Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1857-01-17
1pmchbur0 a;ir0tmiam.
saturday Morning. January ~. 1887.

up between our neghbor of the Republican and
the Abingdon Democrat. touching the much moot
ed and vaguely determined theory of State rights
If in presenting the points of difference aud de
bate. we avail ourselves Of the opportunity Ia
throw in a few observations of our own. we ,rus,
j. will no, be inferred that We have any DISPOSE
ton to become party to the Controversy.
The first offence of the Abingdon journal a
eainst the code of State rights consisted in an
ticle approving and advocating the scheme of 4
Railroad to the Pacific under the patronage OF
the General Government. We dare say our
transmontane contemporary felt safe in doing this.
iuasmuch the Democratic party had just elect
ed a gentleman TO the Presidency tihe nominee
of Virginia) who hal openly given his sanction
to such work. and fortified his position in 50 do
ing by pointing to the platform on which be had
been placed by the party in nominating him
nevertheless, the Republican arraigned the Dem
ocrat for heresy-and in its issue of Thursday
again refers 10 il as "a doctrine so repug
nant TO all of yirginia's ideas of the limited pow
ers of the Federal Government, that it created no
little stir among the politicians in Washington"
liza newspaper article created such stir, ii will
strike the public with surprise that the asowcd
opinion Of the Democratic candidate for the Pre-
sidency. and the formal enuneiation of the Dem
ocratic party in then national platform, concur
ring with the newspaper article. should not have
produced something more than mo little stir
something like storm, big storm, furious
and sweeping and overwhelming storm. But
nothing of the sort 1t was received only, in the
language Of the Enquirer, with courtesy" and
silence But we pass on. The Democrat
says -
"Suppose it were true, according to the hypothesis
of some politicians that the South could If her
nection with the Union were dissolved, and she
should set mp an independent government for her
self secure greater degree Of prosperity and inhu-
ence, how is she 10 take the niatory step? lnwhom
does the power to declare the Union dissolved
side A States Rights Democrat will reply IN the
people Grant it, but in what people Is It in the
people of State Have they the right TO declare
the Constitution Of the United States aud the existing
legislation Of Congress null aud void The States
Rights man says no That is reected by his creed.
Nor does he believe tina, this power resides in the
people of all the Southern States. This is equally
repugnan, TO his theory. Nor can the several State
Legislatures take the first step in this matter. The
very moment they do, they are guilty oil treason to
the Government, and it becomes the duty OF the M
ecutiye as In the case Of South Carolina to the
naval aud military power Of the country compel the
seeding States return to their duty. Jackson cs-
tablished The precedent, and be Is good authority.
When We reflect upon this and the further Rct that
the officers OF the general goyernmcnt-the most OF
whom sworm-owe paramount allegiance to IT,
we must be convinced, without reference to difficult
ties which would arise In the division Of public pro-
perty that dissolution Of the tnion and subsequent
establishment of II Southern Republic, can only be
affected by REVOLUTION and n civil war.
his doctrine does not suit the Republican,
the 'sum and substance" of il being that if 'all
the Southern States of the Union" were 10 SO
cede 1.-THE Black Republicans of the North" have
right "to whip them back into the Union and
make them obedient 10 its laws, abolition aud
all" Perhaps the Democrat may think that the
Black Republicans would consider not only
VIII ether they had the right, in such contingcn-
cy, but the potrer; and whether, TO enforce re-
luctant and resisted Union. they would attempt
with an uncertain power TO maintain contested
right. The right of one portion OF the Union 10
make war upon another for violation of the
federal compact is one which so calculating II
people as those of the North would hardly put
in practice If convinced, as they readily would
be, that the subjugnti"n Of the South would, in
common pnrlance, "oost more than il would
come To-"
But, says the Republican, "IIe' (the editor of
the Democrat) "goes farther. and assumes the
.monstrous federal heresy. that all officers u The
federal government oioe paramount allegiance 10
it," In this the Democrat is clearly correct
As officers, and while officers, sworn TO support
the federal constitution aud government tile OBJ
legation incurred by them is paramount. Re.
signing their commi ssons as officers and reaps-
ing into private citizens, a different question
would be presented
1--WE have been taught TO believe says the
Republican, "that federal representatives, at
least owed paramount allegiance TO their own
'State-that they are bound to obey her willard
mot the will of the federal government" Where
there is an obligation, there is, or should be- a
mode of enforcing it-and if it be legal obliga-
ton there is, er ri fermin mode of enforcing it.
Let US apply this truth to the Republicans prop
ositon. Suppose the next Legislature were to
revoke the commission of Mr.. Hunter, as one of
the States representatives in the u. S. Senate.
and were to elect Gov. Wise to supercede him.
and Mr. Hunter should deny the right of the
Legislature to remove him. How would the
State proceed to eject Mr.. Hunter from his seat
and install Gov. Wise in it Can the Republi-
can tell usl
The Republican proceeds 1--WE respectfully
ask the Democrat whether the federal govern
'ment created the States, the States the feder-
al government If the former, then we admit that
'the federal government-the creative power
would alone have the right to pronounce the union
of these States dissolved. But if the latter then
lit is equally clear that the States have the sole
right to annul the contract when it becomes op.
'pressive in the hands of the majority" Non