The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1860-12-18
The 9ailg gnilrmaI.
EvANsvilLE, IND.
TUESDAY, MoRNING. ..DEoEMBER is
The Great Queation.

We have published in our four last issues
i letter from Cassius NJ. Clay and a report
Of speech delivered by Oliver P. Morton,
taking the ground that coercion ought to be
used TO force the States that talk Of seced-
ing 70 remain in the Union and letter
from Robert Dale Owen aud an article writ
zen by Horace Greeley, taking the position
that if those States deliberately conclude
to withdraw from the Union, they ought to
be allowed peaeeably to co SO by the re-
manning States. In these papers the main
arguments on either side of this great
question, that can be addnced, are furcibly
presented, and the subject brought plainly
before the mind of the reader. c-hr
Messrs. Clay and Morton undoubtedly
have the best Of the argument, constitution
ally, legally, logically considered. The
right and the law is on their side. No man
can successfully controvert their main
propositions. The Constitution does not
provide for sncli a contingency as secession;
the founders of the Government did not
contemplate such a catastrophe. Secession,
even of one State, is disunion it is dissO-
luton Of the confederaey. Let one State
withdraw, and let her withdrawal be rec
ognized and its right acknowledged, and the
keystone is taken out of the federal arch
and the self-sustaining strength of the
whole structure is destroyed.> If one
State may withdraw, with or without
cause, so may another. Once acknowledge
the right under our Constitution, and there is
no limit to its exercise. If South
Carolina has the right to withdraw from the
National compact so has Maine, or Califor-
MIA, or Michigan, or any other State or
States. So there IS an end to the restrain
ing and controlling force of the general gov
eminent and consequently of the govern
ment itself, as now constituted. 1t is true
that, if one or more States were to with
draw, the remaining ones might continue
their connection under the same compact,
but they would not be obliged to 10 so any
longer than each one might see fit, without
making a new agreement, to provide against
further secession. Dissolution might at any
.ime come without such new agreement, and
would be liable to ensue on the slightest
pretext, because there would be no power to
prevent it. There would be fatal prece-
dent to point to, in Justification Of further
withdrawal. E
AS secession, even by one State, implies
the breaking up of the Government, aud
the bringing on of political chaos and gen
eral ruin, secession is treason. 1t is true
that, by our Constitution, treason is confined
to the actual lcvying Of war against the
, United States, or adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort yet in its
general sense, it is the offense of attempt
ing to overthrow the government to which
the offender owes aflegiance.< Secession,
by leading to the ultimate destruction of the
government rs now existing, would be the
0verthrOwing Of the government therefore
secession IS treason in its general SENSE
Further, without an acknowledgment of he
independence Of the seeding State by the
general government, and relipquishment
by the latter Of all property aud power
within its bounds, there must be conflict
Of authority between the two; consequent
~ the seeding State, under these circum-
stances in order to carry on her newly
assumed powers, must use force 10 main
tain her authority if attempted to be re
strained This would make all her citizens
engaged in resistance to the United States,
guilty Of treason within the meaning of our
Constitution fhe penalty of treason Is
death. Therefore the United States W onld
be obliged to vindicste her authority anil
punish all those engaged in the reasonable
attempts, and if necessary, to use the whole
force of her army and navy in so doing
The advocates of coercion are right, there
tore, when they contend that secession is
treason and must be punished accordingly, il
We wish to preserve the Government as il
now exists. That is, according to the ra's
of stern justice and inexorable logic, the
General Governments must vindieate its an-
thority in order to preserve itself intact.
But, on the other hand, the gentlemer
who take the other view of the subject ar,
correct in their views in this, that Whit
acknowledging the right of the Genera
Government to preserve itself from disrup
ton, they think it expedient, under presen
circumstances, not to exercise that right
AR. Owen argues with much force that wha
is rebellion in few is revolution in many
The right Of revolution against that whicl
any people deem an oppressive form of gov
eminent is recognized in the Constitution Q
the United States and in natural law
Hence, if it prove the well-considered an,
settled design of n majority of the people @
one or more States to withdraw from thi
Union and adopt another kind of govern
ment, or form for themselves another gov
: eminent of the same character, the question
presents itself whether any power has tn
right to prevent them from carrying on