Daily national Democrat., 1861-02-14
Zack Montgomery and Secession.

Union resolutions. 1t was a characteristic
speech, radical in the extreme and going to
the extent Of a fun Justification Of South
Carolinain that movement which has brought
so large portion Of the South into a posi-
tion from which it is now difficult TO reccde
Mr. Montgomery has spoken more like a 'ar
tsan than patriot, more like a sccessionst
oe,. Sc than a man anxious to preserve the
Union for the sake Of its untold! blessings to
the whole country and to the world Even
so radiacal man as VIM II. Seward was able
to rise above partisanship, in the Sen
ate of the United States, and TO declare that
RepublcanisIn was subordinate to the Union.
lie could so far sink his identity asa Repub-
lican in his devotion to the Union as TO drop
all elimination whatever, against men ana
parties, and TO address the reason OF the
country, without one shade OF feeling or OF
prejudice. His speech was pure, intellect
ual effort, and it is astonishing that a pro-
duction Of such calmness could issue at such
time as this from any source Whatever
VIM. II. Seward is not an impusiye man,
but it might most reasonably be expected
that the fever of party would in some man
ner affect the temper Of his mind. On the
contrary, he stands as coldly in the midst OF
all the fire and fury of the popular clements
around him, as if he were Il being Of differ
ent order. His speech must have had and
must continue to have most pacifcatory ef-
feet upon the nation Certainly, no man at
all anxious to see the present difficulties ad-
! usted could ask from sucl quarter more
dignfed and conciatory effort. 1t is not
so much the specific offers at compromise
which he makes, for such specifications are
vague, in his remarks, as it is the general
tenor and spirit of lis speech which are to
be commended as wcll-timed and statesman
like, considering the history and character OF
the speaker. Stephen A. Douglas, notwith-
standing his rejection by the South, not to
say its ingratitude towards him, not TO say
its direct insults TO him as a man, 50 far sinks
the partisan in the patriot as to forget all the
past distinctions Of parties and sections and
TO lend the potency Of his voice TO whatever
will best promote the great measures o.
peace and reconciliation. Andrew Johnson,
OF Tennessee, though representing the iierce7t
Southern element, but representing it under
his oath as a Senator disregards the clamor-
ing of sections and speaks for the Union at
large. All these men, and those who have
taken like positions, are anxious TO do justice
| II L. la.
cause they know that this is no time for mis-
representation, and men must be taken for
what they now are, not for what they have
been and for what they now say, pending
the existing difficulties, and not what they
have heretofore said, at a different period and
under different circumstances. 1t is hard
lv fair, then, for Mr.. Montgomery TO under
take TO hold the entire Republican party re
sponsible for the sentiments aYowed by ultra
Abolitionists or ultra Republicans in the
midst Of heated political campaigns or excited
crimnating and rccriminating controversies
in Congress in times past. Instead Of quot
ing frcm VIM. II Seward, as a mere politi-
clan, he should quote from him as lie now
stands before the country, with the olive
branch of peace in his hand. He should con
slider, not what excuses can be found, in the
violence Of Northern sentiment, and offered in
justification of the violence of Southern ac-
ton now, but what are the concessions which
the Northern mind is willing to make if con
cessons they may be called, and what is the
character Of the adjustment which the pres
ent sentiments of the Northern leaders seem
to favor.
The speech of Mr.. Montgomery is charac-
terized by much vigor of expression, but his
| logic is not well sustained. For instance, he
contends that because the consent of the
States was necessary in order to adopt the
present Constitution, the Government formed
by that Constitution, is therefore, a mere
| Government of.StateS. The conclusion does not
at all follow and it is not a logical sequence
The Constitution was a form of government
proposed by the Convention TO the States.
This form of overnment was altogether dt-
ferent from the confcderated system then ex-
isting, wherein each State was an individual
sovereignty, independent of the Federal Con-
gress or any Federal power. 1t was pro-
posed to change this system, and Of course
the consent of each sovereign State was ncces
sary to the change. But, being changed
then the new form Of government went into
operation, and the status of every member of
the Union became precisely such as the Con-
stitution or new form of government defined
it to be. Having agreed to the Constitution,
then the Constitution was binding on each,
and from being sovereign and independent
States, they became by their own consent
component parts of one great government,
and they cannot change that status except by
Revolution. 1t is not what the States cere
when they formed the present Constitution,
but what they are nor since the Constitution
has been framed Whatever the Constitution
is and means by that are they bound If
they, as Independent States, had consented to
a form of government which was a monar-
chy, it would have been all the same. SO
the mere fact that the consent of each State
was necessary TO establish the Government
in the first place, amounts to nothing in the
argument
There are other illogical propositions and
reasonings in Mr.. Montgomery's speech, able
as it is, which we would like to expose in
o,,r I,,,l,Io WOW Lo1 ,,o a., t;,,o ,,.,