Semi-weekly Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1851-1852, 1851-06-06
COERCION OF A STATE.

|
Mr.. Webster in letter lately written by him,
declared, in reference to the movement in
South Carolina, that secession could not be
accomplished but by war" From the position
occupied by Mr.. Webster, it is presumed he
speaks the sentiments and policy of Mr.. Fill.
mores Government, and his letter may be re-
garded as declaration of war, in advance,
against South Carolina in case she should
chose to exercise the rig ght which she possess of
peaceably retiring from the Union. The ques
ton is thus presented: has the United States
Government the right to make a war upon
seeding Statel We shall not commit the pre-
sumption of arguing constitutional question
which the "great expoundcr,' we intend only
to produce authority. Mr.. Webster is great
authority, but as 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 cx-
tracts from the Madison papers, an authentic
record of the proceedings of the Convention
which framed the Constitution, show that the
authors of the Constitution, never contemplated
the use of force against State, and that they
expressly refused to confer that power upon
the Government The following was clause
in one of the resolutions submitted to the con.
vention by Mr.. Randolph of Virginia.
"Reso!ped, 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 there
Of"
When this clause came up for consideration,
s'Mr. Madison observed that the more he re.
fccted on the use OF force, the mo,c he doubt
ed the practicability, the justice, and the eff.
cheney Of it, when applied to the people collec-
lively, aud not individually. \ Uunion of the
States, containing such an ingredient seemed
to provide for its own destruction. The use Of
force against State would look more like
declaration of war than an infliction of punish
ment, and would probably be considered by
the party attacked, as dissolution of all pre-
vious compacts by which it might be bound
He hoped such system would be framed as
might render this resource unnecessary, and
moved that clause be postponed. This mo.
ton was agreed to, no one dissenting"
So the clause was postponed, and never af.
terwards taken up. or at least it was not inser
ted in the Constitution, so that the conclusion
is irresistible, that Mr. Madison's suggestion
was adopted by the Convention and that such
system was framed rs withheld from the Gov.
ernmcnt the power to use force against a State.
This conclusion is strengthened, if possible, by
the action Of the Convention upon MIR. Patter-
sons plan Of Constitution, subsequently sub.
mitted. That contained the following provision:
"ReSolred, That if any State should oppose
the carrying into execution the acts Of the Uni.
ted States, the Federal Executive shall be au-
thorizcd to call forth the power of the conGede-
rated States, or SO much thereof as may be
necessary to enforce and compel obedience to
such acts"
Mr.. Pattersons plan was rejected; and it
was objected to in debate, chiefly because it
comprised the above provision. COL Mason
said "He was struck with horror at the prospect
of recurring to this expedient" (the use of force
against State.) Col. Hamilton, in reference
to such a provision, observed: GLOW can
force be exerted on the States collectively 1t
is impossible. 1t amounts to q war between
the parties"
Thus did the trainers of the Constitution ex.
pressly and repeatedly repudiate the idea Of
employing force against a 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 authors
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 remain in it, they in effect said to the
States, "remain in tn, Union as long as you
please, but you get tired oft depart in peace"
But it is now discovered that ours is Union Of
fore not of consent; Union to be held togeth.
er not by sense Of common interest, glory
and happiness, but by the terrors of the sword
Let such views prevail let the doctrine that
State may be rightfully coerced by the Federal
sword be once carried into effect, and you erect
the government of the Union into absolute ty.
ranny you degrade the States, to condition
of abject vassalago; you establish precedent
that will invite aggrcssions upon the rights Of
the State, and in the end sweep away every
vestge of their sovereignty. The South, es.
pecially, cannot permit such a precedent Unless
she is blind, fatally blind to her own interest
and safety.
The hostility of the Northern people to the
institution of slavery, connected with the fact
that thcy have now the coutrol Of the General