LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 012 025 936 2 HoUinger pH8.5 Mill Run F3-1955 1860 Association. I Tract. Uo. 2. / STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND TOE DOCTRINE OF COERCION, BY THE HON. WM. D. POETER- TOGETHER WITH A LETTER ' E 440 .P82 ^ Copy 2 HON. J. K. PAULDING. FOURIER SEC. OF NAVY. THE RIGHT TO SECEDE BY S T A. T E S." ^S Read and send to your Neighbor, "^^gr \ 1- l-ll STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND THE I DOCTRINE OF COERCION. To THE Men of the South: The recent speech of Mr. Douglas at Norfolk, in which he threatened the Southern States with military coercion in the event of secession, ought to startle and arouse the people of those States, like the blast of a liostile trumpet at midnight! The time, the place, and the circumstances under which this threat was uttered, give the last rinish to its audacity and sanguinary significance! The election of Lincoln is now well nigh certain. Nothing short of a miracle can prevent it. Lincoln is the chief and expo- nent of a party that is purely sectional — a party that has no foot- hold or resting place south of a geographical line, precisely separating the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. In fifteen Slates of the Union it has no countenance or recognition. The avowed object of this sectional party in seeking power, is to inaugurate and establish a policy in the government hostile to the peace and safety of the slave States, derogatory to their honor, and ultimately subversive of their whole social polity; in a word, to proscribe them and put them under the ban of the govern- ment, with a view to their demoralization and ultimate ruin. This is their great, if not their sole, bond of union. Of course, some are animated by fanaticism, some by the hope of spoils, some by the lust of power, some by one motive, and some by another; but the principle of union, the cement, the thing that bands the party together and keeps it together, is hatred of sla- very and slaveholders — a bitter, malignant, calculating hatred; and a settled determination to use all the powers and agencies of government to dishonor, cripple and destroy them. The powers and agencies of government / Consider it for a moment in this point of view. If there be any virtue in government, it consists in justice, equality and the duly of protection. Its proper func- tions, in reference to its own citizens or subjects, are those of peace and security. It is intended as a sliield, not as a sword ; as a dispenser of blessings, not as a scatterer of curses. What do you, M'hat can you, think of that government wliich, forgetting its own nature, abandoning its proper duty, and perverting to the purposes of annoyance and destruction what was intended for the most kindly and beneficent action, shall deliberatelj'^ and avow- edly employ its resources and its powers to promote discord, to stir up sedition, to rend the country asunder, and array one part of it in mortal hatred against another — to proclaim and inaugur- ate between the institutions of one section and those of the other an irrepressible conflict., which must inevitably lead to issues of life and death, and can terminate only in subjugation 'on one hand or disruption on the other! And what are those powers and resources? The purse and the sword — the revenue, the mail, the army and the navy! Money which is called the sinews of war — and the army and navy, which have been aptly styled the talons of national power! These resources, drawn from the bosom of tile country, to be turned against it for the purpose of rending, subduing and crushing it ! Have you pondered well what it is to have the Avhole power of a great government like ours, civil as well as military, in the cabinet as well as the field, legislative, executive and perhaps judicial, systematically directed to your injury and oppression? The appeal is to you, men of the South! I know you have thought of it, but I fear you have not measured it in all its length and breadth and depth. You have thought of it speculatively; but you ha\e not yet been called to feel, by experience, the iron hand of a hostile government laifl upon you in deadly earnest. When you shall have felt it, your day of safety will have been Avell nigh spent. Ireland could tell you a tale ! and Poland and Italy ! and from Italy you may yet learn another and a nobler lesson ! Are not the designs of the Republican Party aggressive, hos- tile, and deadly? I say of the Party, for as long as these designs were confined to individuals, although insulting and mischievous, they could not aspire to any great dignity or consequence. But since they have been adopted and proclaimed by a great sectional party embracing a majority of the States of the Union, and that party is about to be called, by the popular voice, to assume the responsibilities and %vield the entire power of the national gov- ernment, it is abundant time, (if indeed it be not too late,) for the weaker and the menaced section, to anticipate the coming blow, to repudiate the degrading domination-, and taking counsel of its courage and its hopes, rather than of its fears, to resume into its own hands, the means of safety, and the control of its destinies for the future. And because the people of some of the Southern Stales, in view of an exigency of so great peril, have dared to discuss their grievances and their remedy, and have announced their determination not to be made the subjects and slaves of a consolidated despotism, Mr. Douglas has thoujrht proper to put foward his veto and liis threat! Not a Bhiclf Republican! from such it would have been in perfect keeping, and although it min-jii have excited indignation, would not have occasioned sur- prise. But Mr. Douglas^ a Democrat, the professed friend of the South and Southern^ rights, standing on tlie soil of Virginia consecrated by the birth and triumph of the true State Rights doctrines, has proclaimed in the face of a portion of her people, his hope that " the President, whoever he may be, would treat ^ attempts to break up the Union, by resistance to its laws, as Old Elickorv treated the nuUifiers in 18'32," and his deiermina-. tion'to sustain <' with all his energy," the President in so doing. If the genius of the proud Old Dominion looked down upon the scene in which this insultinof bravado was greeted by some of her own sons with "applause"" and "cheers," how must she have bowed her head in sorrow and shame at the degeneracy of her children ! If Mr. Douglas was bold, defiant, and m'^nacing, how- supple and submissive were his liear'^rs 1 He threatened a sover- eign State with coercion ; timj, the citizens of a sovereign State that was the nursing mother of the right of secession, and has maintained it without question for over sixty years, received the threat of chastisement, not only without a murmur, but with man- ifestations of delight. Shade? of Henry, of Mason, and of Jeffer- son ! vvhere has 5'our spirit fled— how have your teachings been despised? This is, indeed, to kiss the hand and the rod that are uplifted to smite*! But is it legally and constitutionally true, that a State cannot withdraw from the Union, (however urgent the causes,) without incurring the pt^nalty of being coerced into submission? If her honor and safety demand a separation from the federal govern- ment, has she so parted with the control over her own internal life and destiny, as to be powerless in her own behalf, nerveless for her own defence? Has she stripped herself so bare, and bound herself so fast, that no attribute of sovereignty remains to her fof the protection of the property, liberties and lives of her cit-zens within her own limits, against the avowed hostility of a Federal Union, which has a-^sumed its worst and most dangerous form — that of a sectional domination, animated by fanaticism and the lust of spoils and power? These are grave questions, and upon their solution the very existence of the Southern States may be said 10 depend. At Norfolk, Mr. Douglas had no hesitation in saying that he would advise and vindicate resistance to '* //ic Southern States," it they undertook to secede from the Union upon the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. At .Tones' Wood, near New York, he attempted to explain or qualify, by drawing a distinction between a State, and the citizens of a State. The distinction between