The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1861-07-19

the contrary, the checks which are devised in
the shape Of State and national Sena.es, Elec-
tors for Presidents, and other anchors an6 draes
20 prevent the tenpests OF popular majorities
from carrying away the ship of state, show that
there IS no more 0! the principle of majority
rule here, than in many nations less celebrated
for their principles Of freedom. The principle
Of the majority ruling, is not principle oflib-
erty. The founders Of our Constitution well
knew that that naked idea was in fact princi-
pie Of tyrannouS democracy and resulting anar-
chy. Hence the government was made one Of
constitutional checks power resulting from
the consent OF the people Of several States 10 be
governed by this Constitution, and the power
itself was TO be administered By a very simple
! machinery, N which each division of the peo-
I pie, that is, each Stats, RETAINED a certain
( part OF The moving and the checking power
The consent to be thus governed, once gwen,
could net be revoked. The right Of secession
is untenaole and inadmissbe. 1t receives no
countenance from the Constitution. But the
original principle that the power originated in
| consent, would compel all parties, on principle,
/ to look with at least respectful regard on de-
SIRE to withdraw the consent. A nd if it could
be permitted without injury to the remainder,
! It ought, on principle, to be allowed The
manner of asking the consent, which has been
adopted by the Southern States, has been made
/ the reason in many minds for refusing the con-
sent On no subject is there d more general mis-
apprehension than on this The most common
! toIm Of expression is, S'Thev should have pur-
sued the constitutional course, and demanded a
National Convention, aud thus arranged peace
+ able secession But the notion Is erroneous
There is 20 such constitutional method OF ask
ing permission to secede. This principle is abso-
!utely mPregnablP, that the Constitution of the
United States contains no provision by which
state can be allowed TO secede. No Conven-
ton called in pursuance Of. or under 1t. can
grant that consent which seeding State needs
For q State, desiring to secede, to ask 70! Ma
tIonaI Convention 10 allow her to 90, would
therefore BE- an absurdity.
II would ae very easy to say that Conven-
ton could amend the Constitution so as TO IN
Serl a clause permitting secession m a certain
way. But that very necessity OF an amend
ment proves that there is no present method of
getting the necessary consent and certainly no
reasonable man Woud expect i state, desi-
ring 10 5tccde from a Constitution, to 90 in
TO convention and amend the Instrument
thus reaiirmug lis adherence 10 it, when the
very object was to dIsconnect itself from its OBJ
legations.
No person who shall fully examine this po-
iica problem. Chow can State Secede from
the American Untonl" can fail TO arrive at the
CONCLUSION that revolution is the only method.
Any State desiring to secedr, must do 50 simply
by declaring itself out OF the bond, and being
ready to sustain itself IN its Independence
There is no legal or constitutional way of get
ting on! of the Union, any more than there was
legal way ior American colonies 10 leave Eng
l,sh rule.
The Sorthern States, in their view OF the
case, adopted the only course 10 reach the OBJ
iect they we're aiming at. They designed an
act which Was revolutionary, and, proceeding
on that pIiaeiple, they declared their indepen-
dence OF the Union, and sent commissioners to
negotiate the terms OF good nelghborhood, and
adjust the property questions involved.
Seizures OF property, mintS, forts, asenals
and the like, are acts which always accompa-
ny a national rebellion or revolution. The
abstract right or wrong OF these acts relates
back TO the right or wrong of the rebellion.
In the present instance there is no occasion
to discuss these acts; for, # the principle should
eventually be conceded that we ought to al
low these States 10 erect the Government they
prefer, then the adjustment Of the national
property IS a mere trifie.
The course taken by the. Seeding States,
then, is revolutionary. The right OF the Gov
prnment (havtng refused IFS consent 10 The Se-
cesslonl to regard the citizens ot the States as
insutrectionarv, seems unqurstonabie. The
law Of the United States, which the officers
must execute. is co-extensive with The territory
OF the United States, and resistance to the rx-
eculion Of the law is msurrectIon. The stat
ates have furnished the President with power
to suppress lnsurrcctions and Congress has
power go exalt the movement for snppreslng
revolt into tie dignity Of war.
From this view 0flhe case will be at once
deducpd the duty Of the citizen 10 sustain the
Government in carrying on The war, il the
Government takes this course. It has the right
10 suppress the revolt bF force OF arms. But
whether this is an American principle: wheth-
er its result will 5e to reconstruct the Amer
lean UnIon: whether a war policy is as likely
as peace policy TO bring back The revolving
States: whether bringing them in by force will
give US any compensation fol the Ives we
shall lay down In the attempt, these are ques-
tons which We may veil ponder.
We believe that the possible Union 10 be ac-
compllshed BY war aud conquest, would not be
worth one solitary Northern lfe,--one drop
of Northern blood il IS paying dear price
for worthless hing, a breath, an mag nation,
mochery.
The question whether The remaining States
viii be- injured BY allowing the seceders 10 60,
is not only as fairly and simply before us as it
would De ~ The case Of Praceable request,
lt ~ ara A. n1,. a,,Isi ;1 II The argu,nnui that
war is part of The alternative. Shall we suffer