Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-04-05

ing the government, not of the government, which is its
mere creature and agent. He also admits, that the Fede-
raj Constitution is a compact between sovereign and indie
pendent States; but he insists, that, by that compact, they
have surrendered a portion OF their sovereignty, which
was vested In the United States as a political community
oil States. In support OF this doctrine he reasons thus: in
a republican community, the individuals that compose il,
create and may abolish the governments: the sovereignty,
therefore,, resides in those individuals collectively, and TO
that sovereignty the allegiance of the citizen is due. In
the government established by these States, the States are
the individuals, and in them collectively the sovereignty
Of the confederate system is vested. l do not understand
MIR. Rives TO maintain, that the sovereignty OF the Fede.
raj system belongs to tho individual citizens of the States
collectively, as one nation; because, as individuals, they
were IN no wise parties TO the compact upon which that
system is founded. Now, upon MIR. Rives's hypothesis,
the States are mere units, by whose association the body
polite is compounded. II those units were men, instead
Of States, his argument would demonstrate, that they owed
allegiance to the sovereignty OF the Federal system re-
siding in the confederate States collectively. But allie
glance cannot be predicated OF States, because the breach
OF allegiance Is treason, and States cannot incur the PEN
aluies oil treason. Neither is allegiance due TO the Fede-
raj system from the individual citizens OF the States, be-
cause they bear no direct relation TO il. The citizen sus-
tains a direct relation to the sovereign OF his own State,
ahu that sovereign TO the community OF States OF which
II Is one. He is only a member of one OF the individuals,
who form this confederate Republic, and, as that individu-
al can owe no allegiance thereto, neither can any of its
parts. Therefore, sovereignty and allegiance being cor
relative, 1t follows, that no sovereignty appertains TO the
1'".es conecuVeiy, because no allegiance is due them in
that capacity. If it be asked, by what tie the citizen is
bound 10 the General Government, 1 answer by the same
tie which binds him TO his State government, the tie OF
obedience. A citizen OF Virginia is bound by his allegiance
TO the sovereign power Of the State, to render obedience 10
the State government, its mere agent and creature, and
the same obligation constrains his submission to Federal
authority. l know it will be said, that the relation
between the Federal Government and the citizen is
direct, because that Government operates directly upon
MIN but the inquiry is, not what relation he susiains
70 me government but to the compact, which Great
ed II, defines It's powers, and prescribes its mode OF
aeuon. me Federal Government acts Immediately on the
ciuzen oil virginia, because that government is a part oil
the government of Virginia, and, because the federal COM
pact is a part OF its Constitution. The authority of both
the one and the other depends, not upon the sanction OF the
olheT states, ~ upon the VIII OF the sovereign people OF
VirgiDia.-But it is contended, that, as the Constitution has
conferred on the General Government the power of defn-
ing anu punishing treason against the United States, and
as the essence oil treason is the breach of allegiance, il fol-
lows mat allegiance must be due TO The United States, as
one polltlcak community. Treason against the United
States Is, IN truth, nothing more than treason against some
one OF the confederate States. No conceivable act of
treason can be stated, which is not a breach OF the duties
and obligations imposed on the citizen by his relations TO
the sovereign OF the State where he resides.
A divided allegiance must frequently place the citizen in
ms embarrassing llemma-that, in a contest between the
TWO soVerelgns, claiming such allegiance, as TO the boun-
darles oil their authority, he will be unable TO discern the
course OF duty when pressed by such conflicting obliga-
tons. In such case, has he a right to decide. 10 which
party II Is his duty to adhere? If he decide wrong. is he
Justly obnoxious TO punishment? IL he has no election,
which party has the prior claim on his obedieuce? Ii |
mistake not, the answert to those questions must evince the
absurdity, the impossibility of a divided sovereignty. The
true theory oil our government, conceive TO be, that the
ieuerai compact leaves the sovereignty Of the States I'M
impaired and undiminished, and that, by that compact, they
nave agreed 10 exercise their sovereignty jointly as to some
purposes, and separately as 10 others.
l do not perceive that Mr.. Rives denies the right of a
State TO secede from the Union, when there has been a
Patpd6Ie, deliberate and dangerous infraction of the
Constitution by the parties to il; though | infer from the
tenour oil his remarks, that he deems such right ertra.con-
sttuft0ndt and revolutionary. IT the term extra -consti-
.uuohal import a right not received from, but paramount
10 the Constitution, in that sense the right of secession
may, without improperly, receive that denomination. 1t
r- a i.sa ~ P per ANN; 70 tne states as the original and only
rendered, and OF which they could not divest themselves.