cit- izens acting .vithout the authority of their State, and citizens acting not only wFth the authority but under the mandate of their Statu IS just and well founded ; but this is not the one recognized by Mr. Douglas. He says that a State cannot commit treason against the Federal Government, but that her citizens may. What a pitiful evasion ! This is his concession to State Rights ! Who ever supposed that the State, as an abstraction, could commit treason; could be tried, condemned, and executed! The whole question is whether or not the State can release her citizens from their obligations to the federal authority, and protect them under the sufficient shield of her own sovereign authority! This is the right which Mr. Douglas absolutely denies, except in the way of revolution; but which Herschel V. Johnson, his colleague on the presidential ticket, has said, is "the last and only hope of the South." If there be such a right, then the States are sovereign and independent; if there be not, then they are amalgamated and fused down, hopelessly and helplessly, into one government and one people. In the one case the government is a union of States founded upon good will, confidence and afiection ; in the other it is a consolidated despotism, to be held together by the sword and the bayonet. In the one case, the States have in their own hands the right and the power of peaceable redress for intolerable wrongs; in the other, they must wade to it through blood and slaughter. It behooves the South, as the weaker section, (when the government is about to become purely sectional,) to see that she does not surrender or compromise a right which will be her only hope of salvation, unless she rises in her inight and rends the Union into fragments. The people that cannot or will not protect themselves — that are not sufficient to their own proiection, are already no better than slaves. They have their masters; and their property, their liberties and their lives are no longer in their own keeping. Their doom is sealed, and it is a doom of infamy ! And what is worst of all, they will have invited and deserved it ! Our doctrine is that the States, before the adoption of the Con- stitution, were sovereign and independent; that the Federal Union is a union of States, and that the Constitution is a covenant or compact between them and the fundamental law of their Union; and that inasmuch as the covenant or compact was between sover- eigns, and there is no umpire or common interpreter between them, each has the right to judge for itself of infractions of the contract, and to determine for itself the mode and measure of redress. If these premises be true, it results from the sovereign charac- ter of the States and from the nature of the compact of union, that any State, which conceives herself aggrieved beyond endurance, may, at her sovereign will and pleasure, shake off the bonds of a broken covenant and seek her safety in a separate nationality ; and that the true and only check on the capricious or unwise exer- cise of this great sovereign right, is to be found in the condition of isolation and comparative weakness to which she will expose 7 V herself in so doing. Of the prudence and expediency of this last resort, her people must judge for themselves and their posterity, under the gravest and most solemn responsibilities that can be devolved upon them. But they will so judge, feeling and knowing that there can be no greater calamity llian a voluntary submission to tyranny. No fact in our political history is more certain than that the thirteen colonies began the contest with Great Britain as distinct communities, and came out of it severally sovereign and indepen- dent States. Even the articles of confederation, which was a mere league, offensive and defensive, was not ratified by any ot the States until three years after the beginning of the war, and two years after the Declaration of Independence; and it was three years more before it was ratified by all of them. Any colony might have declined to enter upon the revolution. Upon the Declaration of Independence, each became dejure an independent and sovereign State, and upon the acknowledgment thereof each became sovereign and independent de facto as well as de jure. Whether small or great, they were severally States or nations, and had their separate local governments in full and efficient operation. And each or any of them might have continued in a condition of separate nationality to this day, according to its own will and pleasure, subject only to the hazards and vicissitudes to which all nations are subject. A second fact is, that each State adopted the Constitution ot 1787 for herself, and would not and could not have been bound by it, except through the action of a Convention of her own people. The seventh Article says, " the ratification of the Conventions ot nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Consti- tution between the States so ratifying the same.'^ In point of fact, two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify, until some time after the other eleven ; and it was in their option, as it was in the option of each and every State, to have refrained from so doing altogether. A third fact to be noted is, that the Union created by the Con- stitution, was between States or nations, co-equal in all the essen- tial attributes of Sovereignty. Thirteen distinctive States, (each a nation, however small or weak,) loosely held together by a league offensive and defensive, agreed to form between themselves '* a more perfect Union ;" and to that end ordained a Constitution for the "United States, of America." This phraseology is in utter contradistinction to what would be employed for the purpose of describing the fusion or consolidation of one collective people. A Union of independent and sovereign bodies implies ex vi termini, a league, an alliance, a partnership : and the Constitution adopted by them for that purpose, is the compact or fundamental law of the league or partnership. After all, whatever shape this controversy may assume, it comes back at last to the old question between centralism and State 8 Rights ; between a consolidated nation, and a confederated Repub- lic of Republics. The political facts above stated furnish the key to the whole controversy ; and it is only by losing sight of them, that any real question can be raised. All States are sover- eign, and when they deal with each other, they deal only as sovereigns. There is no such thing as Sovereignty in any political machinery. Government is simply an agency or instrumentality, and it is the people of States that make and unmake governments. When States or peoples make a government, they delegate the necessary powers and authorities : but delegated power is never sovereign, for sovereign power is inherent, original, and self- existent. The people that govern themselves in their affairs, domestic and foreign, either separately or in common with others, through chosen agents, and by delegated authorities, have not parted with their sovereignty, and are still in fact and in truth a nation. The powers of the State governments, as well as the powers of the Federal government, are derived from the peoples of the States respectively. These peoples are the creators — and the governments are the things created : the former are the prin- cipals, the latter are the agents or functionaries. Is it not passing strange that ideas should be so confounded, and the order of things so perverted as that the inferior should be placed above the superior; the changeal)le and fluctuating above the permanent and fixed ; the thing made above the power which made and can unmake ? It is a common error to suppose that the delegation of what is recognized as a part of sovereign power, makes the recipient a sovereign, and derogates in the same degree from the sovereignty of the bestower. Towns and cities exercise sovereign powers, as, for example, that of taxation ; but is the town or city the sover- eign, or the State rather that gives them their charters and can revoke them at will ? And, on the other hand, is any State or nation the less sovereign because, for a time, and for its own pur- poses, it has conferred these high faculties upon local govern- ment agencies ? So long as these faculties or powers are exer- cised by delegation, in its behalf and for its convenience and benefit, the State