Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-01-31
TUESDAY MORNING, JAN. 81
LFor The StatesmsnJ
Hon. Geo. m. PendlefOn's Speech.

lFor Tho StatesmanJ
Hon. Geo. m. Pendlefon's speech.
COLUMBUS, O., Jan. 80, 1865.
MKssRs. EDrroRs: In your paper of
to-day was pleased to read the great
speech of the Hon. Geo. III. Pcndleton,
against the proposition now before Con-
gress so to amend the Constitution, by
vote of three-fourths Of the States, as to
abolish slavery in the United States. was
in no small degree astonished, however,
when read your comments thereon. l
think 1t will appear manifest to every
careful reader Of Mr.. Pendleton's speech,
that you have In a very important particu-
lar, entirely misapprehended his meaning,
which think, upon more careful reading,
you will do him the justice to correct. You
say, in your comments, alluded to, sand
when Mr.. Pendleton comedies, as he does,
that three-fourths of the States may abolish
this republican form of Government and
establish in its stead a consolidated unity,
the power of amendment is conceded by
him In its fullest extent
Now, Messrs. Editors, permit me to say
that instead of Mr.. Pendleton's saying any
such thing, he directly controverts that
very position, which Mr.. Cox, think so
unwittingly admitted to be within the
power of three-fourths of the States, and
which Mr.. Pendleton characterized as a
sweeping declaration" 1t is true, Mr..
Pendleton did say three-fourth majority
might abolish this republican form of Gov
ernment. He even said a minority might do
so. But he was notspeaking ofiegdl or consti-
t,tiondl power, but the right to revolutionise.
This very paragraph; In which he asserts
this right commences by admitting the
right as claimed by the opposition, but he
characterizes it not as legal, but rerolution-
airy. Hence he commences by saying: II
understand the right of reuolution. 1 know
its limitations and sanctions" Its origin is
not in human institutions;; its sanctions are
not In penal enactments. Its home is in the
human heart; its origin is in mans aspira-
tions for progress; its sanction is the ultima
ratio from whose dread judgment there is
no appeal"
A people. says Mr.. Pendleton, may do all
these things, by the right to reuolitionize,
and are "then responsible in the present
to the nations and to God, and in the future
only to the ages and to ciuilisatiOn. They
may draw their s1ord, and, If they haze the
po,oer, impose that form of Government upon
the dissenting States" but let them be-
ware; there Is responsibility hereafter.
lido not write these few lines, Messrs. Edi-
tors, with the belief that you have the least
disposition to place Mr.. Pendleton in false
position, but TO correct what conceive to
be total misapprehension of Mr.. Pendle-
tons meaning. / think he, as well as my
self, entirely agrees with you in your views
reader of the history of the formation of
our admirable system of Government and the
intentions of the fathers and sages Of '76. !
B. f. B.
"B. F. B." is right in his conclusion that
we have not ''the least disposition to place
Mr.. PENDLEroN in a false position" and
we assure him that we have read Mr.. P.'s
speech very carefully-not once only, but
several times. Mr.. p. in the outset of his
speech said that ''three-fourths of the
States may abolish this form of Govern
ment." We understand the meaning of this
to be, that the abolition of this form of
Government can be made by three-fourths
of the States under the sanction of the
amending power of the Constitution; but
insists that the other fourth have ''the right
ofIresistance," that it is their duty to resist.
But If "B. +. B." will refer to the fourth
column OF the speech, in yesterdays STATES
MAN, he will see that Mr.. PENDLEToN uses
this language in reply to Mr.. ASHLEY:
"He Mr.. Ashley says that any amend
ment must be consistent with the contin-
ued existence of the nation.' 1 deny it;
I say that three. .fourths of the States can dis
Consultation. They can dissolce the Union;
but they cannot take away from the con-
stituent States those powers which were
reserved, not only by the letter, but by the
spirit and the intent and design of the in
strument itself.n
When we consider this assertions
either separately or in connection with the
assertion Mr.. p. makes in the outset of his
speech, that "the minority of the people
may, II they can, subvert this confederation,
and establish in its stead consolidated
unity-much. more may majority"-and
that s.three-fourths of the States may abol-
ish this Republican form of Government
we can come to no other conclusion than
that the power of amendment is conceded
in its fullest extent. If ''three-fourths of
the States may abolish this Republican
form of Government"-if "three-fourths of
the States can dissolve the confederation
II sthree-fourths of the States" ''can annul
the Constitution"-if ''three-fourths of the
States" "can dissolve the Union"-if it
Is not necessary that amendments to
the Constitution "must be consistent
with the continued existence of the
nation n--how far short of exercising
the amending power in its fullest extent is
thisf< Mr.. PENDLEToN says, however,
that three-fourths of the States "can
not take away from the constituent
States those powers which were re-
served not only by the letter, but by
the spirit and the intent and design of
the instrument ITSELF" Perhaps not; but
II " three-fourths of the States may dis
solve the Confederation "-if they can
annul the Constitution "--if " they can dis
solve the Union," how much would those
, reserved powers be worth to "the constitu-
ent States when the "three-fourths had
resolved to wrest them from them?