any of the states could withdraw even from the Confederation, considered merely as a treaty of alliance, at its mere will and pleasure; nor absolve itself at its own discretion from its perpetual obligation, except in cases of the extreme urgency of self-preservation, or of the breach or violation of the compact by some other of the parties, of which the several parties, from the very nature of the Confederation, as a treaty between independent sovereigns, were themselves the judges. It has, nevertheless, been contended, as we have already had occasion to lament, that a state has a right, under the present Constitution, independently of the natural right of self-preservation, and resistance to intolerable oppression, to secede, at its own will and discretion, from the Union. But if the Federal Constitution be a gov. ernment owing protection to individuals and entitled to their obedience, whether formed by the people of the United States in the aggregate, or by the same people as citizens of the respective states, no state authority can dissolve the rela Сс tions subsisting between that government and the individuals subjected in either mode to its authority. From the very nature of those relations, nothing can dissolve them but REVOLUTION; and there can, therefore, be no such thing as secession without revolution. The Constitution establishes a union between the people of the several states, intended to be perpetual. It contains numerous provisions founded on that supposition, and among them, one for its own amendment; none for its abandonment. It declares that new states may be admitted into the Union, but not that old states may withdraw from it. The Union is not, like the Confederation, reducible even to a perpetual alliance between the states, much less to a temporary one; but it is an association of the people of the several states in one mass, under a permanent and paramount constitution of government, operating upon them as individuals, created and assented to by that power in each state which alone had authority to abrogate its particular Constitution, or so far to modify it as to surrender powers to the General Government which had previously been delegated to the state governments. No state, therefore, can undo what the people have done, nor absolve its citizens from their obligations to obey the laws of the Union. It cannot divest them of their paramount rights as citizens of the United States; nor can the members of the state legislatures renounce their own oaths to support the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land; neither can any convention of the people of any state, any more than the people themselves, collectively or individually, dispense with their obligations, or dissolve their allegiance to the United States, unless they respectively possess the constitutional power of settling for themselves the construction of this supreme law in all doubtful cases. The practical result of this great question turns, then, on this single point. It has not as yet been seriously pretended that each individual may judge for himself, and determine in his own case, the nature and extent of his obligations as a member of the Union. But if the state within whose local jurisdiction he may happen to reside, may judge for him, or for itself, in a case of an alleged violation of the Federal Constitution, and finally decide and execute their respective decisions by their own powers, the inference follows that, being sovereign, there is no power to control the decision of the state, and its own judgment on its own contract must be conclusive. But this doctrine is founded in mere theory and assumption; and is refuted, not only by plain and express constitutional provisions, but by the very nature of the compact. It has been shown most conclusively, in the legislative halls,* as well as in the judicial tribunals of the Union, that the Government of the United States possesses, in its appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on all these questions of power, both by necessary implication and express grant. 1. If the Constitution be, indeed, a government existing over all the states, operating upon individuals, and not a mere treaty of alliance, it must, upon general principles, possess the authority in question, as it is, in fact, an authority naturally belonging to all governments. And although the Constitution establishes a govern * Vide the speeches of Mr. Webster on this subject in the Senate of the United States. ment of limited powers, yet, as it extends equally over all the states, it follows, independently of the express declaration to that effect, that to the extent of those powers it must necessarily be supreme; while, from the nature of the powers granted, that government must be National in its character, as well as Federal in its principles of organization. The inference, then, appears to be irresistible, that the government, thus created by the whole, for the whole, and extending over the whole, must possess an authority superior to that of the particular governments of any of its parts. As the Government of the Union, it has a legislative power of its own, and a judicial power coextensive with the legislative power. To hold, therefore, that these are not supreme, but subordinate in authority to the legislative and judicial powers of a state, is equally repugnant to common sense, and to all sound reasoning and established principles. The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Union must each necessarily judge of the extent of its own powers, as often as it is called on to exercise them; and that independently of state control, or they could not act at all. Without any express declaration, therefore, to that effect in the Constitution, the whole question is necessarily decided by those provisions which create a legislative, an executive, and a judicial power; for if the powers exist in a government intended for the Union, the inevitable consequence is, that the acts of the Federal Legislature and the decisions of the Federal judiciary must be binding over the whole Union, and on each of its federative parts. From the nature of the case, then, and as an inference wholly unavoidable, the laws of Con gress and the decisions of the Federal Courts must be of higher authority than those of the states. 2. But the Constitution, as we have already seen, has not left this point without full and explicit provision. For if the express grant to Congress of distinct and substantive power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution all other powers vested in the Government of the United States mean anything, it means that Congress may determine what is necessary and proper for that purpose; and if Congress may judge of what is requisite for the execution of those powers, it must of necessity judge of their extent, as well as interpret them. With regard to the judicial power, the Constitution is still more explicit and emphatic. If any case arise depending on the construction of the Federal Constitution, the judicial power of the Union, we have seen, extends to it, in whatsoever court it may originate. Of all such cases the Supreme Court of the Union has appellate jurisdiction, and its judgments are final and conclusive. Nothing more effectual could have been done for subjecting all constitutional questions, whenever and wherever they may arise, to the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court than has actually been accomplished by this salutary provision of the Constitution. Congress was saved by it from the necessity of any supervision of the state laws; and while the whole sphere of state legislation was thus left untouched, an adequate security was obtained against any infringement of the constitutional power of the General Government. It is clear, then, that the Constitution, by express grant, as well as by necessary implication, |