or nation is self-governing, because it acts through its chosen agents; and is unimpaired in its essential attributes of sovereignty, because so soon as shorn of these, it ceases to be a State. Nor does the principle vary at all whether the delegation has been made to a municipal government, a State government or a federal government ; whether it has been made in a separate or in a confederated form of polity, or in both com- bined. The United States Government derived its being and its powers from precisely the same source that the local governments did, to wit : from the peoples of the States respectively. ' There is no mysticism about its origin. It can claim no higher birth — no more dignified ancestry. Nor has it any divine right wherewith to hedge itself about, except so far as the voice of many peoples is 9 the voice of God. It is of limited powers and for specified pur- poses; its ran2:e is circumscribed; there are many things which it cannot do, and what it can do, it does in the name and by the authority of the States that called it into existence. Whatever of power it has, is derived from others, and is held in trust for others; and it is, therefore, in no proper sense of the word, sovereig7i. We may safely assume, then, that the States were sovereign and independent before tliey adopted i\\e CoTistitution and entered into the Union. Have they ceased to be so, by their participa- tion in the formation of ihe federal government ? The people of the United States live under two systems of government: a system of local government for internal purposes, and of general government for external purposes. And in form- ing the one as well as the other, they establish Constitutions ; and out of these constitutions sprung the governments, which are nothing more than public trusts or agencies. What then is a Con- stittdion? According to the American understanding, it is a written instrument duly authenticated, specifying the powers and functions delegated for the purposes of government, and defining the extent and limitations of the same. By wliom was the Constitution of the United States prepared ? By the States through their delegates in convention, at Philadelphia. To whom Was it submitted ? To the States, separately and respectively, to be approved or rejected by them in their respective conventions, each acting for itself. Upon or between whom was it to be obligatory? We answer, in the very words of the 7th Article of the instru- ment itself, already quoted : " Between the States so ratifying the same.'' By whom was it actually ratified? By ihe peoples of the several States assembled in their respective conventions. It is clear, then, that the parties to this instrument — call it covenant, compact, treaty, constitution, or what we will — were States, sov- ereign and co-equal ; and that it must be subject to the same tests and governed by the same rules which apply to all other com- pacts or engagemeats between sovereigns. From the imperfection of lans^uage and the ingenuity of the human mind, such an instrument as the Federal Constitution must be liable, in the nature of things, and in good faith, to a diversity of interpretations, as to the extent and limitations of the powers granted or reserved. Wiio, then, is to be the final judge — the common arbiter? The Constitution itself does not name any, so far as relates to political questions — the partition lines of power between the States and the General Government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends only to ''cases in law and equity," and to parties who are amenable to the process of the court ; it embraces judicial, not political questions — for there are modes of oppression and usurped power which, under our forms of law, could never be drawn within the cognizance of that department. But the conclusive answer is, that although 10 the proposition was frequently and distinctly submitted in the Convention, to make the Supreme Court "the tribunal to decide in doubtful cases," it did not prevail in any form, and never became a part of the Constitution. Attention was expressly directed to the matter, and some leading members manifested great anxiety because no tribunal had been provided to determine finally in controverted cases between the two Governments. The question then recurs — who, in the absence of any express constitutional provision, is to judge, in the last resort, between the contracting parties? The only true and sufficient answer is to be found in the rule applicable to Sovereigns. Each must hidge for himself. Sovereigns have no superiors : each is equal to the other. Honor and good faith are their only bonds. An engagement between them broken in part, is broken in whole ; and the party injured is released from all obligations. No Sov- ereign who believes and declares that a covenant has been vio- lated can rightfully be required to observe it longer. Even Mr. Webster, who will hardly be suspected of too strong a leaning towards State Rights, used the following language in his Capon Spring's speech, in 1851 : '' I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. Jl bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all sides." Let it not be supposed for a moment that the States are less than sovereign in consequence of the adoption of the Constitution and the formation of the government. A voluntary delegation of power in trust does not derogate from sovereignty; nor does any compact, treaty or alliance. States frequently enter into engage- ments with each other of the most solemn character and under the gravest sanctions, whereby they impose upon themselves restrictions and prohibitions; but no person at all conversant with such matters, ever supposed that they became thereby a whit the less independent or sovereign nations. A striking illus- tration is to be found in the articles of confederation. Each State expressly reserved therein " its sovereignty, freedom and independence," and at the same time, all pledged themselves that the articles should be inviolably observed by every State, and that the Union should be perpetual. It is clear tliat they did not consider the preservation of their sovereignty and independence at all inconsistent with the obligations of even a perpetual union; and we do not suppose a doubt was ever anywhere entertained but that it was competent for any one of them, upon cause deemed sufficient by itself, to withdraw from the Confederation and determine the Union. Nor is there anything in the present Con- stitution to prevent the exercise of the same high and sovereign right on the part of any aggrieved Slate, whenever her grievan- ces shall become, in her deliberate judgment, no longer tolerable. 11 There is a theory that we are one nation — one consolidated people; and hence the ideas of tlie indissolubility of tlie Union, and of tile right to coerce a refractory member. If this be so, is it not singular that we have no distinctive name of identity as a nation. We call ourselves in common parlance Americans ; and yet we are no more Americans than any and all of tlie other peo- ples of the continent, North and Soutii. The Canadians are Ameri- cans as well as ourselves, but still they have their distinctive national title; and so of the Mexicans, 'the Columbians, the Peruvians, and every other State or Nation on the continent. "We were certainly not so poor, but that we could afford ourselves a baptismal name. It would have cost nothing, and would certain- ly have nationalized us, if there had been any such design. It is believed that Dr. Franklin did suggest the name o( Fredonia, but it is certain that the suggestion was not accepted. The constitu- tion calls us the "United States of America," or by inversion the " States United of America,'" the very title by which we were called under the old confederation, when nobody has ever pre- tended that we were one nation, and certainly the most descrip- tive and appropriate title that could be applied to a confederacy of sovereign States in contradistinction to a consolidated nation, of which individuals are the constituent members, and States only the districts or provinces. Kossuth, whose political insight is the fiash of genius, and whose mastery over language is almost a miracle, displayed a more intimate and profound knowledge of our system than half of our native-born politicians and statesmen, when he characterized us, not as a