The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-07-27
TIL Il EP u BLIC.I
WASH N GTON:
SATURDAY MORNING, JULY 27. $50.

|
war against the United States Secession, as
proposed by Mr. RHErT, it insists, zoe not
involve war, certainly not by the seeding
States, rand, if it did, the war wouldn't be
against the United States, for the Unior would
be gone" In subsequent paragraph tl Press
inquiries of us, in case of the secession eve
raj States, or of half the States, who wdd be
the people ofthe United States"
| We did not, in making the remarksvhich
we thought justified and required by theseech
at Charleston, aim at the precision which
might be necessary in framing an Indecent.
| We did not anticipate that his defenceyuuId
be rested upon the technicalites Of ecial
pleading; yet we think there is no dimlty
in answering the exceptions which the Press
takes, or in replying to its interrogation In
case Of the secession of one or more ittes,
''the people of the United States" WOLF be,
we apprehend, the people of the Stats Who
remained united. This is upon the supostion
that the secession was accomplished, and
took of the entire population of the tat. or
States participating in the movement. ,oes the
Press fancy that if the people of Sou, Caro-
| lima should succeed in Withdrawing BIN out
| the sphere of the Constitution, that .ircum-
| stance would affect the relations eXisng be-
| tween the people of Louisiana and Veront, or
| between the individuals composing cher of
| them and the Federal Government? Affect
| them, we mean, in that legal sense nwhich
IF how tho,,
treated. There is, doubtless, a possibly that
such an event might, in its remote conse-
quences, influence the ultimate condion of
both; but the question here is, if we lnder-
stand it, about the immediate and necessy re-
suit in the contemplation Of law What's the
difference, whether the people of Sta are
withdrawn in one way or another fra the
Confederacy, so far as it affects the Ulon of
those who remain?
How could a court in Massachusetttake
any distinction in respect to the relationsf its
citizens with those of Alabama, betwea the
case of a formal legislative declaration of eces-
sion by convention duly assembled fol that
purpose, under the authority of South Caolina
and It's ratification by the people at the oils,
and the case of a practical secession of il en-
tire population, by emigration to the Bemu-
das? In the latter case they would indub,aby
be beyond the jurisdiction of the Constitution
they would have withdrawn from the Ihion /;
in the former, according to the theory f the
Press, they would have done the same hing,
and, for aught we can see, nothing moe. 1t
will hardly be maintained that becaus the
soil remained, denuded of its inhabitants, th case
would be materially varied. Ii is not believed
so far as we know, by anybody, that thre is
any attribute of sovereignty, inherent the
desert land, which would serve to keep the
Union theoretically intact, and perfect, when
the men who dwelt upon it were gone.
1t cannot be that the Press imagine the
United States TO consist of any fixed, unchnge-
able combination of States, held togethq by
some principle analogous to chemical affinies,
such that the withdrawal of one should realve
entity (for we must be INDUCED in leaned
terms, when the Press is lying in wal to
catch us upon any Slip called the United Suites
is like Prince Rupert's drop, glass bubble,
the whole of which resolves itself into fine tust
the instant the end Of the stem is broken.
The Constitution provides "that the ratifca
ton of the conventions OF nine States shall be
sufficient for the establishment of this corsti-
tuition between the States so ratfying the
same" On the Goth day OF, July, 1888, the
State Of New York gave its ratification in CON
vention; ten States having previously done so
The United States were then constituted, and
provision was made for the appointment OF
electors of President and Vice President
and on the 30th day of April, 1899, George
Washington was inaugurated, in the presence
Of the Representatives and Senators, and the
existing government commenced its opera
tions. The States of North Carolina and
Rhode Island remained without the Union
which was nevertheless complete and perfect
The "people of the United States" were then
the people Of eleven States; when, on the 2lst
day of November, 1889, North Carolina ratified
the Constitution, they were the people Of twelve
States; and when, on the 10Th Of May, 1890
Rhode Island gave her adhesion, they were the
people of thirteen States; but no more ''the peo-
pie Of the United States" than previous to either
Of those events. Suppose those States which
came in, after the organization was complete
without them, were now to annul their acts
Of ratification, so that they should stand precise
ly as they did on the day the Constitution be-
came operative, would the people of the original
eleven States stand in any different relation to
each other than they did on that day2 But how
is secession, on the part Of any one of the old
States, dierentin principle or effect from the act
Of recalling its ratification of the Constitution;
and how can any distinction be taken in this
particular between South Carolina and North
Cardinal 1.-THE withdrawal ofany four OF them
would thus have left the United States in exist
ence with all the mutual rights and duties arts
ing out ofthe Constitution it is difficult to see how
the secession of any number, or all, of the new
States, would alter the case and as the States
upon their admission all stand upon precisely
the same footing, it would follow that the Con-
stitution and the Government will continue as
long as any nine States adhere to it, That Gov
eminent will be the United States The act
NJ aacocctnn. occordins, Ia ,boao ,.,h, have