Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-08-18

ruht Tor her that recall her kepTesehS
tatves from Congress He said there had been already
much talk II aggression actual and real such as
that would be, was made upon Virginia; 1t she was
thus deprived other Constitutional rights, ought she not
to maintain those rightsl
The difference between him and others was this
they had undertaken 10 stand upon wrong ground
upon something intangible and vague, upon abstrac-
tons-aud they had had to give away; aud thus the
South had been plsced 10 a false attitude First they
had made stand upon the 2lst rule which he regard
ed false position-then on the admission ofCafor-
Col. Boiling said his idea was, that Virginia
she aid take her stand upon the Fugitive Slave Law
Ii her right to have that law, clear Constitutional
right, aad il the United States should attempt by It's
repeal deprive her OF that right she ought to resist
hat aggression tor he claimed for Virginia the right
that belonged to every pe)pethe night TO resist OPP
pression-the right of revolution. But with that law
the condition of Virginia was never better; she now
has ample provision or the Iecapture OF her tugltVes
The President is bound enforce that law though
it requires the whole Army and Navy Of the United
States.
State was rdge t1r ITSELF in the last resort whether
she would su5ni, resist such action OF The United
States Government as in her Judgnlen was oppressive
and tvrauuca-oul he utterly repudated the IDEA that
state had the right cauSeessly upon light and TIL
vial causes 20 seceGe from the Union and break II up
To entite Ste to tn exercise OF such Judgment,
there be real actual PLAN and pa paoie out
rage upon her piay Ind 0apaple rights and privileges
NOT ianciir theoretical, prospective resulting Ill
something that mi ght OF might not ppen
What becomes OF the solemn act oil the State, which
made her a member of the Union, it il is to be idly
broken and ali her onding Obligation dsregar-
ded for speculative notion! Inc resolutions OF
1889 set forth the true doctrines, he commended -
They give no shadow OF countenancn to the modern
doctrine Of secession which is at with the very
isence of all governments Peaceable secession, he
could not be broken up and scattered into fragments,
and no blood be she'd That cannot happen. For one
he never could consent Ter the Union 10 be overthrow
for any existing present evthera T7as nothing JUS
tity it.
He said ne was in favour of the Compromise
uresapd had he been the representative Of the district
10 Congress he should have voted for each and all of
them. He commenced with the California billiard
said that the cry raised by Mr.. Ca Ihonn and others
against its admission, not sustained by theConsti-
tuition of the United States, which only required that
State should have republican form of government
and that according 10 Mr. Cahoun's own declared
opinion as expressed in resolution offered in the Sc
nate OF the United States each State, upon forming its
constitution, preparatory to admission into the Union,
had the sole control of the slavery question, within its
own limits and the right to allow or disaow it. That
resolution, he considered stopped that party from OBJ
jectng to the admission OF State into the Union, be-
cause it refused to have slaves
But, upon principle Congress has,no right, when
State applies for admission into the Union, to enquire
farther into her constitution than to that it repub
can. No right is delegated to Congress slavery
IN the States, or the territories. Over that question,
Congress has riahtul authoryno right to reject
State becausei to erates slavery-no right TO reject
State because refuses tolerate it. The gentleman
could deny that position, because to contend Tor the
opposite doctrine, admits power in Congress to regu-
late slavery in the States; and if they have that right
then it is within the discretion OF Congress to egislae
State, slave State free State, at its pleasure
If it is wrong for Congress TO refuse to admit State be-
it tolerates slavery upon the grounds that has
power that subject, as it really has none, is it
not equally wrong tor Congress to refuse to admit
State because it refuses to tolerate slavery? Gentle
men cannot contend Tor the one proposition and reject
the other.
But the gentleman had shut the door in his own face
and could pretend for moment that the admission
OF California unconstitutional; for he had said, in
speech delivered by him The 3rd OF June, 1850, in
the Congress of the United States against the Compro
mise that che could not vote for the admission OF Cali
fona without equivalent Tor words to that effec
which not found in the Compromise measures, 10 |
every one which he was opposed" Now if he would |
have voted for it tor equivalent, he must have
sidered it constitutional.
As to the Texas and New Mexico boundary bill Mr. |
Bocock could not upon his own doctrine OF State rights
pretend that unconstitutional II; for if Texas is
Sovereign and independent Stae, has she good
right part with her territory to the u. S. Govern
ment, as France had to sell to that government LOUISE
ana, or Spain to sell ii Florida, or Mexico to sell ii ter
ritory2 Has not the United States the right also
to buy from Texas from those other sovereign and
Independent States! But said Col. Boiling the gen
teman objected this sale and purchase in his speech
at Curdsvlle, because it territory sold from the
South the free States; but is he right in that? No
he is wrong 1t expressly provided in that act tina,
Congress may divide that territory into two more
territories in such manner and at such times Con-
gess shall deem convenient and proper, and the same
law further provides that when admitted a State, the
said territory any portion of the same, shall be
ceved into the Union. aDih loithout Aauery its
Constitution mag prescribe, at the time of admission.
question of slavery where righuly belongs with those
people Who tile that country. If they want Slaves
they will have them-f they do not want them, they
vii refuse to have them. Texas had her Senators and
Representatives in the Congress OF the United StateS-
tn was their affair and the affair of the people of
Texas They liked the arrangement and The lawful !
power of the other States liked it, and who shall COM
plain l. was Compromise between Texas and the
United States, in regard to disputed territory which
both parties had i perfect right to enter into As to
Utah. the CENTER A. says he would have voted for that
and also for The Fugitive Slave Law: they too were
constU ticuai.
All that remained then to be considered was the
abolition ofthe slave trade in the District of Columbia
That measure Mr. Boiling said police regulation
and gent The laws Of VIRGINIA We're uu to
1870 or about that ne, when Ii was not competent
for master 10 cary MS slave cut o the Sale OF
Virginia and return with hn-'or if his did, the slave
could sue for and obtain his freedom Mississippi had
been satisfied to forbid the Introduction slaves
into her territory by law, but had provided against it
in her Consti ution. Many other States had passed
laws more or less stringent nron the same subject |
Will the gentleman say il was not competent Tor |
Congress to pass that law? Did not Mr.. Randolph
whom the gentleman extols so much, advocate such a
measure some twenty years agol
All these measures consiitu ona--all of them
clearly right in themseves-why then refuse to pass
thenl Because they disturb the Equilibrium Tha, is
old idea. The great Henry, in the Conven'jto of
Virginia that adopted the Constitution of the UaitSd
States, urged the Convention not accept 1t, among
other reasons because he SAID there were Stale. NOT
interested III The navigation OF the Ississipp River
and if the Constitution adopted, the South wonld
lose The navigation OF that great river.
The Constitution was adopled had the u States lost
the navigation OF that river! What was the result
The United States had not only lost the navigation of
the Mississippi but owned that river and all the land
its head spring, and had not stopped there but
had reached the Rio Bravo del Norte, had fol- |
lowed the ella to the Colorado and gone the Pa
chc ocean. Yes the United States far from losing
that river had gained for itself many other rivers far
beyond It, and an ocean 10 boot Mr.. Henry, though |
an intellectual giant, prophet. Nor are the
gentlemen prophets now. AS to the faVorte idea of
the times, ne said there no equilibrium when the
n tie tba taar,
of the who opposed the present Constitution of
the u States the country had prospered and Increased
beyond all calculation What then was the Hon gem
temen's duty 10 the last Congress He should lave
sus aimed and voted for all these measures for Virginia