North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-04-09
. nnERc1nN OF A STATE.

COERCION OF STATE. -
Mr.Webster. in letter lately written oy
clared, in reference the movements Ia SCUM
lima, that secession could not be aecompilshe9 gu
by war; From the position occupied Oy Mr. w Gu,
s;e. Il Is presumed he speaks the sentiments and
pacy of Mr.. Eillnora's liovernment, ana ms ieuef
may be regarded as decaauon on war'iH adVanc VANCE
against South Carolina, IN case she should choose 20
exercise the RIGHT which she possesses, of Peacea0Y
retiring from the Union. The question is thus pre-
s,n,ed: has the United States Government the right
= ia make war upon a seeding State We shall
mot commit the presumption of arguing constitution,
Al question with the "great expouader; we Intend
only 10 produce authority Mr.. Webster IS great au-
thory, but great it is, it is hardly equal 10 lha'
of the trainers os the Constitution ihey, Is pre-
sumed, knew the Constitution better than M Weo'
-ster The following extracts from the Madison pa
ders an authentic record of the proceedings of the
49, Convention which framed the Constitution, show
that the authors of the Constitution contem-
plated the useof force against State, and that they
expressly refused confer that power upon the Gov
eminent. The following was clause in one of the
resolutions submitted to the Convention by Mr. Ran
dolph Of Virginia.
Resolued 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,
"Mr Madison observed that the more he renecteu
on the of force, the more he doubted the Prac"
cabity, the Justice, and the efficiency OF It "nen APP
piled the people collectively, and not individually
Union of the States, containing such an
seemed to provide for its own destruction ne use
of force against State would look more like dec
laration of war than an inicon of punishment, and
would probably be considered by the party Attacked
as a dissolution of all previous conpacts by which
il might be bound. He hoped such system would
be framed as might render this unnecessary
and moved that clause be postponed. This motion
was agreed to- no one dIssenung
So the clause was postponed and never afterwards
taken up. least it not inserted In the Con-
al. &c
MIR. Madison's suggestion adopted by the Con-
sventon, and that such system was framed as with
held from the Government the power to use force
against State. This conclusion is Strengthened,
If possible, by the action of the Convention upon
Mr. Patterson's plan of Constitution, subsequently
submitted. That contained the following provision
ResOlred, That if any State should oppose the
carrying into execution the acts OF the United States
the Federal Executive shall be authorized to call forth
the mower of the confederated States, so much
thereof as may be necessary to enforce and compel
obedience to such acts"
Mr.. Patterson's plan rejected; and it was OBJ
iected to in debate, chiefly because 1t comprised the
above provision. Col. Mason said - He was struck
with horror the prospect of recurring to this expe-
dent" (the use of force againsta State Col. Ham
ilion, in reference TO such provision, observed
g How force be exered on the States collective
ly. 1t is impossible. 1t amounts to war between
the Parties.''
Thus did the trainers of the Constitution expressly
and repeatedly repudate the idea of employing force
against a State. HOW then can THIS power now De
claimed Can il be given in the Constitution in spite
of the express determination OF its trainers not to
give it I The Union plainly intended by its au-
thors be Union of voluntary consent. They left
it the States to decide each for itself whether they
would enter the Union in the first instance, and by
refusing grant the power to compel them TO
main in it, they in effect said to the States remain in
the Union as long as you please, but it you get tired
of it depart in peace. But it is discovered that
is MON of force, moi of consent Union ts be
held together not by of common interest, glo
~ and happiness but by the errors of the sword. Let
such views prevail let the doctrine that State may
be rightfully coerced by the Federal sword be
carried into effect and you the government of
the Union into absolute tyranny; you degrade the
States, a condition of abject vassaage; you estab
hsh precedent that will invite aggressons upon the
rights OF the States and in the end sweep away every
vestge of their sovereignty. The South especially
cannot permit such precedent unless she is blind,
fatally blind to her own interest and safety.
The hostility of the N orthern people to the nsti
tuition Of slavery, connectedwth the fact that they
have now the control of the General Government in
all its departments, loudly Psoclams the danger
the South of arming that Government with the pow
eI to State. The course of time and indeed
great time, will give an immense preponderance
the Northern section already in the majority and
reduce the South TO despised minority, while in the
meantime, the sentiment of hostility to slavery in
the stronger section, will become violent and
governa6le. Under such circumstances the only
possible security to the institution of slavery would
be the right and power of the Southern States to
parate from the Union. Blu. take away that right and
yield the power to hold them in the Union, as with
chain of iron, and obedience to whatever laws
the majority may dictate and you seal the doom
OF the South you sign the death of slavery
We cannot believe the South will stand idly by and
permit the Government to assume power that SOON
ef or later will be turned to her destruction. We
not believe that the South will, herself put into the
hands OF her enemies, the sword that is stab her
to the heart Rome (GG.) Southerner.