Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

tiie southern sentinel la published every Thursday Morning, IN COLUMBUS, GA. BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBEBS, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. T a whom all communications must be directed, port paid. OJice an Randolph Street. Terms of Subscription. Ooe copy twelve months, in advance, - - fc"2 50 ” “ Not in advanoe, - 300 “ “ Six “ “ < 150 %fc?’ Where the subscription is not paid during the year, 15 rent* <vdl be charged for every mouth’s delay. No subscription will be received lor less than stx month*, and none discontinued until all arrearages are paid, except at tiie option of the proprietor. To Clubs. Five copies twelve months, • $lO 00 Ten •* “ 16 00 The money from Clubs must in all cases ac company the named, or the price of a single subscription will be charged. Rates of Advertising. One Square, first insertion, - SI 00 - “ “ Each subsequent insertion, - 50 A liberal deduction on these terms will bo made in faror of those who advertise by the year. ‘Advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub lished till forbid, and charged accordingly. Monthly Advertisements will be charged as new Ad vertisements at each insertion. Legal Advertisements. N. B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Ex ecutors, or Guardians, arc required by law to be held on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10 In the forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court Mouse in the county in which the land is situated. No tices of these sales must lie giveu in a public gazette sixty days previous to the day of sale. Sales of K cohoes must tie made at a public auction bn the first Tuesday of the month, between the usual hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the county where the letters Testamentary, of Administration or Guardianship,may have been granted, first giving sixty dats notice thereof in one of the public gazettes of this Htate, and at the door of the Court House, where such •sales are to be held. Notice for the sale of Personal property must be given hi like manner forty days previous to the day of sale. Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must b published forty days. Notice that application will be made to the Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published for POUR MONTHS. Notice for leave to sell Negroes must be published for four months, before any order absolute shall be made thereon by the Court. Citations for Letters of Administration, must be pub lvihed thirty days—for dismission from administration, monthly six months —for dismission fiom Guardianship, FORTY days. Rules lor the foreclosure of a Mortgage must he pub lished monthly for four months —for establishing lost papers, for the full space of three months —for com pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a Bond has been given by the deceased, the full stace ol THREE MONTHS. Publications will always be continued according to these legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered. SOUTHERN SENTINEL Job Office. HAVING received anew and extensive assortment of Job Material, we are prepared to execute at this office, all ordersfor JOB WORK, in a manner which an not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms, and at the shortest notice. We fed confident of our ability to give entire satisfac tion in every variety of Job Printing, including Books, Business Cards, Pamphlets, Bill Heads, Circulars, Blanks of every description, Hand Bills, Bills of Lading, Posters, dpc. In short, all descriptions of Printing which can be ex ecuted at any office in the country, will be turned out with elegance and despatch. ’ County Surveyor. THE undersigned informs his friends and the Planters of Muscogee county, that he is prepared to make official surveys in Muscogee county. Letters addressed to Port Office,Columbus, will meet with prompt atten uon. WM. F. SERRELL, County Surveyor. Office over E. Barnard & Co.’s store, Broad St. Columbus, Jail. 31,1851). 5 ly NOTICE. rpHK firm name of “M. 11. Dessan, Agent,” is chanced, JL from this date, to M. 11. DESSAt . Columbus, Feb. 7, 1850. 6 ts JAMES FORT, AT TO Ri\ E Y A T LA W, HOLLY STRINGS, MISS, July 4, 1350. 27 Cm - v —- Williams,Tiewellen & Williams, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. May S3, 1850. , 21 Williams & Howard, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, COLUMBUS, GEORGIA. MOBT. R. HOWARD. CHAS. J. WILLIAMS. April 4,1550. 14 ts J. 1). LENNARD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, TALBOTTON, GA. WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent counties. All business entrusted to his care will meet with prompt attention. April 4, 1850. 14 ly KING & WIN NEMO RE, Commission Merchants, MOBILE, ALABAMA. Dee. 20, 1849. [ JJob. Trib.] 13 ts THIS PAPER *► IS MANUFACTURED BY TITK Rock Island Factory, NEAR THIS CITY. Columbus, Feb. 23.1850. 9 ts Marble Works, East side Broad St. near the Market House, COLUMBUS, GA. HAVE constantly on hand all kinds of Grave Stones Monuments, Tombs and Tablets, of American Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving done on stone in the best possible manner; and all kinds of Granite Work at the shortest notice. JOHN H. MADDEN. P. S.—Plaister of Paris and Cement, always on hand for sale. Columbus, March 7, 1850. 10 ts NORTH CAROLINA BXutual Life Insurance Company. LOCATED AT RALEIGH, N. C. THE Charter of this company gives important advan tages to the assured, over most other companies. Tiie husband can insure his own life for the sole use and benefit of his wife and children, free from any other claims. Persons who insure for life participate in the profits which are declared annually, and when the pre mium exceeds §3O. may pay one-hall in a note. Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value for one or five years. Applications for Risks may be made to JOHN MUNN. Agent. Columbus, Ga. rr Office at Greenwood &. Co.’s \\ arehouee. Nor. 19,1849. ts WANTED. lAA AAA lbs. RAGS. Cash paid for clean cot lUU.WUU ton or linen rags—4 cents per pound, ■when delivered in quantities of 100 pounds or more ; and 131 cents when delivered in small quantities. For old hemp, bagiring. and pieces of rope, 11 cents, delivered cither at Rock Island Factory or at their store in Co lumbus, in the South comer R oom of Oglethorpe House. D. ADAMS, Secretary. Columbus, Feb. 28,1550. 9 ts TO RENT. TILL the first day of January next. The old printing office room of the “ Muscogee Democrat ” Apply at this office. 18 ts. M Globe Hotel, BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA. BY J. WILLIAMS. March 14,1850. 11 ts JUST RECEIVED, A LARGE lot ol Miscellaneous and School Books. Also a large and beautiful assortment of Stationery, fine Letter and Note Paper, Envelopes, etc. deGRAFFENRIED & ROBINSON. April J 8 VOL. I. THE RANDOLPH EPISTLES ON THE KIGIIT OF SECESSION. NUMBER I. T*o the Prcsiilenl — lntroductory—One half of the Southern Whigs States-rights men—Secession results from the compact Denied by the Execu tive— The Constitution bears the faculties of its mm destruction—Dismemberment cannot be Treason—Two States can dissolve the Union under Constitutional authority — Also, one-ffth of the members if either House —Views of Messrs. Clay, Cass and Webster—The right of revolution defined —The Secession of the Col onies from Great Britain—General Washing ton's sentiments on Secession, cf-e. To Ills Excellency, Millard Fillmore, President of the United States: Sir: One of those unforeseen casualties which “flesh is heir to” has made your Ex cellency the Chief Magistrate of the United States. For the first time in your life, you find yourself the representative of a Southern constituency in E ecutive Administration, and to a majority of that constituency you owe your elevation to the Vice Presidency, and through that, to the still higher position which you now occupy. There were circum stances, too, which gave a yet more imposing weight to the support you obtained in the Southern States. Os the fifteen free States, your electoral ticket obtained the victory butin seven. Os the fifteen slave States, the same tick et obtained the victory in eight. Os the seven free States, in which your ticket commanded pluralities of votes, it commanded popular majorities in but three. Os the eight slave States, which cast their electorial votes for that ticket it commanded popular majorities in each of them. The aggregate of your popular majorities in the free States was six thousand eight hundred and fifty-three. The aggregate of your popular majorities in the slave States was forty-two thousand eight hundred and two. All these would be matters of but small concern in administering the affairs of the Government in ordinary times; but in so grave and alarming a crisis in pub lic affairs as now disturbs the public tran quility, I must think that these are considera tions worth remembering, should sectional issues at any time, in the opinion of the Presi dent, call for Executive action. I take leave, furthermore, to call your Ex cellency’s attention to some other striking circumstances, which your party at the North has too often disregarded, but which, in times like these, may be worthy of very special note. One important fact is, that the Whig party at the North and the Whig party at the South, though concurring in the main upon measures of public policy—yet, upon several essential points, they radically dis agree. Another fact, or at least, a strong probability is, that not one of the favorite measures of the Whigs of the North—a Na tional Bank—a Bankrupt Law—a Protective Tariff-—lnternal Improvements, &c., would be likely to command majorities at the South, though the Democrats of that section wholly refrained from the polls; and as to all the anti-slavery issues upon which the Whigs of the free States are quite or nearly unanimous, the Whigs at the South are just as unanimous on the opposite side. From the close of Mr. Madison’s Administration in 1817, through the whole of Mr. Monroe’s, the distinction of parties was scarcely preserved at the South, and upon the opening of that of Mr. J. Q. Adams in 1825, the old Federal party there rallied upon him, while the State-rights men in overwhelming majorities rallied upon Gerr. Jackson. Even as late as 1832, (and before the Whig party co nomine was known,) in the Presidential contest between Mr. Clay and ‘General Jackson, the former could only mus ter Federalists and National Republicans enough in all the South, to secure him three States, with popular majorities as follows: Kentucky with some 7,000, Delaware 16G, and Maryland with 4! While General Jack son, supported by the, States-rights party, carried the balance of the Southern States with an aggregate of majorities reaching to one hundred and forty thousand / But the most important fact of all is, that fully one half of the Whig party at the South were original States-rights men, who left the Dem ocratic party, some of them in opposition to the latitudinarian doctrines of Gen. Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, (not withstanding his disavowals in the Globe and Enquirer,) others on account of bis removal of the deposites, &c., others of them on ac count of their preference of Hugh L. White to Martin Van Buren, others of them through an ascription of the disastrous financial crisis of 1837 to the policy and measures of the latter; but not one of them, that I have heard, for any dissatisfaction with the doctrines of States-rights, and a strict construction of the. Federal Constitution ! From these premises, I think it may be safely taken for granted, that fully one-half of the Whigs of the South, with the Demo cratic party thither en masse, are emphatical ly State-rights men, who stand upon the plat form made by Messrs. Jefferson and Madison in 1798, as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Report, drafted by ! them for each of these Commonwealths re- ; spectivelv, and which were based upon the ! broad principle, that this Union results from a Compact between the Stales, to which they became parties in their sovereign capacities, with full powers and rights inherent in each, (as in all other compacts,) to dissolve or to secede from such compacts, for breaches of . any of its fundamental conditions or material stipulations, and of which each State of itself and of necessity must be the exclusive judge. In other words, and as an inevitable corollary from the premises, the Southern people, in overwhelming numbers, hold as a principle of our political institutions the right of secession in these States. Os course, your Excellency | is too sagacious and profound a statesman, and too accurately versed in the past public questions of the country, to confound, (as Mr. Clay so recently and so unaccountably did in the Senate,) the doctrine of secession with that of nullification. Day and night are not more deeply and enduringly in con trast than they. Through secession, an op pressed and complaining State peacefully re i tires from the Union; parting alike with its j benefits and its burthens, until that Union : shall repair the breaches in its Constitution and its broken faith towards her, and given her adequate guarantees against their future recurrence; while, through nullification, a State never quits the Union at all, and follv shares in all its benefits, but renounces what ever of its burdens it shall adjudge and de nounce, through its State authorities, to be nullities and void With all respect for the £cmtl)cnt Sentinel. advocates of nullification, (and I do most truly respect them,) and a full appreciation of the exasperating oppressions which provoked it, I could never persuade myself that the Union could survive a twelve month an un limited power in each of its members to ab rogate its laws within its own borders ; while, on the other hand, should one of the Skates, or a third of the States, or even one-half of them secede, that in itself would by no means preclude the States which remained, from still abiding in union, independent and free. Besides, the remedy of nullification has arisen and been passed upon and denied by the Executive and Legislative branches of this Government near twenty years ago, while that of secession has never been up for judgment, nor discussed nor decided by any department of the Government. From all this it results, that a large majority of South erners have always been opposed to the doc trine of nullification, and for the additional reason, that the ampler, more thorough and unquestionable remedy of secession, discred ited its authority in proving it unnecessary ; and hence, too, the right of secession, so ob viously resulting as a muniment of a compact to which the States were parties, and so effective as a shield against political oppres sion, has always been cherished and main tained by the States-rights men of the South, (inclusive, of course, of the nullificrs,) as the South’s birth-right and its safeguard. So thoroughly convinced am I that the right se cession is a conclusive and inevitable corollary from the compact which created this Union of Republics, that I very much doubt, if the right would ever have been questioned, had it | not been so amazingly mystified and confound ed with the points and assumptions peculiar and pertaining to the remedy of State nulli fication. Such being the antecedents, the right of secession, raising questions of the first, impression, such ns had never been de cided, never deliberated on, never discussed, and had never arisen, involving the profound est principles of public law and the Federal Constitution ; and consequences, it may be, of the highest moment to the happiness and tranquility of our common country; I can hardly express the surprise and deep concern it has given us Southerners, to have noticed in the columns of one of the official organs of the Administration, (the Republic,) day by day for many days, flippant homilies against the right of secession, and significant of in ferences, that its assertion and exercise by a sovereign State, would be resisted and put down by the military power of this govern ment. But for the commanding position of this Journal, I should have of course have treated doctrines and mcmaces so jejune and premature as these with entire indifference; but finding them there, and so often repeated, and satisfied that no organ of the govrenment would thus have ventured to have given to the world a clue to its highest and gravest policy of State, without an express authority; it is impossible not. to regard them as oracu lar revealings of the foregone judgments and purposes of your Excellency's Administra tion, and as such they become the legitimate topics of public examination and criticism; and the menacing intimations in your Excel lency’s recent message to the two Houses upon the pending boundary issues between Texas and New Mexico, amply confirm all the Delphic disclosures which the Republic has made. In all Christendom there never has been a form of government which provided, in its own Constitution, through an express autho rization, for its own dissolution; nor yet one, in which the rights to put an end to it did not reside somewhere. Our own Constitution furnishes striking instances and illustrations of each of these postulala, and one of them was but recently and most imposingly brought to public attention in the Congress of the United States. At an early day of the pre sent session, petitions from certain Quakers in Pennsylvania, were presented to both Houses, praying that Congress would provide for a peaceful dissolution of the Union. These petitions were unanimously rejected in both Houses, and the reasons assigned for doing so were, that