Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1861-10-30
The western sentinel--.sece.siOn.

The western Sentinel.--Secession.
We stated recently thai our cotemporary Of the
Western Sentins1 had inexperienced our views as
expressed in the following extract which that jour-
nal makes from the Standard:
Leaving out of view the action of the States
which seeded first and the proclamation Of Lincoln
and looking alone to Virginia, and North. Carolina
and Tennessee, and Arkansas, we ask, aoho made
the rerolutions Not the secessionists for they were
in minority until Lincoln's proclamation Accord
ing to this view, the old Union made the rerOL
tom for the middle States, including North Carolina
which seeded in May, were not permitted to move
until the old Union men GAGE the cord. Every
body knows this to be So"
The Sentinel will observe that in the above ex-
tract looking alone to the action Of the Dor
der States, and were endeavoring to show, that so
far as they are concerned the old Union men made
the revolution We did this, notbecause We attach
ed any particular Importance to this view of itself,
but offset to those in this State of the old
cesSion party who claim that they made the revolu-
tion and are, therefore, entitled to all the offices
and honors. We see no reason, after an examna-
ton of the above language quoted by the Sentinel
% qualify it even much less retract it. 1t is strict
ly correct
But notwithstanding this, we agree with the Sen
tinel that Lincoln, Seward & Co. dissolved the
Union" so far as the border States are concerned,
and 'usurped the government" and forced the "bor-
der States to choose between secession and reSis-
tance-subugation and despotsns" We say we
agree with the Sentinel that this is true to the
border States North Carolina included and there
fore, as soon as Lincoln called for troops to make
war on the South, we denounced him as a usurper,
o,,I al A. Il,
out end. We did this, too, with the most entire
consistency, for had always held that the States
had right to secede for cause. In the Standard
ofSeptember Sd, 1851 in an article in reply to the
Washington Union, said:
1--WE hold, as we have uniformly held, that no
State can secede c3hout just cause ; that in other
words, the Constitution must be papably violated
and the compact broken before any State can he re-
leased. We hold, we have uniformly held,
that il this compact should be broken the act will
be an act of revolution the part of the sectional
majority which perpetrates it. for the simple
that it will work a radical change in the Constu-
ton of governments that this sectional majority will
nevertheless, as matter of course, hold on to the
| government and proclaim the Union still in being ;
that the only alternative left to the minority of the
States will be to withdraw or secede from such
| government, and provide guards for their fu-
ture security and that in so doing, they will go
forward under the authority of sovereign States thus
released from their obligations to the compact by
the act of the majority" &c.
| In the same number of the Standard we quoted
the following language of Mr.. Jefferson contain
| ing the true doctrine on the subject:
"Are We then, to stand to our arms? No. That
be the last resource not to be thought of until
much longer and greater sufferings. We must have
! patience and longer endurance with our brethren
while under dcluson-gve them time for reflection
! and experience of consequences-keep ourselves in
situation to profit by the chapter CT accidents
! and separate from companions mot revolt from
rulers only when the sole alternatives lett
| the dissolution Of Union NTH them, sub
mission to government aeithOut limitation Of poio-
! ers."
! This our position in 1851, in February, 1861,
and in May last when We voted for and signed the
ordinance of secession. We have, therefore, been
entirely consistent on this subject Others may
! have changed, but certainly we have not
We shall not pursue the subject further to-day,
having quoted enough and said enough to convince
our contemporary of the Sentinel that the
same States rights in February, 1861, that We
were in September, 1851. If he should dispute
this however, should desire further explanations
will reply to him in the same frank spirit which
! we have evinced in this article.