nation, but as a " Conftderats Hepublic of Republics." Look through the Constitution, and you will not find from begin- ning to end, from the preamble to the clause of execution, one sin- gle national phrase, idea, or epithet. The States are the dramatis personoe, the actors in the scene, the figures that stand out in dis- tinguished, nay, in almost exclusive prominence. The govern- ment, the Congress, the Treasury, the President and the Vice- President, are all of the ''United States." The citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. The United States guaranty to each State a republican form of government. Fugitives from crime or from service in any one State are to be delivered up. And the whole was "done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present." Instances might be multiplied ; but these will suffice, in the absence of any one of an opposite character, to show that the whole scheme was federal, and not national ; and that the States were recognized as being " not the fractions of a unit, but the integers of a multiple." But the Union is indissoluble ! This is the catch word of poli- ticians, and the standing theme of declamation for Hail Columbia and Star Spangled Banner travelling orators ! And it is received with immense'enthusiasm by those who find the Union a good 12 thing, and are naturally reluctant to lose its benefits. People who wish to believe, never require much reason for their belief. If this idea of the indissolubility of the Union means anything, it means that a dissolution of the Union cannot be brought about in any other way than through the action of the people collect- ively, with or without arms in their hands; that there is no prac- ticable way in which the States, as sovereign members of the Union, can quietly and peacefully accomplish that result. If ours were a consolidated popular government, such would undoubtedly be the case. Let us bring it, then, to the test, and see whether there is any mode or process whereby the States or some of them, in their corporate capacity, and irrespective of the people collec- ively, can arrest the action of the government, and so dissolve the Union. By the Constitution, the Senate of the United Slates is composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legis- lature thereof; and each Senator has one vote. This provision was intended to illustrate the equality of the States as indepen- dent communities ; for in the Senate, Rhode Island is as potent as NeAV York. Now suppose that a majority of the States, the least populous, if you please, and representing but a small minority of the aggregate popular vote, should refuse through their legislatures or their conventions to choose Senators to Con- ore ss ; and that the executives of such States should in obedience to the will of their people respectively, decline to make temporary appointments. What would be the result? There would be no Senate — and consequently, no Congress, because " the Congress of the United States shall consist of a Senate and House of Rep- resentatives," and "a majority of each House shall be a quorum to do business." These are not mere rules of procedure, but constitutional provisions. In the ^case supposed, the legislative powers of the Union would cease to have an abiding place ; and the government be reduced to a state of utter prostration. Here is no levying of war or shedding of blood; and no regard what- soever to the people of the United States in their aggregated or consolidated character. All is done by States, and done quietly and effectively. Does not this amount to moral demonstration that the States in their separate capacities, and without any regard to popular numbers, can refuse to participate in the gov- ernment, by withholding their representation, and so, by a single stroke of peaceful, sovereign action, reauce it, at once, to a caput mortuiim! What sort of coercioji would be applicable to such a case of treason to the Union ? W^ould the Sergeant at Arms summon the States to the bar of the Senate? And by what process could he compel the attendance of members who had not been appointed? Who would coerce, and whence would come the sinews of war, without a Congress? It is too plain for argument, that the government would be at a stand, and in the event of the persistence of the States, at an end. What a delusion is this idea tlaat the Union is indissoluble, or that it cannot be dis- 13 solved, except by a revolution of the people in mass, or what is the SHtne thing, by force of arms ! , n ■ Mr. Webster, in his controversy with Gen. Hayne, and Presi- dent Jackson in his famous proclamation against South Carolina, laid great stress upon the allegations that the Constitution created a government proper, and that it established direct relations between this government and the individual citizens of the States. There is a class of statesmen in this country who, although they do not acknowledge it, believe implicitly in the divine right of the government, just as prerogative men in the old world believe in the right divine of Kings. And whenever an opportunity occurs, as in lb32, 1851, or 1860, the cloven foot shows itself. They clamor for State rights; but they are the advocates of force and the champions of the inviolability of the Union. There can be no doubt that government is an institution of divine origin ; but this is very far trom implying that any particular government or form of o-overnment is either sacred or necessary. Government consists of I'unctions, and functionaries — of law making, law expound- ing and law executing departments ; but far above these, the amhorand parent of all these, is the Constitution-making power— the power of the people or peoples that ordained both the Consti- tution and the government. How hard it is to make such persons realize the idea that government is only a trust — an agency;— not an end, but a rheans to an end. Its pomp and ceremonial, its imposing exhibitions of power dazzle and betray them. They look upon it as self-existing and self-sustaining. They cannot or will not lake it home to their understandings, and keep it there, as an elementary eternal truth, that however it maybe elsewhere, here, at least, in these United Slates, government is servant, not sovereign ; that its symbols and insignia are a borrowed plumage; and that its faculties and functions, — its armies and navies, and treasuries and tribunals, all belong, not to its administrators or functionaries, or any ideal entity or entities, but to those who fashioned and delegated them, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of liberty forever. Whatever may have been the source or origin of other govern- ments, we know that the peoples of these Slates, each for them- selves, made the government of the United Stales ; and it is impos- sible to escape the logical inference and conclusion that the same sovereign parlies who delegated the powers and established the relations, may, each for themselves, and not for others, recall and annul them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were instituted. It may be said that if one party has a right to judge of infrac- tions, all the other parlies have the same right. This is con- ceded, but the concession does not carry with it the right of the government to compel obedience to its authority by force of arms. Who are the other parties ? The government if the United States 14 did not make itself, nor did it have any hand in making itself; it had nothing to do with the formation or ratification of the Consti- tution ; it is only a result of the Constitution. As the States, by their peoples, severally and not collectively, adopted the Consti- tution ; so must they each individually and upon their own respon- I sibility, judge of infractions. One State for some alleged breach '" may declare the compact at an end, so far as relates to herself, and choose secession as her mode and measure of redress ; another State or States, denying the alleged breach, may declare war to enforce the observance of the compact. But the State that secedes becomes ipso facto a separate power, and, therefore the war that is declared against her by her former co-States becomes like any other war between sovereigns. It is an international war ; nothing more, nothing less. States and nations have the right of making war with each other, and are responsible only to the tribunal