The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-23
SOME FAULTY REASONING.

SOME FAULTY REASONING.
 Some days ago The Advertiser, in com menting on an editorial in The Chatta- nooga Times, stated that the position of that paper seemed to be that If the South had succeeded in making good its effort at secession it would have been right and if Panama fails it will be wrong. To this The Times replies:
 No, that is not what we mean, and we regret it if that construction could have been put on what we said. That is the contention of our Knoxville neighbor, and not ours. We did say that the result oi the civil war had settled the question unalterably. so far as the United States is concerned, that no State hereafter has any right even to attempt to secede. MT: Roosevelt's party has always contended that the Southern States had no right to secede in 1881. being by voluntary and solemn agreement members of the Amer ican Union; but these States held to the doctrine that in the absence of any con stitutionai declaration to the contrary they had a right to withdraw from the agreement, as MT. Davis said whenever they had reasonable cause to believe that their rights as members of the Union were being Invaded and the terms of the
 
 Roosevelt very clearly adopted the South ern theory of the right of secession in his recognition of the Republic of Pan- anna He has recognized that State not been esta blished successfully. Panama has a separate government-so had the Confederate States. Colombia will under take to force the seceders back into the Union and they would do so were not the strong arm of the United States Gov ernment interposed to prevent it. The United States Government succeeded in forcing the Southern seceders back in 1S60-65. and there we have the only diff ference. The Southerners had the right to secede if they could maintain it by force in 1s60-65. but they haven't that right any more. for they have accepted set up the right of coercion" MT. Roosevelt simply denies to Colombia the right he claims the United States had with reference to the Southern Confed- eracy. and that is the point we were con- tending for.
 Our usually accurate contemporary darkeneth counsel by words in the above. and at the same time virtually comedies exactly what we were contend, ing for. It says the United States pre- vented the success of the Southern move ment, land there we have the only diff. ference it adds, plainly admitting that the only difference between the case oi the Confectionery and that of Panama Ii that the former failed and the latter haI succeeded, as now appears. But that if not the point we now propose to discuss In the above article The Times declare: that the success of the Union armies, ol of the Federal Government settled the question unalterably, so far as the United after has any right to even attempt tC secede." Again The Times says that while the States possessed the right tC secede prior to their action in 1861, 'they haven't that right any more, for they have accepted the terms of a stronger Union." etc. Next we have The Rich. mond Times Dispatch speaking this way True, there is no right of secession now for the Constitution of the United States | as amended, takes that right away fron the individual States, but in 1860 the rign | of secession was a constitutional right and the Southern States exercised Il upon that score and many distinguished Northern men now concede 1t.
 How two such we'll informed newspa. pers can thus mix and confuse right ant might is beyond us. We admit that tho question of secession is now a purely academic one. Nobody, so far as WI know, wants to again put 1t to the test and we cannot now conceive of any CIT cumstances which could or would require such an extreme remedy, but if, in tho future. the people of any State should unite in the determination to secede. they 1 will do so. They have precisely the samC right now that they had in 1861. The Government could force that State bacK just as it did the Confederate States, but that would settle nothing except as to the relative strengh of the two. There would still be no change in the matter of right. The Advertiser does not be- lieve that the secession of any State of the American Union could succeed, and Heaven knows we never wish to see an other attempt made, but we assert thai if the right of secession ever existed il still exists.
 Just what The Times Dispatch mean: by saying that "the Constitution, as amended. takes that right away from th' individual States is too hard for us. We have read and re-read that instrument as carefully as any one can and have not yet found any article ol amendment denying the right of seces. sion. nor is there anything in 1t 'as amended" which takes the right away from the individual States. So far as the Constitution of the United States Is con- cerned, the question Is just where 1t was forty or more years ago. The right Is there now, if it ever was, and we pre- sume that 1t will never be removed.
 As we have stated, the question Is now an academic one, and 1t may be a waste of time to discuss what we pray may never again be brought to the test, but why should we admit that a question ol right can be settled by force?
 -SS-
 Referring to an item in The Advertiser a few days ago about The Nashville News and MT. Olney. The Chattanooga News