The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-16

Union on account Of These neAsufsa will read
two extracts from his letter ip reply, dated Jack
son, Mississippi, November lJ, 1850:
II any have falsely and against the evidence
before them, attempted to fix on me the charge
Of wishing to dissolve the Mon, under existing
circumstances, am sure your information and
Intelligence have enabled you to detect the shall.
low fraud. Ii any have represented me az seek
ing to establish Southern confederacy, on the
ruins of that which our revolutionary fathers
bequeated to US, my whole life and very SEN
tment have ever uttered in public or private
| life, give them the lie.
" II any have supposed gratuitously, (they
could not otherwise,) that my efforts In the
Senate were directed to the secession of Missis-
sippi from the Union, their hearts must have
been insensibe to the obligations of honor and
good faith, which feel are imposed upon me
| oy the position OF an accredited agent from Mis-
slsslppi to the federal government"
This was the language Of that distinguished
citizen OF our State, which places him fairly be-.
fore the country in reference to his position on
this question; and condemns at once the false
charge made against him, by those who mis-
represent him Of being in favor of dissolution
of the Union.
The question of accession in Mississippi was
mere abstract question. II was not designed
to be practical at all in reference to existing cir
cumstances. 1t was a mere abstract question a.
to the right OF State in the last resort from
oppression, to secede from the Union, which
grew up there as much from the position of one
party AZ from that of the other. The State
Rights party assumed the position that We had
been wronged by the measures Of compromise,
and ought to demand redress for the past and
security for the future; and that there ought to
be council of tho Southern States, TO devise
the mode and measure of redress and when
that was done, the mode and measure of redress
devised by the united wisdom of the aggrieved
States in council, should be referred back to the
people OF the several States for their ratification
or rejection, in the event of our demands being
refused. If they were refused, and the North
persevered in their agressions upon US, then the
question would arise, in the last resort, "What
would be the proper remedy?" And we said, it
was secession, and that it was peaceable
remedy, because it resulted from right
The position of the other party was this:
They said we had been wronyed to some extent
by the measures of compromise, but that it was
the best we could do; and that they would sub.
nit to it, but would lay down certain PROPOSE
tons, upon the violation of which they would
make resistance The question arose. if these
propositions were violated, what kind of resist
ance they would resort to! The State Right,
resistance would be secession, exercised as a
right. The Union party said, there was no such
thing as the right of secession; that it would
be revolution. 1t was mere abstract question
then, for the people of Mississippi and if we
are to be denounced as secessOnsts, they are.
on the same principle, to be denounced as revo-
lutionists. The only difference u.s. that we claim
the right when oppression becomes too intolera-
BILE to be borne, to relieve ourselves peaceably;
and they say we cannot do it without a civil
war and bloodshed. That is the difference.
That is the way the question came up. When
the Democratic State Rights party met in con-
vention in Mississipp-one of the largest con-
ventiOns ever held in that State-in June last,
they passed a resolution, and it is part of the
proceedings of the convention, that although
they believed in the right of secession, yet un-
der existing circumstances, it did not meet with
the appreciation Of the convention to exercise
that right. Then the party spoke by authority,
and laid down the position which we assumed,
and to which we are willing to be held respon.
sbe. These are the true facts in reference to
this question, as it came up in The State of Mis-.
sssppi. One party was as much responsible
for it as the other. 1t was question as to
mere abstract right, and not as to a right which
we proposed under any circumstances connected
with these measures alone, to exercise, but as
further aggressions.
apprehend that the great difficulty about this
right OF secession grows out of the fact, that the
right itself is not properly understood, for the
want of being properly defined. That produces
great difficulty upon all questions. When we
have confused idea of any question, it ia very
difficult, if it is complicated one, to decide pre-.
cisely the position to be taken in reference to it.
What understand to be the right of secession
is this: 1t is the right Of State to resume the
sovereignty delegated by her to the federal gov
eminent in the Constitution, whenever the gov
eminent abuses that sovereignty, or usurps
undelegated sovereignty TO such an extent as to
defeat the objects for which the government
was created. use the term sovereignty" in
the same sense with the word "power," because
the meaning of sovereignty is supreme, uncon-
trollabe power. And you may say that the
right of secession is the right of State to re-
sumo that power which she has delegated to the
federal government in the Constitution, when
ever the government abuses that power, or
usurps other power not delegated, to such an
extent as to destroy the objects for which the
government was created If that be the correct
definition, as in my judgment it is, who is to be
the Judge OF this abuse Of power, or of this
usurpation of power! That is the only ques-
ton involved in determining this right, because
"hVSNci t'hSS thC posllloH ttiaL governments
may exercise powers, political powers, not sub
ject to the supervision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and who says that the gov
ernment has right to Judge of the extent Of its
powers i say he takes the position that this is
not limited constitutional government, but that
it is government of the majority, whose mere
Will Is the limitation of the powers of the gov
eminent ITSELF and that it becomes government
OF unlimited powers. Whoever takes the other
position, that when the government usurps
power not delegated to it, or abuses powers
which are delegated, to such an extent that the
States cannot bear the oppression-whoever
takes the position that the States have right
to determine for themselves whether those
powers have been abused or usurped, must adj
NIT the right of secession. That is the only
question involved in the determination of this
right.
1t is said that the word sovereignty" is not
found in the Constitution. Why, sir, there is n