of public opinion. But this is a different thing from the right of a King or an Emperor to reduce to subjection an insurgent prov- ince, or an integral part of his dominions in insurrection. The government of the United States has no such kingly or imperial prerogative. Even in the case of the American revolution, which was that of revolting colonies against the autliority of the mother country, those taken in arms, were treated not as traitors or rebels, but as prisoners of war. From what part of the Constitution is derived the right and authority to coerce a State that may, through a convention of her people, withdraw herself from the Union as her only means of safety, and her refuge from intolerable oppression? It is said that it is the duty of the President to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." These words, it is true, are in the Consti- tution ; and upon these words the great power in question is founded. But this is to beg the question — to assume the whole matter in controversy. I have already spoken of the distinction between the action of a sovereign State and the action of unau- thorized combinations of individuals. So long as a State recogni- zes the authority of the Union, her citizens have no choice but to obey the laws of the United States ; but, if according to our view, she may rightfully secede, then, upon the exercise of that right, her relations with the Union are terminated, her delegated author- ities are resumed, and the laws of the United States are, within her territorial limits, of no more virtue or binding efficacy, than the laws of any other foreign nation whatsoever. But have Ave no historical proofs or evidences on this point of the power to dragoon a State? It could hardly be supposed that a matter of such magnitude would altogether escape the attention of the convention of 1787; and in point of fact it did not escape attention. The journals show that the 6lh resolution of Eduiund Randolph's propositions, provided that the federal executive should have power "to call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union, failing to fulfil his duties under the arti- 15 cles thereof." And Mr. Patterson, also, in tlie 7th Resolution of his propositions, after making acts and treaties the suprenne law, provided as follows : "And if any State, or body of men in any Slate, shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution such acts or treaties, the federal executives shall be aulliorized to call forth the powers of the Confederated States, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to compel obedience to such acts, or an observ- ance of such treaties." In both of these instances, the convention was distinctly invited to authorize the employment of the force or powers of the Union against any State or member of the Union, that should fail to fulfil its duty, or oppose or prevent the execu- tion of acts or treaties; but no such provision was inserted in the Const it^ition. And whatever force bills or bloody bills, Con- gress, in the folly or madness of the time and in the fancied plenitude of its powers, has thought proper to enact into laws, it has not yet proceeded to such a pitch of infatuation, as to dis- figure the federal statute book with any act or acts designed to coerce the submission, or compel the return of any sovereign State, that might solemnly determine, in full view of all the con- sequences and responsibilities, to sever forever ^ler connection with the Union, and to place the lives, property and liberty of her citizens under the protection of her own separate sovereignty. When the foregoing resolutions in relation to the employment ol force against a delinquent State were under consideration in the Convention, the debates show that all such ideas were repu- diated and abandoned, as utterly inconsistent with the form of government proposed to be established. No one single member advocated force : all of them who spoke on the subject, even Alexander Hamilton, the strong government man, par excellence, rejected and denounced it. I propose to fortify these assertions by citations from Madison's reports of the debates in the Federal Convention : Mr. Madison observed, ''that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not indivi- dually. An union of the Stales containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for his own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to ?iem. con."— 1 vol., 761. Mr. Madison again said, "that any government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconslilutiorial proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress." "Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost, enforce 16 a national decree against Massachusetts, abetted, perhaps, by- several of lier neighbors? It would not be possible." — 1 vol., 822. Alexander Hamilton, who had hitherto "remained silent," gave his views at large on the Iblh June. In discussing the subject oi force, he is reported as follows: ^^ Force, by which may be understood a coercion of laws, or a coercion of arms. Congress have not the former, except in few cases. In particular States, this coercion is nearly sufficient; though he held it in most cases not entirely so. A certain portion of military force was absolutely necessary in large communities. Massachusetts was now feeling this necessity and making pro- vision for it. (The Shay's rebellion.) But how can this force be exerted on the States collectively? It is impossible. It arnounts to a war between the parties. Foreign powers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose, the confusion will increase, and a dissolution of the Union will ensue.''' — 1 vol., 881. Col. Mason was opposed to any plan that could not be enforced without military coercion. He is reported as saying: ''The most jarring elements of nature, fire and water them- selves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State into another in order to collect the taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic ? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one another till they rise as one man and shake off the Union alto- gether? Rebellion is the only case in which the military force of the State can be properly exerted against its citizens. He was struck with horror at the prospect of resorting to this expedient." —1 vol., 914. Luther Martin said : " He was not against assisting States against rebellious subjects — thought the Federal -pi an of Mr. Pat- terson did not require coercion more than the national one, as the latter must depend for the deficiency of its revenues on requisi- tions and quotas." — 1 vol., 916. Can proof go further? Here is the evidence that the employ- ment of force against the States was distinctly proposed ; that every member who participated in the discussion, repudiated it; and that the proposition was ],ostponed and finally abandoned. The reasons against it, assigned in debate, were unanswered and unanswerable; and well might the people of the States, with a knowledge of the proceedings of the Convention, rest in security that no coercion of arms, no declaration of war, as Mr. Madison properly calls it, would or could be made against them in their sovereign or collective capacity by the political machine which they called into action ! Upon examination of the ratifications of the Federal Constitu- tion by the respective Stale Conventions, it appears that several of them asserted, in unequivocal language, the right of the people to resume the powers granted, whenever the same should be per- 17 verted lO their injury or oppression. Nor does any exception appear to have been taken to such declarations. It was with this impression and upon this condition that the States ratified the Constitution; and when some States affirmed the right exp ressly, it was done only from abundant caution, and as declaratory of the common understanding. No one State could have, or reserve, a right llial was not common to allj any other construction would be inconsistent wiili tlie idea that the States entered the Union upon terms of equality. "The people," in whose behalf the right was claimed, were, of course, the people of the States respect- ively; for there is not the slightest foundation in fact or history for the pretence that the people of the United States in the aggre- gate granted any powers at all, or that the powers of the Fede#al Government