The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-12-07
Amendment to the Federal Constitu-
tion...CoerciOn i'm 1888.

uOnSoSCO6TCxO1A Al A00Ss
1t is thought that Mr.. BUCHANAN, in his
annual message, will recommend conven-
ton of delegates from the different States,
for the purpose of proposing plan of set
Element of the present sectional issues be-
tween the North and South. The authori
ty for such convention exists in the Con-
stitution, (article fve,) and is in the following
language:
The Congress- whenever two. thirds of both
Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this Constitution, or, on the ap-
plication of the Legislatures of two thirds of
the several States, shall call convention for
proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as
part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the States, or
by conventions in three fOurths thereof, as one
or the other mode of ratification may be pro-
posed by the Congress.
1t will be seen that under this provision,
Congress, two-thirds of both Houses con.
curing, may propose amendments, which
shall require the assent of three fourths of
the States to render them valid or should
two-thirds of the States apply for the Con-
vention, such body may be convened, for
the purpose of revising the fundamental
law. The former mode is the most simple
and easily entered upon the latter would
unquestionably command the greatest de-
gree of confidence, since the delegates would,
or ought to be, chosen with direct reference
to the important and vital objects contem
plated and we might reasonably hope for
a higher order of craftsmanship, and safer
depository of the grave responsibilities ate
taching to a contemplated change in our
organic law. Such a measure as the assem-
bling of convention, to revise the Consti-
tuition, should not be resorted to until the
insu6iciency of every other proposed mode
of adjustment has been established. While
its influences and results might be most
happy, there is also danger that it might be
the funeral knell for our country's union and
greatness. South Carolina and Massachu-
setts, New York and Georgia, would not
send the same class of men, to-day, to a
Constitutional Convention, that they did in
1887. We don't think a Constitutional
Convention will help matters much.
The New Orleans Picayune has published
several interesting articles recently, on the
question of coercion in 1888" 1t is a
curious fact for commentary; the Picayune
shows, that a majority of the Senators from
Southern States, in 1888, voted in favor of
arming the President with military powers
to execute the revenue laws of the United
States within the State of South Carolina,
when obstructed by force, under color of
State authority. But in estimating the
value of this fact as political precedent,
and in its reference to personal consistency,
it must be remembered that wide dlstinc-
ton, was made at that day between the
lawfulness of notification under State au-
thority, and the right of States to secede
from the Union. Many Southern unionists
of that day disputed the right OF State to
annul any law of the United States while
remaining in the Union, and held that the
only lawful way to escape from the opera.
ton of laws until repealed, was by total Sc
cession, not by refusing to obey laws while
otherwise acknowledging fealty to the
Union. The right of secession was pleaded
in bar of notification.
The Picayune, in referring to the fact
that Mr.. Clay's name is not recorded in any
of the decisions in the Senate on this bill,
says:
Shortly after it's first introduction he made
some general remarks on the expediency of
clothing the President with adequate powers
to collect the revenue, but argued for delay,
to give time for examination, in order, as he
said, that "while giving all the constitutional
aids to the government, he might not invest
them with unconstitutional powers" He
took no part in the debate, and his name is
not found in the divisions. He was occupied
at the time with digesting the tariff compromise
bill, which was to make the use of the force
bill unnecessary.
The Southern Senators were very much d.
vided at that day on these questions.
There were then twelve slaveholding States,
with twenty.four Senators. Arkansas, Florida,
and Texas have been admitted since.
The debates and the divisions show the fol-
lowing Southern Senators to have voted, or
spoke, at some time, in favor of the bill--Mr.
Clay, of Kentucky; White and Grundy, of
Tennessee; Clayton and Naudain, of Delaware;
Smith and Chambers, of Maryland; Forsyth,
isiana and Buckner and Benton, of Missouri
-l3.
Those who voted or spoke uniformly against
it, were-Tyler, of Virginia; Brown and Man
gum, of North Carolina; Calhoun and Miller,
of South Carolina; Troup, of Georgia; King
and Moore, of Alabama and Poindexter and
Black, of Mississippi-lO.