Daily national Democrat., 1860-03-28
BOlder and BOlder.

Inc sentiments WIlcn were hNOWcu Dy
Hayne, Of South Carolina, in 1929, were the
very first muttcrings of the doctrine of Sc
cession in the Halls Of Congress. Mr.. Hoyne
took the ground. in q speech of surprising
power and eloqueuce, that, the powers Of the
/ Federal Government result from compact
to which the States are parties, and that, in
the language of the Virginia Resolutions Of
1898, lin case Of deliberate, palpable and
dangerous exercise Of powers not granted by
said compact, the States who are parties
thereto have the right, and are in duty bounds
to interpose for arresting the progress oil the
evil, and for maintaining within tn 'ir respee-
tive limits, the authorities, rights and hber>
ties. appertaininr to them" These Virginia
Resolutions as is well known, were drawn
IN l.v Mr. Madison, one Of the trainers of the
Constitution They were interpreted by Mr..
! IIatne to mean that State could, of its own
authority, decide as to the constitutionality
or Justice Of any law of Congress, and nullify
or resist it. This right he claimed for the
States as one of the reserved rights under the
Federal compact. Webster, his great nntag-
onist, on that occasion, interpreted these Res
olutions far differently They are certainly
ambiguous in their character, and may mean,
as Webster said either that a State might
interpose against a law which it considered
unjust by remonstrance and petition, or Iy
revolution. The latter is that ultimate resort
he said, which all peoples have right to,
when they deem themselves oppressed. Web
ster contended that q State could not except
by revolution itself, resist law of Congress.
1t had no reserved right which it could fall
back upon and defy the General Government,
on the ground that Congress had done some
unconstitutional thing. The Federal Con-
stitution, he said. was a compact binding up
on citizens, as such, and not upon States in
their individual capacity. IIayne asserted
that the States and not citizens, us such, were
parties TO the Federal Compact, and had u
right. therefore, forcibly to resist any act
which they might deem an infrnction of that
compact. The utteNnee of these opinions by
Hayne wee regarded with horror. And yet
they are moderate indeed by the side of those
sentiments now almost daily uttered in the
Senate OF the United States. 1t is nor plain
/ ly avowed by Southern Senators that it will
be the right Of Southern States, in case of the
election of a Republican President, to refuse
to recognize his authority, and to pay no more
respect to him than if he were private cit
izen to resist 10y force and arms the exercise
of his administrative powers within their
limits. and either to drive him to a surrender
of his position or involve the country in a
civil war. IT. in the days OF the great con-
troversy between uayne and Webster, a
United States Senator could have arisen and
declared that he and the people whom he rep
resented would resist the authority of a Pres
ident duly elected by majority of the Amer
lean people, we verify believe that he would
have been branded upon that floor as a trail
tor and his society stunned by every patri-
otic member of that body But, now, such
is the ranoor OF feeling, so familarized are We
all with the doctrines of Secession and Dis
union, so bitter is the warfare on this question
of slavery, and so fully recognized is the ex-
istence of the "irrcpressible conflict" that
the cruntry is not at all surprised to hear q
United States Senator declare that the in
auguration of President, hostile to his ant
his States political opinions, will be resisted
with blood. Secession and Disunionism ar,
growing bolder and bolder, while those ag-
gressions which stimulate them are growing
stronger and stronger and we confess, with
shame and with sorrow, that the reasons are
only too good for believing that this Union
now stands on the brink of its dissolution.
May God preserve it, from the last fatal step.