Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-25
THURSDAY MORNlNG, nARCru rs.

THURSDAY MORNING, MARCH 25.
- The late Democratic State Convention in
Louisiana, adopted among others, the following re-
solution:
Resolved further, That we do ressser the doctrines Of
the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1898 and 1892
embodyug the principles of she great Democratic
republican party Of this Union.
This resolution furnishes fair specimen of the
humbuggery and imposture so often practised by
tho leaders of the Democracy, on their credulous
followers, through the instrumentality of what
they denominate platforms of principle. The
Democracy of Louisiana here reassert the doe
trines of the resolutions of '95 and 80, as en-
bodyiug tho true Democratic faith, but they do
not condescend to inform us what these doctrines
are.
1t is well known that the Virginia and Ken
lucky resolutions have, for the last so years. been
the subject of conflicting interpretations and that
the public sentiment of tho country, and of the
Democratic party in particular is as much dvid-
cd now as in regard to their real meaning
According to Mr.. Calhoun, and the South Carroll
ma school of politicians, these resolutions assert
the right of State to nullify at pleasure the laws
of Congress, or to secede peaceably from the I'M
bic remedy for the grievances complained of. The
selfstyled State-rights Democrats of Virginia es-
chew notification, but contend for secession as
the doctrine embodied in the famous resolves of
'99 and 80. Another and by far the larger por-
ton of the Democratic party, deny fatty the
right of State either to nulify or to secede and
repudiate the idea that the Virginia and Ken
lucky resolutions give the slightest countenance to
either doctrine. They aver that the right to re-
monstrate against the aggressions of the federal
government and to petition for redress was all that
these resolutions We're intended to assert. This
was the opinion of Gen. Jackson, the incarnation
of Democracy on earth, and still its Patron Saint.
He declared in his proclamation of 1888, that Sc
eession was treason, and avowed his determine
ton to hang every man as high as Haman who
should attempt to carry it into execution. His
conduct was loudly applauded by his followers
throughout the Union, with few exceptions in
the South, and an overwhelming majority of them
still regard his proclamation as imbodyi ing the true
State-rights doctrine.
What, then, do the Democracy of Louisiana
mean when they re-assert the doctrines of the
resolutions of 80 and '99! Do they adhere to
those resolutions as expounded by Mr.. Calhoun,
by the Virginia Secessionsts or lastly by General
Jackson! What are the true sprinciples of the
Democratic Republican party which they so
stoutly proclaim! Are they the principles of
notification, the principles of secession or the
principles of remonstrance! Unless they make
known the Interpretation which they place upon
| the resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky their
confession of faith is a vague and unmeaning ge-
| nerality. But this, apprehend is precisely
| what it was intended to be. Aware of the diffe-
rences of opinion existing in their own ranks in
regard to the true construction of the 98 resolu-
| tons the Democracy of Louisiana adopted the
| very clever expedient of re-asserting these We
nerable and much disputed articles of the State
| rights creed without any explanation of their
| own, leaving each individual to interpret them as
he pleases. This may be easy and satisfac tory
| mode of avoiding internal dissensions and wrang-
ling, but we suggest that it is a very transparent
attempt at political inposture. The Washing
ton Union, speaking of the action of the
Louisiana Democracy, says that their posi-
ton sis in substance that of the Democratic par
ty throughout the Union. Avoiding the discus
sions which have grown out of the different con-
structions placed on the Virginia and Kentucky
resolutions, and not undertaking to determine
what are the contingencies which would justify
practical assertion of the right of secession, the
convention has been content to stand where JEFF
ferson Madison and Jackson did, in the illustra-
tons which they gave of the relations be tween
the federal government and the States
Whatsay Mr.. Hunter, Mr.. Caskie, Mr.. Be-
cock, Mr.. Meade and others of that stripe to
this! Are they content to stand where Jackson
stood2 Are they satisfied with the ''illustra-
tions'' which the author of the proclamation aud
force bill gave ofthe ''relations between the f.
deral government and the States!''