Ii is the law engraved by nature on the heart of man.
which prompts him TO defend against the en~croachments
oil iawless power. his natural and chartered rights, which
to %relinquish or disavow would be alike abiect and degrad-
ing, either in individuals or in States. Ifby rerolutionarv
he meant a right belonging to the States as States, to re.
slst the authority OF the Federal Government, when it
commits a Pdpd6fe, deliberate and DANGEROUS breach of
me Constitution, then l shall not object to the applica-
tlon oil that term to the right of secession; for, | hold il
to be clear, that whatever act The States have a right IN
do IN their corporate character, the States are alone re-
sponsible for, and their citizens, acting i'm obedience IN
lhelr authority IN relation to the exercise of such right,
can, on no principle, be liable 10 punishment. But, if, on
the contrary, MIR. Rives designs TO convey the idea. Thai
whenever the States undertake to resist the action of the
FEDERAL Government, they are to be regarded, not as
states but as lawless combinations ofindividuals obstruct-
ing the execution OF the law, who are exposed TO all the
penalties OF treason, | utterly dissent from a doctrine so
degrading 10 the dignity, and so fatal 10 the reserved
rights OF the States. Will MI. Rives saw, that if the Fe.
deral Government should attempt TO impose the law of
primogeniture or the abolition of slavery on Virginia the
resistance OF such fragrant usurpations by the State 4
would subject Its citizens to the penalties of treason?
MIR; Riyes iabours to prove, that, in 1898, Virginia de.
signed nothing more than TO procure the call of a Conven-
non and TO effect a revolution in public sentiment by pe-
luton, remonstrance, and concert with the other SIates.-
Admitting that, at that time, more violent remedies were
not contemplated by Virginia does il follow, that the prin.
clPies asserted IN her famous resolutions and report, do not
authorize the employment of more decisive and efIectuaI
measures under other circumstances Does il follow that
when these peaceful and constitutional remedies had been
trled in vain, when the fragrant breaches of the Constitu-
uoh, OF winch she complained, were persisted in by an in
neXlOie majority oil the other States, she did not mean to
assert, In the last resort, her right TO renounce the COM
pact thus openly tranpled under foot by the other parties
10 H., and thereby to maintain toithiR her limits the au-
mo'iteS' rights, and liberties aPpertaining to her p
lhIsI Us no vain abstraction, engendered in the wantonness
OF political speculation. When the States abandon this
right, they seal :heir own distractions: they throw away
thelr only shield against federal encroachment. Its bare
recognition would be a tower of strength 10 them. God
forbid that It's exercise should ever be demanded but the
very prospect OF this ultimate check would stille usurpa.
uon III It's birth. Without it, what security remains TO
thelr reserved rights, but the uncertain forbearance of a
majority In Congress, prone, as all experience demon
straies, TO enlarge their powers by every artiice of con.
struction so long as they can calculate on the suferance
OF the States; so long as they possess the means of rivet.
ting their u%surpaions upon them, they will laugh petitions
ana circumstances to scorn. III the doctrines, now fashion,
aDIe ana popular, maintain their ascendancy, / have no
hesitation in saying, that the Federal Government has
practically no Limitation whatsoever. If that government
is The sole Judge, not only OF the extent of its own rights,
but oil the reserved rights OF the States, is il not manifest,
that the rights both Of the one and the other depend on
It's own arbitrary will? The advocates of secession have
cause for congratulaion, that you, Messrs. Editors, have
at length declared, in such explicit terms, your adherence
10 that doctrine. The enemies of State Rights and the un-
compromising advocates of the Proclamation can no longer
claim (as | know they have done) the benefit of your su-
tbority and influence in support Of their consolidating
principles" But | fear you have come TO the rescue too
late. The proclamation, sustained by the unexamBled
popularity OF the President, combined with the violent and
I M 100 rr ~ Gil. 1T ls - s-