Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1829-11-06


noe, when
siton, opposed to the resolution oc the
Legislative G ,mmi,tee, they will not come
out with their own proofs, but try to-
throw the OnuS pr05andf on us. But gen
tlemen on the other side should rccollect,
that they are in the affirmative; they say
that such proposition ought to prevail
where we denyt. Why do they not pro.
coed to prove The proposition, instead of
calling upon US Tor pron:s We have a
right TO call upon gen,lement to bring for
word their own principles, regularly ar
rayed and numbered. But yesterday the
order of the day seemed to be no princi-
pies and to-day no proufs.
The Chair then read the question.
After some conversation between
Messrs Upshur and Mercer, the question
was PIT on the motion of Mr.. .Upshur,
that the Committee do now rise, aud Lost.
MIR. Upshur then rose to address the
Committee. He said that though he was
not altogether uDprcpared for the discns-
sion, yet he did not feel himself precisely
in that frame of mind, which he might
desire for such "A discussion. In entering
upon it, he could assure the Committee
that he had come to this place with no
local leelings--but as Virginian. He
had hoped, that where such variations of
opinion prevailed, a conciliatory feeling
would be encouraged, and that the two
parties might be induced to meet OH some
middle ground but since he had come
here, he had found no disposition in any
one in favor of a cOmpromise-and he
which he thought correct. He stated,
that there were Two species of maJorities ;
majority of numbers, and majority of
interests. He asked, upon what princi-
pie the right of majority itself to rule is
founded. No attempt had been made TO
establish such principle on the contra
ry, it had been assumed in this discussion
as an axiom. If there be ar original and
q priori in the majority to go'ern, what is
il? If it be derived from agreement and
compact! Is it derived from the present
Constitution how then can the majority
of the whites have the right 10 govern,
since the present Constitution recognises
no such right? IL not from that instru-
ment, then from what other compact is it
dcrivedl But gentlemen may say, it is a
natural right-but Mr.U. denied that there
was Il natural indeleasble right under all
possible circumstances In maIOritles to GO
vern. There was but one law in nature, that
OF seeking the happiness of the individual.
In state of nature prior to society, force
alone goycrns-and out Of four persons,
three might unite to rule fourth, but it
was by The law Of superior force. But
suppose, now men united into society !;
they carry with them all their rights
Now if the majority claim such right
by nature, " hat sanction have they for 1t =?
And again, how is The majority to be as
certalned? Is the majority so founded in
the principles of our nature, that Justice
itself may be sacrificed. and the majority
may Cypress others? But if nature does
give this right; if she has so strongly i'm
pressed II uron our minds, that we may
not depart from it; in what does the right
consist? Does it reside in mere numbers /!
Ii IN numbers, why do we not count the
women and the children, as well as the
men-as entitled to exercise power? Why
do we limit it to a particular sex, and
particular age? Why gentlemen take a
particular basis, whence do they derive
the power to limit the right Of voting to
particular class? If the law Of num-
bers alone is to prevail, why should not
blacks even be counted? There is mo-
thing in the laws of nature, to show thai
Jet has not the same claims as yermllIiOn.
The doctrine of exclusion might suit A.
merica, but it would not suit Africa-for,
there they even paint the devil white: So
different are their pre- udiCes and opinions
from our own If the right rule he, that
numbers alone are to govern, why do Won
not permit the pauper to 90 to the polls
as well as the women! What uniform
rule does nature lay down? Why ex.
clude minors from the polls! Under the
line men are ripe much earlier than they
are in colder climates. And surely therefore
nature has LAID down no uniform rule on
this subject.
Mr.. Upshur attempted to show how diff
hcult it is TO apply the rules drawn from,
state OF nature to that OF society. There
are no records of such a condition. He
did not believe such a state ever existed.
The idea Of property was always attached
TO that OF man; and instead of property
sPrIng'ng from society itself, it was soci-
ETY. which grew ont of property.
Mr.. U. protested not to have gone into
this subject fully; but he denied that
there were such things as natural rights
and ne commended, that we had been gull
ty OF the absurdhy Of applying to state
OF society what he had pleased to deduce
from an imaginary state Of natare. The
principles Of government are deduced
from the government itself Has Turkey
any governmeDt-or England-or the u.
States? If then these principles are re-
ally necessary to the existence Of 90
vernment, how is it that they have any