The South-west Georgian. (Oglethorpe, Ga.) 1851-18??, September 12, 1851, Image 1
YOUNGBLO(iIf& ALLEN P"r^f||rs.
VOL. I.
®ihs
It Published every Friday Monung, in the new Town <jf
Oglethorpe, JWacon County,Ga.,
CHARLES B. YOUNGBLOOD,
Editor and Publisher.
EGBERT \V. ALLEN, TRAVELING AoENT.
TERMS—S 2 Per Pear in advance
RATES OF ADVERTISING.
. Or; Dollar per square (of 12 lines or lew) for the first
nsertion, and Fifty Cents for each insertion thereafter.
A liberal deduction will be made to those who adver
tise by the year.
Advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub
lished till ordered out and charged accordingly.
]Hr. Cobb’s Letter
TO THE MACON COMMITTEE.
Concluded.
Secesiion without Cause.
Your first interrogatory directs my at
tention to the question of secession ; anti
you have put the issue upon the right of’
a State to secede from the Union with
out just cause: As this right is claimed
by many as a constitutional right, and
by all of those who advocate it in its mod
ern acceptation, as consistent with con
stitutional obligations, I shall consider it
at some length in reference to its constitii’
tional bearings.
When asked to concede the right of a
State to secede at pleasure from the Un
ion, with or without just caue, we are
called upon to admit that the framers of
the constitution did that which was never
done by any other people, possessed of
their good sense and intelligence—that
is to provide in the very organization of
the government for its own dissolution,
it seems to me, that such a course would
not have been an anomalous pro
ceeding—but wholly inconsistent with the
wisdom and sound judgment which mar
ked the deliberations of those wise and
good men, who framed our Federal Gov.,
eminent. Whilst / freely admit, that
such an opinion is entertained by many,
for whose judgment I entertain the high
est respect, I have no hesitation in declar
ing that the convictions of my own judg
ment are well settled, that no such prin
ciple was contemplated in the adoption
of our constitution. If it was the pur
pose of the framers of the constitution, to
subject the perpetuity of the Union to the
will, and indeed, 1 may add, the caprice
of each State, it is a most remarkable
fact, that a principle of such vast impor
tance, involving the very existence of
the republic, should have been left an
open question, to he decided by inferen
ces and metaphysical deduction of the
most complicated character. When one
rises from a careful study of the con
stitution of the United States, he feels im
pressed with its wonderful adaption to
the wants and interests of thisjgrowing
people. Not only does he find wise and
judicious provisions and guarantees for
the state of the country as it then existed
but with prophetic wisdom its framers
seem to have penetrated the future, ac
commodating the government to the ne
cessities and requirements of its present
increased population and extended rev
sources. 1 am not prepared to admit
that the men who exhibited so much care
and foresight in refererire to all the vari
ous parts of this complicated machine—
would have left to vague conjecture the
existence of she important and vital pow
er now claimed for each State, of dissolv
ing at pleasure, the Union which had
cost them and their compatriots so much
(oil, and labor, and anxiety. If diey had
intended to provide for the destruction
of that noble structure, which they were
then erecting with all the care and wis
dom of able statesmen and devoted pa
triots, by such simple and obvious means
os the withdrawal of any State from the
confederacy—they would have manifest*
ed their intention by tome plain and pal
pable provision of the constitution.—
Such a course would have been charac
teristic of the honest, practical and en
lightened statesmen of the convention.—
Their failure to do so carries the strong
est conviction to my mind, that no such
principle was recognised by tligin. In
connection with this view of the “subject,
the inquiry forces itself upon our minds,
if each State reserved the right to with
draw at pleasure from the Union, why
was there so much difficulty encouute
by the friends of the constitution
in obtaining its ratification by the differ
ent Slates ? There were few, if any,
who were opposed to the formation of the
Union, after the constitution had been
•übmitted to States for ratification
provided they cotrajufriAfl certain a
mendments upon it. The policViofadopt
ing the constitution,on condition ibra,’
amendments should be acceded to, ‘was
urged with great earnestness in the cob-1
ventions, and among the people of seve
ral of the States ; but was finally aban
doned, on the ground that it would be a
conditional ratification, and therefore in
admissible.
