Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-09-20
Secession in Richmond.

secession IN Richmond.
The Enquirer recently quoted the following
resolution, which was moved by Judge Robertson
and adopted at large meeting of the citizens OF
Richmond in April 1850, as embodying the
doctrine Of secession:
Resolved. That violation of the fundamental ar
tices OF Union by other States, by Congress, jus
teS the people of any State to 1choSe injury op.
preston the pO,cer granted 10 the General Gouern-
nent may be perverted, an rssuning the potcerS SO
granted.
The Enquirer made similar comment on this
resolution at the time of it's adoption, and we
then showed in this paper that it was wholly un-
warranted. 1t will be observed, the resolution
affirms nothing more or less than that the peo-
pie Of a State will be justified in resuming the
powers granted to the Federal Government.
when those powers are perverted to their INJURY
or oppression. 1t does not, either directly or by
implication, raise the question whether this re-
sumption of coded powers would be an act of
revolution, or Of peaceable right Neither does
1t declare that the injured State shall have the
exclusive right of Judging whether the compact
has been violated, and that the other States must
quietly acquiesce in her decision. Ii is simply
an assertion borrowed from the words in which
the Virginia Convention ratified the constitution
ofthe United States) of the right Of the people
of State TO resist an injurious and oppressive
Federal Governments; so it was understood and
intended by the mover, and by those who voted
for it.
If the true meaning of the phraseology of the
resolution be sought in the intention with which
similar language was employed by the Conven-
ton of $780, there is unanswerable evidence that
no such doctrine as the right of secession at WILL
with without cause, which is now maintained
in South Carolina, was contemplated by the
members of that memorable body. The letter
OF Mr.. Madison to Gen. Hamilton, recently pub
lished, establishes beyond ga manner of doubt,
that the idea of ratifying the constitution acth
reservation Of the right 10 aoithdrcw, or secede,
was mooted in the Convention by the opponents
of the ratification, and abandoned as proposing
no ratification at all. The same correspondence
proves that, in the New York Convention. ratif-
cation with reserved right of secession was Sc
rlouSly considered by even the friends of the
Union, as means of ensuring the accession of
that great State, but it was given up under the
positive and unqualified.
The declaration, then, that violation of the
compact OF Union justifes the people of State
IN resuming the powers coded to the General
Government, does not in itself import, and was
never intended by the Virginia Convention, or by
the people Of Richmond, to sanction the anoma-
lous doctrine of South Carolina that State after
nj IN, Ip:o IL
States can, at any moment, without even the al
legation of oppression, throw off her obligations,
and leave her confederates no redress whatever
against her breach of faith. The men who COM
posed the Virginia Convention were of too stern
a stuff, and were informed with too wise a saga
city, to entertain any such heresy. They practi-
cay understood, what modern sciolists in politics
pronounce incomprehensible, that the right of
dlsownlng tyrannical government is not less
cred, than the necessity of determining the issue
by arms is certain. They did not vainly preface
their resistance to George the Third by propoun-
ding fne-spun theories that the right of man to
free government is nviolable, that conflicting
rights can not co-exist, and, therefore. that if
they should declare their independence, George
would nave no right 10 attempt to subdue them.
When they took their resolution they also took
arms and so must every people who expect TO be
released from oppression.
The Enquirer's object, in recalling the Rich
mond resolution appears to be rather to gain
some cover for Judge Caskie's opinions on the
question of secession, than TO arrive at just solu
ton OF the question itself. tits quite problemati-
cal, however, whether the Judges cause will be
greatly benefited by his being thus made to es-
pouse the principles Of the South Carolina seces-
sonists The present is case in which an
abstraction becomes practically of the highest i'm
portance. large party in South Carolina, per-
haps Ghough we think noO majority of her
people, are for unconditional secession from the
Union. II Judge Caske holds that she has the
right to secede, and that her secession will be no
wrong to the other States, his position is fully as
Objectionable as if he wished and counseied her to
sscede. 1t simply tells her that ii she do the
thing, he will uphold her in it. Are the people
OF the Richmond district prepared TO say this to
South Carolina by electing a gentleman to Con
gress who will say il for them F.?