Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1833-04-22

!,
from the Union, If they shall be defeated in certain
objects of political and sectional ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
compared TO which the preservation OF the Union
is With them a matter Of secondary concern We
warn tie peeyle, by which term we mean the bono
and sinew OF the country, who have every thing 10
lose and nothing 10 gain in these contests II am
bitOs, agalns, the ns'd.oas DIES gus of the leaders
of that party, who under the mask OF guar,ii ms of
tho constitution, arc engaged IN laying tram of
powder at its very pillars, and are urging III ir
fellow citizens bindy 10 apply the match.
A QUESTION: Jc assicered, If IL eanb
Some of the scoeders, driven from their original
ground of maintaining that State has the 1noual-
fled right of Secession bu, not quite .andd enough
~ yield the point entirely, so linn, it as TO render
'ts admission valusless These gentlemen say,
each State hns right TO Judge for itself-and
therefore, II one State determines 10 secede, the
Others have an equal RICH, TO judge tina, she has
violated the compact and consequently No force her
TO comply with the terms of her bargain" Wel-if
this be Secss,ion what is il worth Is i, not GER
circumstances, the other States Judging for them
selves, will decide that she ias violated her bar
gnIn-and will they not employ cocrcve measures
to bring her back to what they Will decide to be
the path of duty There can be no on. stion oft
SO that the rishto secession, thus ,rammelled by
the antagonist rieht Of rocrcion--f there can be
s1scha thing MS two opposiag rigAts--is any
thing but the pcaceabc remedy described by its ad-
vocatts. But his view OF Tie subject is so huIp,ly
illustrated IN the following brief article from the
lieu of our own observations
THE RIGHT OF SECESSION.
This doctrine has been made To prss,n nj certain
new phases, in which il beco,n, us to take a new
observation of ITS position Il asp CT Or snally the
discoveries OF Il IL new principle in our political
system, ascrbed To it al the cons rva,ve virtues of
peancoble and constitutional remedy. But rcccnt.
ly the force of correct re.sonin. combined with
the silent nfuencr If powerful public opinion,
has driven tbs " ntl0 !.sh ts' firm this untrnable
puAd,on u NOR. a.tful ami obscure retreat, where
thcy may hope 10 BE- more securely guarded against
pubic crnsure II IS now sard by the advocates of
this doctrine that It Is, indeed, right, according
80 the strict proprctics oi speech neither pc"eabie
nor Constitutional not entitled 10 the former ep
lhet because is a, The option Of the States other
than the scceling State to ucquicsc- IN IT'S o1cr-
ciee, or else TO treat 1t as caus. If var nor emit,
tied TO the latter, because ii is claimed as nat
araI riyh, paramount 10 all C institutions. We
leave II 10 the ttaph ysleal acumen Ct these poll
,cians TO nom, ont by AID OF their keen optics
the shadow boundary between ih.s definition aud
tina, Of n reuolutiona,prl4At bn, We appeal To III.
ri.
ec,s of this school Of politico- metaphysics, to
loteunine, whether such right, when properly
scanned md analysed, docs not clearly resolve
Itself into the natural and ultimate sht oftsco!u
tion.
But they seek To escape this conclusion by
Their modification Of this ge'cral proposition, III
conteudng that the excrcise OF tins right by
State, S4ttn be pcaccab'c, and asslmllnlng the
interference of the other Stat to the laWl.,s CON
duct Of nan, who would knock another down
while enjoying his rgt To walk penceotip the
streets Of his village, This has become amss'ngls
current and has acquired sort OF co6ahH.e
forct. We will therefore be excused for briefly
noticing it,
II will be remembered that the pro7aEators Of
this noton usually lay tloir premises in this equa!
right of all the States as parties to a compa'.
without my common arber to Judge of iufr- ,tlo,s
thereof w lie they contend for The fi@.,, Of On
State to pronounce ON Act Of Con ress unconsli.
TUT, nal, and resist its ENLARGEMENT, they conno,
consistently refuse 70 admit the right OF the other
States TO prop0un.e it constitutional, and require
It's cxccu' on These parties beng equal, thin
righ's n mis- respect are also eqaG!. This we un
; ders,and to be u. common principle upon which
Doth parties IN tins controversy basc their argu
J monts. Let us now sect TIC cuncl JsIons of the
sccessonists, embodied in tins analogy, be in &C
cordnnce W TIA their premises.
The right of judgment in the seeding State
hey make analogous to the perfect right of every
man TO ak unmolestcd the highways of the
commonwealth that Of the other States, they de
grade TO Il level with the Wanton preparation Of q
wlcss outrage. We put IT, then, TO the cnndor q
Ties gentlemen 10 say, If these several rights Oh
jud. men, be equai If they have not made the judy
mrnt OF the seced,ns ); ate paramount, to all in
ttns and purposes in hae, fthsv have not in then
conclusions. utterly rejected and sci at naaght then
| 'rrmlScs.