Mr. Madison's Opinions.
On this point, 1 must refer to the opin
ion expressed by Mr. Madison, who has
been called ‘ the father of the constitu
tion,’ and to whose exposition of that sa
cred instrument, the republican party
have been accustomed to look with im
plicit confidence. Mr. Madison says :
‘ My opinion is, that a reservation of
a right to withdraw if amendments be not
decided on under the form of the const i
tuiion within a certain time, is a condi
tional ratification, that it does not make
New York a member of the new Union;
and consequently, that she would not be
received on that plan. Compacts must
be,reciprocal—this principle would not,
in such a case be preserved. The eon
stitutlon requires an adoption in toto and
forever.
H the right was reserved to each State
to withdraw, ii would have been an act
of superrogation on the part of New
York, or any oilier State to declare in
advance that she would withdraw or se
cede, if the amendments site proposed to
the constitution were not adopted. U the
right existed, it could be exercised as well
without, as with the condition annexed
to her ratificaiion of the constitution, and
the assertion of it would have been a use
less interpolation and a nullity. It was
nut so regarded however, at the time, by
those who had been active participants in
the framing’ of the constitution. Mr.
Madison considered the reservation of a
right to withdraw front the Union ns ‘a
condition that would vitiate the ratifica
tion.’ He says father in writing to Mr.
Hamilton on this subject: * The idea of
reserving a right to withdraw was start
ed at Richmond, and considered as a
conditional ratification, which was itself
abandoned as worse than a rejection.’
North Carolina and Rhode Island.
If the opinion of Mr. Madison, which
1 have referred to, be well founded, it
puts an end to the controversy. There
ran he uo doubt about the fart, that he
did not recognize the right of each Stale
to secede from the Union at her own plea
sure. In addition to the facts which I
have just considered, there is a strong
illustration of the opinions that prevail
ed among the framers of the constitution
on this subject, in the action of the Slates
of North Carolina amt Rhode island.—
These Slates refused to come into the
Union for some time after the ratification
of (he constitution. They were not op
posed to the furination of lh§ Federal Un
ion, but like some of the other States,
they were unwilling to adopt the consti
tution as it then stood. If it had been
a recognized and undoubted principle that
each State was bound to remain in the
Union only go long as it suited to its own
convenience, no one doubts that these
States, instead of withholding their as
sent to (lie constitution, after it had been
adopted by the requisite number, would
have come at once into the Union, with
the intention of immediately withdrawing
front it, upon the refusal of the States to
adopt such amendments as they desiretl;
but regarding the effect of their ratificaJ’
tion ot the constitution in an entirely dif
ferent light from cite secessionists of the
present day, they adopted quite a differ
ent policy. So far as we can gather light
and information from the opinions and
action of the men who framed and adopt
ed the constitution, it all goes to strength
en and confirm the conviction I have al
ready expressed against the existence of
any such right.
The Intention of the Framtrt.
The political history ol die country from
the time of the declaration ol indepen
dence to the adoption of the constitution,
is confirmatory of the correctness of the
opinion I have expressed. In the orig
inal articles of confederation, it is more
than once declared that the object it as to
form a perpetual Union. Those arti
cles of confederation were found too weak
and inefficient, to carry out the great
purposes of the people in the establish
ment of a general government, and
hence it was, that in its own language,
was the present constitution adopted for
the purpose of firming ‘ a more perfect
Union.’ It would be a reflection, both
upon the integrity and the framers of the
OGLETHORPE, GEORGIA, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1851.
constitution to say, that they abandoned
‘ a perpetual Unitin’ to form a more
perfect on j , and in doing so, adopted a
conditional Union. Such
Huyever, is the construction placed by
upon the action of those
gtMHMytnd good men, to whose energy,
wisdoijgfr.iiiimism, we are indebted for
our pnHit noble and glorious Union.
