The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1916-05-17


would be dissolution Of the Union.
and that 1t would Inc the right of all
and the duty Of Some to prepare for a
separation. peacibly IL they could,
forcihly II they must"
In 1914, when tine annexation of
Texas was under consideration, the
legislature of Massachusetts passed
this resolution: "1,he commonwealth
OF Massachusetts,. faithful to its COM
pact between the States, according to
the plain meaning and intent by which
It Is understood by them, is sincerely
anxious for Its preservation, but 1t is
determined. as 1t doubts not the other
States are. to submit undelegated pow-
ers to no body of men on earth, and
tho project of the annexation OF Tex
as, unless arrested on the threshold,
may tend to drive these States into a
dissolution of the Union"
Indeed. the right Of secession was
taught as ono of the reserved rights
(of the Stats at West Point by Chan
lceilor Rawle, and Charles Francis
Adams. "a typical bred -in-the-b
Yankee" as he describes himself to
be In his Centennial grafton on Lee,
says: Yet. when the National Con-
stitution was framed and adopted,
that question (the right of q State to
secede) was confessedly left undecid-
ed, and Intentionally so left; and more
than this. even, the Federal Con-
stttution was theoretically and
'|avowedly based on the idea of di-
vided sovereignty. In utter disregard
OF the fact that. when false issue is
j presented sovereignty does not permit
LOT division. Two whole generations
passed away between the adoption of
the federation constitution and tho
j War of Secession. When that war
y broke out in 1861 the last of the tram.
lers had been q sco~e Of years in his
grave, but evidence IS conclusive that
until the decennium between 1880 and
1870. the belief was nearly universal
that In case of final. unavoidable Is
sue soYereignty resided In the State,
and that to It allegiance was due"
The law was so laid down. in the
Kentucky Resolutions of 179S, and to
the law. as thus laid down, Daniel
4 Webster assented. This interpreta-
tion of the constitution was followed
by so unprecedented and acute for
eign observer as De Tocqueville, and
later by James Bryce of England
If further evidence is needed to
support the statement that the South
had the right to secede, 1t may be
J found In the following admission from
Henry Cabot Lodge. the distinguished
senator from Massachusetts,. He says:
When the constitution was adopted
by the votes of the States at Phila-
delphia. and accepted by the votes of
the States In popular convention, it
} is safe to say that there was not a
man In the country. from Washington
and Hamilton one the one side to
George Clinton and George Mason on
the other, who regarded the new con-
stitution as anything but an expert
ment entered into by the States, and
from which each and every State had
q right to withdraw"
But this doctrine of State sover-
leiSnty has later been affirmed by both
Republicans and Democrats 1t was
,reafiirmed by James @. Blaine when,
as Secretary of State. he took the po-
siton, when certain Italians in New
Orleans were murdered, that I.ouisi-
ana was a sovereign State and the
United States could not be made to
answer for her acts, and the doctrine
OF State sovereignty Is today live is.
sue In the State OF California, which
now MAINTAINS that the question OF
the immigration of the Japanese is
solely matter for the State of Cali
lfornia. to be dealt with In its sovereign
capacity. without Interference on the
part of the United States government.
Authorities might be multiplied,
hut those we have quoted ovcrwhelm-
ingly maintain the legal and moral
right of the South to withdraw from
the Union.
or course, We arc aware that this
Question Is now only academic; that
1t was settled by the arbitrament of
the sword, and against this settlement
we have now no word of complaint. Ii
Is important now only as 1t bears up
on the justice of the cause for which
the South sraled It's all and lost, and
II is important to keep these facts of
= hiAtOrY clearly In mind hecause IL