Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-12-04

TUESDAY. DECEMBER A, 1860.
Practical Questions for Secessionists.
In the early history OF our country, it became
necessary for all The country lying between the
Alleghsnies and the Mississippi, to acquire the
territory of Louisiana, because it embraced with
in its limits the mouth of the Mississippi river.
The paramount object was to obtain the Tree
navigation OF the 'father of rivers" and the
ownership of the natural ocean outlet to the
commerce of the vast territory which it drained
In 1903, the purchase was made for the sum OF
fifteen millions OF dollars, which was paid out
of the common treasure of the United States,
because the purchase was made for the common
benefit of all the United States. In due time,
Louisiana Was admitted into the Confederacy
upon an equal footing with the other States.
Now, we respectfully submit, would it be
Constitutional. right and proper for Louisiana to
withdraw herself from the Union, and assume
Gas she certainly would and ought to do, if the
absolute right OF secession is admitted) the ex-
elusive ownership and right OF control over the
mouth of the Mississippi2 Would she be at lib
erty to burthen the commerce of the States ~
lug above her on this great highway OF States,
and its tributaries, with the exactions which q
sovereign power is entitled to demand from the
commerce of other nations passing through its
borders2
Again, in 1920, it became necessary for the
common benefit and out of The common treas
ure of all the States, to buy Florida for the sum
of five millions of dollars. The main objects
were to round off our territory-to get rid of a
foreign neighbor, whose immediate proximity
to our borders might prove troublesome in time
of war-and to obtain possession of an important
key to the Gulf of Mexico. All the States con-
tributed their share towards the payment of the
purchase money. Florida has been admitted
into the Union as an equal member of the Con-
federacy. Can it be commended now that she
has right to secede from the Union, and thus
to defeat every OLDEST contemplated by the pur-
chase
But the case Of Texas is still stronger. She
had made noble struggle for Independence
At San Jacinto her gallant SONS, under the lead
of General Houston, had beaten back her IN
yaders; but her independence had not beer &C
knowledged; Mexico still claimed her as one OF
her provinces, and had not reinquished either
her right or her purpose to reduce her to sub
lection; she only paused in her efforts through
exhaustion; il was her intention, as soon as she
regained her strength, to make another ano
probably more formidable effort to force hel
yoke upon her. Texas was fully aware OF the
fact-that there was only suspension, and moi
q permanent cessation of hostilities; she saw
herself with sparse population-an exhausted
treasury-a rapidly accommodating debt-an In
considerable navy-in a word, with very imitef
means of defence. Under these circumstances
she sought admission into our Union. Her ap
plication was formally received; the terms wer'
arranged, and she was received as sister int'
our family of States. Mexico was indignant
and determined to assert her rights. The wa
with Mexico followed. A hundred millions o
money was borrowed by the people of the Unltet
States and spent, and probably twenty THOUSAND
lives of our citizens were lost in achieving he
independence. After the war was over, ten mil
lions of the money of the people of the United
States was paid, nominally, as the price of 1
part of her territory, but really to pay off be-
national debt. Now, would~the most zealou
friend of the right of secession say that Texas,
soon as the Mexican war was closed by tn
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. had right to Sc
cede from the Union, and thus leave the othe
States to pay the price of her liberty Wer'
there not equivalents to be paid by Texas fo
these sacrifices made for herr Did not the q
nited States acquire rights in her commerce ant
in all the multfarious relations that would spring
out of her association with us9 Gould Texas
then, rightfulIy, the moment she had got all she
wanted-viz: a recognition OF her independence
and the security consequent on lt-and the
payment of her national debt-wlthdraw from
the Union and leave us to pay the very money
which had been borrowed to set her free2
Finally, would it have been competent for the
New England States, during the last war
through the agency of the Hartford Convention
or any other Conventions, to have seeded from
the Union, and set up for misunderstanding
peace with England-and thus escaping all the
perils, privations and cost of the war, which
was undertaken more for her sake than any
other cause? These are plain, practical queries
Some may say they present extreme cases.
Not 30. They present real cases-cases which
might have occurred and may OCCUR
They test the principle. They show the alb
surdity of the absolute right of secession.
1t may be said, however, that whilst it would
have been wrong in any of these cases, there
may be circumstances under which State may
rightfully secede But who is to judge of the
suficiency of the circumstancss2 Where two
parties are concerned, each has an equal right
to Judge. If one State thinks it has sufficient
cause, the other party in interest may hold a
different opinion. Who, then, is to decide be-
tween thems
The truth is, unless in the mode we suggested
last week, there is no right of secession under
the Constitution. 1t is outside the Constitution
it is revolutionary. 1t is the right OF self
dependence, and can rest on no other principle
than that which authorizes man to slay his
fellow when necessary for his own preservation
or authorizes people to overthrow govern
ment whose expressions are intolerable. When
the case is clear, the right is unqualified and