Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-05-11


zen of the Union the right to go into
certain common territory Of the Union,
the common property Of all, as we have
heretofore remarked. And thus we see,
as the voting power OF the northern
states increased, the evidence OF their
to curtail southern rights
despite the terms Of the agreement
binding the states.
Again, see the injustice done the
south in the settlement Of the matter
of the admission of Texas and Califor-
mia into the Union as states.
Realizing that the application OF the
doctrine OF rule OF the Missouri Com
promise would enure to northern gain
In the case of Texas no trouble was
found in the settlement Of that ques-
ton, but when in the case Of Califor-
MIA, the south as a matter OF equity
and I'm order to ensure a period or
peace to the country proposed the
adoption Of the same rule, the north
was opposed to 1t for the simple reason
that she would be the loser by reason
thereof.
Despite the plain provisions Of Art.
w. Sec. 2, to which We have referred,
how can we view with anything short
of amaZemsnt the enactment or four
teen nom slave holding states OF the
notorious Personal Liberty Laws" by
which the officials of those states were
prohibited from rendering assistance
in the reclaiming of fugitive slaves.
Contemplate for q moment the storm
of abuse that almost overwhelmed that
august tribunal when the supreme
court of the United States, the final ar
bitter under the constitution Of all the
questions at issue, rendered the famous
Dread Scott decision by the terms or
which they declared the famous Mis-
souri, Compromise unconstitutional,
that a slave did not obtain his liberty
by being taken by his master into the
common territory Of the Union, ana
that the constitution distinctly In
terms recognized the right OF property
in slaves. Nearly every proposition Tor
which the south had so long and Wig
orously contended we see thus al
firmed and confirmed by the highest
court I'm the land, and yet In spite OF
this we also see the Republican party
in it's platform OF 1860 declaring that
decision heresy and expressing Its most
profound contempt for 1t.
Further and again, what Of the pro-
lection Of our rights was the south to
expect when we hear the great leader
of that party, Lincoln, declaring that
"the Union cannot permanently en-
dure, half slave and half Free" and
again when he denies to the south the
right 70 peaceably withdraw from the
Union? The answer Is plain-that the
north proposed to abolish slavery, right
or wrong, and that the south had to
stay in the Union. Be 1t said to their
credit conservative men In the north
used every influence to a peaceable
solution Of the many problems that
darkened the political horizon, ana that
seemed to lower as dark cloud threat
ening at any moment to break In
torrent Of blood and carnage. But 1t
seemed that the fates were sealed, and
at last the south realized 1t had the
choice Of three things, either to submit
to wrong, to seek the enforcement OF
her rights within the Union by force
OF arms, or else to withdraw from the
Union.
The first alternative being utterly
repugnant to Anglo-Sa civilization
was not considered for a moment, the
second was repudiated by the south as
In plain violation of the very spirit that
prompted the formation of the Union,
so that nothing was left for the south
but withdrawal from the Confederation
Of states. DoeJ not the adoption OF this
latter course by the south commend It
self to the wisdom and love OF liberty
and justice and peace which every man
hopes for and longs to see obtain? do
not the laws Of God commend that
course? Did not the rights Of the
states under the constitution COM
mend the action of our fathers In this
respect? The first effort to organize
national government found its consum-
nation in the Articles Of Confedera-
ton and Perpetual Union" adopted by
eleven Of the original thirteen colonies
in 1778, and we see from the terms OF
this agreement that this agreement
land the articles thereof shall be In
violably observed by the states We res
pectively represent: and that the Union
shall be perpetual" Now in the face
Of this plain and unequivocal declara-
tion and agreement, the states In part
realizing that this union did not pro-
mote the general welfare and secure to
themselves and their posterity the
blessings Of life, liberty. and property
(the purpose of all government delib-
erately set about to establish another
government with the concurrence OF
nine of the thirteen original states.
Will we not agree that such a course
was not only right, but entirely proper
under the circumstances. and can 1t be
said that IL nine of the states could
thus withdraw from a perpetual union
that the southern states, when the pur-
poses for which the government had
been formed had been utterly subver-
ted, might not do likewise?
The answer is to be found In the
broad doctrine that when one Of two
T arties violates q contract the other Is
9 osolved from further performance
thereof, and II there be no higher ar
bitter Of the question Of a violation OF
the agreement than the parties them
selves each must then decide for him
self. This doctrine was held so dear
and essential to the liberties Of the peo-
pie that had II not been distinctly un-
derstood by the various parties to the
adoption of the Federal constitution
and the right Of state sovereignty pre-
served to the states, 1t is doubtful II
the present government would ever
have been organized. Just at this point
ii might be we'll to understand that
this principle was adhered to by states
in all parts Of the Union, and we find
that prior to 1860 the right to secede
was declared seven times, six times by
northern states, and once by South
Carolina. Listen to what the great
Webster said on the subject In 1851:
In a speech at Capon Springs, va.
In 1851 he said In part:
Il have not hesitated to say, and
repeat that II the northern states re-
fuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry
into effect that part Of the constitution
which respects the restoration Of fugi-
tive slaves, and congress provide nc
remedy, the south would no longer be
bound to observe the compact. A
bargain cannot be broken on one side
and still bind the other side."
Could language be more simple and
logic be more forceful, and coming as
1t did from that great statesman does
ii not carry great weight?
But observe, II you please, how the
national government was practically
committed to this principle. An exam
ination Of that splendid work: "Rawle
on the Constitution" taught to Jeffer-
son Davis at the National Military
academy at West Point, lays down the
following doctrine:
If faction should attempt to sub
vert the government of a state for the
purpose of destroying its republican
form. the national power Of the Union
could be called forth to subdue 1t. Yet
1t Is not to be understood that its in
terposition would be justifiable IL a
state should determine to retire from
the Union.
1T depends on the state itself wheth-
er 1t will continue a member Of the
Union. To deny this right would be
with the principle on which
all our political systems are founded,
which ia that the DeODle I'm all cases