Daily national Democrat., 1861-02-05
Secession.

To Ass emblyman D. L. lIaun we are in
de6ted for a small anonymous pamphlet lust
issued in Sacramento, entitled Secession and
Coercion; The Relation between the States
and Federal Government" The Union how
ever informs Us, that the document was pre-
pared 10y the State Printer, and issued from
his office. The sole object Of the author np-
pears to be to prove that the Federal Gov
ernment cannot make war upon a State
This looks TO US very much like dodgiug the
question, or at any rate, raising question
which does not really exist The question Of
making war upon a State as a State, and the
! question of compelling Individuals of State
to recognize Federal authority are two DIFF
ierent things But if this is not plain enough,
there are other points relative to the Federal
authority, which may be briefly considered
First, the Federal Government cannot permit
its laws to be violated with impunity in a
State, any more than State can allow re.
bellious rising of her own citizens against the
State Government. If a State can enforce
tends, surely the laws of the Federal Govern
ment can be enforced with as much right, as
far as they extend, and you would have just
as much reason TO deny the right to the State
as to deny it to the Federal Government
Again-Grant that the Federal Government
may not have the right to coerce a State
this does not impair her right to defend her
property there nor can she be debarred from
sending an armed force there for that pur-
pose. Yet, some may say that this would he
in itself species of coercion, or at least an
coerciDg a State, be it so at any rate it is
n right which the Federal Government un-
dou6tedly possesses, and it must be with
it, matter of policy, whether it enforces it
or not To these stickers for secession, it
sounds very well no doubt, to hear men say
that the Federal Government cannot make
war upon State. They forget perhaps that
it is State making war upon the Federal
Government "The boot is on the other leg"
and has been in every quarrel between
State and the Federal Government. True
South Carolina claimed that she had been
wronged by Congress-, a department of the
Federal Government, but the Government
didn't think so. 1t was only the opinion of a
member of the Government against the Gov
ernment itself.
If war should unfortunately break out be-
tween the seeding States and the Federal
Government, who will have commenced it?
We answer the Seeding States They can
not surely allege that the Federal Govern
ment by any overt act, or the passage of any
law have deprived them of any of their
rights If they can, we would like to have
somebody answer for them. If the Govern
ment had passed unconstitutional laws op-
pressing the South, the Government might
be called the aggressor, but as the case stands,
it is folly to say that as between the Federal
Government and the Secessionists, the latter
are not the aggressors. Although the Seces-
sionists have not declared war against the Fed
eral Government by the usual formula, they
nave virtually done so, and the policy OF the
Government is to treat-to negotiate with
the men who defy her with arms in their
hands, and who allege that they are citizens
Of Sovereign" States Great sovereignty
that must be, which gives men the right to
sieze on property not theirs, and TO threaten
wal, and who. at the next moment erie "stop,
You cannot hold us to account for what we
have done, or for what we may do, for ,ce
are sogereign"
The whole plea for the secessionists
amounts simply to this: That the States are
so sovereign that they can secede at will
The doctrine is the same now that it was in
the time of Calhoun, when it was trampled
upon by Daniel Webster, but not killed. 1t
is now magnifed, however, by the name of
revolution.