The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-11-15
Front tho Soiihsrn Rspeiik.
Is Secession a Deh0eratIc Doctrine

/
State owning il to be Democratic doctrine, men,
ton it only in self.defence We propose to
look moment at the subject, and see whence
sprung the idea and doctrine of secession, and
who were the orginators and sustaners OF the
doctrine.
Not that we would intrude our own opinion
upon the public whether there is or is not such
a right inherent in the States, and inseparable
from their acknowledged right of sovereignty
but we propose to give the opinions OF eminent
statesmen from the first formation of our gov
eminent and compact. 1t is admitted by even
the Union papers, that the States are independ.
ent soveregnties,-bu they deny the right OF
secession, and advocate the doctrine OF coercion,
if State attempts secession. Strange princl-
pies Now, if the States are sovereign, 1t is
established that the highest power Is in them
selves and it is only left for to show that not
only the doctrine of State sovereignty but the
right of secession is Democratic doctrine. But
first, we wish it, as it must be admitted, that if
the general government has mol the right of CO.
crcion, the States hare the right of secession
and we think no one will deny this position-it
is too palpable. II the government has no power
to restrain secession, it is conclusive, that the
State can secede, and that, too, peaceably, I'M
molested We think the Unionites are compelled
to ad nit tbs point.
The proceedings of the convention, that framed
our Constitution, will be found correctly given
in the Madison papers and in every document
found there, the idea of the government passing
the right of coercng a State, if she attempt Sc
cession, is rudely thrown aside rs subversive of
republican principle, and tending directly 10 con-
soldation.
Mr.. Randolph, of Virginia, placed before the
convention the following
"Resol,ed, That the national legislature ought
to be empowered to call forth the force of the
Union, against any member of the Union fail
ing to fulfil its duties under the articles thereof"
When this clause came up for consideration,
"Mr Madison observed that the more he reflect
ed on the use Of force, the more he doubted the
practicabty, the Istice, and the efficiency of it,
when applied to the people collectively, and not
individually. A union of the States, containing
such an ingredient, seemed to provide for it's
own destruction. The use of force against a
State would look more like declaration of war
than an infection of punishment, and probably
be considered by the party attacked, as disso-
luton Of all previous compacts 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 post
poned This motion was agreed to no one
dissenting"
This suggestion of Mr.. Madison, the great
teacher of democracy, was not only listened to
by the convention, but adopted, as is plainly ad-
duced from there being no such force clause in
our Constitution.
Mr.. Patterson submitted to the convention a
plan of constitution; The following is portion
of one resolution:
"Resolped, That if any State should oppose
the carving into execution the acts of the
United States, the federal executive shall be
authorized to call forth the power of the con.
federate States or as much thereof, as may be
necessary to enforce and compel obedience to
SUI acts"
The plan was thrown aside. The idea of
using force TO compel obedience was to those
veteran patriots, horrible; but to the lesser fry
of later days it seems right and proper. Col.
Mason, the Republican exclaimed, when they
were considering the resolution concerning the
employment of force, &" | am struck with horror
at the prospects of recurring to this expe-
dent" and even the noble Federalist Hamil-
ton, whom we doubt not would scorn the
strange principles of his latter day party, were
he now below, arose and exclaimed. "How
can force be exerted in the States collectively (!
Is il possible? 1t amounts to war between
the parties"
Here then are things not to be contradicted,
politician who may hold himself forth as the sir
Oracle of the community. The republicans who
framed our Constitution, thrust aside the doc.
trine of force, and formed us Union by con.
sent, and not, as these above mentioned politi.
clans would make US believe, Union by force.
This doctrine of force destroys the doctrine
! (Which they pretend to hold,) of State sover-
eignty--and their position is truly laughable !;
If they cling to force, sovereignty is gone,
| if they hold on TO sovereignty, force is de-
molished and the right Of secession is indirect.
ly admitted. To continue.
The party opposed to secession rely consid.
erably upon the preamble which commences
awe the people, &C." Now, those persons
are or seem ignorant of the fact that the pream.
BILE originally commenced, ave the people of
the United States of New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, New York, &c !" and that the change
was made by committee appointed to "revise
the Siyle and arrange the articles" after the
convention had adopted the Constitution; and
this committee was not empowered TO change
the meaning, nor did they; and the meaning
correctly interpreted, surely points to the States
individually and to their sovereignty.
We have then established, and we think
clearly, from the proceedings of the convention
that formed this government, that hs right 10
cOerce a State dies not erist, and the States are
each individual souereignties, and were so con-
sidered by the Republican Democrats who
originated the idea, aud who formed US Union
Of consent and not a Union Of force
We will now see who has kept the doctrine
anoat In 1898, James Madison wrote the Vir.
ginia resolutions; they sustain the doctrine of
State sovereignty and secession. At the same
time Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky res
olutions, and they sustain the doctrine that the
States are the judges Of the measures of re-
dress"
James Madison, in 800, made report to the
Virginia legislature, in defence of the resolu-
tons of 80; the following is an extract:
sit appears to your committee to be plain
principle, founded in commtn sense, illustrated
by common practice, and essential 10 the nature
Of compacts, that, where resort can be had 10 no
tribunal aperior 10 The authority Of The parties,
The parties themselves must be ,ighIful Judges, in
The last resort iohether The bargain made has been
111frsued mr. r;oJoIoJ Tho Ennsf;tnt;or If tk,