Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-16
FEBRUARY JIG. 1890.
"There Is No Right TO secede."

There Is No Right 20 Secede.
Under this heading the Chicago Tribune
replies to an interrogatory which we re-
gently addressed TO that paper Wishing
20 ascertain tho views of our Chicago con-
temporary rs 10 whether any of the States
had when they entered the Union reserved
The right TO secede, we quoted from Arti-
Gle v. of the Federal Constitution as it has
always stood the following proviso:
Provided that no State. without Its
consent. shall be deprived OF ITS equal
suffrage in the Senate"
This proviso is the closing clause OF Arti-
Gle ", which prescribes the manner OF
amending the Federal Constitution. 1t
tells bow new features may be added to
the Constitution or old ones taken from it.
and then adds what we have quoted above.
1t seems to us 10 be just as plain as day
that the framors of the Constitution un-
derstood this language TO mean that If the
smaller States, or any State, should be de-
prived of its equal representation in theSen
ate, such State or States would have the
right to withdraw. or, as we usually say Sc
cede, from the Union. To contend for any
other meaning is to charge the fathers OF the
republic with having acted in bad faith. 1t
would have been a mere mockery OF the
small States to tell them that thew were
not to be deprived of their equal suffrage
in the Senate unless the large States should
choose to deprive them of it! Accordingly
we asked the Tribune its opinion on this
point-namely, whether in such an event
State would have the right to secede. 1t
replies as follows:
1.-THE proviso quoted was inserted for
the benefit of the small States, which
without il would not have come into the
Union. Surprising that three fourth5 or
any greater number of the States were to
amend the Constitution by striking out
this provision and insertingan amendment
that the States of Delaware, Florida,
Rhode Island. Nevada, Colorado. New
Hampshire, and Vermont should have but
one senator each. and that New York.
PENNSYLVANIA, Ohio, and Illinois should
have three EACH would the smaller States,
Sn view Of the violation of the compact
made with them. have technical right to
eecedel ,,,
thing TO secede from. The old Union would
have been dissolved and q new one formed
by thirty-fve States. Seven would be left
out in the cold, which could either join the
new Union or go it alone. Theoretically
they would be sovereign, independent
CoInmonwealths."
Now hasn't the Tribune made mess" OF
It? The small States would not have
Che right to secede, but they would
be sovereign independent communi-
ties. They would be out side of the
Union! 1.-THE old Union would have
been dissolyed"! And all this from o
paper which speaks of the southern people
rs "rebels and traitors" because they
claimed that they were out ofthe Union by
reason of Federal disregard of then consti-
tutional rights and in virtue of their own
ordinances of secession. Why was not the
old Union dissolved in 1861 and new one
formed by the twenty States adhering to
the Union? Is Article V. of the Federal
Constitution more sacred than the articles
incorporated into the Constitution to pro-
Eect the rights of the slave States?
The Tribune goes on to justify Tin our
ppinion) the southern rebellion by quoting
what VIC so often reminded our northern
Brethren Of in 1861 and since, and what the
old articles of Confederation said-as fol-
lows:
"The articles Of this Confederation shall
be inviolably observed by every State, and
Tho Union shall DO perpetual nor shall
any alteration at any time hereafter DO
made in any of them unless such alteration
shall be agreed to in a Congress Of the
United States and be afterwards confirm
cd by the Legislature of every State"
Nevertheless, that perpetual Union
was dissolved in 1887. What says the Tri-
bwne.
THAT history would repeat itself were @
new Union formed with unequal represen-
tation in the Senate. II the small States
refused TO enter il they would be pushed
In, more or less urgently. For, as mat
Ter Of fact, whatever the thirty-two largest
Btates of the Union say with substantial
unanimity on the part OF their people
'goee,' no matter what the ten little
Btates may think about il. IL the thir-
ey-two decide to substitute king for o
president, or determine that the allegiance
10 Great Britain, once shaken OF. shall be
resumed and the country be ruled by agoy-
ernor-general appointed by Queen VIC
toria, the ten States would have to acqui-
esce II the others insisted on il. But if it
should 30 happen that the ten States voting
against such an alteration OF the Govern
nent were those of Massachusetts. New
York, New Jersey. Pennsylvania, Ohio, In
diana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Michi-
half the people Of the United States, the al
iteration would not be worth rush as far
os they were concerned. For IN this, as in
nj other countries. when it comes to the
last extremity, II is fighting strength that
decides questions"
True for you. Force has been substi-
tutsd for peacesble secession. No State
has any rights which the other States do
not concede 10 them. 1t is question of
Che strongest regiments. The southern
etates had right to secede but they were
cosrced into surrenderng that right. II,
- the TriJune intimates. it had been
Massachusetts,. New York York, New Jer-
ssy. Pennsylvania. Ohio. Indiana, Illinois.
Iowa. Missouri. and Michigan, which in
1861 claimed the right to seeede that right
would have been made good. The strong
est battalions. and the heaviest cannon,
and tho most numerous muskets would |
have decided the question exactly as 1t !
was not decided.
The 7ribuns's argument comedies by i'm |
plication that tho South was not wrong in |
che war between the States. but was too |
weak to maintain her rights.
------------------------
Foushee Street