HCuse of Louisiana.
The our gnvernnlbnl during
its whole existfcstfie, looks to the continu
ance and perpetuity of the Union. /is
temporary and (Viditiorinl existence, is
no where impresses either upon domes,
tic or foreign policy^it lias for more
than half a century psmuiLglhe even te
nor of its way, growing in stieflgjli and
increasing in usefulness, takinggAlfeper
and deeper hold upon the hearts atfd.j.l
feciions of the people; the
great American principle of free govern
ment, and reflecting upon its inspired
founders the highest and brightest honor.
Whilst 1 do not propose to illustrate these
views by a detailed review of the action
of the government, I cannot forbear to
refer to one portion of our history, which
is strongly corroborative of the correct
ness ot the position 1 cave- asstooed.—
When the people of the United States
determined upon the purchase o'’tlie Lott,
istana territory, and effected that desira
ble object at the cost of a considerable a
mount of money, and by the exercise of
a questionable constitutional power, it
will not be said, that they did so for (lie
benefit ot those who then inhabited the
country, nor indeed for those who might
subsequently remove there. They were
prompted to the acquisition of tit tt vast
ami valuable territory by considerations
of public policy, affecting their interests
and welfare as citizens of (lie various
Stales of tlte Union. The rotnmercial
and military vantages to the United
Stales, from the possession of that coun
try, were so great and important, that
its acquisition was considered alqiost an
act of self protection. Will it now be
said that the people of Louisiana possess
the right to deprive the remaining States
of the Union, of all the interests and ad
vantages which they have bought and
paid lor, out of their own treasury, by
withdraw ing, or seceding, from the Un
ion at will?
Louisiana is as free, sovereign and in
dependent as any other Slate of the Un
ion, and if this right exists in any one
Stale, it exists in all, without reference to
the mode by which the territory was ac
quired, out of which the Stale is formed,
/apprehend that the people of tlte-Uid
led Slates did not for a moment entertain
the idea, that in admitting Louisiana in.
to the Union, they had thus perilled all
the advantages ot that important acquisi
tion, hy placing it in the power ot a single
Slate to deprive the Union of commercial
anti military advantages ami resources,
of inestimable value, purchased by the
joint treasure of all the Slates, and now
held by them as beyond the reach of any
price or consideration that could be of
fered in exchange (or them. These re
marks apply with equal force to (dl the
territorial acquisitions made by thevUni
ted States, where States have been of may
hereafter lie formed and admitted into the
Union, and the same principle might he
forcibly illustrated hy reference to tlte ar
lion of the Government on subjects of a
kindred character, but it cannot be nec
essary, and 1 will not extend this view to
any greater length.
The effect of Secession,
When tlte right of a Slate to secede
from the Ijnion, at will, is conceded, we
have but the existence of the Govern
ment at the disposal of each State in tlte
Union. The withdrawal of one, is a dis
solution of the compact w hich holds the
Slates together; it is no longer the Un
ion that the Constitution formed, and the
remaining States are absolved from all
moral obligation to abide longer hy their
compact. 1 say moral obligation, be
cause the argument of the secessionists
denies the existence ot any binding legal
obligation. By admitting the doctrine
ol the secessionists, we are brought to die
conclusion, that cor Federal Govern
ment, the pride and boast of every Amer
ican patriot, the wonder and admiration
of the civilized world, is nothing more
llt Alt n Voluntary association, teH|>orary
in its character, weak and imbecile in the
exercise of its pow ers, iurapuhle of self,
preservation, claiming front its citizens al
legiance and demanding annual tribute
from their treasure —and yet, destitute ot
the power of protecting their rights
or preserving their liberties. If this be
OUR COUNTRY'S GOOD IS OURS.
