Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-08-25

Dus WIN W AC8StU
to the Republicans visw d ths right Of
Cubs to withdraw from de UniUa, IN the
case supposed. Az long % Cubs, might
continue a Province or Territory. The Re-
publican thinks, ID would hsvs 10 right 10
withdraw from the Union. Whyf Be-
cause 1t would be tie property Of the Uni
ted States. But when il should become :
State 1t would then have the right to with.
draw. Whyl Becsuss il would then
have censcd to bcsAe propersyofs The Federal
Government. So thu, the Republican,
bases its whole argument upon Me risxs
@propefy. and not upon,he binding force
Of a corcsasE. voluntarily made. Tho
States we grant have nj proprietary righss
in each othcr-they are not held together.
by reciprocal ownershiPs; but, by a cove.
nant more solemn and sacred. than any
considerations Of mesm and ssss; by tho
plighted and irrevocable faith Of sovereign
pledges-induccd by the common ncces-
sites. and mutual obligations Of the times,
and rendered sacred and inviolablc. by
the favors conferred by some. the duties
incurred by others. and the imposGbility Of
restoring each to its pre.cxisting condition.
Can South Carolina secede, and thus re-
pudiate her portion ofthc national debit
Can Virginia be compelled to submit to .
dissolution Of the Union, and not have her
vast domain. beyond the Ohio restored to
herl Can Iowa and California go out, and
hold on to the public lands, which are tho
common property Of all the Statcsi Can
Louisiana withdraw and close the mouth
ofthe Mississippi. the free navigation Of
which. to all the people Of all tho States.
was purchased. paid for. md forevcrguar
antecdi 1t lisa well known principle Of
law and ethics, that when a clear vigAs cx-l
lists, II is to be so used, il fused at all. rs not
to injure the rights Of others. Could tho
States we have named, exercise their rights
Of secession, if they possessed any. with.
out ~prejudicing the rights Of othersf I
Take another view. secession is no, pro-
vidcd for in the Constitution. which is the
supreme law ofthe land, nor in any State
statute, because it would be abrogatcd and
repealed by that supreme law. agains,
which it would initiate. lift be found in
any law, it must be in the unwrittcn, moral
law. The morallaw may be de6ned general
ly.as that which requires us TODD unto 9TH
ers,as we would have them, do unto us."-
Some ofthe States have, in the past his,o-
ry OF the country. appealed to others for.
and received, assistance. Florida, has been
protected from the scalping knife, and
Texas, defended against tho ,lancc-with-
IN the memory Of school-boys; and this by
the combined assistance Of all the other
States. The Western and Northwestern
States have received large grants Of mon
ey, and of public lands. for tho improve
ment Of their rivers and harbors, the con-
struction of roads, and other purposes. and
these were the joint contributions Of NIL tho
other States. Go back to the war Of 1912,
and remember, how the invading foe was
driven back from the Atlantic States, BY
the ready assistance Of the other States
All these States have, by such means, come
under obligations to the other members Of
the Confedcracy. Can they. under the
moral law, repudiateth these debts, by break
ing up the league, which binds them to-
gethcr2 "Iftwo sove rcigns made n league
offensive and defensive, but silent As to
time. and one had been protected, in his
territories. at the expense, and by tho aid
ofthc other. and afterwards, tho other got
into u war-suppose the FIRST should then
claima right. as sovereign, 10 ieave and put
an end to the compact could he do it,
Certainly not. He would not have tho
moral right; and that is the only right. in
the natter"
We have been. quite unintentionally led
into a fuller consideration of the foregoing
topics, than may be agreeable to the reader.
and will therefore dispose, very briefly, Of
the three remaining replies Of the Repub-
lican. That paper tells usthat for Mr.. b.
cock to have voted for Winthrop in prefer
ence to Brown, would have been to have
snapped the devil for the WITCH" Exact
y so. That is about the relation they bore
to each other, at the time ofthc election for
the SPcakership. and we think that If Mr..
Bocock had held his Satanic majesty in
proper adherence. and, had been compel
ed to choose between him and n witch, he
ought to have taken the latter. The Re-
publican would find it difficult to prove
that Winthrop was the author Of tho Viii
mot Proviso-without making it appear
also, that Mr.. Polk was its npprover. be-
cause he signed the bill, containing the pro-
vision upon which the Republican bases
its charge against Winthrop. His votes.
afterwards in the Senate, cannot be quoted
to prove, what his course had been, preUi-
Gus to the time Of the election.
The Republican tells US that Mr.. Bocock
repudiatcs the doctrine Of federal co-er-
hon"-is opposed to whipping in South
Carolina, while Mr.. B%ollingi is emphatically
the c'srl war candidate and if his policy
should prevail. he would drencA Ms land
in cioI Nood." We have only to shy in
reply,tbat Mr.. Boiling is opposed TO scces-
sion. and for doing every thing that can DO
done, to prevent South Carolina from Ia
king that fatal step. Should his policy
prevail, there will be no secession. no civil
war. Mr.. Bocock on the other band,is al, we