the Constitution conferred no power on Congress to dissolve the Union, or to take any step in any manner providing therefor; and it is perfectly clear, that it does not, It is even clearer, that the Constitution has conferred no such power upon the Exe cutive Department ; and a fortiori not upon the Judicial Department, whose whole func tions of administration are unchangeably im passive, and it is absolutely void besides, of all political authority whatever. Rut I have said that the rights and power of dissolution of all governments, being co-existent there with, must always reside somewhere; and if they have no place in any of the Departments of the Federal Government, where do they reside ? The tenth amendment of the Con stitution, strikingly and conclusively answers this question, and clears our way of every 7 difficulty, by providing, that “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec tively, or to the people.” Noxv what reserved powers are these? They are not Federal powers manifestly, existing only in faculty; they are but the creatures of the organic law, and all that were created were conferred on and vested j in this Government by the Constitution, and took effect pari passue with it, March 4, 1789. ; The reserved powers, then, not being Federal or United powers, are State powers, (whether pertaining to the Governments or people of ; the States,) existing butin severally, and to be | exercised, when exercised at all, by the States, | each by itself and for itself, and for none j other, and not otherwise. It results, that as j the power of dissolving the Union resides in I the Skates severally and not conjointly, so no ! one of them can dissolve it, beyond the ex- I tent to which she is interested therein and a | party thereto ; and, consequently, the only ! mode of affecting that, without destroying the Union of the others, is by withdrawing from its jurisdiction and authority, through the peaceful exercise of the right of seces sion. All wise and moderate men will readi ly agree, that such a right ought never to be exercised, unless the grievances were weighty and too much to be borne with; nor then, while a reasonable hope remained of obtain j ing fit indemnities for past aggressions, and ’ adequate securities against their recurrence; i still it would be no right at all, were there a right elsewhere, to prevent or obstruct its assertion ; ! nor unless the party possessing it, was as free j as the air to determine the occasions which would be meet for its exercise. The right COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, AUGUST 29, 1850. must be absolute, exclusive and unquestion able, or it does not exist. If the union of these States had been made immutable by the Constitution, your Excel lency sees at once, that an act of secession would be the very greatest of crimes; yet while the Constitution is sedulous and min ute iu investing Congress with powers “to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coins of the United States,” “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations,” &c.; lo! the far more heinous crime of secession, is no where denounced or forbidden, or referred to. Can any rational or candid mind, draw any other conclusion from the omission, but that the sages of the Constitution did not regard it as any crime at all, but as an inalienable and invaluable right of sovereignty? The highest crime known to the Constitu tion is Treason; but all the juris-consults agree, that a State its sovereign capacity, cannot commit treasoa,ahd so says the Con stitution itself, though the irresistible implica tion drawn from the provision, that “no at tainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.” But what is Treason 1 The Constitution answers, that “treason against the Constitution of the United States shall only consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Well, sir, secession is nothing like this. It levies war upon nobody ; it adheres to no one’s enemies, nor gives them aid and comfort, but takes quiet and peace ful leave of the Union, without drawing a trigger or unsheathing a sword. Yet there are men—who ought to know better—flip pantly denouncing the mero imagination of secession as treason, through the levying of war at the point of a pen, and giving aid and comfort to the eoeinies when the Union is without any. Treason, sir! Is a dismemberment of the Union, treason to the Constitution? If so, then is the Constitution itself the hot-bed of its own treasons, for it bears within its womb the seeds of its own dismemberment. If mono} 7 be the sinew of war, it is undoubted ly, also, the life of Government. Without it, the wheels of Administration stop ; and, if for a length of time, the spokes decay, and they fall to pieces. Our Constitution requires majorities of the whole numbers elected to each House of Congress to constitute the quorums, who can proceed to business. Less than these in either House brings all Legisla tion to a pause. Without quorums in both, not a law can be passed to raise money or to disburse it—to put money in the Treasury, or to take it out. Now, it so happens, that the aggregate numbers of the Representatives of just seven of the thirty States of the Union exceeds, by a majority of one, the aggregate representative numbers of the remaining twenty-three States. Suppose the seven States refuse, or fail, Irom any cause, to elect a re presentative for a term or two. the conse quence would be the arrest of Legislation— the stoppage of the supplies—and eventually an entire dissolution of the Union. And how effected? Through the recusancy of less than one-fourth of the States, and in success ful defiance and resistance of all the remain- j ing States. There’s the Senate, too. Os; the thirty States, there are fifteen of them whose aggregate popular numbers amount to no more than 3,770,199, while the aggregate popular numbers of the other fifteen States