tlte true theory ofour goverment, what is
the constitution of the United Slates that
we should estimate it so highly? Where is
its binding force, that we should hold to
provisions with such unyielding tenacity ?
individuals! annul violate theircompaets,
or set aside at pleasure their mutal obli
gations, without the assent of the other
parties. Nations cannot recklessly disre
gard their treaty stipulations, without in
curring the consequences -of violated
faith. But our constitution, tlie revered
monument of revolutionary patriotism
and wisdom, which we have been taught
to regard with reveremial feeling is doom
ed to fall below the standard of national
treaties, and individual contracts, it has
formed a Union founded upon mutual
sacrifices and concession—made hy the
several component parts for the greater
benefits to be derive!) hy each, from the
cnmhi.jfad^o.operation of all—anil now
we are tohl-tliat there is no obligation to
observe thauiuJJnion, beyond tlte pleas
ure of the parti-s'io ii—and that the con
stitution can be by the acts of
any Stale in the confederacy.
Ido not so on<iersia‘id ; ttur government
I feel that I owe my allegiance to a gov.
eminent, possessed <>f more vitality anil
strength than that which is drawn from a
voluntary obedience to its laws. 1 hold
that uo government is entitled to-niy ulle
uiaure that does not possess the pm.vug to
enforce and execute them.
/am fully aware of the fact that the ef
fort is now being made to render the de
nial of the right of a Slate to dissolve the
Union, odious in the public estimation
presenting to the public mind, in connec
tion with it, a Itightlid picture of an ar
med soldiery and a military despotism. 1
have no fears of judgment that our en
lightened countrymen will pass on this
controversy —and surely I Cou'd not com
plain of any consequence that should re
sult from any avowal of doctrines which
/ have imbibed from teachings of Mr.
Madison, Gen. Jackson, Judge Craw
ford, ana their republican associates. It
does not tidlow, however, as a necessary
consequence of tlte principles which I
have laid down, tint military coercion is
to he used against a Stale that may at
tempt the exercise of this revolutionary
right.
Stale Coercon.
Whilst I deny tlte right of a State to
secede, and thus dissolve the Union, I
would not attempt hy die strong arm of
military power to bring her citizens back
to their allegiance, unless compelled to
do so in defence of tlte rights ami inter
ests of the remaining States of the Union.
We should not recognize her separate
independence, nor could we allow our
own interests to be periled by sanctioning
any alliance she might be disposed to
make with any fore ign government.—
In our desire to inflict no injustice
upon a wandering sister, we should not
forget the duty which tlte government
owes to those who remain firm and true
to their allegiance, and who claims upon
its'protection and support should not he
highly regarded. The laws of self pro ;
tenimi would require at the hands of the
government, that due regard should be
had for the protection of tlte rights and
interests of the oilier States, and to that
demand it would be bound to respond.
If one o( the Stales should in a mad hour
attempt to secede from the Union, and the
kind and indulgent policv which 1 have
indicated should lie resorted to, I have no
doubt that in a very short time such a
Slate would feel it to be both her duty
and interests to reirarl her wandering
steps, and return to tlte embrace of the
sisterhood. This opinion is founded tip
on the high estimate which I place on the
value of the Union to each ami all of her
Slates that compose it. It would require
the experience of only a short absence, to
teach the wanderer the benefits and ad
vantages front which she had voluntarily
exiled herself.
Such are the general views which I en- ‘
tertnin on this subject, and I have freely
expressed them. I have discussed it as a
mere abstract question, arid in that light
/ regard it. Whatever differences of <>•
pinions may exist among the true friends
of the Union on the abstract quettion of
the right of secession, I apprehend that
when it afSTmtes a practical shape, there
would he hot slight shades of difference
as to the policy and effects of our action.
