New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-08-21
lJP n STEPHENS on STATE SOYBR



the Right of Revolution as long ago pro
pounded by Abraham Lincoln, Benz +. wade
Horace Greeley, and other Republicans we
do NOT see that he sheds any new light on the
subject yet we will quote what seem " W
his leading propositions,
We recently indicated the radical difference
between his doctrine and ours in these words
According IN Mr. stcpheus's conception, majority OF
the people Of Delaware. consisting OF less than looUO
persons might lawfully dissolve Ino V mn ~ ,hands
ot easi 800 600 in number-could do nothing o. the kn
Mr. sephenss may POSSIBLY U9 b no ~ on Repnbcsn so
lar ms we know The right we affirm Is not based on '
Federal Constitution Dut IS oeoie anu "0o'o ""'
constitutions =,
TO which Mr. Stephens responds as follows
Inst So LET be said to Mr. Greeley with the doctrine
advanced 6y in the book referred 70 IS rol Oss"
made that compact 1t is based upon principles eTS
before aud above any and an @ ~ Popuar
sovereignty State sovereignty or by any o'nsa | ,
bv which all organized states or Peoples can rVy'tg
make or inlmnke state or Federal Constitutions at their
pleasure: subject only TO the great moral law WhlGh
regulates aud governs the actions ana oonuuo' u ~"
NV conception, however, involves such nonsense
v% Of the whole State OF Delaware, and
portion only beings large minority ol 9 re
spect must looked TO- and cOnsdeTedin their o0Gcea
character. The doctrine advocated by me- win All ls
small her population. perfectly organized State-s
sovereign SMteand as such Is an integral hn ever ar
many people is no moro Inc DOCTRINE -
isindeed Federal @ OF S9
Der Of separate Republics
Comments BIZ The Tribune.
In the frank admission of Mr.. Stephens that
the Right of Secession which he afiirms is
not based on the Federal Constitution, we dis
Germ the first approach to a mutual under
standing. The Constitution, then, as we hold
and as he admits, does not authorize State to
secede from the Union. Not only is there no
EXPRESS warrant in the instrument for such a
proceeding, but Secession is not among the
powers which, by the terms of that instru-
ment, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people, Secession is a remedy
outside of the Constitution, and anterior to IT.
In other words, it is Revolution.
Now, then, we come to the gist of the mat
ter: .........
MIR. Stephens holds that Delaware might
rightfully Secede from the Union, but that
New York south of the Highlands, with at
least 100000 people, might not, because the
former is ga perfectly organized State while
the latter is not.
But when we come to Revolution, an or
"ganized State is of no account. 1t may be
Convenient to act through such organizations,
as our fathers found it in 177j-6; but the le-
gality and rightfulness of the measure was no
whit improved by the fact that the American
People acted through their preexistiDg colonial
organizations rather tban against them.
Is there on American living who does
not realize'that the Revolution of 1870 origi-
mated in @ rebellion-that it was no more and
no less a rebellion because, while the Royal
Governors were mainly driven ont, the Colonial
legislatures, by a majority of their members,
nearly or quite all sided with the rebellion 2
The American Revolution was right, because
impelled by righteous indignation against
British tyranny, usarpatiOn and abuse Of power;
the Southern Rebellion was wrong, because its
most potent impulse, its cardinal purpose, its
paramount object, were the territorial diffusion
of Human Slavery and the consequent aug
mentation of its power in and over the Union.
But there is another, and not less import
ant question, on which we are at issue with
Mr.. Stepheus-a question of fact. He holds
that the People of the Southern States MARY
land, Delaware and Kentucky, of course ex-
cepted,) authorized and favored SecessiOn we
hold that they decidedly did not-that their
viii was OVERCOME by violent, desperate,
terrorizing minority. The facts on which we
base this conclusion are summarily presented
in The american Conflict, Vol. /. chap. xii,
which we will thank those who are interested
in this discussion to read carefully. Let us
further illustrate the matter by more fully de-
failing the proceedings in single State:
Alabama, on the call of her Secession
Governor, held an election on the 9th of
1aIa fo
ventiOn which assembled on the oath. The
Northern Counties, where Slavery was rela-
lively weak and voters most numerous, went
very strongly Union, 80 that the poll of the
entire State showed Union majority of 5000.
Fifty Union and fifty Secession delegates were
chosen. But one poll lin Shelby County, we
believe) had given 200 Union majority, electing
two Union delegates for the County by 100 ma
jority. The returning officer for that strong
Union district was eOaxed away on hunting
party, and so piled with good cheer that he
stayed away for week, failing to return
the vote of his precinct, Gas was intended:) so
the defeated Secession candidates were re-
turned instead of the elected UniOnists, giving
the former four majority in the Convention,
and the organization, of course. With this
capital, operations were begun: one delegate
from strong Union County being promised
Maori eneralship for betraying his oOustitu-
ents, and others bought with such lure as
would serve, until Secession was ultimately
voted: Yeas 81; Nays 80, - SAS---
This was a fair sample of the way States
were bought Or bullied out of the Union. In
Louisiana, it was notorious that the Union had
majority OF votes cast yet Secession turned
up with a majority of delegates; while Vr-
ginia, North Carolina Tennessee, and Arkansas,
ench-aa we'll "a Kantnckr Mn-,,l..I nj