amount to 13,273,157; and yet by a refusal : or failure of the Legislatures of the fifteen States first referred to, to choose their senators, the Senate’s quorum is lost, and thus scarcely more than one-fifth of the popular numbers control an overwhelming majority, brings the Government to a stand-still and dissolve the Union. Similar refusals or failures to ap point the Presidential electors at any time, would effect a like result. Now any of these injurious contingencies are plainly within the legal capacities of the Constitution; and should a dissolution of the Union be either compassed or ensue, who but a madman would maintain that treason had been com mitted in the sense of the Constitution? Would that be “ levying war” against the Union, or “ adhering to its enemies,” or “giv ing them aid and comfort?” Who would have the recklessness to say so, and de nounce one-half or two-thirds of the people as traitors to the residue ? And how would the delinquents be dealt with ? Would you visit a recusant State with all the scath and waste of war, for doing an act, which the Constitution, far from punishing or forbidding, has provided the means of accomplishing, and permits ? Well, suppose you invade, suppose you triumph. What then ? Though you put down the State authorities, you cannot make men vote. If you can, and if you do, then is the State crushed and destroyed under such an exercise of power, and she can no longer be brought back into the Union as a sovereign and co-equal of the other States, and hence your very highest triumph would bring you no success. There is yet another clause of the Consti tution providing still more palpable and sim pler means for immediately accomplishing a dissolution of the Union. I allude to the clause, empowering one-f fth of the number present in either House of Congress to have the yeas and nays recorded “ on any ques tion” that arises, and vesting in them, there fore, an unlimited discretion to raise ques ; tions and call the yeas and nays on them, through an entire Congress and longer, stopping the supplies, arresting all legislation ! —and which carried out, would eventually i end in a rupture of the Union. Now, the | joint representative numbers in the House of Representatives, of the two populous States of New York and Pennsylvania amount to fifty-eight, and the whole number of repre sentatives, being two hundred and thirty-one, | of course forty-seven members contains one fifth of the whole number elected—and con i sequently these two States, (containing about ■ 5 out of 22,000,000 of popular numbers, and with eleven representatives to spare,) possess | the power to arrest the legislative action of the remaining twenty-eight States even to the extremity of dissolving the Union. But, it may be replied, that the majority would not submit to be thus controlled by a refractory minority, and would expel them from the House by strong hand and violence. Very well, so they might, but only through one of these flagrant breaches of the Constitution, which would itself effectually destroy the Union, and through the very unconstitutional means resorted to, to preserve it! Once more and by way of fyjpathescs: Suppose the white population of Texas, en masse, under the promptings of some mania for the gold mines, should remove to California and become citizens thereof, taking the oath of allegiance thither, and renouncing thereby their allegiance to Texas. Suppose, further, that all of them should retain their lands in Texas, leaving their slaves to cultivate them, and to account to them for the crops, &c. Suppose, further, that the Legislative and popular electors of Texas, had chosen their senators and representatives prior to embark ing upon this wholesale migration. And suppose lastly, that the United States marshal for Texas, in making his census returns, should report all of these facts to Congress, and that the senators and representatives elect, were the only resident citizens of the State. Now, I demand to know, whether, if all these supposals were brought into realities, there be any one among them, which would not be a perfectly lawful act under the Constitution of the United States? Most undoubtedly they would be so. Very well. Now would either House of Congress admit these sena tors and representatiues to seats, in the face of their official knowledge that they were without a constituency ? We know they would not. Very well again. Could Con gress apportion and allot represenkatives to a State under the census, which was destitute of representative numbers, and whoso former citizens had already been counted and regis tered among the representative members of California ? We know it could not. And now for the result? Texas would be out of the Union. She would have accomplished that result, through her own acts exclusively. All of these acts would be lawful acts. She would then have lawfully exercised the right of secession, and have ceased to be a State in the Union. Would there bo any treason in that? Would the migrating citizens be traitors to the Union ? Would that be levy ing war or adhering to the Union’s enemies? What says your Excellency ? Yes or No. Well, sir, after the striking demonstrations of the several faculties existing in the Consti tution itself, adequate to its total overthrow, without a breach of any of its provisions and even in the absence of a just cause, can it be said, with a shadow of decency or truth, that the Union, which is but an incidence and de pendency of the Constitution, and must stand or fall with it, is nevertheless indissoluble and immortal ? While two of the sovereign States of the Union are invested with a capacity by the Constitution to wholly dissolve it without a just cause, and at their arbitrary will and pleasure, can it be said, without putting all analogy and reasoning “ into Coventry,” that two other sovereign States of the Union may not, with a just cause, and for flagrant