Is South Carolina Trying to Secede Again
Why not let South Carolina Secede?
See the article in its original context from
November 13, 1860
,
Page
4Buy Reprints
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
To the Editor of the New-York Times:
At a meeting of a few gentlemen at the residence of one who (with his forefathers) has always been a Democrat, it was unanimously agreed that it would he much better for this country to let South Carolina go peaceably out of this Union, with, however, the distinct understanding that she-forever stays out, and never makes an application to be readmitted; and also that she be allowed to go on the most liberal terms, each gentleman present, having expressed a willingness to give liberally from his own private purse, if necessary, to secure such a result.
And this feeling was not from any hostility to South Carolina, or her people, or her institutions, but to get rid of the eternal noise and trouble her politicians give this country.
A State (the same number of whose white population might be taken from the City of New-York without hardly being missed) makes more trouble and noise in this Confederacy than all the other States together.
We say, in the name of common sense, let her go on her own terms -- but never let her come back.
AN OLD WHIG.
This communication expresses the feeling of thousands, of all parties, on this subject. The whole country would feel relieved if South Carolina, could be translated out of this Federal vale of tears into some region of solitary sovereignty, where she would have none to molest or make her afraid. But the trouble in the case is, it can't be done. We can no more let her go out of the Union than she can go out of her own accord. The Constitution imposes upon the Federal Government duties towards the States as well as upon the States duties towards the Federal Government. Both are obligatory, and neither can be shaken off by either party. They are embodied in laws, of the most sacred and solemn character, and while those laws exist they must be enforced.
There are just two ways in which secession or disunion can be effected; -- one is by Revolution, which involves war as a matter of course; and the other is by an amendment of the Constitution. As that instrument now stands, peaceful secession is impossible, -- not because it would contravene any specific provision or prohibition which it contains, but because it would abrogate and emasculate the entire Constitution. For if one State can secede peacefully, another may -- and till may. One may go because her slave property is not protected; another because her cotton manufactures are not protected; a third because the national debt weighs too heavily upon her, -- and so forth. For any reason they may choose to allege, or for no reason at all, all the States would be at perfect liberty to sever the bonds which hold them together, and dissolve the Union into its original elements. This is absurd. No construction of the Constitution which permits such a proceeding has any basis in common sense.
Nor is there any more wisdom in the suggestion, that South Carolina may secede, if the other States assent. It is not a ease for assent, or for the action of the other States at all. It is simply a case of obedience and disobedience to a fundamental law. The Constitution imposes certain obligations upon all the States, and all the people of the Union. Obedience to the laws of Congress is among these obligations. Secession is simply a refusal to obey those laws. It may not take that form at the outset, -- but it must come to that in the end. South Carolina may resolve upon secession, -- may declare herself out of the Union, -- may withdraw her Senators and Representatives from Congress, -- refuse to permit her citizens to be Postmasters, Collectors, Marshals, or Federal Judges, and ignore utterly in words the authority of the Federal Government, without nullifying in act any Federal law. So long as she confines herself to these demonstrations, the Federal authority may not be called on to exercise coercion. To that extent she may be permitted to "secede." But secession in this form is a mere phrase. The time must come when it will take the shape of resistance to Federal law; and then the Federal Government can no longer ignore or assent to her recusancy. If her troops seize upon Fort Moultrie, for example, they will be seizing Federal properly, and the Federal Government must resist the robbery and regain possession. If her merchants refuse to pay duties on imported goods, those goods must be seized and held by the Federal Government as security for the satisfaction of Federal law. If a vessel leaves Charleston without a proper clearance from Federal authority, she may be seized by any Power as an unauthorized cruiser on the high seas, and forfeited as lawful prize.
It is said, to be sure, that South Carolina will stipulate with England or France that Charleston shall be a free port. But neither England nor France, nor any other. Power, will treat with South Carolina, or hold with her any diplomatic intercourse whatever, until her independent, national existence shall have been established and formally recognized by the leading nations of the earth. When Texas revolted from Mexico, no nation could hold, terms with her until her independence had been recognized by other Powers. It was not until after the decisive battle of San Jacinto that even the United States were prepared to hold intercourse with her as an independent Sovereignty. No nation on earth would recognize or respect the flag of South Carolina on the high seas, until her independent existence as a nation had been conceded by the Federal Government of the Union, or established against that Government by force of arms.
This is one way in which South Carolina can get out of the Union, -- but it is not likely to be peaceful. The other is by an amendment of the Constitution. That instrument provides fully and carefully for its own amendment. If any State is dissatisfied with its provisions in any particular, it may seek to change them. If South Carolina desires liberty of secession, let her propose an amendment of the Constitution to that effect. The Fifth Article provides fully for such contingencies. It defines the steps by which such amendments maybe sought. Let South Carolina avail herself of this provision. Let her demand that Congress shall propose amendments, permitting her to withdraw from the Union. She will find plenty of support in all sections, -- and we have very little doubt that three-fourths of the States would, with the utmost alacrity, give it their votes, and thus secure its adoption. Such a mode of seceding would take some time, -- but not half as much as the only other mode open for her adoption. She will find it much easier to secure an amendment of the Constitution, than to accomplish her object by revolution.
But in one way or the other, she must seek secession if she seeks it at all. Her talk about peaceful secession under the Constitution, is blatant nonsense. Possibly through the imbecility or criminal complicity of this Administration, she might be tolerated in such a proceeding. But this would be only a temporary respite. Whenever the Federal Government should fall into the hands of men who recognize the obligation of an oath, she would be held to her allegiance. Nothing but a change of the Constitution, or a conquest of her independence in the field, can achieve her independence.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1860/11/13/archives/why-not-let-south-carolina-secede.html
0 Response to "Is South Carolina Trying to Secede Again"
Post a Comment