The primitive Republican., 1851-12-11

ded that, no State had right to esstay in the
Union and resist the laws Of congress" After
placing themselves in this predicament, how
will the Uuion Party resist, Gas they say
they will in the event that Congress tread
upon forbidden ground-or enact any of the
prescribed measures ?-They deny the right
to withdraw peaceably, by secession, from
under the weight of such "intolerable oppregs.
ion, they have always secuted the idea
that State, acting through its Legislature
or its people in Convention assembled, had
a right to declare an unconstitutional Act OIL
Congress, null and void, and therefore inoper-
voluntarily assumed in the name ii off8 fe nave 9s,
pie, position which leaves but one alterna-
tive, in case Of 5ustifable resistance
that alternative is the very worst Of all the
Issremedies' which could have been devised
-it is nothing less tlan an appeal to arms
a resort to WAR AND BL00SHED.
We take. as conceded that, the Convention,
| in resolving to resist the specified measures,
desired to be understood as meaning and In
tending q degree of resistance sufficient to
remove and efectnally protect the State
Eagainst-the evil and oppression which would
call forth the resistance. If they did not
mean this, then, all their resolves and pre-
ambulatory fulminations, arc mere child S
play full Of sound and fury signifying
nothing "
+ Let US suppose that, the Government vio-
/ late the first specification in the Union Party
/ Platform, by "rhe interference by Con
gressional legislation with the institution
of slavery in the States Y-and abolish it.
This would afford an opportunity to illus
trate the difference between the doctrine OF
1 the Democratic State Rights party, which has
existed ever since the days of Jefferson, and
the doctrine of the present Union party The
former contends that, rather than 90 to war
i it would be better to secede and get from ot3,.
der tie lar, or Gala Convention Of the people
and declare it void and of no force, because
1unconstitutional. The Union party say no
4 we are. opposed to both secession and nul
4 lifeation, they would result in CIVIL REV
Il E0LUTION which we have no right to make
), but, say they, We have natural right t.
fght-to kill as many Of the government
+ forces as ne can, and in the end be ourselves
], oyerpowered and slain in battle, or capture,
and hung as rebels and traitors: all this woult
be sanctioned by the Federal Constitution
and avoid the great calamity Of a "ciyiI revo
: luton therefore our voice is for war
9 Now mark the difference-the too parties
We viii suppose, shall start at the same poin
and for the same cause, to resist E'intolerabl
oppression tho State Rights party woul
. pcaceably withdraw the State from the polit
zeal Union, and thereby throw of the yok
Il that gals thein-preyent the shedding {
t human blood-p preserve their liberty thci
Il State sovereignty and their property.
Z On the other hand the Union party dth
t tho. right to secede, and for the same caus
3 would 60 to warto deluge the land ]
s Hblood; to be sabdued, crashed, and held
6 elsuhjection by the sgTnion's military powc
: IT a Revolution shall be forced upon u
+ which should we prefer cIvIL or a NH
S FFs.sRT reyolutiorE Theanswer to this que
tion involves the principleWhieh IS the f'grei
! gulf thatdifides the Democratic State Rigl
a party from the Consolidation Union part
!, .Iadge ye Of it.