and repeated breaches of fundamental conditions of the compact, dismember the Union, by se ceding from its jurisdiction and authority and without being branded with treason for levying a war which would never be waged, but in defending their houses and firesides from the hostile invasions of the other It must he pertectly oovious to your Excel lency, that if tho rights o f secession exists at all, it is the most invaluable of all rights to tho majority on sectional issues, in such a government as ours. No administration of the Constitution upon such questions, is likely to be so impartial and just, nor ensure such protection to the minority, as when armed with a right of potential secessionit ean de clare to the majority : “Do us justice, or we trill dissolve the partnership.” No one knows belter than j’our Excellency, that tho South has always been, and is now, an unfail ing source of tho North’s thrift and the North's wealth; and that, could the free Skates once put their faith in the South’s right of secession, in virtue of the compact, or be lieved that the South was ready and resolved upon its dissolution, if unredressed of her wrongs, the aggressions complained of would immediately cease, and all the exasperating anti-slavery issues now pending before Con gress would be adjusted in forty-eight hours, and upon the South’s own terms. There is not a principle in tho Federal Constitution so conservative of the rights, equality and sovereignty of the Skates, and of the peace and perpetuity of the Union, as would be a recognized right in each of the States to se cede from the Union whenever it failed in any of the great ends for which it was established. Then, all sections and every State would realize how deep and vast was the stake which each one has in its preservation ; how frail was the mere legal cincture which bound the comprehensive whole in one; how essen tial to its duration it was, that each should refrain from aggressing upon the rights of another, or from grasping at or appropriating more than its own ; and that all should unite in promoting each other’s interest—cultivating each other’s friendship, and securing each other’s affections, and binding these States indissolubly in one harmonious whole. Then would the voices of this generation mingle with the voices of the remotest posterity, and the Union’s value and the Union’s benedic tions would be pronounced in the esto per petua of the grateful millions who would reap its bounties and share its glory, when this generation shall have passed away. Three of the most eminent living men of the country are Messrs. Clav, Cass and Web ster. Could they have been satisfied as so many of the fathers of the Constitution, and of the great men who preceded them, and the illustrious Washington, Jefferson and I Madison among them were, that the right of secession was an inherent and essential ele ment of a compact, to which the States were parties in their sovereign capacities ; and had they seen fit to make known such opinions to their countrymen in ail sections—who can doubt, but that their great weight of charac ter and influence, and admirable powers of debate, would have wrought their own con victions every where upon the public mind ? And had they done so, who can doubt, but that the free States, after balancing the South’s products, and the South’s freights, i the South’s purchasers, the South’s exchanges, and the South’s supplies to the Treasury— against their pretensions to appropriate to themselves exclusively the entirety of the Federal territory, to decoy away and emanci pate the South’s slaves, &e., in breach of the Constitution, with the certainty of an im mediate disruption of the Union —would promptly have chosen to have stood by their interests, abandoned their pretensions, yielded the South her equality, shared with her the territory, surrendered up her slaves, and, in fine, have adjusted the whole controversy on | the very moderate basis of the South’s ulli ’ matter*. Had this been done, th* whole land would bare resounded with rejoicings, and beeu wreathed with chaplets of conciliation and peace from ooean to ocean, and from the lakes to the sea. But, most unhappily for the country, these distinguished men did not see fit to take this soothing and tranquilizing course, bnt took the opposite one; and, in my humble judgment, have wrought thereby incalculable, and it may be, incurable mis chiefs upon the country. I do not mean to say that either of these gentlemen asserted, in so many words, that the right of secession did not exist; but that they so ingeniously and oracularly argued against its exercise, and made civil war its imminent and insepar able sequence, as to have wrought that im pression thoroughly upon the public mind at the North, and to have wrought the impres sion every where, that such were their opinions. It has never been my good or ill fortune, to encounter any well-informed person, any where, North or South, who, however he might deny the right of secession in u-ords, did not, in sentiment, if urged to particulars, betray bis belief in it, in some form or other; though apt enough to retreat from his posi tion, and mask his confession under cover of the phrase of a right of revolution. This proneness of statesmen to conceal their re treat xinder a battery of words, and in mat ters of state to regard as the safest use of language, the concealment of one’s thoughts, was most strikingly exemplified at the close of Mr. V\ ebster’s great speech on the slavery question in March last Avery eminent per son, of spotless purity of character, frank of thought and bold of counsel, unrivalled among men for his deep sagacity and pro found and comprehensive statesmanship, hap pened to be present on that occasion:—lt was South Carolina’s illustrious statesman, the lamented Calhoun! In the course of Mr. Webster’s fervent deplorings of the ef fects of secession, Mr. Calhoun understood him