Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-04-04
From tie 1lame 6Ga.1 seuthsrner.

From the Rome GAY Seutherner.
| ssss Coercion of State
Mr.. Webster. in letter lately written by him.
declared in reference to the movements in South
Earolina that ssecession could not be accomplished
but by war; From the position occupied by Mr.
Webster, it is presumed he speaks the sentiments
and policy of MIR. Fillmore's Government, and his
letter may be regarded as declaration OF war, IN
advance sainst South Carolina in case she should
choose to exercise the right which she possesses of
peaceably retiring from the Union. The question
is thus presented has the United States Government
the right to make war upon seeding state! We
shall not commit the presumption OF arguing con-
stationaI question with the great expounder y we
intend only to produce authority Mr.. Webster is
great authority but great as it is it is hardly
equal to that of the trainers of the Constitution They
it is presumed knew the Constitution better than
Mr.. Webster The following extracts from the Ma
olson papers, authentic record of the proceedings
of the Convention which framed the Constitution,
show that the authors of the Constitution never con-
tempated the of force against State, and that
they expressly refused to confer that power upon the
Government. The following clause in one of
the resolutions submitted to the Convention by Mr.
Randolph of Virginia.
Resoired That the National Legislature ought to be
empowered call forth the force of the Union against
member of the Union failing to fulfil its duties under the
tices thereof
When this clause came up for consideration,
sMr Madison observed that the he reflected the
of force the he doubted the the jus
ce and the efficiency of when applied to the people col
leetiyey and not individually Union of the States con-
tanning such Ingredient provide for its de-
strucon The of force against State would look
like declaration of war than nfction of punishment
and would probably be considered by the party attacked
dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be
bound He hoped such system would be framed as might
render this and moved that clause be
postponed This motion was agreed to, no one dissenting
| So the clause postponed and never afterwards
taken up, at least it not inserted in the Con-
stution, that the conclusion is Irresistible, that
| Mr.. Madson's suggestion adopted by the Con-
fro mod n n.
held from the Government the power to force
gainst State This conclusion is strengthened, if
possible, by the action of the Convention upon Mr..
Pattersons plan of Constitution, subsequently SUBJ
mitted. That contained the following provision:
into execution the acts of the United States the Federal
ecutive shall be authorized call forth the power of the
federated States much thereof be necessary to
enforce and compel obedience to such acts'
Mr.. Patterson's plan was rejected and it was OBJ
jeced to in debate chiefly because it comprised the
above provision. Col. Mason said He struck
with horror at the prospect of recurring to this
Hamilton, in reference to such provision observed
How force be exerted the States collective
ly. 1t is impossible. 1t amounts to between
the parties
Thus did the trainers of the Constitution expressly
and repeatedly repudae the idea ofemploying force
against State How then can this power now be
claimed? Can it be given in the Constitution in spite
of the express determination of its trainers not to
give it! The Union was plainly intended by its
thors to be Union of voluntary consent. They left
it to the States to decide each for itself whether they
would enter the Union in the first instance and by
refusing to grant the power to compel them to re-
main in it, they in effect said to the States remain in
the Union as long you please but if you get tired
of it depart in peace" But it is discovered that
is Union of force not of consent Union to be
held together not by of common interest," glo-
ry and happiness, but by the terrors of the sword
Let such views prevail let the doctrine that State
may be rightfully coereed by the Federal sword be
carried into effect, and you erect the govern
ment of the Union into absolute tyranny you de-
grade the States, to condition of abject vassalage
you establish precedent that will invite aggressions
upon the ghts of the States and in the end sweep
way every yestige of their sovereignty. The South
especially cannot permit such precedent unless she
is blind fatally blind to her interest and safe
ty:
The hostility of the Northern people to the inst-
tuition Of slavery connected with the fact that they
have the control of the General Government in
all its departments loudly proclaims the danger to
the South of arming that Government with the pow
eF to cocrce State. The of time and indeed
no great time, will give an immense preponderance
to the Northern section already in the majority and
reduce the South to despsed minority, while in the
meantime, the sentiment of hostility to slavery in the
stronger section. will become violent and I'M
governable. Under such circumstances the only
possible security to the institution of slavery would
be the right and power of the Southern States to
separate from the Union. But take away that right
and power to hold them in the Union, with chain
of ron and to obedience to whatever laws the
majority may dictate and you at once seal the doom
of the South you sign the death warrant of slavery
We cannot believe the South will stand idly by and
permit the Government to assume power that SOON
er or later will be turned to her destruction. We
cannot believe that the South will, herself put into
the hands Of her enemies the sword that is to stab
her to the heart.
The European Armies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in announcing
his budget, expresses his at the state of Eu