Semi=weekly graphic., 1896-02-12
PINE BLUFF. ARK. FEB. II, 1896
HISTORY REPEATED.

History repeated itself, with ee- |
tain variations of detail, in the
House of Representatives Friday.
Mr.. Talbert of South Carolina hav-
ing declared that he believed in the
doctrine of secession, Mr.. Barrett,
of Massachusetts angrily called him
to order and wanted the House to
decide whether a member could be
thus allowed to thus violate his oath.
The incident closed by reference of
the whole matter to the judiciary
committee, the general desire seem
ing to be to decorously put the ques-
ton to bed and get rid of it. 1t was
eighty-five years ago, in the year
1911, that similar incicent occurred
in the House of Representatives.
The statesman who on that occasion
figured in the role played yesterday
by Talbert of South Carolina was
Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts. It
was during the debate on the bill for
the admission of Louisiana as a
State into the Union. The New
England statesmen of that day were
bitterly hostile to this project or to
any acquisition of new territory, and
their opposition went to the extent
OF threatening secession. 1t was on
this bill that Josiah Quincy of Mas
sachusetts rose in his place in the
House of Represen tatives and ut
tered these words: ut is my delib-
crate opinion that if this bill passes
the bonds of this Union are virtually
dissolved; that the States which
compose it are free from their moral
obligation and that, as it will be the
right of all, SO it will be the duty of
some, definitely to prepare for sep
aration, amicably if they can, forei
bly, if they must.
The Hon. Josiah Quincy of Massa-
chusetts was promptly called to or
der, but the House of Representa-
tives by a vote OF Sc to So, the New
England representatives votingwith
the majority, decided that Con-
gresham from Massachusetts had
right to preach the doctrine of Sc
cession on the floor of the House,
whatever limitation might be put
on Congressman from South Car
DINA. In the case of Mr.. Quincy it
was not a mere expression of theo-
retical and abstract opinion, as in
the case of Mr.. Talbert, but threat
made to affect pending legislation.
We may add that it was no idle
threat Massachusetts and New
England generally at that time
were ripe for secession. The Massa-
chusetts Legislature had already re-
solved in 1903 on the acquisition of
Louisiana that its annexation
formed a new confederaev to
which the States united by the for
mer compact were not bound to adj
here. 1t was only three years after
Josiah Quincy uttered the sentiment
we have quoted that the New Eng
land States in the celebrated Hart
ford Convention threatened to with
draw from the Union, their griev-
ance being that they were required
to furnish troops to fight for their
country, then at war with England
Again in 1874 the Massachusetts
Legislature adopted a resolution de
claring that thennaexa ton of Texas
unless arrested con the threshold,
may drive these States into a dis
solution of the Union; and the year
following the same threat was re-
peated 1t will be seen, therefore,
that Massachusetts began very early
to preach the doctrine of secession,
though it usually chose time when
the country was at war to make its
threats and lay its plots for the de
struction of the Union.
Perhaps it was an apprehension that
Talbert might quote precedents that
induced the Republicans to wash
their hands of the whole business as
quickly as possible. e. Commercial Ap-
peal.