The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-12-04
THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.

There are indications that among other
points of attack on President Roosevelts
policy in the Panama affair, the Democrats
viii attack him for recognizing the right
of secession. 1t would be queer operation
of the whirligig of time that should make
the surviving remnant of the party that
defended the secession of the Southern
States in 1861 the critic and censor on the
very same question of the party that prose-
cuted the war for the Union.
The charge against President Roosevelt
Is that his recognition Of the independence
of Panama was virtually recognition of
the right of secession, which was denied and
fought to a finish I'M 1s61-65. The Louisville
Courier-Journal voices this view by say
ing that president Roosevelt has not only
surrendered a doctrine, the establishment
of which drencned this country in the
blood of a four-years' war, but has gone
counter to the teachings of the great apostle
of the principles to which he is indebted
for his present title'
1t is true that Mr.. Lincoln denied the
right of State to secede from the Union
and made a strong argument against it in
his inaugural address, and again in his
first annual message. In the former he con-
Guided an elaborate argument on the ques-
ton by saying:
Plainly the central idea Of secession Is
the essence of anarchy. A majority held
in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations and always changing easily with
deliberate changes of popular opinions and
In fha mil
free people. Whoever expects 1t does OF
necessity fly to anarchy or to -despotism.
Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a
minority, as a permanent arrangement,
is wholly inadmissible; so that rejecting
the majoritys principle, anarchy or des-
potism in some form is all that is left.
The argument preceding this conclusion
was based on the Declaration Of Independ-
ence and the Constitution, and was in Mr.
an argument for Americans from an ex-
clusively American point of view and to
fit the case in hand. Mr.. Lincoln was not
trying to prove that the secession of a
state from an existing government was
| not defensible under any circumstances. If
he had succeeded in proving that, he would
| have condemned the American revolution
He was arguing that the Constitution OF
the United States made perpetual union
and that the secession of a State was
morally. politically and physically impos-
sible. He was formulating rule for the
American people. not for any other peo-
| pie. He discussed it as a domestic question
| and not as a general principle
| 1t is probable President Roosevelt will
allude to the subject in his annual message
to Congress, few days hence. He will be
able to show that the right of secession in
the abstract was not a matter for this gov
eminent to decide for other states or peo
pies. any more than their right of revolu
| ton, and that the course the government
] pursued toward the seeding States in 1856
did not furnish any precedent for its course
toward foreign state which has declared
its independence. Moreover, the people viii
| see that there were no such historic anC
constitutional obligations in the case o.
| Panama as there were in the other case
and that great national interests required
the prompt recognition of its independence
The Democratic party will not be able t.
| make an issue out Of that question.