Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-10-14
The Flrs. ana Original sece..lSui.t

JoHE QUNoY. Of MAssac chu.e;.s, q man whcm
that State still delights 70 honor, said In the
third session Of the Eleventh CongreSs, In 1911, /,
In The discussion Of bill providing for the ad-
missIon of LouIaIana into the Union:
lam compelled 10 declare II a my deliberate opinion
that this bill passss tho bonds OF this Union are vir
tuaily dnsolyed that the states which compose ere
right Of ALL Il will be the duty Of some, to prepare
definitely for separation, ,-amicably II they can, vio-
lently Il they lmust.--Anndts Of Congress, 1901,
pa0s525.
When this language of Mr. Cursor was Ut
tered, Mr.. PoIHDrxrER, delegate from Missis.
sipp, then territory, called the member to
order 10 the following words:
Mr.. Poindexter required the decislon Of the Chair
whether It consistent with the prOprety Of debate
to use such an expression. He said II was radically
wrong for any member to nse arguments going to dis
solve the Government and tumble this body itself "a
mans statement Of his language, that he had declared
the right Of any portion Of the people TO separate.
The queton he wished to PROFOUND to the CHAIR was
House to invite any portion Of the people 10 insured
ton and Of cou1e to dissolution OF fthe.Unon.-Iotd
PIP. 525-27.
Upon the point Of order being raised, Mr.
QUINCY repeated and justified the remark be
had made, and to save all misapprehsnsion, be
committed Il to writing In the following words;
II this bill passes II 10 my deliberate opinion that
Is virtually dissolution Of this Union that It will free
the States from their moral obligations; and % II will
be the right Of s 90 Il will be the duty Of come, dehn-
itely to prepare for II they can
violently, II they must.
10 response to the point Of order submitted
by Mr.. PoINpExrER, the Speaker decided thai
the language, ait will be the duty Of some Of
the States TO prepare for sepsrstion--smic-
ably, II they eau, violently, It they must.' waa
contrary to the order Of debate. Ther upon,
Mr.. QUINoY appealed from the decision of the
Chair. The vote being taken on sustaining
tue decision, all the members from South Car
olina who we're present. except one, declared by
their votes that such threats and Qualifications
of secession were beyond the pale Of Legitimate
debate, while all the members from Massachu
sets, who were present, sustained BY theil
votes that such cless and decided avowaIs Of
secession doctrine were strictly Parliamentary
and should not be restrained.
We now lay before the reader the gumeo
by which Mr. QuNoY justified the doctrine OF
alleged right OF secession. He said
declare 1t the bill maniet datroeious usurpa
ton Of power. OF nature dtssocin0, according TO wn
destdble principles Of moral tdo, 0o obligations o.
our nosiohal compact. Is there
moral principle Of public law better settled more con
formsbe TO the painest suggestions Of reasons thar
that the violation Of contract by Of the psrtie
may be considered exempng the others from Its OBJ
lgstiOnsH--lotd, PIP. sse, $40.
Compare ibis With the following passage in
the address of the South Carolina Secession
Convention in December, 1860. and see how
closely the Southern secessionists of fifty
years later followed in thought and expression
the original New England secessionist;
The truth is they [the Northern statesl having vo.
lated the express provisions Of The 0onsuton, it 10 s
an end az compaotj Il 10 morally obligatory only on
those who choose to accept s perverted terms. touth
oarons, dssming the compact only violated In par
culsr features bat virtually abolished BY her Northern
eonfederstes whdraws hereif as party from its OBJ
irations.