The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1881-09-15
The Mise sna Pail 81 the Camf~asrsts
Gsysramsat

new sud valid ilaas Ae Represents living
y hat .lssd iaaw slhre 4na ~ istsAn4rs 81
,aiae a. Tia historian
The tarc statement Of the preface that
The object Of the book IL ,a defend the
constitutional doctrine Of secession. and
| thereby 10 Justify the Good uoi ST tho South.
concentrate at DneB the utter contnsioa OF
thought which. Sbeiher wiliful OF lguor-
knt, WAS No largely responsible for the &C
tion Of the South. Mr. Davis, speaking IN
1851 With the voice 81 1860 las not lnarn.
ell. on refuses 10 acknowledge, that seoes-
sion sas not thea aud could never lie a
constitutional question Secession sss
revelation, aud ia. one vital pOiui sas
whether Il u4r pussii'le. not whether II
vas legal, iuI Revolutions are not eoncefu-
] Ell With lAs They may be right or srung.
they may be l,tacesble OF bloody, they
may b. 10 ,lricad ibreatened rights, OF Ia
repel oppression. or 10 erect desiAi,isin [;
| but thew are not. aud eau never ie. eyrD
when lie night 20 them Is secured to tile
people IN specific terms. rs In the South
| American republics. constitutional Ia
the very nature Of things. revolution must
be outside the pale OF An existing eoasiiiu'
grounds entirely foreign TO constitutions.
written or unwriiten. To talk about BE-
cession as a constitutional right not TO be
interfered ith vi 10 say that men have a
constitutional right TO overthrow their
government. aud that is very plain CON.
tradietion in terms, for 9 constitution is
formed 10 create aud maintain. not 10 de-
stroy, political systems Men have right,
no doubt. 20 revolution, but 1t is not . con-
stitutional right, and il must rest on NOR.
al. not on legal principles, no matter how
lawful the cause may be. or even II 1t Is q
revolution Of precedents, rs was our strug'
gle OF lT7G. Mr.. DAVIS says that the
States exercised the right OF secession
from the old confederacy, and therefore
they had il under the new. There Is no
question OF the fact The people Of the
various States pulled down the old confed.
eracy and set up a new form Of government
in It's stead. They carried through q
peaceful revolution. but they did not APP
peal to the Articles OF Confederation as an
authority Men OF English race, in draw.
ing up q constitution OF government do
not stultiiy themselves by putting in
clause to provide for Its overthrow. When
the men OF 1857 found that the old confed-
eracy was failure they induced major.
ity OF the people 10 agree with them, de-
stroyed it, and erected new one. Mr..
Davis says, again. that the constitution
was regarded at its formation as com.
pact. Any one who is familiar with the
history OF that time will readily admit this
10 be true. II was an experiment, which
the people, acting through their state or
CARNATIONS, agreed TO try. Whether it
would fall victim To revolution, as its
predecessor had done, no man then could
tell Only two men Of that day, so far as
we are aware, saw deeply enough into fu-
turity 10 perceive what the work OF the
constitution would be lift was maintained
Washington and Hamilton looked to the
constitution to create, as they said, a ma
tional sentiment, and national sentiment
the creation OF a nation. That was the
possible work Of the constitution. and that
was what it effected The compact OF 1883
endured, and in 1860 il had made nation
ont Of confederacy; it had become ma.
tional charter The question in 1860 was
not, Have certain States, or the people in
certain States, the constitutional right to
withdraw from a compact? but was just
what il had always been: Have they suf-
ficient reason and sufficient power to reyo-
lutionize the existing government and
substitute something else in its place?
The issue was whether the nation which
had grown up under the constitution
should live or die, whether we should
have ono Union or two. The North mp
held the cause OF the former the South OF
the latter; the North prevailed. The peo-
pie OF this country did not go to war on .
point OF constitutional law; they fought to
determine whether the nation should be
broken up and divided, or should remain
united and indivisable.
In support OF the right of secession Mr..
Davis adduces the attitude of Virginia and
Kentucky ia 1899, Of New England in
1874, OF South Carolina III 1882, aud he
might have cited many other examples,
but none Of them prove anything. In a.
federal system ono weapon OF minority IS
sure to be the menace OF withdrawal or
disunion. II il terrible weapon. no
doubt, and when 1t was graspcd 10y New
England, aud afterwards by South Carroll.
ma, the Union qnlyered. In the former
case, the events removed tile grievances
of the States; Ia the latter, the national
government yielded aud compromised,
but both meant simply that certain com
munities, defeated at the bnllot-box,
threatened to resort to revolution. But
revolutions must stand or fall on their own
merits TO argue the constitutional right
OF secession is beating the air Such an
argument at best was merely the necessary
concession TO the law abiding and law-lov-
ing spiri, OF the race, which likes TO fight
revolution on legal principles, and 1t de.
generated in the hands -of Mr.. DAVIS aud
lis friends into a mere cloud. eonpeller TO
obscure existing facts far mightier than
any constitutions.
Mr.. Davis discussion il OF value only AZ
showing the state Of mind TO which reas.
oning OF that sort Was needful IN order to
cover up the real Issue OF the time. The
secession Of the Southern States ~ not to
be tried by the constitution, because IN IL
nature ii transceuds the constitution and
aims at its subyersion. The simple ques-
ton is, Was the South justified IN begin.
ming revolution2 Tho answer lies IN
these volumes. Mr.. DAVIS admits that
slavery vas only Incidental; that the South
did no, secede on account OF John Brown,
OF OIL the hppiNithirirs VI VI sh' ''"''N "
certain Northern States an to slavery. In
short, the South did not secede because
the North had actually done anything. but
according TO Mr. Davis, on account OF
wha, a sectional Northern party would do.
in power. Nothing, absolutely nothing,
had been done When the States seeded;
and although il il al excellent specimen
OF Southern reasoning in the time OF James
Buchanan, it il childish AMI even worse,
10 point to wha, happened IN war as =
proof Of what the North would have doue
II The South had never seeded aud there
had been no war. The whole case can be
put in few words, although Mr.. Davis
dared not declare il a, the time, and does
no, dare 10 state i now, but goes round
aud round IN the old ,readmill Of deceptive
phrases, and will not face the facts The
truth wAs that while the North had always
been politically divided on slavery. as on
all other points, On that question the South