Year: 1860




TnE New York Times, which takes the groun
distinctly, and argues it ably, that State has n


right to secede from the Union, thus frankly state


the effect of the doctrine:


1T is become clearly apparent that If any one o


several States of this Union, by the unanimou
voice of their people, desire to secede from th
Union, we believe there are Gow who wot Id inss


on holding them conquered provinces. Their


would, in that case, cease to be a union of equa


States, and in its place we should have consoli


dated Government, resting on force for its main


tainance"


The conclusion Of the Times can neither be dis


puted ner doubted. We respectfully ask them, i


it is probable our fathers in forming this Union


intended By the Constitution to authorize any sucl


procedure as would destroy the equality Of tht


States, and institute instead consolidated govern
ment, resting on force for it's maintainance. They
say just as the Times now secs, and as any person
can see, thatit would be no more fatal to the Un
ion, to permit State to go in peace; if it was SO
determined, than to retain it by force and hence
they made no provision on the subject trusting
for the permanence Of the Union to the perpetual
force of the same principles, which brought the
Union together. No State was Obliged to come


into the Union. Tho inducement of sef-intorest
was presetted to them to enter and it was calcu-
lated with confidence that the same motives which
brought them there, would keep them. But if the
bond fail if condition of things arises which
makes it no longer the interest of State to remain
in the Union, we must either let it 60, or we must
destroy the Union, erect a federal despotism in its
stead, and by that means conquer the State and
compel it as q subjugated province to pay tribute
and remain. We defy the acutest philosopher to
discover any other result of tho doctrine which
demands that State should be conquered to re-
main in the Union


In all the discussions Of this question in the
negative, none that we have seen meet the real
point at issue. They are conclusive of the difficult
ties and evils Of secession but the deduction that
because of these difficulties and evils State has
not the right of sovereignty or secession is scarce
ly sound, in our judgment. 1t is most true
that the Constitution requires the President to en-
force the laws in and upon all the States of the
Union, but the deduction that because Of this au-
thority he is required to compel State to remain
in the Union for the purpose of enforcing the laws
On it, is unwarranted. We are told that State
cannot secede because of the practical difficulties
shat beset secession, Very good. These practical
difficulties occasioning almost if not quite an i'm
possibility of secession, only 90 to prove that com
pulsion is not necessary to compel State to re-
main in the Union, and was probably never in
tended. 1t has doubtless been noticed that South
Carolina ran against snag in her disunion pro-
gress. the moment she began to discuss the ques-
lion OF ways and means" And SO it will ever be.


The President must and will enforce the laws
lpon every State in the Union, and we Apprehend
sny State seeking the way out of the Union. will
ind difficulties, if not mposslbilites, in its path
more potent than any coercive measures to resrain
Is desires.- Wisconsin Free Democrat.