to deny (as did most of his audience) the right of secession, and for any cause. True to his instincts, and as rapid as thought, Mr. Calhoun saw all the portentous bearings of this skilful piece of oratory, and, though then in a deep decline, and but a span from the grave, he faultered not a momont in as saulting Mr. Webster’s position, and putting him upon his defence; and the following col loquy ensued: Mr. Calhoun. “I cannot agree with the senator from Massachusetts—that this Union cannot be dissolved. Am I to understand him, that no degree of oppression; no out rage; no broken faith, can produce the de struction of this Union? Why, sir, if that becomes a fixed fact, it will itself become the great instrument of producing oppression, outrage and broken faith. No, sir, the Union can lie broken. Great moral causes will break it if they go on, and it can only be -pre served by justice, good faith, and a rigid ad herence to the Constitution Mr. Webster. “The senator from South ,n—. —:/• i wia .u* W,L; n „ llr , of the Union by any such thing as the volun tary secession of States as an impossibility ? I know, sir, this Union can be broken up. Every government can be: and I admit that j there may be such a degree of oppression as will warrant resistance and a forcible sever- j anec. That is revolution ! Os that ultimate ! right of revolution, I have not been speaking. I know that that law of necessity does exist.” It is thus seen that Mr. Webster plainly evades the question he repeats to be answer ed, touching the right of “voluntary seces sion,” and contents himself with admitting, under the contingency he names, the right of a “forcible severance,” (about which no question had been put to him,) and this he de fines to mean, “the right of revolution.” And pray what is a right of revolution, but a right to change or abolish systems or forms of government, with or without force? Can Mr. Webster have attempted to impose upon his countrymen, as a sentiment of his own, that which he cannot believe, to wit: that a revolution cannot be effected but by the spill ing of blood. andfCivil war ? If so distin guished a person would risk his high fame upon so paltry a quibble as this, then the world might be curious to know how much blood must ho spilled, and how long the war must last, to make it a legitimate revolution? The throne of Louis Philippe in a single day sunk, crushed under the weight of popular opinion, and the affrighted monarch, with scarcely the exchange of a shot, precipitately fled the kingdom, and lo ! France was revolu tionized and free! That’s history. Was there blood enough spilt to make it a revolu tion ? Shortly thereafter, the Provisional Government of France was overthrown, and a Constitutional Government was substituted in its stead, without drawing a sabre or firing a gun! That’s history. Was it not a revo | luiion ? In 1840, Gen. Paredes, without the j click of a musket, displaced General Herrera, j and overturned the Mexican Government; j and, crossing the Rio Grande, brought on the American war! That's history. Was it not a revolution 1 Revolutions may be brought about by ci vil war undoubtedly, and mostfrequently are ; but it falsifies all experience, and is absurd to maintain ex vi terminorum, that they impart j governmental changes wrought by civil war i and none other. The terms revolution and | change, applied descriptively to substitutions | of one form of government for another, are | dealt with as synonimes, by those publicists lof Europe in the highest repute. Should the I people of these thirty States ever become i madmen enough to abolish this Republic by common consent, establish a monarchy in its stead and choose a King, it would astound the world!—and if that would not be a revo lution in the universal sense of mankind, and the most memorable which Christendom has witnessed, I challenge all history for the re gistry of one which would rival it in wonder, in interest and in importance ; and yet not a blood stain would attest the patriot strivings of an heroic resistance! Why, sir, when your predecessor was chosen and inaugura ted as President of the United States, what less or other did the change from a Demo cratic to a Whig Government import or at test, than a thorough revolution of national policy and parties ? And when, upon Gen eral Taylor’s demise, you acceeded to his func tions, and substituted anew Cabinet for the old one, what less or other, did it import or attest, than a revolution in the administration of the Government? The otie was a revolu tion of the Government, and the other of the Administration ; ctsisic omnes, dec* Hence secession, come when it may, and bo it in peace er in strife, and end as it will, mhst es | feet a revolution of the Government, and a ! dismemberment of the Union. That’s the re i suit, and that’s all. Nothing more, notbiqg 1 less, nothing else. The right of secession, then, is one of tho rights of revolution; and when I speak of it as a right, I mean what all the world means, in speaking of a right, an authority ia a State to do something, which no other Gov ernment, nor another State, nor many States, nor the United States, can have a counter right to prevent or obstruct, or oppose by force, or through any constraint or interfer ence whatever. I repeat what I have said be fore, that the right is absolute, exclusive, and unquestionable, or it does not exist. Should the other States, through their folly or wick edness, make war upon them for exercising rights guaranteed to them as muniments of sovereignty, resulting from the nature of the compact which made them parties to the Un ion.