The Nevada journal., 1860-12-28
The Presidents Message.

The Presidents Message.
This important State document arrived
in the Sac. Union, just as our last issue had
gone to press. The prfhcipal part of it is
devoted to the secession question. The ar
gument on this point, and indeed the mes
sage we would, did space permit, give en-
tire. As however it has already reached
most of our readers, a repubi icatiea is
scarcely necessary. We shall therefore eon-
tent ourselves with few comments.
The President presents curious argd-
ment ON the right of secession. 1t is what
the lawyers term non seguitur. First, he
affrms there is no constitutional right of a
/ State to withdraw from the Union. He as
serts, and truly, we think, that the Consti-
tuition is an emanaton of the people, and is
as much part of the Constitution of each
! State as if it had been textually inserted
therein. He declares the trainers of the
| Constitution intended to construct gov
ernment which should not contain within
it the seeds of its own destruction. 1t was
built for all time, and contains within itself
the power for its own preservation. He
stigmatizes the insinuation that the Union
was made rope of sand, as libel upon
/ the wise statesmen who founded it. Bu-
ehanan's assertions and declarations thus
far are of the old sort, and sound we'll
There is nothing CalhoInish, but there is
the ring of the genuine Websterian mcttle
in them.
But, like cow that gives a good pail of
milk and then kicks it over, Mr.. Buchanan,
having gone so far, faces about and tells his
readers that our patriot fathers did con-
struct that identical rope of sand he had
just affirmed they did not make. He tells
US there is no constitutional power to stop
State from going out of the Union if it
chooses, and is determined so to do. 1t is
true, the President makes distinction be-
tween secession and revolution. The DIS
affected States assert their right under the
| Constitution to withdraw from the Union at
pleasure. Mr. Buchanan deEies this right
but points out to them the proper mode
revolution The distinction is without a
difference For the secession States, if we
take them at their word are bound to be
| separate. 1t matters not what excuse
they give for so doing, or by what right
| they justify the step. We do not allow an
offender in court of justice to name the
crime for which he is arraigned. Whether
South Carolina sets up fol herself on the
plea that the Constitution gives her the
right, or whether she does so by revolution
matters not to US. Her attitude towards
us, provided she acts only on the defensive,
| is exactly the same. There is no use qnib-
bling about the constitutionality of the
mode. In both cases the treatment can be
but the same. We are not going to bonn
bard her cities simply because she under
stands the Constitution differently from US,
when her attitude is revolutionary, what
ever may be her pretext. That would be
nonsense. Yet, Buchanan leaves the i'm
| plication that the Constitution has the in
trnsic strength to defend itself against the
right claimed by South Carolina, but that
the right of revolution cannot be disputed
by any power within the purview of the
national compact.
| 1t seems to us the President has gone to
hair-splitting. All that South Carolina has
to do, is to maintain her present attitude,
alter not her intentions or plans whit. but
simply enter plea of guilty of revolution
instead of not guilty, and she can come ou.
! free and unharmed. In other words, she
can be punished for not understanding
| trifing technicality-a warning to all to
study nice distinctions.
| The President, malignant to the section
in which he was born, reiterates the old
SANDER that the animosity existing between
the different portions of the confederacy is
caused by the persistent interference of the
Northern people with Southern institutions.
For five and twenty years, says the old pub
lie functionary, the agitation at the North
! against slavery in the South has been in
cessant. Why did the President limit the
| agitation to the last twenty-five years p
Complaints Of the same kind were made by
| Southern members of Congress years be-
| fore. 1t was the burthen of the Southern
cry when the Missouri question was dis
cnssed in 1920. Webster complained of it
! in his reply to nayne on the Foot Resolu-
| tions in 1890. He declared, on that occa-
sion, be knew full well that it had been the
settled policy of the South for years to re-
present the people of the North as disposed
to interfere in the domestic concerns of the
| South. He said it was touched, and gener-
ally with effect, whenever the object was to
unite the whole South against Northern
men and Northern measures. But he in
dignantly denied that such disposition ex-
listed. The allegation he affirmed was base
and groundless. As in the palmy days of
the American Senate, so has it been to the
present hour. These false and malicious
charges have been iterated and reiterated
almost since the formation vf the govern
ment. Southern demagogues have howled
and their Northern tools have reechoed the
cry until many have been deceived by it
4 handful of intermeddlers have, during
the last twenty years, it is true, endeavored