were derived from any other source whatever than lh« peoples of the several Slates, who accepted and ratified the same. In this point of view, the argument seems to lie in a very small compass. Once admit the principle, which no one in the country denies, that the people have the right to resume granted powers when perverted or abused; and then admit the /uc/, which is historical and cannot be denied, tliat the people of the States, respectively, each for themselves, granted the powers now exer- cised by the Federal Government — and the inference is logical and irresistible, that the people of any State, acting for them- selves, may recall the authorities they delegated, whenever, in their solemn judgment, their honor or their safety demands it. This is not a question of arresting the operations of a Government while you remain a member of it; but it is a question of resum- ing powers granted for beneficial purposes, but wrested to pur- poses of oppression, and of peaceably dissolving connection with a Confederated Government, when that Government has ceased to answer the ends of confederation. In other words, it is not a question of nullification^ it is a question of secession or resump- tion. The science of government has made but little advance in America if a sovereign Stale cannot retire from a Confederacy of Slates, in which she feels herself dishonored and oppressed, with- out the iron arm of power being employed to crush her to sub- mission. If this be so, it will show that here, as in Europe, libert)*can be had only at the price of blood. But this much is certain : that here, at least, liberty will be had at whatever price ! The delegates of A'ew York, in their ratification, "declare and make known:" "That all power is originally vested in, and consequemly de- rived from the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, security and protection. " That the powers of government may be rcassumed hrj the people whenever it shall become 7iecessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitu- tion clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the c2 18 several States, or to their respective State Governments, to whom they may have granted the same," etc., etc. Tlie New York Convention certainly stated the case with great precision and clearness. All power is derived from the people ; Congress has no power except what is clearly delegated ; all power not delegated remains to the people of the several States, or their State Governments ; and the people may reassume all granted power whenever it shall be necessary for their happiness. There could not be a clearer epitome of the doctrine of secession or resumption. And that there might be no mistake or misunder- standing in the matter, the delegates say, in conclusion : ''.Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abriclged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, ^-c, we assent to and ratify the said Constitution. It must be observed that these are not proposed amendments of the Constitution, but declarations of right and of the common un- derstanding in relation to the meaning of the Constitution. New York proposes her amendments in a separate paper. Vir"-inia in her ratification declares and makes known : "That the powers granted under the Constitution, being de- rived from the people of the United States, 7nay be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or op- pression, and tliat every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will." " TVith Jthese impressions, and with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts," &c., she assents to and ratifies the Constitution. She also proposes amendments in a separate paper. Virginia speaks of "the people of the United States." There is not the same precision of language as in the New York ratifi- cation. But the meaning is identical ; for, as the people of the United Stales collectively granted no powers, they could resume none. Only those who give can take back. The people of the States were the grantors, and they alone had anything to resume. The reference of Virginia was to these people whom the Constitu- tion was to unite. She spoke in tlie name of and in behalf of her own people. Rhode Island declares and makes known : • " Tliat all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived from the people— ihat magistrates therefore are their trustees and ao-enis, and at all times amenable to them. "• That the poivers of government may be reasstimed by the people, whensoever it shall betome 7iecessary to their happiness,'" Has any one the hardihood to contend that these solemn decla- rations mean nothing, or mean only the right of revolution by force and with arms? On the contrary, do they not affirm and illustrate the one great leading distinction between the American and the European iheory of government — between a free confed- erated rejjublic and a consolidated kingdom or empire ? Euro- li) pean goTernment is the government o^ force ; American gov- ■ernnient is the government of opinion. If such be not the CHse, llien did the men of the Revolution live and rebel and triumph in vain ! Tlie question has been asked, wliether Ijouisiana and oilier States, whose territories were originally purcli/ised by the United Stales for a price, can j)0ssibly have the right to withdraw them- selves from the Union, and lake their affairs into their own keep- incT? Undoubtedly they have ! When they were erected into States, they became sovereign, and when received into the Union, tliey came in upon precisely the same footing as the original Thirteen. There can be no discrimination between an old and a new State ; nor can the rights of the original members of the con- federacy, be in any way impaired or affected b}' the admission of new ones. The question must be determined upon the terms and meaning of the Constitution, or fundamental compact, and not upon any supervening facts or developments. When a Territory becomes a Stale, the pupil or infant attains the age, and assumes the character and attributes of the full-grown man. When a new comer is admitted into a copartnership, upon a footing of perfect equality, it matters not whether he has brought into llie concern capital, or skiil, or labor, or any other consideration. The United Slaies must weigh the consequences of the act, before they convert a Territory into a State, and invest a dependency wilh the rights and faculties of sovereignty. Jlfler the act is done, it is too late to consider. "^I'lie new-born commonwealth is the counterpart and peer of all the rest ! The Union of these States is a voluntary union — an association of equals, of their free will and by common accord. A Slate coerced, would be a subjugated province; no longer a voluntary or an equal member, but the conquest and the captive of the rest! With her freedom cloven down, and the emblems of her sover- eignty trampled under foot and trailing in the dust, lier lifeless body would be to the living members of the Union, like the dead body of Hector, dragged in brutal triumph by the victorious chariot of Achilles round the walls of Troy ! Better that ihe last sparkles of her ashes were trodden out, and her name forever lost to history and tradition, than that she should live to swell the triumph of her conquerors! And this to pieserve tlie Union ! A union of the living and the dead, bound fast together in loatlisome and indissoluble contact! Say rather a union of the dyins; and the ikad, for the lite of all w-ill have received a mortal thrust, their independence but a name, their forms of liberty an insult- ing mockery, and their only privilege that of surviving until the iron heel of one or many despots shall be ready in turn to crush out the miserable remainder of their existence ! Such and so disastrous would be the effect of coercion, even if successful. But it could not be successful, — least of all in a case of common feeling and common interest. The people of the Stales are too spirited and sagacious, not to feel and know that the mili- tary conquest of one, in such a case, would involve, sooner or later, the military conquest of the rest. The ties of a common cause — one hope, one fear, one destiny ; the promptings of generous manhood, and perhaps, above all, the over-mastering instinct of self-preservation, wpuld drive them into irresistible sympathy and association with those, whose only fault would be a