Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-08-14


postponed by vote. almost strictly party
only two Wings, 50 far as his memory serv
ed him, voting to postpone them.
Col. b. enquired if the preamble and re
solutions did not contain the sentiments o
the people of Campbell. If they did moi
approve the Compromised they did no
think the states owed il to themselves anc
to each other, to put down the agitation OF
the Slavery question-ought not Virginia
if the Fugitive Slave Law is repealed, to re-
fuse to remain in the Union-if it would
not be right for her in that case to recall her
Representatives from Congress2 He said
there had been already too much talk. II
aggression, actual and real. such as that
would be, was made upon Virginia, if she
was thus deprived of her Constitutional
rights, ought she not to maintain those
rights.
The difference between him and others
was this-they had undertaken to stand
upon wrong ground-upon something IN
tangible and vague, upon distractions, and
they had had to give way; and thus
the South had been placed in false atti-
,ude First they had made stand upon
the 21st rule which he regarded false po-
sition; then on the admission of Califor-
MIA.
Col. Boiling said, his idea was, that Vir-
GINA should take her stand upon the Flu
gitive Slave Law. 1t was her right to have
that law, a clear Constitutional right, and
if the United States should attempt, by its
repeal to deprive her Of that right, she
ought to resist that aggression, for he claim
ed for Virginia the right that belonged to
every people-the right to resist oppres-
sion--thc right of revolution. But with
that law, the conditioned Virginia was new
cr better she now has ample provision for
the recapturc of her fugitives. The Presi-
dent is bound to enforce that law, even
though it requires the whole Army and Ma
Wy ofthc U. S.
Col. b. said he subscribed to the doc
trine, that State was to judge for itself
IN the last resort, whether she would sub
NIT TO or resist such action of the United
States Government, as in her judgment
was oppressive and tyranical--but he ut
utterly repudiated the idea that State had
the right causelessly, or upon light and
trivial causes to secedc from the Union
and break it up. To entitlc State to the
exercise of such judgement. there must be
some real, actual, plain and palpable out
rage upon her plain and palpable rights
and privilegcs-not fanciful, theoretical
prospective, resulting i'll; something that
might or might not happen.
What becomes Of the solemn act of the
State, which made hera member of the
Union-ifit sto be idly brokenand all her
corresponding obligations disregardcd for
some speculative notion. The resolutions
Of 1859, set forth the true doctrines he
commended. They give no shadow of coun-
tcnancc to the modern doctrine of secession,
which is at war with the very existence of
all governments. Peaceable secession he
was an impossible thing: this
great nation could not be broken up and
scattered into fragments, and no blood be
shed. That cannot happen, for one, he
never would consent for the Union to be
overthrown, for any existing present evil
there was nothing to justify it.
He said he was in favour Of the Com
promise measures-and had he been the
representative of the Districtin Congress, he
should have voted for each and all of them
He commenced with the California bill
and said that the cry raised by Mr.. Calhoun
and others, against its admission, was no
sustained by the Constitution Of the United
States, which only required that Stat,
should have a republican form of govern
meLt, and that according to Mr.. Calhoun,
own declared opinion, as expressed in q
resolution offered in the Senate of the U
States, each State, upon forming it. Con
stltution, preparatory to admission into the
Union, had the sole control of the slavery
question, within its own limits, and the
right to allow or disallow it. That re.olu-
ton he considered, cstopped that party
from objecting to the admission of State
into the Union, because it refused to have
slaves.
But, upon principle, Congress had no
right when State applies for admission
INTO the Union, to enquire further into her
Constitution than to see that it is republican
No right is delegated to Congress over
slavery in the States, or the territories
Over that question, Congress has no right
tul authority-no right to reject State be-
cause 1t tolerates slavery-norght to reject
State because it refuses to tolerate it
The gentleman could not deny that posi-
ton, because to contend for the opposite
doctrine, admits power in Congress to
regulate slavery in the States; and if they
have that right, then it is within the discre.
ton of Congress to legislate State slave
State or free State, at its pleasure. IF
is wrong for Congress to refuse to admit a
State because it tolerates slavery, upon the
grounds that it has no power over that sub
ject, as it really has none, is it not equally
wrong for Congress to refuse to admit q
State because it refuses to tolerate Slavery
Gentlemen can not contend for the one
proposition and reject the other.
But the gentleman had shut the door in
his own face, and could not pretend for a
moment that the admission Of California
was unconstitutional; for he had said, in a