Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-05-15


We have not the time nor space now. to
analyze Mr.. Madison's letter and TO con-
trast his more formally declared opinions
with the deductions drawn from his
letter by our North Carolina contempora-
nv. Mr.. Madison however was evidently
not thinking Of the right Of secession, as a
substantive proposition in ITSELF but whe-
Their the ratification the Constitution by
the State OF New York, with proviso
that it might withdraw, unless certain a
mcndmcnts were adopted, was in fact any
ratification at ALL He held truly that,
conditional ratification was no ratification,
because the Constitution could not become
party to this new agreement. and it must
therefore be taken in toto or not at ALL
This, it seems to us, does not in the slight
est manner affect the question Of secession;
nor does the assistance of New Y ork on her
proposition to withdraw from the COM
pact, unless certain amendments which she
desired to see Incorporated into the Con-
stitution, should be adopted by a given
| time. All she wished was, that it might be
distinctly understood she did not desire to
be considered as bound by the compact
until her amendments should be adopted;
then she was willing to beregarded as full
ly committed to the Union. In other
words she wished to come in Conditional
| ly, which Mr.. Madison very properly
thought she could not do.
The strongest arguments we have seen
against the right of secessionare Gen. Jack
SON proclamation, written by Mr.. Living
ston, and Mr.. Wcbster's speech in the SEN
ate. But with all their ability, they have
been insufiicient-probably owing to a
want of capacity to comprehend the ar
gument-to remove from our mind the
conviction that the right exists to certain
extent and under certain restrictions. 1t
will not be denied that the States were o.
riginally SO many separate sovcreigns, and
sovereignty in its very nature is indivisi-
| bic. for dirided sovereignty is solecism
| in terms. 1t may delegate certain pow
crs to be exercised hv an agent forspeci-
fc purposes, but the sovereignty snot
thereby divided. These sovereignsaSgree
to form limited partnership Of which the
Constitution is the articles of agreement,
and this compact" as Mr. Madison calls it,
expressly stipulates that the powers not
delegated to the partnership. or Federal
Government, are reserrcd to the States res
pectively, or to the people who compose
those States. 1t follows then that the
States have some rights, and that they are
not mere dependencies or provinces, Of a
great consolidated power, but arc equal
members ofthis national partnership which
derives its vitality and power from what
each member has voluntarily delegated /;
SO that it is obvious these rights are not de-
rived from the federal Constitution, be-
cause they existed before that instrument
had being. Here then are thirteen sover-
ereigns who enter intoa compact between
themselves for the purpose of their mutual
protection, peace, &c; but in the course of
time twelve of them infringe the articles of
agreement by denying to the thirteenth the
protection and rights for which the COM
pact provides. Now, where is the rene
dy for the suffering member if theright of
Withdrawing from this partnership be de-
MED 1t will not do to say the compact
points out the mode of redress, for these
twelve who have the power to infict the
injury, have also the power to construe
the compact SO as to sustain, and give
warrant, to such injury. 1t is no answer
to the question to say that the injured State
has the right, which nature gives, of revo-
luton; for the province may rebel against
the mother country, Or the slave against the
authority ofthe master, and this would
be giving to sovereignty no superior rights
to those ofvassalage or slavery.
Itwould appear therefore that, in this
extremity, the State would have the right
to say to the other members Of the confed-
eracy, "since have no other means of re-
dress, | am compelled, for self protection,
to quit the partnership which is perverted
to my injury But here again other diff.
ficultes are presented which are not to be
treated as trivial. The no1-scceding mem
bers hare rights as aceH as tie mitldram-
ing one, and it is their duty to see that the
acts ofthc one inAict no wrong upon the
rights Of the many. During the continu-
ance of the partnership, obligations were
incurred, enterprises were undertaken and
rights and privileges were secured, which
are alike common to all the thirteen men,
bers; and the majority therefore says to
the Withdrawing member, 1--WE cannot
permit you to quit the partnership until all
the old accounts are settled, and the at |
fairs of the concern liquidated." Here
then is an issue presented between twelve
States on one side, and one on the other,
involving the original rights ofthe parties;
and in the conflict that ensucs, it will nee
cssarily follow thatthe single State will be
beaten. How now is the conquered State
to be treated land in the solution of this
question it scenes to us, consists the GIT OF
the whole doctrine of secession. Those
who. deny the doctrine, contend that its
advocates concede the question when
they give to the majority the right to
protect its interests from injury by reason
of the withdrawal of the minority, since