There are many who hold to the doctrine
of the right ot a Stale to secede from the
Uni tn, with whom / du not differ prac
tically. They grant tlte abstract right
of secession, but claim fur the remaining I
States the right to protect themselves
from any injurious conseqences that
might flow from the exercise of that ab
stract right hy the seceding State. It is
only necessary to show that, in the end,
the practiced oderation of their principles
would lead to the same result that / woidd
reach by the enforcement of the doctrines
which I have avowed. Our difference is
theoretical, not practical, and therefore
constitutes tin impediment in the way of
’our rortlial co-operation.
We all hold that just and wise laws
should be inforced and executed, whilst
we are prepared to oppose acts of injustice
and oppression by all the means in our
power, and to the rupture of everyjtie that
binds us to any government. No gov.
ernntent, however wisely and ‘.innestly ad
ministered, can be maintained in tlte ab
sence of binding obligations on its citizens
to obey its laws, and power to inforce
their executions on recusant parties.—
Hence, 1 cannot consent to the doctrine
that our government is destitute ot these
powers essential to its vitality and exist
ence. The claim which / have urged in
behalf of die Federal Government can
not be abandoned without endangering
the Iraine-work of our admirable system--
nor is there any serious danger to be ap
prehended from its improper exercise.—
Its true strength, based upon the ex
stance ot tiiese powers, is to be found in
tJ.c justice and w isdom of its legislation ;
these are the true and only sale avewLsts
to the hearts and affections of the
wherein are found tlte of
support to a tree goyetnmeiu. Ido not
entertain tljte idea, for a moment, that our
government can lie maintained by the
strong arm of military power, when it’
ceases to bestow the blessings upon the:
people for which it was formed. Whe-i
ever it becomes the instrument of wrong!
and oppression to any portion of the<
people, hy unjust laws and degrading
legislation ,it will cease to be the Union
formed by our revolutionary fathers, and
possessing no further claims upon our al
legiance and support, should that period
ever unfortunately arrive, we will not fail
to prove ourselves true to the principles
of liberty anil equal rights as our honored
and venerated fathers; nor will we stop to
look to the provisions of a violated con
stitution for the mode or measure for the
redress of onr grievances.
Secession for just cause.
1 have so far considered the question in
reference to the doctrine of the coustitiis
tional right of a Slate to secede without
a just cause, at her own w ill and plea -
sure, and / think I have shown that it is
unsupported either by principle or author
ity. On the oilier hand, I admit the)
right of a Slate to secede for just causes,]
to he determined by herself Being a]
party to the compact, which tlte constitu
tion forms, she has the right, which all
other parties to a compact possess, to de-.
lermlne fur herself when, where and how]
the provisions of that compact have been ]
violated, /i is equally clear that the
oilier parties to the compact possess a
corresponding right to judge for them
selves and there being no common arbi
ter decide between them, each must de
j pend for the justification of their course
upon the justice of their cause, the cor
[redness of their judgement ami their
power and ability to maintain their de
cision.
The right of a State to secede in case
of oppression, or a “gross and palpable
v iolstion,” of her constitutional rights, as
jerived from the reserved sovereignty of
the Stales, I am prepared to recognize.
Ii such case, each State, in the language
f the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions
l‘ 1798-’99, is to be the judge, not only
F the “iofactions,” but “the inode and
ensure of redress.” It is the just rigid of
e people to change their form of gov.,
nmeiit when, in their opinion, it has be
•nts lyranical, in a mode not provided
r in the constitution, and is therefore
volotiunary in its character, and (le
nds for its maintenance upon the stout
hearts and strong arms of a free peo
ple.
A citizen not a Traitor.
In connection with this branch of the
question nrises, which, in tlte opinion of
some, is of considerable importance, /t
is, whether or not the citizens of a State
resinning her sovereign powers would he
able to the charge of treason in confirm
ing to the requirements of their State go
vernment. 1 refer to this particularly
only in consideration of tlte importance at
tached to it by others. From wlmt I have
said, it will clearly appear that I hold
I that they would not be. In my opinion,
u o man commits treason who acts in obe-
| TERMS: $2 in Advance.
dience to the law sand authorities of a re
gularly organized government, such as
we recognise our State government to
he.
