Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-10-30

manifest, that the only psaceable modes,
provided by our system Of Government
for the prevention OF redrcss of wrongs
and grievances inflicted OF the States
by the Federal Government. were to be
found in applications to Congress-elth-
er to rescind its offensive legislation. or a.
mend the CONSTITUTIONAL appeals to the
colStates, two thirds Of which have su-
preme control over the Constitution-or
in q reference Of the matteri in controversy
to the Supreme Court.
The other remedy, we have held. was
extra-constitutional, natural and revolu-
tionary.
For the present, however, overlooking
what we regard the infexible requirements
Of the Constitution in this respect, and the
obvious duties Of the States.in.cases Of oP-
pressive and unconstitutional Legislation,
we wish to consider briefly the presumed
right of a State to judge for itself, and aci
for itself, without accountability to the other
and equal members o the ConfeJeracy.
This right is inferred, by its advocates
from the doctrine laid down in the resolu'
tons, drawn up by Mr.. Jefferson. for the
State f. kentucky, and adopted byth Leg
stature of that State. We know ofno other
document or State paper. which advances
farther into the disputed ground than this
Whether those who deducc from it the
right of Independent and irresponsible
State action. properly understand the i'm
port Of Mr.. Jeffersons language. ornot, we
shall better judge from a reference TO the
resolutions themselves. We quote all tina
is necessary to the argument of our adver
saries:
In all cases of compact among parties havin;
no common Judge, each party has an eqaal right Z
Judge for itself. as we'll OF infraciions, as OF IN
mode and measure Of redress.
Neither party is bound by the decision
Of the other. Each party judges for 1t
self, as well of the inffaction, as of tn
mode and measure Of redress, lie. judge
and acts for itself.
Who are the partiesi
ITO this compact (thc Con,titution) each Stat
acocdcd asa State, and is an integral party. he Go
STATES forming as to itself, the other party"
From this language of the Kcntuck..
resolutions, it would appear that in ever,
imaginable issue, that could arise between
the General Government and one or NOR
Of the States, Mr.. Jefferson held, that there
must of necessity be two parties; to- Wi
the complaining State, being one 'integra
party" and its co-Statc. "the other party.
Each of these parties Mr.. Jefferson assert
"has an equal right to judge for ITSELF
1t is but a corollary to this proposition t.
admit, that if one party has a right to &C
as well as "judge for ITSELF" the other par
ty has ian equal right" to act, as well a
Judge for ITSELF" This it must be under
stood is a political right, growing out o
the nature of our compact-the moral RICH
to act must depend upon the circumstance
of each case, and the mode of action pro
posed. But the political right, of "eacl
party" to act, is complete.
The questions of "who is the proper
judgc?' and ''what is the proper judg
mentl" are entirely distinct ; SO also il
there a wide difference between acknowl
edging "ths right Of action" and defend
ing action as right-bctween the power
and the policy Of action.
To illustrate these positions: South Car
DINA might conclude, that she had endur
| ed grievances from the Federal Govern
ment, to which she ought not longer to sub
nit, and without rcsorting to Constitution
remedies might Judge" for herself, ant
select "as a mode and measure of redress
a Withdrawal from the Union. She woult
thereby put in practice the political riglf
which Mr.. J cffcrson S resolution might seen
to warrant Would she be putting in prac
tee a moral right The plain answer.
| she uouM not: because she would not have
carried out the conditions Of her compact
with the Co-Sta,es. How would it be
with "the other party" "the Co States
They would have,according to the doctrine
of the Kentucky resolutions, "an equal
right" to determine. whether the acts com
p!aineJ of by South Carolina justified the
mode of redress. which she had adopted
In so doing, they would be exercising o
political right, corrclative with hat Of "thc
other party"-Souih Carolina. In the
case supposed, South Carolina being
wrong, the other States would have both
a political and moral right to prevent the
action proposed. OF this, we think there can
be no doubt.
Reverse the positions of the parties and
what would RESULT Suppose South Care.
lima to be the subject of oppressive and un-
constitutional legislation-supposc her to
have carried out all the conditions of the
compact, in search Of constitutional re-
lief and to have failed, Mr.. JefEerson's
doctrine would then authorize her to Judge
for herself. Should she determine on a
withdrawal from the confcderacy, she
would be simply putting in practice a po-
litical and moral right. What would be
the attitude of"the other party" the Co.
States. They would have a political right
to interfere, for the prevention of such an
act, but would they have a moral right
Clearly not, if the doctrine Of Mr.. Jefferson
be correct.
As a farther sequence from this view, it
would seem that though Secession can
not probably ever be "peaceable," yet in
the case supposed-it ought to be peacea-
ble-bccause the retiring state would be
in the right and the remaining states in the
,yrap0 In ofbar vvor1s rho raf,r,np etafo