—so be it 1 They will be blameless and irresponsible, happen what may. And should the Union be shattered into fragments amid the shock and crash of arms, those who may have fomented the contest and achieved the catastrophe, will wish they had never been born, or being born that they were cast with millstones around their necks into the utter most depths of the sea! The controversy which severed the Colonies of the Kingdom in the days of ’7O, resulting as it did from in tolerable wrongs and oppressions too griev ious to be borne with, would have been effect ed (had justice and the right held sway,) through peaceful secession and nothing be sides. The men of the revolution, in their memorable Declaration of Independence, re cited their grievance and announced their separation; but they proclaimed no war and they made nono. It was Great Britian who made the war, and converted their attempt at a peaceful revolution into a bloody one, by in vading their borders, laying waste theirtowna and villages, killing their people, desolating their country, and driving them to arms!—- Now, I demand to be shown, in all the broad laud, a single American , who stands ready to deny that British oppressions vested a right of secession even in the colonies, and with it a right to judge for themselves of the occa sion meet for its exercise. If there be such a person, I want to see that man! But them is no such man! All men, in this country at least, admit that the colonies possessed the right of peaceful secession, and all who do, necessarily deny to Great Britain the conflict ting right to resist its accomplishment by force or at all, or to have waged the cruel and bloody war of the Revolution ngainst them. And who and what were these colonies?— Distant dependencies of the British Crown: Scattered political units, and meagre atomies in the grand sum total of the population of that world-wide empire. Not a vestige of sovereignty had ever rested in these colonies nor had any ever abided thither, but such em anations of it as had been disputed by Ma jesty to make subjects of their people, monop olize their commerce, appropriate their reve nues, and rule over and govern them. What then! are there Americans among us who will deny to sovereign States plenary of all tho powers of self-government, a right of seces sion which they will concede to the colonies and while they were enthralled in subjection to the British Crown? Far bolder and juster sentiments than these inspired the men of the Revolution, when taking their high resolves, to peril all that men have or value in defence of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” when they wisely and firmly resolved: A jtWBW which governments are formed, “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to insti tute anew government, laying its own founda tion on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as lo them shall seem most likely to effect their safely and happi ness.” * * * “ When a long train of a buses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw of such government , and to provide new guards for their future se curity” In these noble passages is found the great right of secession, the right of any oppressed people under the sun, “to throw of ” any gov ernment and “ to provide new guards for their future security.” These are the doctrines of the men of the Revolution, the doctrines of the Congress of ’76, the doctrines traced by the pencil of Jefferson in lines of living light, the doctrines maintained by the sword of Washington, until it had cleaved the colonies and kingdoms asunder. Thinks your Excel lency, that the great and good man, who drew his sword in defence of the right of se cession, and in behalf of the enthralled and despised colonies, would have sheathed it in the vitals of a sovereign State, for asserting the very right whicli gives to the revolution its highest legal sanctions? Verily, sir, the precious morccaux whictl history brings down to us, when rightly un derstood, will clear away every doubt as to the sentiment of this illustrious man, upon this, the most momentous of all the issue* which the Federal compact can raise or solve. He was the presiding officer of this Conven tion, when James Madison declared with such imposing solemnity, that, “A breach of the fundamental principles of the. compact by a part of the society, would certainly absolve the other parts from their allegiance to it,” and brought down the assent and applause of the whole Convention upon so wise and just a sentiment. He had calmly noted the deep forecaste displayed by the Con* vention of Virginia when ratifying the Con stitution, June 26, ‘BB, in her sovereign reser vation of the right of secession, through its memorable declaration, that the powers grant ed under the Constitution by the people “ may be resumed by them, whenever the same may be perverted to their injury or oppression . He had equally noted, that the Convention of the great State of New York, had taken counsel of the wise precaution of Virginia, in specially reserving, also, the sovereign right of secession, when ratifying that instrument | just one month thereafter, (July 26, ’88,) and ; the reservation was made, in the explicit i declaration, that, j “All power was derived from the people, j and could be resumed by the people, whenever \ it becomes necessary for their happiness;** and none knew better than he, that the reser* rations of these States, in an union of equals, necessarily inured to all the States, and vest ed in each a right of secession ; which, how | ever, without any reservations at all, would have clearly resulted from the nature of a compact to which all were parties as Slates. He was President of the United States in 1795, when the Kentucky Legislature, exas i perated to the last letter of endurance, at tho • procrastination submitted to in securing the ! free navigation of the Mississippi, drafted its | famous memorial, announcing her purpose | “ lo secede from the Union,” unless that navi gation was speedily secured to hen “ This strong declaration,” (says one of Kentucky’s i most eminent citizens,) “ was made in a lan ! gunge not to be misunderstood. The ground. : i cats taken after mature consideration, and NO. 35.