The people to settle the question.
But there is a question, gentlemen, in
volving in your interrogatories, which ri>
ses in magnitude far above any which 1
have yet considered. It involves the im
portant inquiry, whether in the event of
a State seceding front the Union, and the
Executive of the United Slates making a
requisition fur troops to coerce her back,
I, if elected governor of Georgia, would
obey that requisition. This question
may become a practical one—l sincerely
(rust and hope it never will. Under the
existing laws of the United States, tlte
President has no power to order out the
militia to coerce a seceding Slate. Neith
er the act ol 1795 nor the act 1807 would
apply in such an emergency. Those acts
apply to cases where individuals, acting
w ithoiit the authority of any state govern
ment, resist, by force, the laws of the U
niletl States—to riots and insurrections—
to such cases as we were apprehensive a
few months since might be manifested in
opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in
portions of the Northern Slates. That
this is the true construction to be placed
upon ilte arts, will be apparent from the
conduct of Gen. Jacltson in a former per
iod of our history, when the .Staleof
South Carolina threatened to secede from
jibe Union. He tlten found it necessa
ry op invoke the aid of additional legisla
tion by Congress. His appeal to the
then Congress resulted in the passage of
the law familiarly known as “the Force
Bill,” but that act being tempotury in
its objects and character, has lost all vi
taliiv, and long since ceased to be of
force, having expired by its own limita
tion. In the contingency involved in
your question, it would he necessary that
the President it his views of right and
policy led him to coercion, should ask
Congress additional legislation, and it
;would be for them to determine whether
or not they would grant it. If a State
should secede, and the President should
recommend to Congress such legislation
and Congress should grant it, then your
question Would become practical, and 1
ant prepared to answer it fully, freqly.
and frankly, h would be the most fear
ful issue that ever the people of this
country have been called on to decide
since the days of the revolution—so mo
nieutuous, so vital the interest of people
of Georgia, that 1 should tell bound to
to ascertain the will of the people before
I acted. I should endeavor to be the
i Executive of the will of the people of
Georgia. To ascertain that will, /should
convene (lie Legi.-lature of (lie Slate, and
recommed to them to cajl a convention
of the people, and it would be for that
I convention, representing the people upon
that naked issue, to determine whether
Georgia would go out of tlte Union, and
rally herself and peril her destines with
the seceding State, or whether she would
remant in the Union and abide the for
tunes of her other sisters. And as Geor-1
gia spoke, so would 1 endeavor, if her
Executive, to give power jnd effect to
Iter voice.
C onclusion.
But if a collision of arms between the
States composing our glorious confeder
acy should ever come, it requires no pro
phet to predict these result. .The Union
would fall beneath the weight ot revolu
tion and blood, and fall to rise no more.
It was formed in the hearts of the Ameri
can people—it can only be preserved in
their hearts. When any very large
lion of its inhabitants look upon it as op
pressing and degrading tltem —when
they cease to reverse it as the legacy of
Washington, and the inheritance of the
/blood of the revolution, its vitality will
[be gone, nnd empty parchments, though
laided hy military force, can never hold it
Itogelher. Hence, we see the abolition-
Fists of the North denouncing it as'a
{covenant with hell,’ and hence we hear
the disunionlsts of the South inflaming
the hearts of the people against it, an
nouncing that they hare been degraded
and oppressed by it, and preparing event
ually to overthrow it. They are wise
men, they understand the working of the
liimian heart, and they well know that
when the heart feels that wrong, indigni
ty and insult have been heaped ttprna
man, unless he be indeed a craven spit t, a
blow will follow. Prepare the hearts of
! the people to hate the Union of their
( fathers, nnd the battle is won—they are
ready to fight against it. Hence, be
lieving ns l do, that the late compromia
NO 22