The Oxford intelligencer. (Oxford, Miss.) 1860-18??, 1860-11-21

4
counsel from the right quarter" in which, for
the purpose of assigning TO the Hon. Jacob
Thompson, by inference position conforming
to their own views, in reference to the doctrine
of the right Of secession, the editors of that jour
nal refer to the action of the Mississippi Con-
press and formal reputation, by the State of
Mississippi of the pretended right of secession"
From these premises, they derive the conclusion
that Mr.. Thompson Twill lend his countenance
to no proceedings which shall now be taken in
fragrant contempt Of the deliberate expressions
of Mississippi, made in the presence of the
whole country" 1t is contended, in the article
that the people Of Mississippi, in that Conyen-
ton, uttered "a significant expression, in utter
condemnation of the circumstances under which
the Legislature assumed to call the Convention"
The Vicksburg Whiq, in a recent article, cites
the resolutio, Il at were quoted oy tie Lstelti-
geacer, in order to sustain its declaration that
'the PEOPLE of the State, in Convention, in
1851" decided against the right of secession,
and, also against the propriety ofcalling Con-
|
the question whether or not a Convention
should be called "Any action" pursues the
Wig, inconsistent or against the will of the
people, as expressed in those resolutions, is
TREASON TO THE STATE"
For aught that we know to the contrary, our
Washington contemporary may have correctly
indicated Mr. Th~apson's present position. We
are not author % speak for him, but, were
we to infer his position, by argument, from our
knowledge of his antecedents, we should not
the MteHigeneer has placed him. No State
Rights man, in our opinion can, with consisten-
| cy, occupy that ground.
The following are the resolutions of the Con-
vention of 1881, which appear in the columns
of the Intelligencer and the Wig:
Resoired, That in the opinion of this Conven-
ton, the asserted right of secession from the
Union on the part of State or States is utterly
unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which
was framed to establish and not to destroy
the Union of the States, and that no secession
can, in fact take place without a subversion of
the Union established, and which will not
virtually amount in its effects and consequences
to a civil revolution.
Resolrel, That, in the opinion Of this Con-
vention, without intending to call in question
the motives of the members of the Legislature
the call of this Convention by the Legislature,
at its late extraordinary session. was unauthor-
lied by the people; and that said act in per-
emptorily ordering Convention of the State,
without first submitting to them the question
whether there should be a Convention or no
| Convention, was an unwarranted assumption of
power by the Legislature; at war with the
| spirit of republican institutions an encroach-
ment upon the rights of the people, and can
never be rightfully invoked as precedent
In order that the real meaning and purpose
of the foregoing resolutions may be the more
clearly apprehended, we append portion of the
9TH resolution of the Convention, which, in the
printed proceedings, directly follows that which
is now invoked as denial of the right of Sc
cession.
3. Res07red,, FURTHER That, whilst in the
opinion ofthis Convention such are the senti-
ments and opinions Of the ponple ef the State of
Mississippi, still, violations of the rights of the
State, may oceur, which would amount to in
tolera5ie oppression, and would justify a resort
/ to means of resistance
Looking, now, to the entire tcAor of these
resolutions of the Convention, what, we would
ask, is their real character? Are they, in truth,
decisions of the people of Mississippi? Do they
purport, like the State and Federal Constitll-
TONS to be the act of the people? Where is
the phrase-"We, the people"-to be found in
them? Upon their very face, they do not pro
feSs to be anything more than mere declara-
ton of the individual opinions of a majority Of
the gentlemen who composed the Convention.
They 'rcsolvc," in the 4th resolution, that,
in the opinion QfHis Convention" the right Of
secession does not exist; and then, in the 9th
resolution, they again proceed to 'resolve" that,
"in the opinion Of this Contention, such are the
sentiments and opinions of the people of the
State of Mississippi" The resolutions amount
only to declaration, on the part of the majority
of the Convention, of their belief in regard to
the sentiments and opinions of the people upon
certain questions. To say that the resolutions
decided any thing, or that they are binding up
on any citizen of Mississippi, is to say what, in
our Judgment, cannot be maintained upon any
fair construction of the language employed. Ii
it be said that the preamble, prefixed to the
resolutions by the Convention, recites that 'the
people of Mississippi, in Convention assembled,
*** adopt the following resolutions" we need
but remark that the preamble was an after
thought, stuck on" to the completed resolu
tons, without any regard to ''the fitness Of
things" and that the effect of it as it stands is
no less ludicrous than the following 1.-THE
people of Mississippi resolve, that, in the opinion
Of this Convention, the people of Mississippi be-
lieve so and sol" Suppose A. had empowered
B. as his agent to convey a tract ofland, and
that d, when he came to draw up the deed, had
set out thus: Il, A, do hereby declare, that in
the opinion of my agent B., it is my purpose and
intention to sell and convey, etcy" Would that
be any more funny" than the resolutions Of
81, with what we may style 'the preamble at
tachment?"
Let us concede, however. for the argument
the position contended for, and let it be sup
posed that the Convention intended to decide
against the right of secession, and to bind the
peopl, by its action. In that view of the case
the Convention exceeded its authority, and
therefore, its action was null The delegates