disinter- ested, if an indiscreet, devotion to the common cause, and >vhose prostration would consign it to hopeless and bloody ruin. And if the grievance or the quarrel were strictly and purely sectional, Avhat human power, m the event of blood, could prevent the injured section from uniting as one man, and accepting one fate, whether for weal or for wo I Is it not the excess of infatuation, and the very extac}^ of madness for any one to imagine that the Union could be preserved through a war of sections ? Blood is not the cement by which confederacies are held together, nor are bayon- ets the instruments. Good will and confidence are their only bond. The terrible passions evoked by war are death to them. Naught but a despotism can come out of an armed conflict of sections, in which one is conqueror ai?d the other conquered. On one side centralization and absorption, enforced by the sword j on the other, utier subjugation, relieved only by the lurid and desperate hope of revolt ! What a picture this of a free govern- ment ! and a happy and glorious Union ! Hapless would be the condition of these Slates if their only alternative lay between submission to a government of self-con- strued, or, iti other words, unlimited powers, and the certainty of coercion, in case of withdrawal, by force of arms. The way of escape from both extremes is in the acknowledged right of seces- sion — a right the exercise of which draws after it such grave and momentous consequences to a State, in her relations to the rest of the States and to the world at large, that she cannot but regard it as her ultima ratio — her refuge from intolerable evils — her last and ultimate resource to be called into play, only when all other hope of relief is utterly gone ! But if the right of secession be essential in a general view of our system, how trul}'- indispensable is it to the Southern States, in view of the particular circumstances by which they are now surrounded. I here repeat the question already propounded, are not the designs of the Eepublican party aggressive, hostile and deadly to these States? To understand this question in its full and fearful import, it is necessary to bear in mind that the coun- try is divided into two geographical sections, and that these sec- tions are characterized by separate and different systems of labor and civilization. The system of the South, known as slavt/y, existed at the lime of the formation of the Union, and has a dis- tinct recognition in the Constitution, both as an element of repre- sentation, and as a fit subject of protection. For a considerable eriod of time, the two sections of the country were, for all prac- tical purpo.-r.o, in a slale of equilibrium ; but now the ascendancy in the number of Slates and in the federal representation has been acquired by the non-slaveholding section. If there were no antaponism of feelinc^ and interest on tlie subject of slavery, and the constitutional jjuarantees in relation to it were observed in good faith and witli fidelity, tliis ascendancy would furnish no good cause of appreliension or complaint. But the precise mis- chief and dano;er of the Republican parly consists in tliis: tliat IT IS A SECTIONAL, ANTI-SLAVERY ORGANIZATION, BASED CHIEFLY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF HOSTILITY TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTH, AND PLEDGED TO CARRY THAT PRIN- CIPLE INTO ACTION, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT. Men of the Soutli do you comprehend this idea? Do you take it into your understandings, in the whole extent of its significance and consequences. In the case of two sections and two systems of labor and civilization, what would any man of average honesty and average sense of justice, declare to be the duty of the common federal government? Surely that ofe(iual favor and equal prelection! But to wage an open war- fare upon system and by programme, in belialfof one and against the other— and to employ, for that purpose, the agencies and resources of the common government, which owes to each a like protection because it receives from each a like support — if there be a peril more imminent, or a perfidy more atrocious than this, in the afTairs of Slate, it is most difficult for the human imagina- tion to conceive il, or the human tongue to give it utterance 1 Will you submit to it? Will you suffer that yoke to be fast- ened upon your necks, and still claim to be men and freemen? You lAve loner borne and forborne — but there is a time when submission becomes a crime and resistance a duly. Abraham Lincoln, our prospective President, proclaims the Republican party to be "mpt of those who have put the yoke upon them. Oh ! choose as becomes your lineage and your history! Choose so that these proud commonwealths may receive no detri- ment; so that the liberties in which you were born may be kept entire; so that the heritage of your children may be one of honor and not of shame, of freedom and not ot servitude ! / FROM HON. J. K. PAULDING [The following letter from Hon. J. K. Paulding, former Secre- tary of the Navy, is worthy of attention, not only for the sound views it contain'!, but also on account of the latitude from which it comes.] Hyde Park, Duchess county, N. Y. ] September Gth, 1851. j !;Gentlemen: Your letter directed to me at New York, con- veying an invitation to address a meeting of the citizens of Charleston district, to be held in Charleston, South Carolina, on the 17th inst., has just reached me at this place, where I now reside. For the compliment thus tendered, and the language in which it is conveyed, 1 beg you to accept my acknowledgments, accom- panied by "regrets that I cannot comply with your wishes. Dis- tance and space, the burden of years I should bear with me, and more than all, my incapacity for jiublic sjieaking, compel me to decline a task for which 1 am totally unfitted. What T have to say, I therefore hope you will permit me to address to you, through a medium to which I am more accustomed. As it appears from the tenor ot your letter that you are already sufficiently aware of the opinion I entertain with rec^ard to what is whimsically called the Compromise, I will only trouble you with a brief recapitulation. In my view it loas a gross arid palpable violation of that great fundamental prin- ciple of State equality, which pervades every provision of the Consti- tution, and forms the basis of this Confederation; a most unjustifi- able attack on the rights, interests, safety, and happiness of one-half the States composing it, accompanied by insult and obloquy ; a pre- tended Concession, icrested by mere force of numbers from a minority; and that, in its consequences, it trill prove more fatal to the repose, prosperity, and happiness, if not the very existence of the Union, 26 than any measures that may he resorted to in attempting to obtain redress for the past, or security for the future. Such beinfr my views of the subject, I am and always have been, of opinion, tliat the stand originally taken by South Caro- lina, and most of the Southern States, in opposition to the princi- ples embodied in that series of measures, was not only justifiable, but demanded by a proper regard for their rights and their honor ; and that an abandonment of the position they tl^en assumed, and an acquiescence in measures they repeatedly declared they would resist, ** at all hazards and to the last extremity," unless accompanied by a frank acknowledgment of having been lorong in the first instance, would, in the language of the printed resolu- . tions appended to your letter, be, " what they could not submit to without dishonor." If such an abandonment of all previous pledges and declarations were the result of a subsequent convic- tion of having greatly erred in making them, it would be honor- able and magnanimous. But sucii appears not to be the case j since even tlie advocates of acquiescence still continue to assert the principles on which these pledges and declarations were based, as well as the wrongs which first called them forth. The Association is, I believe, right in its second resolution — declaring its belief that the co-operation of any of the Southern States with South Carolina, either in resistance or secession, is at least improbable, so long as the influence and patronage of the General Government are arrayed against State rights. Nor Ao I see any reason for believing