Lincoln on Secession in ‘'48 and '’61.
George Third could not have announced the absolutism of established powers in more latitudinous and unqualified terms than the Northern President has done in his denial of the right of secession to the States. The whole gist of his argument in the Message consists in the proposition that the right of secession would destroy all government; and that, in crushing secession, the Government is preserving its own existence. This was, in brief, the language of Great Britain in 1776, and all the armaments which that mistaken power sent out to crush the rebellion of the Colonies, were sent for the maintenance of that very proposition. All that the Colonies demanded in the Revolution, after July 4th, 1776, was the right of separate and independent government; and that is all the South demands at this time. The colonists declared, in opposition to the pretensions of Lord North, that the right of secession was inherent in man for sufficient cause; and that is what the South maintains at this time, in opposition to the sophistries of Seward.The proposition of North and Seward holds good only this far, that the right of Secession does not exist for insufficient causes. It is only the abuse of the power that is unlawful. If Seward had confined his denial to the abuse of the right of Secession, what he has said against it would have been true, and the fallacy of his argument consists in ignoring the distinction between the abuse of the right and the right itself. The fathers of the country felt it incumbent upon them to declare to the world the causes which impelled them to the separation. In that declaration was implied the admission that unless the causes were adequate their disturbance of the existing order of things was to be condemned. So have the South felt that their act of Secession was only to be justified if impelled by sufficient cause; and they have taken repeated occasion to announce and explain these causes to the world.
The great moral issue between Great Britain and the Colonies was, whether the conduct of the mother country to its dependencies had been such as to justify the divorce. The fathers declared that it had been such, and they rested their justification upon this issue of fact. They did not claim an arbitrary right, on more volition and without provocation, to break up and rend to pieces established governments and long existing political associations.
In like manner, the great moral issue between North and South is, whether the conduct of the Abolition States towards the slaveholding ones has been such as to justify a divorce — whether the positive wrong and incompatibility of temper have been such as to render separation advisable and necessary. The South has never asserted the right to break up the Union from more caprice and without justifying cause. They assert the right of Secession for cause, just as the fathers did in 1776, and just as the Revolution itself established it.
George Third denied the right, whether supported or not supported by cause; and Lincoln, at the bidding of Seward, blindly adopts his language and his doctrines in all their untenable and long-repudiated latitude. But, fortunately for the South, she has a champion for her cause no less renowned and redoubtable than Lincoln himself. Lincoln non-President must be considered a sounder exponent of doctrines affecting the Presidential prerogative than Lincoln President. While a member of Congress from Illinois, this illustrious philosopher did declare, in a speech published in the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, for the first session of the Thirtieth Congress, page 94, for the right of Secession, in the most unqualified terms. His language was thus positive and emphatic:
‘ "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing Government may choose to exercise it.--any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, put down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or old laws, but to break up both and make new ones."
’ Compare this language with that employed in his Thursday's Message, and the contrast will be found amusingly and sufficiently striking. He goes in his speech a whole bow shot beyond the mark. The South contends for no capricious and unprovoked right of Secession. She claims only to secede for justifiable cause; and her assertion in this war is that the provocation has been sufficient to impel the secession. That the case is with her on this issue let the North itself bear witness, through the mouth of Millard Fillmore, who said:
‘ "We see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency selected, for the first time, from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candidates by suffrages of one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected upon the consequences which must inevitably follow in case of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate? * * * suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should declare that they would have only slaveholders for President and Vice-President, and should elect such by their exclusive suffrage to rule over us at the North, do you think you would submit to it? no, not for A moment. And do you believe that your Southern brethren are less sensitive on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken; and therefore you must see that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads Inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric trained by our forefathers, &c. * * * I tell you that we are trending upon the brink of a volcano, that is liable at any moment to burst forth and Overwhelm the nation.
’
