National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-09-22
COVERT SECESSION IN ALABAMA


The position assumed by the Alabama
constitutional convention regarding the
right of secession is illustrated by Judge s.
F. Rice, of that State, as follows:
''Secession and John the Baptist are alike
In this, that they were both killed contrary to
lao; but John the Baptist has the advantage
that he can be resurrected whereas secession
cannot"
1t was the argument contained in this
illustration that induced the convention to
adopt the following as part of the Bill of
Rights to be embraced in the new constitu-
ton:
"The people of this State accept as final the
established fact that from the Federal Union
there can be no secession of any State"
The EUening Bulletin, published at Mont
gomery, where the convention is assembled,
analyses the action of that body in adopting
this clause in the following manner
"At the close of the war everybody in the
country felt irresistibly the force AMI effect of
this declaration. Latterly it has become pop
ular with q certain class Of local politicians to
resort to q hair-splitting theory, as vicious as
it is impracticable. distinction has been
sought TO be drawn between what they are
pleased to term the principle or the right OF
secession, and the act of secession itself, and 1t
has been plausibly argued that while the mere
exercise Of the right in This had been defeated,
the principle, being indestruetible, remained.
This quasi acknowledgment of the right of Be-
cession, coupled with the assertion that the
State would never claim or exercise the right,
gave rise to some discussion in the convention,
which has wisely led to the extirpation of that
idea from the Bill of Rights, and the substitu-
ton of the article proposed by Mr.. Pugh, al
ready quoted"
We submit that this is not at all satisfac-
tory. The very quasi acknowledgment Of
the right of secession which the Bulletin
characterizes as vicious and impracticable
is so plainly asserted in Mr.. Pugh's article
that even a child could not fail to discover
it. The distinction between the right OF
secession and the act of seces-
sion is clearly and positively asserted, aud
the legitimate inference is that the men,
bers of the convention entertained and still
entertain the firm belief that the principle,
being indestructible, remains. We are
aware that the answer will be promptly
made to this that the ex- Confederates can
not be reasonably expected to stultify
luCubC1NCoJ oho lAab oOlb vi W
making more explicit declaration; but we
insist that the safety of the country in the
not far distant future requires something
more definite at their hands. As the mat
ter now stands, Secession is their John the
Baptist 'tkilled contrary to law" and no
matter what they may profess, or how
earnestly they may profess it. there is
danger of its resurrection. This stands to
reason. The man who has lost possession
of q piece of property by force and in vio-
lation Of his construction of the law, will
never cease to regard 1t as his own, and
will seldom hesitate-or attempt, at least
to reclaim it when an opportunity is offered
to do so. In other words, this so-called
recantation of the principle of secession ID
nShpg Rg1S IaFc than "a an
of the General Government, which the
Democracy of Alabama have been COM
PEELED to submit to. It is an es-
tablished fact they say, "that from
the Federal Union there can be no Sc
"cession of any State" How was it es-
tablishedf By brute force, is the quick
reply, or because the alleged principle of
secession has been 'tkilled contrary to law, &"
and not by any final arbitration which these
covert rebels are willing to acknowledge
now. The absence of any acknowledgment
of the character of the arbitration which
established this assumed fact is of itself sus-
picious, and the suspicious it arouses are
confirmed by the undoubted fact that the
reconstruction constitution which these
men are engaged in amending is mainly
obnoxious to them on account OF its provi.
sions recognizing the anti-secession or equal
rights amendments to the National Consti-
tuition. If they were honest in their profes-
sions Of patriotism and sbnegation of the
right of secession they would have declared
that some final power of arbitration had
forever and distinctly settled the question
as being at variance with the true princi.
Piles of republican government. Instead of
this they practically assert that they were
whipped once and do not think they will
run the risk of being whipped lagain. If
this is not hair-splitting of the basest and
most trifiing kind, we fail to understand 1t
at all.
We seriously commend these facts to the
consideration Of the Gushers, with the fur
Their information that under this transparent
disguise the Alabama Democracy will at
tempt to perpetrate, in the name of freedom
and patriotism, the practical disfranchise-
ment of their colored fellow-citizens. Who
can doubt but their example will find close