The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-10-31
{ The Right OF secession.


Va, on the evening of the 22d inst. The
Intelligencer, in ITS notice of the speech, says
that Mr. Scott ''reviews and explodes the doc
trine of secession" We are not disposed to
question the fact that the speaker thought
he had effectually exploded" that doctrine,
nor do we doubt that our venerable conten-
porary is entirely satisfied with his perform
ance but, to our mind, the argument con-
tanned in the extract in question seems to be
singularly inconclusive.
One of the authorities, cited by Scott TO
sustain his denial of the right of secession,
consisted of an extract from Virginia news
paper, published in 1914, and couched in
the following terms:
"No man, no association of men, no State or set
States, has right to withdraw itself from this Union
on its own account. The same power which knit us
| together can unlnit. The same formality which
formed the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve
it, Fhe majority Of States which formed the Union
must consent to the withdrawal of any branch Of
it. Until that consent has been obtained any attempt
to dissolve the Union or distract the efficacy of its
constitutional laws is treasonreason to all intents
and purposes"
The author of the foregoing extract, as
well as Mr.. Scott, who has adopted it as one
of the links in his chain of reasoning, evil
IDENTIFY labored under some strange confu-
sion of ideas in regard to ''the power which
knit us together" Manifestly, he intends
to assert that the Union was formed by a
majority of the States, which we take to be
historically untrue but, even supposing that
the proposition were true in point Of fact
we are unable to perceive how it logically
follows that State cannot withdraw from
the Union without the consent of majority
of its sister States.
As are read the history of the Union, it
was formed, not by a majority of the States,
but by the consent Of each individual State.
1t is true, that provision was incorporated
in the Constitution, to the effect that the
ratification Of that instrument by nine States
should be sufficient for its establishment
"betOeen the States so rdfJying TIE same !"
but, according to the very letter of that pro-
vision, if the Constitution had been ratified
by only nine States, and the remaining four
had refused to ratify it, it cannot be pretend
ed that the non-ratifyng States would have
been parties to the instrument, or bound by
any of its compacts. On the contrary, they
would have been at perfect liberty, as SOW
ereign and independent States, to have
formed another Union among themselves, or
to have established, each for itself, aseparate
government, distinct from that Of every other
State. But for the provision to which VIC
have Just referred, the Constitution might
have been adopted by any two of the States
that assented to its terms, leaving the other
eleven States to make such different govern
mental arrangements as they deemed adys-
able. This, however, would have exposed
us to the danger of being split~up into sew
eral minor confederacies and, on that ac-
count,it was provided that the new govern
ment should not 90 into operation unless it
received the assent of two-thrds Of all the
several States. This it was felt, would Sc
cure the formation of tolcrably powerful
confederation States, il it were possible to
form a confederation at all. The Constitu-
ton was ratified by three of the States rs
early as the month of December, 1887. BY
the Goth of July, 1888, eightHother States
had ratified and Gen. Washington was in
augurated as President under the new gov
ernment on the 3oth of April, 1880. North
Carolina, however, delayed her ratification
until November 21, 1889, and Rhode Island
until May 20, 1890; and, in the meantime,
those States were regarded as foreign States
by the other members of the confcderacy.
They finally came into the Union, by max
ing themselves parties to the Constitution,
through their free and voluntary consent, as
sovereign States, and not by reason of the
fact that the other States, constituting a ma
joriiy of the entire number, had seen fit to
adopt the Constitution.
We freely conecdc the correctness of the
proposition that only ''thc same power that
knit us together can unknit." We insist,
however, that it is an incontestabe fact that
''the power that knitns together" was the con.
sent, separately expressed, of the individual
States, to the compacts of the Constitution
and, therefore, we insist, farther, that the
power still remains with each State to re
woke her consent, and thereby withdraw
herself from the Union. If similar question
arose between individuals, no man would
risk his reputation for common sense by
contending for such gross absurdities as ar,
daily advocated by those who pass for mel
of sense, in regard to the rights Of the States
A man, as such, may contract with his fel
bowman. A State is an aggregation Of in
dividual men, and may contract with othe
States. 1.-The same principles, so far as they
are applicable, are to be applied to the con
tracts of States and individuals alike. I
thirteen, OF thirtytwo, OF any other numbe
Of individuals, en.m into partnership, slip
uIating, expressls.shat it shall continue dur
ing a specific period, and that no membe
n L Al L 1 Il.