Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1860-11-22
Mr.. Kendall's First Article.

Editor Of the Stas My attention was at.racted
your pa per of the 10th inst, headed "Amos Ken
dali on Secession" The age, past services and
established reputation of the author entities evrry-
thing emanating from bis pen to much consider
alton and respect, and may possibly induce many
to read and accept his conclusions without that
due reflection which would be bestowed on the
productions Of less prominent men. am, there
reply briefly to what believe the mista ken views
of the letter headed Secession No. IL
Taking an his text the Articles of Confederation.
Mr. Kendall quote: the l4th Article and '.the
form Of ratihcaton," and then asks swhetber
South Carolina, after solemn plighting her faith
that she would abide by the Articles Of Confed-
Grafton and that the Union should be perpetual
could at will rightfully secede and break up that
Union ?"
Now, it really appears to me that Mr.. Kendall
answers this question himself in telling us that
which the Articles Of Confederation and our
present Constitution were sanctioned',-for If the
Articles Of Confederation no longer exist but we
are governed by Constitution derived from
different source, how can South Carolina or any
State "abids by them 20 Without entering into
any argument therefore, think it will be sufficient
TO state in detail fact to which Mr.. Kendall
seems to attach little importance 1t is this-rhe
ssPerPstxa! UHion'' formed by those articles and
to which the delegates Of South Carolina pledged
that State, came to a natural end after a brief
existence OF SIX years, siI months and sixteen
days, g. 6. from ''lg March, 1881, when they were
finally ratified by all the States" to September
IL, l1e7, when the Constitution was adopted
And this result was brought about by those same
''wise men Of that day" who, az Mr. Kendall
contends, thought they Were making a Union
which ''should be Of perpetual obligation.
But lest this should be considered al merely
play upon words, let US see whether the facts of
history sustain US. Our fathers declared that the
Constitution should be binding ONLY ssbetwern
the States ratifying it," What then became of
the Union under the Confederation? IL states
did not choose to rstify Ii, the new Constitution
was not binding upon them, and therefore thev
were to be left out Of the Union 10 formed And
such was actually the case North Carolina and
ormsd waSosa 70 shn Il and the Union
elected President Of Confederacy In which those
states were not Included. Government com
menced in operations without those States being
entitled TO vote Tor President to be represented
In either branch Of Congress Now suppose thar
South Carolina occupied at that time the position
OF Rhode Island, ana had refused to ratify the
Constitution; and suppose that instead of remain
ing out for three years she had remained out 70,
sersnty-oHe years, or In other words that she was
still out-for IL she had a right to remain ont
three she certainly had the right to remain out
seventy-one or forever-is il not clear hat in that
case her compact TO abide by the Articles of Con
federation had, In the opinion of those same
''wlse men, Of the parties to that comm and
oy tne solemn act OF the Convention which
framed the new Constitution, ceased to have any
binding effect, and that she would have been re-
leased from all obligations under Ii.
so FAR, therefore, from drawing any argument
oSoiuss scCcSlOn from THIS act OF our fathers \
think they gave indisputable evidence that thew
never Intended Ia bind the States In such per
Petual bonds as Mr.. Kendall contends For the
SINE men who, In 17sl, entered into this compact
~ com oetent, but made It possible for anv State
to leave 1t by providing the means for di.solyinp
thaI union. lndeed. they gave any five States the
Powe. o. 6eieatng the formation Of a new union
And II II be said that In the latter event the Ar
uclss OF Confederation would still have held them
togelhef, then reply that the proceedings Of the
Congress o. the Confederation during the whole
period OF is existence the resolutions of the Az
semoly OF New York. passed the 2lst Nav, 1852
one Of which was, Rssolred, That i'm the opjn
Ion OF this Legislature the radical source of most of
our e DaIras,mens !. the want Of su ncient power
In Congress" &c. That experience
has demonstrated the Confederation to be defective
In several points," &c the resolves of the Wiz
gina Assembly to the same effect; the acts of the
aiuerent State Leg islatures assigning az a reason
Tor calling the convention Of 1857 that the union
under the Confederation was defective. and IL
was necessary to repair those defects ali these,
say will prove that the United States could mot
federation. ~ "o"-
But It may be answered, "Thc States were
pound bY their pledge under those articles. and
the new Constitution Being merely an amend msnt
"a revision Of the old-their pledge Continued IN
bind them" To this the answer IN yerv brieS
Our ioreiathers did not so consider 1t, and thew
VINO made the compact must have understood its |
force and meaning better than we of the present
day. Besides, they released each other bv rolemn
act In convention. But IL this be not true. we
must adopt one Of two conclusions Here is the
iact: TWO States did not join the new union i'm |
mediateiy, and our fathers, far from consider.
Ing them bound, acquiesced In their conduct |
NOW, either the old compact was binding, and |
the states OF North Carolina and Rhode 1sland
seeded with the consent and without anv opno- |
stion from our fathers, the Articles of Confed
efation was not binding. And IL they had Lost |
iheY force at that time, where does Mr. Kendall |
omave any autnorlty to make them binding now |
Thus, think, have succeeded In showing that |
no argument against secession can be drawn from |
those articles. IL was not my intention, nor will
attempt TO argue the question Of secession now
a. before stated Nv M
NV YORK, Nov. 10, 1860. ..-- :, -