Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-02-11

refusing make the invasion Of the rights Of co State
State ofencel The gentleman from Campbell (Nlr. |
DaneD to have fallen into similar error upon
this point with the gentleman from MeckieDburg He
objects to the words citizens thereof in the latter part
of the second resolution OF the majority lie says that
any interference the part of the General Government
or the States, would be breach OF their constitutional
obligations, but will not admit that any Of the Gle
Gems OF State can be regarded us such breach.
Mr.. DANIEL explained. The second resolution n
Government the States or the citizens thereof was
violation of the Constitution Mr. d. had objected TO the
resolutions because it seemed to class these parties to-
gether aud TO imply that the violation committed by
each was Of the nature. This he did not believe
he did not think that citizens although they might vio
late their constitutional obligations could violate the
Federal compact But any in violation of the
stitutiona rights of State by the General Government
or State, violation of that compact lie thought
That the classification OF all together, would lead 10 the
Interpretation that they placed the ground.
Mr. WrcnKm | so understood the gentleman; and
differ from him entirely State, the gentleman adj
ms, may call upon another State punish of her
citizens as have been guilty OF such conduct that
of the fanatics of the North But now, if the conduct
OF these citizens is to be considered apart FROM
nected with State Rights, how the injured State,
State, ask for redress? From whom is she ask
redress! From the citizens who have injured her
Surely an application to them would be fruess. Or
would ask redress from the for the offences
Of their citizens which were not violations of State
rights! Certainly not for such application would be
looked upon as insult TO their State Governments.
lie says that the rights of the State only be invaded
argues that If State refuse to- afford redress for the
acts of her citizens, she becomes responsible, and
constitutional compact-to resort To arms.
Mr. DANIEL again rose to explain. lie argued tina.
the people in their individual capacities parties
10 the compact-but IN their aggregate character they
were And when the people of State, in that characu
invade our constitutional rights, have right to de-
clare, that the compact being broken in one point is
broken in all But the OF few citizen did not vio-
late the compact, and was therefore different offence
Mr.. WircHEn. l perfectly understand the gentle
man. and holding the opinion he expresses, aston
shed that he should raise objections to this resolution
Upon the gentlemans own doctrine, then, whenever
State shall refuse redress in of this kind
fusal will be sufficient for resorlnu to ultra
sures-to war, in fact.-Now of course the gentleman
VIII admit, that one State declaring war against another
must DO so IN her sovereign capacity. No individual
would hazard his character for understanding by saying
that when Nation or State resorts to arms She does
In any other than her sovereign capacity Now the gen
teman from Campbell has great horror any thing
tins kndoi an appeal to wish the eiorc to ask
him two questions upon this subject and in con-
nec,ion with this pacific feeling which he SO earnestly
expresses, ask him whether the right of war does not
necessarily include every other right which State can
possibly claim: the right of notification, secession and
every other right The right of is the major and null
LITIGATION and secession minor rights 1 ask whether if a
refusal OF redress gives nation right to war; it does
not give her right to nuiy, secede, do any thing
else of that kind? lie certainly admit that IL does
What, then, is the gentlemans predicament3 lie af.
hrms that no conduct of the citizens of the North can
justify us in seeding from the Union but that yet such
conduct would Justify us in going to with any of
the Northern States? How will the gentleman sir es-
cape from this dilemma Consider the inconsistency
and naccuracy of his position Imagine the spec tao e
OF two States at war-hghtng against each other-and
of constitutional obligation to maintain the Union The
thing cannot be, sir The genuemans posilion-his de-
elaration, that may rghtfully go to war with the
Northern States but yet secedc from the Union-is
untenable And yet, sir continued Mr.. W. those whose
views are thus for warwho would thus involve US in
bloodshed ARE the very gentlemen who have endeavored
10 alarm the people, and denounce others the oppo-
site side OF this House, wishing involve the country
IN war Tor the purpose of carrying selfish party
purposes.
Mr. DANIEL asked if the gentleman from Pittsylvsnia
alluded to him of those who eHdeavored TO alarm
the people?
Mr. WircuER: No, sir; my observations apply TO Ger
tam other gentlemen, who us have said denounce tho
resolutions OF the committee ending to produce dis
solution OF The Union, but who themselves recon-
mendng which tend immediately 10 that result
All others, say they for war; don them but lis
ten to uswc are the only who have right to 90 10
war-,ce are the only true Simon Pures say continued
Mr. w that while gentlemen contend that the measures
we propose will tend to dissolution of the Union the
course which they would have adopt leads directly "a
thatevent The idea of engaging in a with our sis
ter States and yet preserving the integrity of the Union
IS prePosterous Who ever heard of a nation engaging
IN civil war; and coming out of il united and free
No, sir; conquest and liberty incompatible. Gentle
men must know that their remedy will produce the very
catastrophe which they charge upon us, and which
they say they socitous to avoid.
(Debate to he continued