The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-17
Union on account of these measures. will read
two extrasts from his letter in reply dated Jack.
son, Mississippi, November Ig, 1880:

two extrasts from his letter in reply, dated Jack
SON, Mississippi, November Ig, 1850:
" If any have falsely and against the evidence
before them, attempted to fix on me the charge
of wishing to dissolve the U Mon, under existing
circumstances, am sure your information and
intelligence have enabled you to detect the shall
low fraud. IT any have represented me rs seek
ing to establish a Southern c0nfederacy, on the
ruins OF that which our revolutionary fathers
bequeated to us, my whole life and every SEN
timent have ever uttered, in public or private
life, give them the lie.
~ any have supposed gratutously, they
could not otherwise,) that my efforts in the
Senate were directed to the secession of Missis.
slppi from the Union, their hearts must have
been lnsenslble to the obligations of honor and
goou iaith. which feel are imposed upon me
ny tne position OF an accredited agent from Mis-
sissippi to the federal government
Ihls 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 secession in Mississippi was
mere abstract question. It was not designed
to be practical at all in reference to existing cir
cumstances IL was mere abstract question as
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 as 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 a council of the Southern States, TO devise
the mode and measure Of redress; aud when
that was done, the mode and measure of redress
devised by the united wisdom Of the aggrieyed
States in council, should be referred back to the
people OF the several States, their ratification
or rejection, 10 the event of our demands being
refused, II they were refused, and the North
perseyered 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 peaceabie
remedy, because it resulted from right
The position Of the other party was this:
They said We had been wronged to some extent
by the measures Of compromise, but that it was
the best We could do; and that they would sub
init to it, bat 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,
party said that, in the last resort, the mode of
resistance would be secession, exercised as
right. The Union party said, there was no such
thing as the right of secession; that it would
be revolution 1t was mere abstract ques ton,
then, for the people of Mississippi; and if we
are to be denounced as secessionists they are,
on the same principle, to be denounced as revo.
lutionists. The only difference is, 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 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 Mississippi-one of the largest con-
ventions ever hell in that State-in June last,
they passed resolution, and il is part of the
proceedings of the convention, that although
they believed in the right Of secession, yet, I'M
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.
sibe. These are the true facts in reference TO
this question, as it came up in The State of Mis-.
sisslPpi. One party was as much responsible
for II as the other. II was a question as TO n
mere abstract right, and not as to right which
we proposed under any circumstances connected
with these measures alone, to exercise, but rs
right TO be exercised only as last resort from
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, il /. very
difficult, II II is complicated one, to decide pre-
clsely the position 10 be taken in reference TO IT,
What understand 10 be the right Of secession
Is this: IL is the right Of State 10 resume the
sovereignty delegated by her to the federal gov.
ernment in the Constitution, whenever the gov.
eminent abuses that sovereignty, or usurps
undelegated sovereignty TO such an extent as 10
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-
trollable power. And you may say that the
right OF secession IL the right Of a State 10 re-
sumo that power which shehas delegated 10 the
federal government in the Constitution, when.
ever The government abuses that power. or
usurps other power not delegated, TO such an
extent rs 10 destroy the obj cts for which the
government was created Ii that be the correct
definition, as 10 my judgment Il s, who IL 10 be
the Judge OF this abuse Of power, or Of this
usurpation OF powerl That Is the only ques-
uon IhVoVed 10 determining this right, because
whoever takes The position thst this government
may exercise powers political powers, not sub.
Ject 70 the supervision OF the Supreme Court Of
the United States, and who says that the gov.
eminent has right TO Judge Of the extent Of is
powers, say he takes the position that this is
not limited constitutional government, but that
1t y government Of the majority, whose mere
viii is The limitation Of the powers Of the GOV,
eminent itself and that IL beromes yovo,o,nont
Of unlimited powers. Whoever takes the other
position, that when the government usurps
power not delegated TO IL, or abuses powers
which are delegated, IN such an extent that the
States cannot bear the oppresson-whoever
tskes the position that The States have n right
TO determine for themselves whether those
powers have been abused or usutped, must sd-
init the right Of secession. That il the only
question involved in the determination of this
right
IL is said that the word asovereiop,v. Il not