Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-10-04
Judge Caskie on Secession.

Judge Caskie on Secession.
We have looked with some interest to the full
report published in some of the city apers, OF the
discussion of Monday night, between Messrs.
Bots and Caske, to see the reporters rendering
of what Judge Caskie said on the question oil
secession. We occupied seat some distance
from the rostrum, and, as the Judges voice was
weakened by hoarseness, we could not distinctly
hear all that he said. Our impression was that
while he avowed the doctrine that State has the
right to secede in case of violation of the fed
eral compact, he also ccntended, though not d.
rectIy, yet by implication, that the other States
have no correlative right to coerce the seeding
State if they think there has been no violation of
the compact. Upon this point we especially de-
sired to ascertain the Judges views, for, upon it
hangs the whole principle of secession, us held
in South Carolina, and uy the so-called Southern
Rights party in Georgia, Alabama and Mississip-
pi We find that the reporter gives Judge Cas-
kie's remarks the same indistinctness which i'm
pressed US in listening to them. Still it is impos
sibe not to infer from what he does say, that he
denies the right of the co-States to judge of the
infraction of the Constitution alleged by the Sc
ceding State, and to resort to coercion if they deny
the nfracion We copy the report of Judge
Caskie's remarks touching this point;
81 pass on from the bar, and come TO the great
Union question. want to talk to you fellow citizens,
upon this subject, and want to put the gentlemans
opinion a long with mine. desire to meet him
fully on this most important issue. want TO demon
strate to you that am Union Great applause
As regards South Carolina, | do not believe that
oil hos difficulty with her q
compel us 10 NEEDLE with her affairs; and as the gen.
tIeman has asked my for my thoiy in saying
! will answer him.
az answer that do not think so lightly Of the bes.
sings of This Union or of the intelligence of the peope
OF tire Union az believe that any portion OF this
peope could be induced to cast those blessings
on aceoun of-Qhe remainder OF the sentence was in
audiable to the reporter [Great Cheeringl
q am Union man enough tor that. L do not be-
lave that requires force to keep tins Union togeher-
Ibeieve this Unlon loses its republican character,
when it is held together by the OF the halter,
the power of the sword. believe that should be-
as it has been-a Union OF broherhoods, dependent
upon the interests and affections OF the people OF the
States composing it. and with such foundation to rest
upon it will last long as the people exist Great ap.
plause But, taking this question IN the aspect all
luded to by the gentleman, and supposng South Caro-
lima to secede as show the gentleman according
to his own doctrines he would be direct papable
and affiliated dsunions; and all these doctrines
which you have heard charged to me this evening,
will have come from him. And here, lest might for
get wish to ask what will be the effect OF this doc
ct and where Is the security to
derive from 2 What safety, what protection have we
under that doctrine of the gentleman, who tells you
that he would shoot down any who, under any
circumstances resisted law Of the Government of the
United States Let US suppose, Tor instance, that ..
Carolina should secede--and here allow me to say,
fellow citizens that however feeble aud imperfect the
effort with which shall answer the gentlemaus que
res, tn nix you will bear me witness before am
through that do not finch from any issue he is
pleased to make-suppose South Carolina should Sc
cede. Suppose the gentleman voted men and money
NH tbat
upon the backs of whose sous he thinks The cowhde
had better be ad although in the paper OF my friend
Gaaher the Republican, there article in the
month OF August last, IN which she was called the gal
liant S Tate of S. Carona-suppose he should send the
soldiers of the federal government to subugae that
S ate and hold her as province. where would De the
Union then? [Great applause.l Will any one tell me?
What has become OF the Union, when a sovereign
Stale of this conederacy is snbIugated and held as
territory by the troops OF the Omitted States! The Uni
you will hav, then will not certainly be the Union
you have now. For South Carolina much as she
may be denounced, is now a member OF TINS Union,
and God knows, the gentleman was not wrong when
said tina was going to tell you that had no sympathy
with his mad and every way wrong pr Ject OF seces-
sion which is advocated by portion OF the people
there We have with South Carolina union as wehave
with other States OF this contederacg, however much
she be denounced. But, you were holding here
by the federal power deprived of her state government
with her country 10 possessi OF the troops othe Uni
tie States you would have union with her and if
hold ng her territory the North should please 10
exercise the power which the gentleman says they
have go and put the w llnOt FroVSO upon n6r anu
berate her negi oes-you would have a Union only
OF portion OF he States OF the contederacy and have
one state consisting of more free negroes than white
people he'd territory by the troops OF the other
States. Are you prepared tor that! ask you TO look
the question calmly III the face. | look TO the pre-
serva ion OF this Union. Applause love this Union
lGreat applause
"No sentiment ever sprung to my heart or fell from
my lips that was not loyal to this Union and do not
nterpose this great constitutional doctrine OF the right
State to secede in case OF a fundamental violation
of ne articles q the federal | DO
that doctrine between the aggresslons OF the North
and the aggresslons of the government OF tae United
State whichever you please and that revolutionary
rlsht, that civil war, 10 which the gentleman would
resort, and which | tell you, when il comes, will de-
stroy the Union. Applause tell you, when breth
shed each others blood, the family is broken up
and cannot be any more reunited interpoIe the
doctrine at thls time for your deliberate reflection, and
that may act and have It's influence as believe it
will have, UPON South Carolina "
Now it is true that Judge Caskle does not
here directly affirm that the States remaining in
the Union have no right TO say that the Compro-
mise is not a violation of the Constitution; that
South Carolina, if she secede, will herself be
breaking the compact, and that she must, there
fore, be restaned in her "mad and every acay wrong
project" But it is certainly no violent inference
that this opinion is clearly indicated by what the
Judge did say on the subject of coercion. If he
only means that it would be un,oise in the other
States 10 resort to coercion, that is point of mere
expediency But we understand him to maintain
that there is no right to coerce. If we are right,
Judge Caskle differs from Mr.. Seldom who, we
have been recently informed, admits that where
one State attempts to secede, alleging vlootion
Of the Constitution, and the other States deny it,
her secession may be rightfully prevented, as it
would, in the opinion Of those States be refusal
to perform her stipulated obligations As quea-
ton of expsdency, those who uphold the rightto
coerce, may well consider the propriety of coer-
cion. in the particular case of South Carolina
But the doctrine, that the legal existence Of this