Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1852-01-10
Right of Secession.
secede 4?


1.-The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively or
to the people
The right Of secession existed previous to the
formation of the Federal Union. 1t has not been
given up, and hence is reserved
If secession is reserved right, any state may
for those subsequently admitted, came in upon
the footing with the original States, in all re-
spects whatsoever" Upon the same hypothesis,
state need assert it in the first instance by the
sword, her withdrawal, if rightful must of neces-
sity be peaceful unless the States adhering to the
confederacy shall attempt to force her back into
the Union. Whenever force is tLus employed,
the party employing force becomes he aggrc ssor,
and the seeding state may rightiully maintain its
sovereignty by all the means and power it can
command.
But according to the doctrine Of those who deny
the right of secession, a seeding state may be
rghtfully subjugated by force, and her citizens
who are active in her service punished traitors.
The assertions of such opinions indicate retro
grade, rather than progressive movement in The
science Of government. Should they ever receive
the popular sanction, we will have proved our
selves unworthy of the high boon of constitutional
liberty, and the days of state sovereignty will have
been numbered.
The idea of flashing State into a Union, which
can only rest upon the basis of interest and afec
tion-a Union that contemns her rights and has
studiously essayed to degrade and dishonor her,
is too absurd for serious contemplation ; and can
only be realized when constitutional rights shall
exist but in name and power and might shall
override all paper boundaries.
. In 1882 the Hon F. P. Barbour of the Supreme
Court of the United States, was nominated for the
Vice Presidency, and in answer to certain inqui-
ries to his opinions on of the great topics
of the day, thus speaks of secession.
''In general when question arises, whether an
act of Congress is constitutional or not it belongs
to the judicial department to decide it, because in
general, the question arises in case, either "in
law or equity" that is, in controversy between
parties, which has taken shape for judicial de-
cision But when the question is one of political
power between the Federal Government and
the States, whether the former has invaded the
reserved rights of the latter, hold that questions
of this kind do not belong to judicial cognizance.
That the people of the States are parties to the
compact, in their character of States. That the
constitution has not conferred upon the judicial de-
partment any political power whatever. That
therefore, in relation to questions of this character
there is no common umpire and that consequent
ly the States must decide for themselves This is
the Right-but what is the Remedy? Ny opin-
ion is, that the only rghtful remedy is that of Sc
cession.''
In the debate on Foote's resolution the doctrine
of State rights largely and luminously discuss
ed. On that occasion the late Edward Livingston,
one of the ablest urists, the United States have
ever produced) said
ssThat in cases in which law of the United
States may infringe the constitutional right of
State, but which, its operation cannot be brought
before the Supreme Court under tile terms of the
Jurisdiction expressly given to It, that Court is not
created the umpire between State that may deem
itself aggrieyed, and the General Government
THAT if the act be one of those few which can
not be submitted to the Supreme Court and be
one that will in the opinion of the State justify the
risk Of ctthdraual from the Union, that this last
extreme remedy may at once be yesorted to-
''That the theory of the Federal Government
being tie result of the general viii of the people