Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1861-01-05
From the New York Herald.l
THE GREAT QUESTION OF THE DAYS. Sc
; CESSION REVOLUTION OR NOT?

Wepubshed Yesterday two remarka BILE documents
Of revolutionary characer-one, 1.-The Declaration
of Independence of South Carolina, done in Con-
vention December "a 1861" and the other, "the
address of the people of South Carolina, assembled
in Convention, to the people of the slaveheding
States of the United States" They are both elo-
quently written electioneerng papers, we'll calcula
ted to precipitate the revolutionary movement now
going forward at the South They describe, in vi
vd colors the anti-Savery sentiment existing at the
North, and the acts of hostility against the South
perpetrated by various Northern States. But while
we willingly give them this praise, We must impugn
their historical accuracy in some very important
points, and dissent from the conclusions arrived at
as illogical and unsound.
1t is not true that the United States constitute a
mere temporary league, which can be lawfully and
consttutionally broken up at any time by one
more States who may feel aggrieved from the action
of the other States the legislation of the reprcsen
tatiVes of the whole in Congress assembled. The
United States are government, and the first prin-
cpe of all governments-as it is the first law of ma
ture in individuaS-is sefpreservation. No gov
errment can be peacefully broken up-none without
revolution. The first form of federation for the
whole States, adopted in 1791-whilc the result of
the Revolutionary war still pending-is de-
scribed by the instrument tSelfas Articles of Con-
federation and Perpetual Union," and the style of
the confederacy was 1.-The United States OF Ameri-
ca" The preamble to The constitution the form of
government under which we now live was I'VE
the people of the United States in order to form
more perfect Union" &C., do ordain and establish
this constitution for the United States of America"
There is no article section which provides for the
dissolution # this Cnior- one that looks to such
an event as possible, nothing in the constitution
that warrants the secession of State under any cir
cumstances: For existing evils arising out of any
unequal working Of the constitution the instrument
itself provides the remedy either by appealing against
Ck.Nn i'd .-.,,- IL.
by giving the people the opportunity of amending
the constitution; and this done expressly to
prevent physical force revolution and bloodsbed-no
other kind of revolution being recognized under the
constitution than revolution through the operation
of the ballot box. The people of the thirteen States
ratified this constitution, and for South Carolina
which was one of them, there is no saving clause
by which she can resume the complete independent
sovereignty with which she parted, nor has she any
more right to set at defiance the laws of the Union
than an individual has to disObey the laws of State
to which he has surrendered share of his natural
liberty in order to preserve the rest. The great diff
fculty under the old confederation was that the
laws of Congress did not operate upon individuals
but upon States, and there no mode of coercing
States provided for. By the constitution the general
government operates not upon States as such but
upon indlVlduals-upon every individual in every
State. Hence Congress cannot declare war against
State, for that would be the United States decar
hs wal against lHeinSelfeS, out congress and the
President can enforce the federal laws against any
number of individuals in any State or any number
of States, and their declaring themselves outside of
the federal government does not make them So The
bond of Union cannot be legally cancelled by one
Of the parties thereto The act of cancellinp il &c
an act of revolution.
The claim Of South Carolina, therefore that in
the step she has taken she has acted according to
law and the nature of the compact for veal or wo.
into which she deliberately entered, is contrary to
the well known facts of American history IF she
based her act On the right Of revolution. then we
could understand the logic of her argument though
not the prudence of her course For the right of re-
Vouton is the Ri ht of the strongest and is sane
toned only by The lessons of history from
the beginning of the world preach the uniform doc
trine Of Zoe Uictis-"woe to the vanouisbe,I "
South Carolina cannot, therefore, escape from the
responsibility OF her act under the shield of law 1t
Will be solely question of policy with the federal
government whether it will enforce its laws in that
and other seeding States. 1t will have the undonbt
ed right if it think fit to exercise it. There is not
and cannot be any right of secession, except as a
right of revolution
The argument of South Carolina is equally veal
IN the reason she assigns for secession Her act 10
founded not so much upon what the Northern States
or the United States in Congress have done as upon
her apprehension of what they may do hereafter.
That certainly cannot be justification for her at
temptto break up the Government When abol
tioof slavery in the Southern States is decreed by
Congress and the President, and sanctioned by tbs