Year: 1861

IN MS speech delivered on the Sd OF Janu-


ary, Senator Douglas said


"But we are told that secession is wrong


and that South Carolina had no right TO Sc


cede. l agree that it is wrong, unlawful, un-
constitutional, criminal In my opinion.
South Carolina had no right to secede but
she has done it. She has declared her inde-
pendenee of us, clIaced the last vestige of our
civil authority. established a foreign Govern
ment and is now engaged in the preliminary
steps to open diplomatic intercourse with the
great Powers of the world What next? If
her act was Illegal, unconstitutional and
wrong, have we no remedy? Unquestiona-
bly, we have the right to use all the power
and force necessary to regain possession of
that portion Of the United States, in order
that we may again enforce our Constitution
and laws upon the inhabitants. We can en-
force our laws in those States, Territories and
places only which are within our possession.
1t often happens that the territorial rights of
country extend beyond the limits of their
actual possessions. That is our case at pres
ent in respect to South Carolina. Our right
OF jurisdiction over that State for Federal
purposes, according to the Constitution, has
not been destroyed or impaired by the ordi-
nance of secession, or any act of the Conven-
tion, or of the dc Caoto Government. The
right remains, but the possession is lost for
the time being "How shall we regain the
possession ?" is the pertinent inquiry. 1t may
he done 10y arms, or by peaceable adjust
ment OF the matters in controversy"


Here Senator Douglas plainly tells us that
the Federal Government has the ril hit to
force South Carolina back to her allegiance if
1t be necessary TO use the force If she re-
mains out of the Union, it will only be through
the forbearance of the Federal Government
and so it will be with the other States which
have passed secession ordinances. We COM
mend the language of Senator Douglas TO the
consideration of the Express, which asserts
"thot the Democratic party has always de-
MED the right Of coercion" What kind of
coercion does it mean? The compelling of
insurreetionsts to obey the Federal authori-
ty2 If it denies this kind of coercion. then
II Is wonderfully behind the times Does it
deny the right to coerce State which has
declared itself Independent of the General
Government as in the ease of South Carolina?
If so, then we refer it to what Mr.. Douglas
says on the subject, since it loves so well to
quote him as its authority. Does it deny the
right of the Federal Government to coerce
State which is in the Union Nobody claims
that war can be made against State. as a
State, but that the citizens of such State NAV
be coereed may be made to obey the Feder-
al authority. Suppose that in one of the
Northern States there should be great up-
rising against the execution of the fugitive
slave law, and that it would require military
force to put it down. Would there be anv
power of coercion? We presume nobody
would deny it except those in rebellion. And
how would this power of coercion be used =?
1t would be exercised upon the individuals
(many or few in rebellion. There would be
no war made against the State as a State for
as each State is part Of the Federal Union,
the Federal Government could not make war
upon it without virtually making war upon
itself But when a State declares herself out
of the Union and Is out of the Union, as in
the case of South Carolina, war can be made
upon her as upon any foreign power The
right and the power of coercion rests with
this Government to protect its laws, and ex-
tends alike through each individual State
And when the citizens of any State defy the
Federal authority they are rebels, and the
Federal law acts upon them and not upon the
State.


So much fort light of coercion which the
Express says the Democratic party has al
ways denied.