that any probable change of admin- istration, will produce a change' of measures; since, as you will perceive, from their repeated declarations, all parties in tlie North unite in denouncing slavery, and maintaining the constitutional right of Congress, as well as its inflexible duty, to prohibit its extension to any State that may hereafter be admitted into the Union. From all present appearances, the principles embodied in the compromise icill continue to be the basis of the future policy of the Government. It seems also probable, //laif the States which have submitted to past, will be equally quiescent under future wrongs. Having thus briefl}'- staled my views with regard to jovu first and second, I will n,ow revert to your last and most important resolution, namely, "that, failing in a reasonable time to obtain the co-operation of other Southern States, South Carolina should alone withdraw from the Union." It seems rather late in the day to be called on to combat the old exploded doctrine of passive obedience, and non-resistance, the assertion of which cost one' monarch his head, and sent another into perpetual exile. Yet, as that doctrine has lately been revived by some of the highest names of the Republic, it calls for a passing notice in connection with the subject of this letter. It seems strange, too, that this long-buried monster, which received its death wounds in the two revolutions of Eng- 27 land and America, should have been dug' up and resuscitated by distinguished Democratic Republican statesmen. From all but the darkest regions of tlie civilized world, this portentous phan- tom has been banished, as it would appear, only to find refucre in that which professes to be the most free and enlightened. There is not a European icriter, or statesman, or theologisf, of any estab- lished reputation, that would noio venture to proclaim the slavish principles which have been asserted by Republican leaders in the Halls of Congress of Republican States. A thorough discussion of this doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance on the part of equal members of a Confedera- tion of States, would require more space than is proper for me to occupy, and more time than you can s])Hre on this occasion; nor do I deem it necessary. The right of resistance by force, as respects States and communities, is only an extension of the individual right of self-defence, which is a law of nature, ante- cedent and paramount to all laws and all constitutions, winch cannot be alienated or surrendered by the adoption of any system of social organization. This doctrine is established beyond con- troversy, by the unanswered and unanswerable arguments of Sidney and Locke ; by the assent of all the great ancient as well as modern authorities on tlie law of nature and nations; and, if such were not the case, it has always been, and always will be, acted upon when the occasiop arises, in opposition to all authori- ties. It is true that none of the writers who assert or concede the right of resistance, liave attempted to define the precise line where resistance becomes justifiable, because it is not susceptible of definition. R is a matter of feeling, and can neither be analyzed or defined. An eminent American statesman, hio-h in office, and a candi- date for still higher honors, whose opinions I wish to treat with all due respect, has lately attempted to establish a broad distinc- tion between revolution and secession ; in other words, the right to resist, and the right of retiring out of the reach of the necessity of resorting to resistance. His position, if I rigliily comprehend him, is, that though a people or State may have a right to resist by force in certain contingencies, they have none to retire peace- ably beyond the reach of injury and oppression. It seems they have no alternative; tliey must either peaceably submit, or for- cibly resist, for they cannot get out of the way. It follows that all radical changes in the political relations of a Stale with a Confederation of States, must necessarily be broucrht about by violence and bloody contentions. Those who cannot live tocether in peace, must not part in peace ; they must resort to the right of the strongest, and fight it out. Thus the extermination of a portion of our fellow-creatures, perhaps our countrymen, is an indispensable preliminary to all great political changes; and hecatombs must be ofiered up on tlie altar of liberty, before she can become a legitimate goddess. 28 The establishment of this principle, conceding the right of revo- lution, and denying that of secession, would, in its application to the case now under consideration, leave no resource to any mem- ber of this confederation, under the most intolerable oppression, but civil war, with all its aggravations. It leaves open no appeal to the great tribunal of reason, justice and humanity; the right of the strongest is the right divine; and dissensions among aeon- federation of Christian States, can only be adjusted, like those of the wild beasts of the forest, by a death struggle. I am aware that this has been the almost invariable practice of mankind in every age and country; but never till now do I recollect seeing, it asserted that it was the only justifiable mode of settling con- troversies among States and nations; and ii is with no little regret I see this doctrine sanctioned by one whose opinions are of such high authority among a large portion of the Atnerican peo- ple. I'^have dwelt more emphatically on this topic, because I consider the right of secession as by far the most important of all the guestions involved in the present controversy; and the attack on it as one of the most insidious, as well as dangerous blows, ever levelled at therights of the State, all of whom are deeply interested in the issue; since those who are now the aggressors, may one day be placed in a position where it will be their only refuge from the uncontrolled despotism of a majority. With regard to the expediency of the State of South Carolina exercising this right of secession, either now or at any future period, it would, I conceive, be presumptuous in one so far re- moved from the scene of action to offer his opinion, or intrude his advice. In such a crisis, South Carolina must act for herself , and reh/ on herself alone. I would only observe, that in taking a step so decisive as that of withdrawing from the Union, unanim- ity among her citizens, or something nearly approaching it, seems indispensable. It appears, however, that many distinguished men among you, whose reputation is national, whose opinions are entitled to great weight, and who have heretofore taken the lead in opposing the Compromise, believe that the time for secession is not yet come ; that the co-operation of at least a majority of the Southern Slates is absolutely necessary to the successful issue of such a measure; that it is best to wait for further injur- ies, or at least to see whether they will be attempted, and if so, whether they will produce such co-operation. Those whose views coincide with the resolutions adopted by your Association, on the other hand, believe that immediate secession, or secession after '< waiting a reasonable time" 'for the co-operation of other States, is indispensable to the safety and honor of the State of South Carolina. Which of these parties will eventually pre- dominate, remains to be seen; and until that is decided, I shall content myscff with asserting the right of secession, leaving the expediency of its exercise to be decided by the result. Should it be found that a very considerable minority is not only opposed, 29 but will resist a resort to this remedy for their grievHnces, I con- ceive its immediate adoption would be hazardous in the extreme. BUT WHEN GREAT INTERESTS ARE AT STAKE, MUCH SHOULD BE RISKED IN 'J'HEIR PRESERVA- TION. For myself, I will only say, that were I a citizen of South Carolina, or any other Southern State, I trust I should not be found among those, who, after placing themselves in front of the battle, and leading their followers into a position whence they could not retreat without dishonor, rktiued prom the field, only, it "WOULD SEEM, TO SEE IF THE ENEMY WOULD PURSUE THEM. A few words more, Gentlemen, in order that I may not be misunderstood or misrepresented, and 1 will no longer trespass on your time and patience. If I know myself, and the innermost feelin