The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-10-15
Two remarks may be made upon this quea.

Two remarks may be made upon this qaes.
ton.
Many of them il not all, are dependent for
their obligation upon the poty OF friends IN
common Union, and having coinmon govern
ment. They are only designed to be binding
upon the States, so long as the Union and the
government created by il exist. They are parts
of the frame work which constitute the govern
ment IT, then, the State, have already
shown, may determine the powers OF the latter
in certa n cases, stipulations, which are part OF
the Constitution cannot override that right, be-
cause it is not made TO depend upon them IN any
degree The causes which would IN such cases
demand secession, would place the States IN such
a position To each other, as would make most, II
not all, Of these stipulatlons useless or I'M
practicable. For the restrictions when lhey
impose, are chiefly for the purpose of giving
exclusive powers to the federal government,
which, being ended by the act OF secession
could no longer exercise them This VIII readily
appear to be the ease as TO the power OF laying
duties, regulating commerce, &c
But remark again 1t will be admitted, mat
the provisions OF n treaty are only mutually oo-
ligatory. Good faith only requires OF each to
keep it with, when maintained by the Others.
If broken by the latter, it is ended at the VIII OF
the former
l/ooo ~ uCrcSSuIUJ io'oHj $500 f'''
the State should abrogate the whole OF the
stipulatons binding between it and its sisters
AS an independent power, may she not say to
them: With such Of you az will keep these
provisions with me- will maintain thsn in good
gaith---wth those who have disregarded them, |
have no faith 10 keep"
1t thus appears, that If secession results from
violation of its powers by the government, 1t
need not involve breach of faith with the other
States Ii it results from violation OF slipu-
| laton of the compact by particular State, the
principles which have laid down justify it as to
such q State, while the treaty, in all its pro-
visions, may be carried out as TO those who
have not done so, but are willing to maintain
| them.
This view removes a great difficulty with
some reasoners upon this subject. 1T Is said,
g if one State has a right to judge whether the
compact has been violated by the government,
or by any other State, so have all the rest" II
they differ, and one secedes, cannot the others
deny her right? and if So will not war ensue
! The proposition is enormously stated. Each
has not an eanal right 10 jadSs 2f the extent o.
the obligations Of every otheF,~ ksuch other.
The equality contended for is this; Each has for
uself the supreme right to Judge Of lis ooa obi.
cations finally The right assumed is, that the
|
| ing Sac upon the extent of IFS o0n obligations,
| Where, then, is the equality of right commended
| for! 1t II denied In the very proposition as
serted. For if there be the admitted equality
of hight in each to judge for itseD Of IT'S olen
obligation under the compact what right IS there
in the others to reverse that Judgment 10y their
supreme determination, and substitute their own
for it? The absDrdity would result that ench
would have supremacy in the case OF emery
other, which it would not posseas in ITS opn.
But further; admit, as just stated, that each
has the right to Judge for itself, bat deny that
the others have the right to override such judg-
ment by their own. If they have. whence do
they derive it +! Clearly not from the Constitu-
ton Nothing even looks to such conclusion
in its provisions, except that for its amendment.
That cannot be so regarded, because 1t is simply
one for the increase Of the powers OF the gov
eminent, when its existent authority should
| prove inadequate to the objects Of the Union.
| 1t was not intended to give, nor does it give any
power to arbitrate or settle such differences as
those of which am speaking.
But if there be such right in thirty States to
override the judgment of one upon the extent
of ts own obligation, insist that they can have
no title to do so, if the equal right OF the one is
denied. 1t is not right deriving It's validity
from the number Of the States asserting It, but
must be nhe ent in each. IL is possessed 10y
! the many only, because il is inherent in each
! Thus the very argument so often urged against
the assertion of this right of Judgment in the
seeding State, involves an admission of it,
And further If one has no right to seeede be
cause THIRTY dissent, it is submitted, If upon any
proper principle, the THRU can, il one diSsenL-
SO that the proposition, which would make the
right of one to secede depend upon the dissent
of the others, would make the compact dissol
uble only by mutual and unanimous consent.
! Thus the dissent of Delaware would make the
Constitution irrevocably binding upon all the
| other States.
But suppose difference Of opinion occurs, il
is said that war must ensue upon secession
This DENY. Ifa State revokes the pc Sers OF
the federal government as to itself alone, and
for cause, but should keep the stipuatons OF
he compact with such of the Others as will do
the same, where is the ground for war! Can
such revocation of the powers of a common gov
eminent involve just ground of quarrel with the
others Did they bin her to IL, or was she sell
bound And if the latter, must they loose her
And if war notwithstanding does ensue, can il
| be attributed TO the light, or will it not be be.
cause those who will not do justice 10 her IN
the Union, will outrage her when out Of it3
But the question of righ does not depend
upon whether or not war ensues. Right may
often be, and has been resisted by torong The
question is. how would the belligerents stand to
each Others Por If thsre be right to secede,
| resistance to ii by war would be a wrong war
which could give quality only to the act of the
party waging it, and not to the right asserted
Bot do not deny the responsibility of the
seeding state for The act of secession. As a
sovereign State, il must attach to her as to every
other free and Independent nation. ! only in
sist, that secession being alone at her will,
places her in a condition of independence of the
others, which can never be taken from her but
by her free consent, or by her ears humiliation.
There Is one view of this question which is
of great force In maintaining the right Of seces-
sion. 1t is a right, opposition to which will
u her ensure its triumph, or will overthrow and
subvert the very principles of the Constitution
After State has declared by an ordinance of
its convention Its withdrawal from the Union
and has refused to send representatives TO either
branch of Congress; after she has announced
the Termination of the authority Of the Union
within her limits her power over her internal
concerns would fully enable her to m ,intain her
position with all the forms and sanctions of law