New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-12-03
PEACEFUL SECESSION.

To the idea of peaceful secession from the
Union, it is essential that the seeding States
should be supposed to go out quietly, and that
no attack should be made upon them merely be-
cause they 90 out. But this is only one part of
the story, and not the most important part. To
really peaceful secession, it is equally essential
that the seeding States in going out and after
they have gone out, shall initiate the forbearng
conduct of those States that remain IN, and shall
carefully abstain from any act of hostility which,
as between independent States, would afford oc-
casiOn for war.
In this view of the case, it would not answer
for South Carolina, for instance to make any
attempt to take possession, by force or strata
gem, or in any other way except by negotiation,
of Fort Moultrie, or any other of the iortfca-
tons or of the lighthouses on her coast. All
claim to jurisdiction over these portions of terri
tory she has formally surrendered by acts Of her
| Legislature to the United States, and whatever
right of secession may be supposed to lurk IN the
Federal Constitution, these acts contain no clause
authorizing South Carolina. in that case, to re-
sumo possession.
Neither, after South Carolina has gone out of
the Union, will she, o: any other seeding State,
have the least ground to make any complaint of
the harbOr and refuge afforded to fugitive slaves,
about which such loud complaints are now raised
as affOrding ground or justification for secession.
| All the reclamatOns set up on this score rest
| exclusively on an express clause OF the Federal
| Constitution. Under the Law of Nations, as be.
| tween independent States, there is no pretense
| whatever of a right to demand the return of
| fugitive slaves OF course, South Carolina, after
| her secession from the Union, and all other Sc
| ceding States as WELL would lose at once all
| right of complaint on that score. They would
| not be in position either to recover their fugi-
tives or to demand indemnfcatiOn for their loss.
| We should stand, as to this matter, in the same
| position in which the United States now stands
as to the British Government. For the Federal
| Government to demand of the British the return
of slaves escaping into Canada would be regarded
| as little less than an insult. We have never
heard that the Government at Washington, anx-
ious as it has been to oblige the shareholders,
| has ever ventured on such proposition.
Neither would this act of secession put the Sc
| ceding States into position in which they would
| have any right to complain of what they put
forth as another Of their grievances namely, the
| freedom with which the institution of Slavery is
| discussed at the North, and the i'll opinion so
| generally entertained and expressed as to its
operation and results. They might have indeed,
the same privilege which was conceded in Eng
land to the first Napoleon of suing for libel in
our courts; but to demand Of us the suppression
of the liberty of the press for their benefit would
be pretension to which the Law Of Nations
would afford no cOuntenance.
OF course, it, as independent nations, the Sc
cedng States could claim neither the return
fugitive slaves any suppression of the liberty of
speech or the press, neither colla they be justi-
fed in any attempts to discriminate on that score
against our ships or goods, or to put us under
the ban of commercial noD-nterc0urse. Any act
of that sort would be an act Of war. The Sc
cession would then cease TO be peaceful. II
would become hostile by the very act of the Sc
cedinq States. They could no longer protect
themselves under any right Of peaceful secession.
Suppose they have the right to secedc peacefully,
that gives them no right TO indulge in hostile
acts alterward. As to that matter they would
stand on the same ground with other foreign