Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-08-22
FRIDAY MORNING. AUG. %. 1851.
THE TINES FERNS.
The True Doctrine of Secession.

against the position, maintained by Col. Boiling
in his canvass with Mr.. Bocock, that State has
the right to secede from the Union Tor clear
violation of the Constitution, and yet that If
South Carolina attempt TO secede fer the INSULT
Gent causes now existing, the other States Will
have the right to prevent her from doing So The
latter of these doctrines, the Enquirer thinks,
cuts the throat of the other.
Ii he right of secession lit says belongs to the
States be exercised their Discretion there IS no
right in the general vernmen to oppose 1t whatever
lis powers and dispositions may DO. IT, on the other
hand, the right to prevent secession belongs 10 the
general government, however Imperative or extreme
the emergency may be 10 which the State may at
tempt to secede then the States have right ofseces
aud in the ablect condition with the Irish
peasant and the Hungarian ietugee-the country must
be abandoned before the State can be free"
Here we take issue with the Enquirer and pro-
pose to give, in few words, the solution of the
difficulty it raises.
One of two theories on this subject must be
held by all who admit, to any extent, the right of
secession: 1t must be maintained, either that
State has right to secede, with or without
cause, and whenever she may deem it expedient;
or, that she has right 10 secede only when the
compact of Union is violated to her injury. The
of South Carolina, but is so plainly inconss tent
with every reasonable view OF the obligations of
tie Constitution that it need not be refuted in this
latitude. The Enquirer, we take it, adheres to the
second theory, viz: that STATE may secede forus
cause. Upon this postuate the question arises,
who shall be the Judge of the justice of the cause?
The Enquirer will answer the seeding State,
and so say we; but we contend, moreover, that the
other States must be the judges also. If they
think that no wrong has been done to their dis
contented sister, we hold it to be unquestionable,
upon every principle of the law of national
leagues and covenants, that they may prevent her
from doing them wrong by abandoning their Con
federacy.
The law of nations certainly authorizes parties
to mere league, in making war upon any MEM
Der that withdraws from it, without good cause.
and refuses to execute its stpuations And can
1t be contended that our Union is of less binding
force than league? Were the States really
separate nations, without common government,
but with simple alliance offensive and defensive
the detection of one from such alliance might so
disturb the general relations of ALL as to make
iiOA WlALuid JUSt CduS6 VI wal. AHu Is HOL
the Federal Constitution something more than an
alliance offensive and defensive? 1t not mere
ly binds each State TO aid the rest in war, but
it delegates the power to declare war, and the pow
er to maintain it. exclusively to the Federal Co
vernment. But, more than this it expressly stip.
ulates that "no State shall enter into any treaty
alliance or confederation grant letters of marque
riSol. IL L.
make anything but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts pass any bill of attainder
&c posi- taclo law, law mpairing the obligation of
contracts; or grant any title of nobility" Can
it possibly be conceived that the trainers of the
nstitution meant, that the powers, sur rendered
by the assent of the States to these important
prohibitions, might all be reganed by the taIisman
of secession. As well might we acknowledge
the right of an individual who covenants to do
certain thlng-not to use patent, for example,
after he hassold ito release himself from the
obligation, by simply declaring, " l am tired of
the contract, and will annul it p
Whilst we hold, therefore, that the obligations
of State to the Union are Cancelled by vic.
latoas Of the compact, by the remaining parties,
through the common agent, the General Govern
nent, we hold also that the fact of violation is
not to be determined only by the opinion or ca
price Of the seeding State. If the other Sta ties
deen tho secession of one uncalled for, and in
furious to their interests. they must be expected
t. resort to force. Ii the cause of the seeding
State is intrinsically just, she can make her ap-
peal to the sympathies Of the world for succour-
In the relations which governments bear to each
ether, that appeal is the only, but is not often
vain, recourse.
And now we come to the particular point, where
we may place the correctness of theseyiews in a
clearer light We have argued that seeding
State must expect the other States, denying her
cause of complaint, to enforce her adherence
to the Union, Or in other words, to quell all re.
slstance to the execution of the laws of the Union
within her limits. But, acknowledging as we do
the right Of secession for clear violation of the
constitution, do not hold hatthe citizens of Sc
ceding State, if subdued by the Federal authority,
are liable to the penalties of treason. All admit
that the States were sovereign before they formed
the Confederation and the Union. Our reading OF
the Constitution is, that they are still sovereign
save as to the particular powers they have yield
ed 10 the Federal Government.
On the one hand, they cannot retract those
powers except when perverted TO their injury;"
but, on the other, when they do undertake to re-
tract them, believing them perverted, it is the
tentative act of sovereigns The question of per-
version must be decided by the ultima rata of
nonourabe war, not by the terrors of the felon's
gbbet.
In this distinction between the penalty of uu-
successful secession by a State, and treason
committed by individuals, seems to US TO rest the
solution Of the whole problem.