The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-03-27

membered that she TOOK the boat Mt Wilmington
on Sunday the Odd, and was out in the violent
storm of that day and night-Ne,o York Day
| Book
Mr.. Madison w. Mr. Webster.
We commend to the especial attention Of the
Secretary of State, and his happers" the fol-
lowing able argument from the Rome (Ga)
SoMhyner.
| The authority Of MADISON and Of the trainers
of the Constitution, which is SO couclusivey
arrayed against the Expounder," must out
weigh his loose assertions, however dogmatical-
ly put forth.
COERCION OF STATE.--Mr. Webster, in
letter lately written by him, declared in refer
ence to the movements in South Carolina, that
secession could not be accomplished but by
war" From the position occupied by Mr.
Webster, it is presumed he speaks the senti-
| ments and policy Of Mr.. Filmores government
and his letter may be regarded MS a declaration
of war, in advance, against South Carolina, in
! case she should choose to exercise the right
which she thinks she possesses, of peaceably
| retiring from the Union. The question is thus
presented: has the United States government
| the right TO make war upon seeding State {!
| We shall not commit the presumption of arguing
a constitutional question with the "great ex-
FOUNDER" we intend only to produce authority.
Mr.. Webster is great authority, but rs great as
it is, il is hardly equal to that of the trainers Of
| the Constitution. They, it is presumed, knew
the Constitution better than Mr.. Webster The
| following extracts from the Madison papers, an
authentic record of the proceedings of the cons
vention which framed the Cons!it ltioD show that
| of fba Cnns Of IN n
ted the use of force against State, and that
they expressly refused to confer that po Yer upon
| the government The following was clause in
one of the resolutions submitted to the conven-
| ton by Mr.. Randolph of Virginia:
"Resolred, That the national Legislature ought
to be empowered to call forth the force of the
Union against any member of the Union failing
/ to fulfil its duties under the articles thereof"
When this clause came up for consideration.
1 MIR. Madison observed that the more he re-
hected on the use Of fosce, the more he doubted
the praciicability, the Justice, and the efficiency
Of it when applied to people collectively, and
I not indi idually. A Union of the States con-
tanning such nm ingredient, seemed to provide
\ for its own destruction The use of force
against State would look more like declara-
4 ton of war than an infection of punishment
4
attacked, as a dissolution Of all previous com
pacts by which it might be bound He hoped
such system would be framed as might render
this resource unnecessary, and moved that the
clause be postponed. This motion was agreed
to, no one dissenting"
SO the clause was postponed, and never after
wards taken up, or at least it was not inserted
in the Constitution, so that the conclusion is ir-
resistible that Mr. Mndison's suggestion was
adopted by the convention, and that such sys-
tenn framed as withheld from the govern
ment the power to use force against State
This conclusion is strengthened, if possible, by
the action of the convention upon Mr. Fatter-
sons plan of a constitution, subsequently sub
mitted That plan contained the following pro-
vision:
"ResoIred, That if any State should oppose
the carrvingl into execution the acts of the
United States, the federal Executive shall be
authorized to call forth the power Of the confed-
Grated States, or 80 much thereof as may be ne
cessary to enforce and compel obedience TO such
acts"
| Mr.. Pattersons plan was rejected; and it WIS
objected to in debate, chiefly because it comprised
the above provision Col. Mason said "he was
struck with horror at the prospect of recurring
to this expedent,' (the use of force against n
State) Col. Hamilton in reference to such
provision observed allow can force be exerted
on the States collectively. II is impossible. 1t
amounts to a war between the PARTIES"
| Thus did the trainers of the Constitution ex
pressly and repeatedly repudate the idea of en-
pIoying force against State How then can
| this power now be claimed Can it be given in
the Constitution in spite Of the express determi-
nation of its trainers not to give it 3 The Unto n
was plainly intended by its authors, to be Union
| of voluntary consent They left it to the States
to decide each for itself whether they would
enter the Union in the first instance and by re-
fusing TO grant the power to compel them to
main in it, they in effect, said to the States, ere
main in the Union as long you please but if
you get tired Of it depart in peace But it is
now discovered that ours is a union of force,
not Of consent; Union to be held together
not by q sense of common interest, glory and
happiness, but by the terrors of the sword
| Let such views prevail, let the doctrine that a
State may be righttully coerced by the federal
sword be once carried into effect, and you erect
the government Of the Union into an absolute
tyranny; you degrade the States to condition
of ab]ect vassalage; you establish precedent
that will invite aggre ssions upon the rights Of
the States, and in the end, sweep away every
vestige of their sovereignty. The South, espe-
cally, cannot permit such a precedent unless she
is blind, fatally blind, to her own interest and
safety. The hostility of the Northern people
to the institution Of slavery, connected with the
fact that they have pow control Of the general
government in all it's departments, loudly pro-
claims the danger 10 the South of arming that
government with the power to coerce State
The course Of time, and indeed no great time,