Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-02-14

the commencement of bostties Jettret, the Fed.
Tdt and State authorities, might have terminated
our existence as free and united people NO menace
UGs employed No threat OF military coercion ulmna.
ted The movements OF those TO whom Disable c,ion
attributed, observed with care and silent pepara
tons made 10 enable government TO act with
should the application OF force become The
threatened collision between the FEEDER State auho-
rites was fortunately avoided The conduct the parties
submitted TO the judgment of the American people
The sentence which they pronounced just and ciU
remain urecOca6ie."
HAMPDEN-DOCTRINE OF SECESSION.
We have shewn, that the Constitution of the IT,
States was formed by the people of the separate
Suites, as States, and not by the people of the u
States as one great people. IL this be true Hamp-
den himself allows the right of State to secede.-
Ills words are: For State to possess this right
that State must have been parfy TO The comDacf ani
the Foundation of the government must have been
strictly and undeniaby federal. If it was national.
the States the parties and do not retain tho
right To withdraw" &c. &c.
But we will not pin the author of Hampden down
to this proposition only. lie has other arguments
OF much weight, which entitled to the most re-
spectu attention. Let us briefly examine them-
iiampden begins with the Articles of Confedera-
ton:
1.-The introductory clause that the object which they had
that every by of tss s
S hS% So %hn S This
Ss BY State and tho
gates IN the last CLAUSE tho declaration repeated that s
IN be
lie then passes ON to the establishment of The pre-
sent Constitution, and attempts to show from bisto-
rca facts that II was intended carry out this idea
OF the Articles of Confederation, by consolidating
the Union-and that the preamble to the Constit,i-
ton itself points the object by the se of the
following expressions: We the people of the IL
States, III order to form more perfect Uiion," &c.
And Hampden asks, whether the right of Secession
is not Incompatible with this avowed object?
We most fervently hope with Hampden TINT the
Union may he perpetual, upon proper principles
ESto perpetua! is the motto of every patriot But
1t the words OF an instrument give it pe1ettiify
how comes II about that many treaties between
foreign nations have been made, and then broken
Most of them seem built for immortaty-and vet
how long do they last? 1t is customary for them
to set out with concatory provision that "there
shall be firm, inuiotdbte, and universal peacen-
Some say, perpetual peace aance-and vet
there is no magic in these expressions to keep them
together. The parties intend ut the time that the
treaty shall have no specified limitation of wears
but no supposeS that circumstances NAV not arise
even in the construction of its articles to place the
parties in collision, and bring their compact 10 nm
end. We admit indeed cheerfully that no compact
between sovereign States was ever more important,
than the Union of these States-and that none cnn
be conceived, whose dissolution would be source
of deeper regret than that of "the United States of
America"
But let us leave all analogy from other insru-
ments and confine ourselves to our own forms of
government. Were the articles of confederation
themselves perpetual The majority of the parties
to it threw off-withdrew from its royisions-and
formed another instrument. Twelve of the States
only met IN Convention, and proposed a new Con-
stitution. They acted for themselves without the
aid OF Rhode Island And they determined that as
soon nine States should rafy it, should be "suf
hcient for the establishment of the Constitution
Suppose the other four States had not agreed TO il MT
all would not the articles of confederation have
ceased as to them? The fact is that il was several
months before two of the States could bring them
selves TO ratfy it, II then nine of the States could
have seeded from the old confederation how can il
be said that its articles were perpetual?
The new Constitution, however, was finally
adopted 10y all the parties TO the confederation
And iampden says, that it was only intended to
consolidate The Union, and that 1t is for binding
upon all the States. He nfers it from the language
of the Constitution itself Blu; let us examine some
other historical facts which are connected with its
adoption. Three of the States did expressly show.
by the very forms ofther ratification that it was not to
be perpetual under all Communicating that cases
might arise, which would make il the right and the
duty OF the people to secede from the Union. Pas
sing over the Publications of other States what did
the Virginia Convention say oil this occasion:
o"n Ws o. s Dsa,s. S,h' people Of Virginia
IN hans fully and freely investigated and discussed
% ,s rIoIs and being prepared well
the name and beaol the people of virginia.
me people Of @e United STATE. may by ie ss@sosSer To
power Gt% ,GS% ' S@ n@ w sn! Ts
no g o. any Gon9%naon can be cancelled abridged
Representative acting capacity the President or Hny de-
pe oil ocer oi the United States those
which power gwen y the constitution
other essential rights liberty and of the press
cannot cancelled abridged restrained modified by authority
OF the United States. = - ''
"Wh these Impressions; solemn appeal To the f
hearts Tor the puy OF our Intentions and under
be examined in the mode therein than bring the
Union into danger by delay with hope aiming
previous to the ritifcaton
awe tho said Delegates,
virginia, do by these
recommended tho seventeenth day of SEPTEMBER thousand
hundred and
@ !, nv o U" , St'esi hereby announcing to all those
said people,"
Now, it is evident from the above formula, that
this State has not adopted the Constitution as a per-
petual instrument. 1t makes no odds TO the gene
raj argument of Hampden, whether by the words
" The people Of The u. States" it was intended to ex-
press the majority of all The people, or a majority Of
all The States, or the people Of each Of The States
The fact would be equally certain, i'm either case
that Virginia did not mean TO take the Constitution
as perpetual and irreyocable paper-but that the
right of secession does belong some of the par
tIes-to the one or the many, IN of oppression
When, indeed, we come to apply the rule we
admit Ut does make great odds, whether these
words refer to the people of each State or to tho
majority of the people of the United States-Much
difference of opinion prevails upon their interpreta-
ton Much ingenuity has been shown i'm the Mt
tempt to prove that they apply only to the people OF
the u. States, great people-In fact il is on
Iy by dipping into the Debates Of the Convention
that the question seems 10 be settled the other way
What do we gather from the Debates, then upon
that subject?
It was not before Tie 9th June, 1888 (bree DAYS
only before our Convention adOurDedO that MIR