Year: 1860

rise distrust and jealousy Of each other,
and a scramble for the ascendancy. Now
that the Presidential election is over, and
an enemy of their section is chosen to rule
over them, we find all parties becoming
united against the common enemy, and pre-
pared to forget their past divisions, and u
mite in defence of their altars and 6resides.


There is no longer any jealousy on the
part of other resistance States toward South
Carolina; on the contrary, they all urge
her, by every consideration of duty and
patriotism, to lead the van in this noble
struggle for our violated rights. What
sublime moral spectacle is presented to
the world by our beloved State; small in
territory, with comparatively sparse popu-
lation, and without much military training,
yet relying upon the justice of her cause,
and the approving smile Of Heaven, she is
first among the foremost to sever her con-
nection with the Federal Government, and
to accept the consequences that may follow
her decision. I will not enter into an elabo-
rate argument to prove the right of State
peaceably to secede from the Union. 1t will
not be controverted that each State entered
the Union as State, and not as an unor-
ganized mass of individuals, and that the
action of each State was independent Of the
others, and if any proof ofthis fact be want
ing, it may be fouudin the action Of North
Carolina, which State did not euter the
Union until more than year after it was
formed by the admission of nine States,
which number was required by the Con-
vention that adopted the present Constitu-
ton of the United States.


1t is true that no provision is made in
the Constitution for dissolviug the Uuion,
and it is very probable that the patriots
who framed the instrument had no idea that
a loathsome fanaticism, paudered to by
Northern politicians, would ever make it
necessary for the safety of the South that
they should dissolve the compact on ac-
count of its violation by the other section
of the Confederacy, but it must be remem-
bered as rule of universal application, that
a violation of compact or agreement by
ore party releases the other party from its
binding obligation, and the only question
is, who is to judge of the infractioD. From
the very nature of the case, in compact
with sovereigns, there can be no umpire, un.
less one is provided by the instrument it,
self, and in the language of Mr.. Jefferson,
"each State must judge of the infractiou
and the mode and measure of redress" A
compact between sovereign States, with
the understanding that the majority should
put their construction upon its provisions
would not be worth the paper upon which
it was written. Majorites need no protec
ton, for they can protect themselves, bu'
minorities insist upon constitutions to re-
strain the majority and to allow it to put
its construction upon the compact, is equiv
alent to giving them the absolute power tt
govern the minority irrespective of any re-
straints.


The simple statement of the case is this
each State entered the Union under the
Constitution; the Federal Government is
the agent of the States, created for special
purposes, and circumscribed in its action
by the articles of agreement, or iu other
words the Constitution. Whenever the
States having the power to control this a,
gent, permit or command him to violate
the compact, each State, not having sur
rendered its sovereignty, has right to re-
monstrate or withdraw as she may think
proper, and no earthly power has the right
to prevent her.


1t is urged by some as an argument a.
gainst secession, that the existing Govern,
ment would be destroyed by State seced.
ing; that the revenue laws would become
imperative, and the wheels of Government
stand still. My answer is this, that in the
exercise of an updoubted right, and being
forced to exercise it by the party that is
likely to suffer, it cannot complain of the
consequences of its own acts. If South
Carolina secede, the Government will be in
no worse condition, except for very short
time, than it would have been if South
Carolina had never entered the Union,
which it is acknowledged on all hands, she
was not bound to do.


The idea that majority must always
govern, which has taken possession of the
Nothern mind, is as mischievous, as it is
fallscious, and is contradicted by all the
analogies of q republican government. If a
mere majority is to govern, why have two
houses of Congress-a Senate and House of
Representatives Why give the President
the veto power? Why submit the action
of all three to judicial tribunal? Why re-
quire juries to be unanimous 10 giving their
verdict? The conclusion is irresistible that
it is for the protection of mluorities and
the safety Of the citizen. may be asked
if a minority should govern My answer
is, no: but they should be able, by consti-
tutional restrictions, to restrain the majori-
ty from acts Of injustice and oppression.
In the copartnerships formed by individu-
ais, the majority is not permitted to con-
strue the articles of agreement to the injury
of the minority, but in this case there is
disinterested tribunal to decide the ques.
ton. In compact between States, from
the nature of the case, there can be no tri.
bunal to decide violations of it, and the
remedy must be dissolution of the agree
ment, without any right on the part of the
majority of the States to prevent the with