New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1861-01-07
Mr.. Sc,nsncs' Speech.

'7Ni'fiASSJ ''otO3
was one Of marked ability and power. Mr.. Semmes
| is the present Attorney-General of the State of
Louisiana, but his argument does not need any
statement Of high official position to strengthen it,
or make it more conclusive than it is. The follow
ing report of it, though necessarily brief, will show
some of the strong points which he made:
| Mr.. Semmes said, that notwithstanding in his
district he had to encounter enemies in front,
enertes in the rear, and traitors in the camp, the
| separate State-action ticket would be elected.
| That he had no recantations to make; he had in
1856 entertained the opinion that the election Of
Black Republican President on sectional plat
form was just cause for a dissolution of the Union;
that his opinion had been confirmed by subsequent
events, and he was now advocating the putting
into effective operation the principles which actu-
aed him in 1856. That he had buried in the
abyss, created between the North and the South
by Lincolns election, all PAST party organizations,
and that he now honestly offers up as sacrifice
On the altar of Southern Rights all those feelings
generated by past political struggles. He, there
fore, denied the insinuaton thrown out that the
object of the Southern Rights party was to con-
vert Southern feeling into democratic movement,
| to overthrow the present Constitution, and subvert
tls city government.
| He said that all parties admitted that something
must be done by the South, because the only
question now presented to the South was the main
tenance Of the institution Of slavery. That the
real question, so far the State Of Louisiana was
| concerned, was whether not the government
| was to be a white government or a free govern
| ment. If our three hundred thousand slaves be
emancipated the free negro votes, as in Jamaica,
would elect cOlored sons of the soil to fill all the
| Offices, because they would Outnumber the white
| voters. What then was the blst course to arrest
| this evil Was it cooperation separate State
action?
He said so far as New Orleans was concerned,
| that was business question. Cur interest was
involved in commerce, and therefore our interest
required that the present unsettled condition Of
things, which was destructive of commerce, should
cease as soon as possible.
If cooperation Of all the Southern States were
desired, Convention of the Southern States must
| be convened that would take two months. That
Convention, like the Congress of rs and the Con
vention Of '67, would discuss the basis of settle
ment for some six months Or year.
| The action of the Convention would then have
to be submitted for ratification to the respective
States. The ratification Of the Virginia articles of
confederation, and Of the present Constitution of
| the United States, required some three or four
| years.
| Some Of the States might refuse the action of the
| Convention and thus at tile end of three or four
years we will be where we are now. On the other
| hand, it is clear that five States will Immediately
secede If Louisiana will unite with them we will
have a new Confederacy put in operation by the
| fourth of July next, and the present disturbed
state of affairs settled If the border States desire
to unite with us, well and good we will admit them
into Confederacy; if not, we will be strong
enough and rich enough to take care of ourselves.
| As to the forts in Louisiana, he said that the
| United States had no right to construct fort in
any State except by the consent of the Legislature
of the State. The erection Of fort or arsenal is
| a sovereign power, and the United States cannot
exercise it without the consent of the State in
which it is proposed to construct fort or arsenal.
| This proposition is clear, because the Constitu-
tion declares that Congress may exercise exclusive
authority over " all places purchased By the
sent Of the Legislature of the State in which the
shall be, for the erection of FORTS magazines,
| arsenals,i etc.
| The Constitutional object for which forts were
to be conducted was the protection of the country
from foreign nrdSi0n the protection Of the latter
| in which the fort might be. The United States
have no Constitutional right to invade State so
ment this subject that the 4th article, Sec 4, OF
the Constitution provides that the United States
shall 'pyotect each State against 6tUa$ion."
For fear that Federal troops might, under pre-
tcnce of protection, be sent into State, the same
article declares that the right of protection against
domestic uiogence shall not be recognized by the
United States, on the application Of the Legts.
Iai1re Of the State or Of the Executive.
If, therefore, the present Administration under
pretence Of protecting Federal property, should
attempt to reinforce or garrison the forts III this
State, the real object being to prepare to subju-
| gate the State and to invade and make war on
her for that purpose, the State authorities should
not hesitate to take possession of them before the
| Convention convened to prevent them from being
perverted to an unconstitutional purpose. Such
an act would be justified as we'll y morality as
| policy.