Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1852-02-07
Aberdeen Independent.

tons we submitted to it, in issue of the Oath u
We had supposed that the proposed controversy was
have been commenced and conducted in spirit of
manly and dgnifed courtesy that it intended to
be thorough and that the history, well the lead
ing arguments on both sides would be produced and
exhausted, in the sustainment of the positions taken
This and is our intention. five cannot meet the
opponents of secession, with history, and argument
based upon historical facts shall never be-te the
cause have espoused by seeking to eVade the issue
and questions that better become the grove-
ing demagogue and the sycophantic pethfogger than
the man who pretends to guide public opinion, and
shape the of party Our only object is the elu
cidaton Of history and the advancement OF sound Re-
publican doctrine We have no object in view be-
yond this Holding that great and sacred principle
had been assaulted knowing that the feeble points
employed by its friends sustain it had been rdicued
and all that historically important to the clear I'M
derstandng of had been supp ressed by it's opponents
we desired opportunity through press opposed to
the justice of the principle to submit its readers the
facts and arguments by which it was sustained, to-
gether, with what could be urged against it. In one
sense, the paper named above, met views it had
assailed and rdicued the doctrine of secession and
hence, through its columns desired to be heard.
There is not man in the State of Mississippi who
is at all informed upon the question of secession, who
does not know that the propositions suggested by u.s.
are essential to clear knowledge historically of the
right for which we contend There is not one who
does not know that the successful defence of the right
rests upon those questions, and that they mast be discussed
and adjusted, before argument can cover the whole
ground. If the paper named above is not of
this fit believes that settlement of those propositions
"begns before the begtnning of this disputed rightor
that they not the very pedestal upon mhich State
Rights STANDS, we beg its pardon for having pro-
posed the discussion and we hope readers will
forgive us for having excited their curiosity We had
supposed that those who had lavishy rdced publicly
the right of secesson at least understood the arpu-
ments and history its advocates based its defence on
If, however, we are mistaken-and it seems we are
we appeal to candid and enlightened public to say
how far press ought to be trusted which attacks and
ridicues principle, the history of which it knows
thing, nor nothing of the arguments by which it is
sustained. Ithas been said fool may confound phi
losopher Intending nothing personal in this we are
willing to believe the paper above named will see the
propriety and justice, ofmeetng in manly, frank and
candid manner, the discussion rendered
The paper named above is decidedly mistaken in
supposing that the questions 'relate the colonial
principles of the British Constitution They have no
relation whatever, to the British Constitution The
first three questions too direct to be evaded and
when any man says they ''relate to the "British Con-
stitution we must say that the relationship is very
disanrso Distant that the man who so asserts must
have more sand in his head, y than sin his ewes -
But to put all this to rest we here repubsh the ques
tonset the world Judge of the fairness of the oppo
sition and the manliness of our opponent.
LIST. Were not the Colonies, under the British
domination separate States or governments &?
end Were not the Colonies wholly indepenent
of another in their entire political
and administration, having connecting tie but
what they derived from being lieges of the British
sceptre and in this respect, standing in the same
relation to one another, they did to Canada Mi
norica, or any other of the dependencies of the
British crown, except in far as the mere fact of
proximity was concerned?
3rd. When the Colonies confederated to resist
the eXactions of the English Parliament, did they
not form their coalition, frame their measures per-
form their acts on the principle of being separate
States, each possessing its distinct indepedent
polity, acting on the basis of its own free agency
4th. When the Federal Constitution was form
ed did not each State act for itself did not the
people of each State at the call of its own Legs-
lature, meet on its own SOIL within the bounds of
its own territory, in its prmordia capacity of
an independent political community, possessing
and exercising the attributes of original undenied
sovereignty the power the will of political omnip
otence that power and that will which are antece-
dent and paramount to all political organizations
and laws, the priacipiua ct fons whence govern
ments imbibe their existence and life,-dd not the
people of each State thus and there meet, and by
their own several sovereign act, adopt and ordain
the Constitution, each for itself?
9Th. Was the Constitution binding on any State
before the people of that State thus ordained it ?
9th. AS the word State is liable to be construed
in three ways, let it be distinctly defined now, so
as to prevent misconstructon or controversy here
after.
LIST. State may mean certain tract of country,
lying within certain boundaries, the habitaton of
asovereign political community. This is State in
its geographical sense.
end. State may mean the government--the civil
organization, of such political community, existing
and exercising authority over such territory-em-
bracing the executive, legislative judicial, and 9th
er functionares, who are employed in calculating
the objects of such organization This is State in
its organized or government sense.
3rd. State may mean the people inhabting and
possessing such territory, considered in their first
social condition in which all people exist antece-
dent to the formation of government, in which
their will and welfare are the source, the centre
and end fall power. This is State in its primitive
and sovereign sense.
These questions, have nothing to do with the Brt-
ish Constitution" and when the reader peruses the
following he may gather the value to be attached to
those who denounce the doctrine of secession.