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


a Stale offence. The gentleman from Campbe!l (hr'
DaneD seems to have fallen into similar error upon
this punt with the gentleman from Mecklenputs. ne
objects The words citizens thereof IN Inc iatef part
Of the second resolution OF the MAJORITY ls .l'S,
any interference Oh the part of the General Government
or the States would be breach OF their constitutional
obligations but will not admit that any act Of 'he Cru
scus of State can be regarded as such breach
Mr. DANIEL xpaincd. The second resolution con,
veycd the idea ,, such an interference by The General
Government the States, or The citizens lhcreoi was
violation of the Constitution Mr. D. had oIecten to the
resolution because tseemcd to class these parties TO-
gclhcr, aud 10 imply that the violation conh'teo oy
each was of the same nature. THIS he did not believe
he did no. think that citizens, although thcy might vio-
late their constitutional obligations, could violate The
Federal compact. But any uct III violation OF The con-
suonal rights Of State by the General GnVclnmcnt
or State 4 violation OF that compact lie lhoughl
that the classification Of all together, would lead 10 the
INTERPRETATION at they placed OIL the same ground
Mr.. WIrcuER: ! so understood the gentleman; and
differ from him entirely A State, the gentleman adj
mts may call upon another State to punish such OF her
citizens rs have been guilty Of any such conduct as that
of the fanatics Of the North. But now, the conduct
of these citizens is TO be considered apart FROM uncon-
ncclcd with State Rights how can the injured State,
as State ask for redress From whom Is she 10 ask
redress, From the citizens who have injured her?
Surely an application to them would be irulilcss. Or
would You ask redress from the States tor the offences
of their citizens, which were not violations OF State
rights; Certainly not Tor such an application would be
looked upon rs al insult 10 their Stale Governments.
He says that the rights of the State only be invaded
by the General Government or the States and yet he
argues that if State refuse to afford redress Tor the
acts of her citizens, she becomes Responsible, and we
have m int to apply the remedy Tor the breach OF the
constitutional c0nlpact-to resort 10 arms
MIR. DANIEL again rose to explain lie argued that
the people their individual capacities were not parties
the compac-but in their aggregate character they
we're And when the people of State in that clmTacrr
invade our constitutional rights, have right to de-
Glaze, that the compact being broken IN one point IS
broken in all But the acs OF few citizen did not Vo-
late The compact and was therefore different offence
MIR. WIrcIIEK. | perfectly understand the genlle-
man, and holding the opinion he expresses, am aStoi-
scd that he should raise objections to this resolutIon-
Upon the genlculans own doctrine, then, whenever
State shall refuse redrcssin of this kind, such re-
usal will be sufficient Tor rcsoTtng tn ultra nea-
sures-,o war in fact.Now, of course the gentleman
will admit, that State declaring against another
must DO III her sovereign capacity. No Individual
would hazard his character for understanding by saying
that when Nation or State resorts TO arms She does SO
in any other than her sovercg capacity Now the gem
tcman from Campbell has great horror Of any thing OF
this kindof an appeal TO wish therefore to ask
him two questions upon this SUBJECT and IN CON
nccon with this pacific feeling which he so earnestly
expresses ask him whether the right OF war docs not
necessarily include every other right which State can
possibly claim: the right Of notification, secession, and
every other right The right Of warts the major and nuI'
LITIGATION and secession minor rights. | ask whether II
refusal OF redress gives nation right to 1t does
not give her right to nuIliy, seccde, do any t;ng
else Of that kind lie must certainly admit that d1cs
What, lIeu is the genllcmans predlcamcnt: lie al
firms that no conduct Of the citizens of the North can
Justify lis in seeding from the Union, but that yet such
conduct would justify in going TO with any OF
the Northern States How will the gcncmaa, s's, es-
cape from this dilemma: Consider the inconsistency
and inaccuracy of his position! Imagine The spectacle
of two States at war-ighting against each utes-and
yrl bound by treaties and compac,s under the Influence
of constitutional obligation 10 maintain thu Union. Tho
thing cannot be- sir. The genemans posllion-ils de-
caraon, that may rightfully 70 to war with tlic
Northern States, but sccedr from the Unlonis
uncuable. And yet, sir, continued Mr.. w. those whose
views arc thus for war-who would thus involve US IN
boodshcdarc the very gentlemen who have endeavored
TO alarm the people, and drnouncc others tho oppo-
site side Of this House. wishing 10 involve the country
in for the purpose Of carrying out selfish and party
purposes.
MIR DAslEr asked if the gentleman from pillsylranIa
alluded to him as one Of those who underworld 10 alarm
the people,
Mir WlrcHER: No. sir; my observations apply 30 GER
tain other gentlemen, who have said, dcnouncc the
resolutions OF the committee as tending to produce dis
solution Of The Union, but who themselves recon-
mcnding measures which tend Immediately to TINT result
All Others say they Tor war; don trust cw but lis
ten to us-wr tho on who have right to go to
war-,rc the only true Simon Purcs 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 to
tltpvrn.. The idea of engaging in war with our SIS
ter States and yet preserving The integrity Of the Union
is prcnus,cruus Who ever heard Of nation engaging
in 4 civil war and coming out of it united and free
No. sir conquest and liberty Incompatible Gentle
men know that their remedy will produce the very
catastrophe which they charge upon Us, and which
they say they socilous to avoid.
(DcJQic to be eontinmcd.)