The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-09
From The Louisville Demnnrni

A"o SNisot VI Vic JOuTlldl resumes SUD-
Ject OF States right to secede from the Union
lie perseveres in his denial of the right and Of
fers some trifiing considerations in support of
his views he would deny the sovereignty of
the States altogether. They never were sover-
eign he contends. They owed allegiance to
Great Britain, he contends, before the revolu-
ton and during the eventful period, they united
and surrendered the sovereignty to the confed-
Grafton. The fact that they formed voluntary
confederation, implies the very sovereignty that
is denied. If the colonies were not sovereign
States, wherein did they derive the right to form
confederation. But here starts up another
fact which is very significant. The old articles
OF confederation We're designed as they pur-
port on their very face, to form perpetual
Union The right of State to secede from
III is not granted in the instrument. Did
tho States consider that the right was sur
rendered! Actions speak louder than words
Vices were seen in the articles of confed-
Grafton as the States thought, and some came to
the conclusion to supersede them altogether
They became traitors and disunionists. Wash
ington, the old traitor to the perpetual union of
! the old confederation, took hand in the disor-
derby and wicked attempt at secession. He and
his compeers met ut Philadelphia and proceeded
to make an instrument for more perfect union
Just what the States of the South are now
ready to engage in. They never thought of
questioning the sovereignty of the States On
the contrary, they offered their plan to each one;
thereby acknowledging their sovereign right to
accept or reject it, They farther provided that
if nine States accepted, the new Union should
go into operation and leave the other four to
whistle for the vested rights they might imagine
they had in the old confcderacy. Here is the
origin of our Union. 1t was voluntary. The
right to reject it was acknowledged which i'm
plies rs strongly rs it can the sovereignty of
| these separate States at that time. Did the
States surrender their right to sccede no more
| than they did under the old confederation
There is no express surrender of this right and
we don't see any thing in it to except it out of
| the mass of reserved rights, including all not
surrendered by express provision in the co nsti.
tuition.
1t is said that such right would be vice in
our system that would destroy it, and that con-
sequently il Is absurd to suppose that such
right is allowed. Such logic is shallow-Therc
are vices IN the constitution Of every free gov
| ernment that would destroy it if allowed to be
acted out The President has veto upon all
the acts of Congress-. Suppose he should de-
termine to veto all appropriation bills for four
! yenrs, and one more than Il third Of the Senate
| should sustain him, what would become of the
Union? Supposed majority ofeither branch ofthe
national legislature should resolve to put an
end to the Union, they have the power to refuse
all appropriations of money unquestionabIy
Suppose congressional districts enough, or States
enough should determine not to send quorum
| to Congress and elect men pledged not TO 90,
| what, again, would become Of the confederacy
The English government contains many vices
that might destroy it in single year, notwith.
standing it has existed fora ages 1t is an taacy,
therefore, to argue that because the exercise of Il
| right might destroy the government, it is not Il
part of the theory Of our government. When
men turn fanatics or blockheads, no theory of
government will prevent fatal results.
Contemplate the other side of the question,
and we shall find the acknowledgement of the
right leads to far less evils, even if the right
should be exercised, than the denial of it. Sup
pose State is determined to sccede, and that,
after bloody struggle-a greater evil than Sc
| cession could be-she is compelled to submit,
is she any longer free State! Will not her
people be the unwilling slaves of despotic
power! How would this comport with the
spirit of our institutions? But we are supposng
n case that is not possible. One State cannot
! be coerced; still less can combination of sew
eral States. Indeed, it is very unlikely that one
State will ever be alone in such contest Here
|
| the most dire calamties.
Whilst we advocate the right of secession,
we don't advocate its exercise for any cause
likely to occur, or even morally possible to occur.
We advocate the expediency of acknowledging
the right, and, providing for the emergency Of
the secession of State, and letting it lie in our
system amongst the other vices. These vices
are the worry merits that have rcconciled the
States to the Union without the veto power Of
the President; none would have it without the
power of Congress to refuse appropriations Of
money. Few would have it without requiring
quorum to enact law. Yet any one Of these
powers, in their extreme exercise, may destroy
the government.
Some are now hostile to the Union because
the right of secession is denied, and it is alleged
that the Federal Government can employ force
to compel submission. 1t is growing into q
graver objection than any other Why not re-
move it at once, and give sati faction to this for
midable class If we can't get along together
in voluntary Union, we can't get along at all ;
and why preach up an extremely offensive doc
trine that can do no good, and is doing harm
perhaps destined to bring about the very result
we vainly talk Of employing force to prevent!