The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-13

| luton of the Union, the breaking up of its in
iegral parts into their original disconneXion.
| We do not mean to say that this is expressed
in so many words, but it is manifestly implied
IN the very first point made by him, as well as
by the tenor of his subsequent argument AT
ter the formal prelude, he opens the matter of
controversy in this way:
SIN all Christendom there never has been form
of government which provided in its own constitu-
ton, through an express authorization, for its
own dissolution; nor yet one in which the rights
to put an end to it did not reside some,chere'
The point which he really wants to establish
is not the capacity of State to withdraw from
the Union and conduct its own affairs in solitary
Independence. This is what we have deemed
TO be the true meaning and extent of secession
We had always understood those who, advocat-
ing the exercise Of the power in certain contn-
gencies, have studied its theory most carefully,
to contemplate il as the individual act of single
State. But lnasnuch as the possibility may be
conceived of the remaining States, especially if
the right is established, quietly going ON in their
accustomed round and waiting for their sece-
ding sister to become tired of her solitude, and
seek re-admssion to their society, this does
not seem to answer the full purpose of the Sc
cesslonlsts. They want TO show that the
secession of some number of States eve are not
yet informed precisely what it is, although we
earnestly sought to be enlightened by the Press
Will utterly deprive the others of the capacity
to carry on the operations Of Government under
tba IL
dissolution is SO promptly introduced, for that
imports not the mere severance of one member
but the breaking up of body into It's smallest
parts, the utter destruction Of the conneXion
which made them one concrete.
1t strikes us that the secessionists are weaken
ing their own cause very materially when they
claim that the States not participating in the
secession are to suffer the same consequences in
the breaking up Of their union and federal rela-
tons as those who withdraw. 1t is a strong
argument to prove that the States who desire
to maintain their existing relations have the
power and the right to rotectthemselves against
their frame of government being thus subverted
without their consent.
Randolph proceeds to argue that the power
Of dssolving the Union, not being delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor pro-
hibited by it to the States, is among those re-
served to the States inseveralty, to be exercised,
if exercised at all ''by the States each by itself,
and for ITSELF and for none other, and not other
wise" 1t results, he says, ''that as the power
of dissolving the Union resides in the States
Il.
can dissolve it beyond the extent to which she
is interested therein and party thereto; and
consequently the only mode of effecting that,
without destroying the union of the others, is
by Withdrawing from its jurisdiction and au-
thority, through the peaceful exercise of the
right of secession"
This would appear at first sight to be an
admission of all we endeavored to show but
that it is obviously thought that though one
State and another Withdrawing by ITSELF and
for itself alone, works no change in the rela
tons of those remaining, yet there is a GER
tain stage in the process where the next that
withdraws will, by that act, effect dissolution
Of the rest. We infer this because he immodi-
ately proceeds to state other modes by which he
supposes an entire dismembement Of the Union.
as he sometimes calls il, or the bringing the
government to stand-still, as it is termed in
other places, can be effected, and to argue that
these can be effected by virtue Of the provisions
Of the Constitution itself
Treason, sir isa dismcmberment Of the Union
treason 10 the Constitution II So then IL the Con
sttution tse II the hotbcd Of it's own treasons for
it bears within it's womb the seeds Of its own dis
membermcnt!"
Such are the words with which he intro
duces the enumeration Of the various means of
paralyzing the action Of Government which he
supposes 10 exist. We feel authorized to infer
that, by dismembement of the Union in the
first part Of the sentence, and which relates 10
the consequences Of secession, he means the
same thing as by dismemberment in the latter
part, and what that is he proceeds to exemplify
He mentions that screen Of the States have
a number Of representatives in the aggregate
exceeding by one the aggregate representative
number of the twenty three remaining States
He argues that as "the Constitution requires
majorites Of the whole number elected to each
ilhu1f " NNliLItNS 10 fuihllule quorum 10 90
business" the omission Of those seven States
TO elect would arrest legislation, stop the sup
plies, and eventually dissolve the Union. Ger
tainly not. il the constitutional requirement be-
as he quotes IL for a majority Of the members
elected would have the power to transact bust
ness Of all kinds. Moreover, as the Consiitu-
ton confers upon Congress the power to make
or alter regulations as to the times, places. and
manner Of elocting representatives, a majority Of
the representatives from the twenty three States
might thus provide for filling mp their vacant
seats. The same reasoning applies 10 the Sc
nate. There is, indeed, no way Of compelling
Legislature 10 elect, or the people 10 voie but as
Randolph has informed us, all that is wanted
20 keep the government in operation is a major
ity Of those who are elected. If such a major
ity do not attend, the minority are vested by
the Constitution with the powers Of quorum
for the purpose Of compelling their attendance
No dissolution Of the Union is to be got at in
this way.
Randolph next refers to the sioppage Of bust
&