Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-10-02
CALHOUN CORRESPONDENCE.

contest, iii which force could 10 ompoyed; but
tna' vicw as between The parties, would suporccd'
the constitution ITSELF that nllliic1iion is scces
sion, and would, consequently, place the State. a
! 10 the others, in the relation OF foreign Statc
Such clearly would be the cltc, of scccssion; bat
rs equally clear, that il would pace the State be
yond tho pale of all her Federal relations, and
thereby, all control the par, OF the othc
States over her. She would stand 10 them simply
in tho relation of foreign State, dtvcStcd OF al
Federal connection, aud having none other between
them but those belonging to the laws OF nations
Standing thus towards ono another, iofcc NIGH
indeed be employed against State, but 1T must b'
Il bcliccrant force, preceded by declaration ofwar
, and carried on with all its fornalites. Such wouls
he the certain effect of secession; and 1T nullifico
ton be sccession-if il be but different name fol
tho sa no thing-such must be It's effect; which
presents tho hIghly Important question, are thoy
IN fact the same the decision oil which, depends
the question: whether it hc Peaccd6fs aud coasii
tnfionai remedy, that may bc exercised without ter
miaatin tho Federal relations of the State or not
! am aware, that there is considerable, and res
pccta:lc portion of State, with very large
portion of the Union, constituting in fact, grca,
majority, who are of the opinion, that they are
the same thing, differing only in name; and, who
under that impression, dcnouncs it, as the mos,
dangerous of all doctrines; aud, yet, far from
being the same, they are, unless indeed great
ly deceived, not only perfectly distnguishahle, but
totally dissimar in their nature, their object, and
effect; and that, far from deserving the dcnun-
citation, so properly belonging Ia the act with
which it is coniounded, it is in TRUTH the hghes;
and most precious of all the rights of tho states,
and essential to preserve that very Union for the
suppos .. effect OF destroying which, it is SO Bit
tecly ana ,hcinatizcd.
shall now proceed to make good my assertion
of their total dissimiiarity.
First, they are wholly dissimilar in their nature
One hds reference to the parties themselves and the
othr' to their agents. Secession ,cthdratcaL from
ne O"t0n; separation from partners, and, as far
as depends on the member Withdrawing, dissolu
'on OF the partnership. 1t presupposes an associ-
alton; an Union of several States or Individuals
Tor common ohjec'. Wherever these exist, Sc
ccsSion may; and where they do not, it cannot
Nui!ihcation, on the contrary pre-supp0ses the
luton OF principe and agent; the granting a
power To he executed, the other, appointed by him,
with authority to execute it; and is simply de.
cLrot'on on the part Of tie principal, nude in due
form, that an act of the agent tr1nsccnding his
porer, is null and poid. 1t is right belonging ex.
clusiveiy to the relation between principal and a.
gent, 10 be found Uhercrer IL crisis, and in all its
Jorms between several, association OF princi-
pals, and Their joint agents, well as, between a
single principal and his agent.
The difference in their object is less striking
than in their nature.
Tho object of secession is TO free the withdraw
ing member from the obligation of the associations
or union; and is applicable TO cases, where the in
tcntion ot the association, union has failed
either by an abuse of power the prt of its mem
6erS or othor It's direct and immediate
object, as ii concerns the withdrawing member, is
The dissolution of the association on union. On
the contrary, the object of notification is lie confne
the agent within the limits OF his powers by arrest
ing his acts transcending them; not toih the uieu
~ destroying the delegated trust poicer, but IL
preserve IL, by compelling the agent to fulfil The
0tect for whicb the agency, or trust mas created
and is applicable only to ,ohere The trust o,
dcfegdfed POCers transcribed on the mari
~ the agent Without the power of seces-
sion, an association union, formed for the
common good IF all the members, might prove
ruinous to some, by the abuse of power on
the part of the others; aud without nuiliiication
the agent might under colour Of construction, as
sumo a power never intended to be delegated, or
10 Pervcrt thOgo delegated, to objects never in
tended to be cOmprehended in the trust, to the ruin
OF the principal, or, in of Joint agency, to
the ruin OF some Of the principals. Each has,
thus, its appropriate onjeci; but objects in their
nature very Giaimiiar; much so that in
case OF an association, or union where the pow
cTs are delegated to be executed by an agent, the
abuse ofpower the part of the agent 10 the ini.
ny OF one or more OF members, would not JUSTLY
cession, on their part. The rghtful remedy III thlt
case would be notification. There wou, DO
neither right, prctcxt, TO scccde; no riwh. be-
cause secession is applicable only the acts of the
members of the association, union, and not to
the act OF tho agent; nor pretcxt because there is
another, and equally efficient remedy short of the
dissolution of the association, union, which can
only he justified by necessity. Notification may,
indeed, be succeeded by secession. In the case
stated should the other members undertake to
grant the power nuicd, and should the nature of
the power be such to defeatthe object Of Tie as.
ISOLATION, or union, at lcat, far as the member
multiplying is concerned, it wonld then become an
abuse of power on the part of the principals; and
thus present case, where secession would apply:
but in no other could il be justified except il be for
failure of the association or union to effect the
object, for which it created, independent of
my abuse of power.
1t now remains to shcw, that their effect is as
iissImIlar, as their nature, object.
Notification leaves the members of tho associa |
ION, or union, in the condition it found Them sub
ect to all its burdens, and entitled 10 all its adyan
ages, comprehending the member multiplying, as
wen as me others; ITS object being not to destroy,
but to preserve, as has been stated 1t simply ar
rests the act of the agent far as the PRINCIPAL is
leaving In every other respect the opc-
ration OF the joint concern before; secession on
the contrary, destroys as far as the Withdrawing
member IL concerned, the association or union
and restores him to the relation he occupied to-
wards tho other members before the existence of
he association Uuion He loses the benefit
but is released from the burden and control; and
can no longer be dealt with, by his former associ
ates. of its mcnhcrs.
Such are clearly the differences between them
differences so marked, that instead of being iden.
tilted supposed, they form contrast in all the
aspects III which they can be regarded. The appli-
cation OF the remarks to the political association
or Union of these twenty four States and the Gle.
neral Government, their Joint gent is too obvious
after what has been already said, to require any
additional illustration; and [ will dismiss this part
OF the subject, with single additional remark
lnere are many, who acknowledge the right Of
State to soccde, but deny It's right to nulfy; and
yet, II seems impossible to admit the one without
the other. They both presuppose the
same structure of the Government, that is Union
Of the States, as forming political communities
The same right on the part Of the States as mem.
bers of the Union, to determine, for her citizens
the extent of the powers delegated, and those
reserved, and of course, TO decide whether
the Constitution has, or has not been viola