Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-11-21
From the Southern Standard.

Many persons have expressed their desire to know
what views Mr.. CALHOUN expressed in his last work
ON the subject of Secession; they will, no donbt. he
surprised 10 learn that all which he says On that sub
ect is contained in few lines. Ii is evident that he
regarded the tight too clear to require discussion-
The little which he says this subject in connec-
lion with that of the amendment OF the Constitution.
He first shows that. in Of State lnterposng 10
resist Il law supposed 10 be unconstitutional, l. is Inc
duty of the General Government; refer the matter TO
the body having power 10 amend the Constitution
If fail 10 obtain from that body declaratory ameh-
ment affirming The power il claims, then, he holds,
that the power should be abandoned. He then pro-
ceeds thus, (p 30o-l }
"On the other hand, should it succeed in obtaining
the amendment tie act of the government OF the sepa-
rate State which caused the conflict and operated as
negative on the act of the federal government would,
in all cases. be overruled and The latter become ope-
rative within its limits But The result is in some re-
spccts dferent-where State, acting IN her sover-
eign character, and party 10 the constitutional
compact, has inlerposed, and declared an act OF the
federal government to be unauthorized by the consu
tuton-and therefore, null and void. In this case II
the act of the latter be predcaed on power cohSls
tent with the character OF the constitution, Inc ehos
for which it was established, and the nature OF our
system of government or, more briefly, II II come
fairly within the score of the amending power, Inc
State is bound 10 acquesce, by the solemn obligation
which il contracted in ratIfyng The constitution But
If it ranscends the limits Of the amending power,-be
inconsistent with the character OF the constitution ana
the ends for which it was estabIished-or with the
nature of the systematic result IS different In such
case the Stare IS not bound to acquesce. 1t may
choose whether it will or whether il will not secede
from the Union. One OF the other course it must
take. To refuse acquiescence, would be tanta-
mount TO secession; and place it as entirely IN
the relation of foreign State to the other States,
as would positive act of secession. That a State,
as party to the constitutional compact, has the
right 10 secede,-acting in the same capacity IN
which if ratified the constitution,-cannot, with any
show of be denied by any who regards the
constitution compact-if power should be in
serted by the amending power, which would radically
change the character of the constitution, or the nature
of the system; if the former should fail 10 fulfil the
ends for which it was established This results,
cessarily, from the nature OF compact-where the
parties to it sovereign; and, of course, have nc
higher authority to which TO appeal. That the effect
of secession would be to place her in the relation OF
foreign State to the Others is equally clear. Nor is il
less so, that it would make her, (no her citizens 1ndi
ridudUy) responsible to :hem in that character. AL
this results, necessarily, from the nature OF compact
between sovereign parties"
We consider two things evident from his dismissal
of the subject of secession in this concise manner:
1st. That he regarded the rights too manifest &c
require discussion. and
ID. That he considered that it should not be eXer
csed except in of the last resort and that in such
case the venture would be made without much regarc
TO reasoning on the matter of reserved right.