Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1861-02-12
For the Spectator.

For the Spectator.
p Mr.. Editor IL thank you for the couapzi
I1gent0Ty notice you have taken of inv night
speech "of two hours length" | call It CON
lplimentary because, in an editorial nearly as
long as the speech, you do not attempt to An
swer one of my propositions, except by paradna
some extracts from an illogical production Of
mine written in 1888, and of so little conse
quence that had forgotten it, till some "know.
ling politician" having nothing better, sup
pose, to urge against my present opinions, fshed
it ND from the dead pool of oblivion, to be held
In terY0runa over my head, as an instance of my
Inconsistency. When | first heard of it, / chal-
enged its production, with the single remark
that was not ashamed of having grown wiser
in twenty-seven years. And the only quarrel
have with you, Mr.. Editor, is, that you have not
published the whole OF it, that might have met
it all, as Imeet the extracts you have made,
with an expression of sincere qualification that
an opportunity has been afforded me, of putting
the seal of unqualified disapprobation on polit-
ical dogma though honestly uttered by myself,
vet franght with incalculable mischief and de-
structve of that liberty and equality of the
States, which now constitutes the only hope OF
the South, and which must always be the only
safeguard of an oppressed minority, in this I'm
| ion. Let obstinate bigotry denounce or deride
me. | had rather feel the consciousness of
honesty in confessing error, than noursh that
pride of opinion which would perpetuate it for
the sake of consistency.
| According to your quotation from my address
to the people in 1888, which have no doubt is
correct, lay down this proposition-"The State
governments were created by the people of each
of the States; the general government by the
consent of all the States voting separately 1t
therefore seems to me Just as absurd to say that
one individual State should be tolerated in resist
| ing the laws of the Union, as to say that one
single individual should be tolerated in resisting
the laws of his State leach State standing in
the same relation to the Federal Government,
that each individual stands to the State Govern
ment" A greater heresy could not have ema.
mated from any quarter. To say nothing of the
contessedly limited power of the Federal Gov
eminent, and the extended sovereignty of the
State Governments-nothiDg of the reserved
| right of the States to resume the powers delega
ted to the General Government. The same rea-
son cannot properly be applied to the relation OF
State to the Union, and that of an individual
to his State. Human nature is selfish and uni ust.
Individuals unrestrained by government would
in most instances seek uni ust advantages of each
other proportional to the power each one might
possess. The object of government is to restrain
the strong and protect the weak, and as no man
can be trusted with the adjudication of his own
rights, therefore it is necessary to avoid anarchy
and outrage, that every individual should be
subject to the laws of his State, and that none
should be allowed to resist them with IMMUNITY.
But of State sel6shness or disposition to in
Justice cannot be predcated, unless when it for
gets or abandons the object of its creation. Its
sole legitimate duties are, to protect the rights
and the happipaos of itS pitizapa and IT
cannot rightfully divest itself of the power OF
accomplishing these ends The first great act of
our Revolution establishes the doctrine that
whenever any form of government becomes de-
structive OF these ends it is the right OF the peo
pie, nay their dwty to enter or abolish it and to
institute new government Thus it is seen
that the rights and duties of people with res
pect to the government under which they live
are wholly different from the rights and duties
of the individual citizens who make up the peo-
Pile, and that while in the nature of things it is
the duty, and even the necessity of the latter to
obey the laws, it is the duty of the other to see
that those laws shall never become destructive
of the rights of the citizen, and to resist them if
they do, and that from the very object and end
of government it is impossible and absurd for a
sovereign people so to fetter itself by any Union
or combination with other people, or in any
other way as to divest itself of the right, or the
power of executing the great purpose of its exs-
tenceby giving protection to the citizen, and SUBJ
vertlng any form OF government which may be-
come destructive of those rights. 81
1t follows then, that If a sovereign people shall
become satisfied, that union of any character,
no matter how binding formed by it with other
people, has become destructive of the rights of
its citizens, it at once becomes not only its priv
iege but its duty, in the language of the decla
ration of Independence, to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them, to resume
among the powers of the earth the separate and
equal station to which the laws of Natures God
entitle every People, and to institute new
Government. The associated People might have
the poaoer to coerce an oppressed minority thus
acting, but it would be impossible to show that
| they have right, in direct conflict with the
right of the seeding nation derived from the
divine source of Nature and of God. Great Brit
tain attempted to exercise the power-but God
interposed and the right prevailed over the
power. $50 mote it ben-So qoilJ at be with the
eighteen millions" and their sympathisers.
With respect to the New England States, can
never cease to regret that it ever entered into
my head to compare the act of noble, bat per-
haps imprudent, South Carolina in 1892 labor
ing under the oppression OF protective Tariff
the weight of which was increasing every year
with the power of the North, to the effort of
INOW I1DSldHu W Soctuo, JUyTUGCc OcttO, dHu illus
to dodge war begun and waged for their rights.
Yet erred in 1888 in designating even the de-
signs of the New Engand States during the war
OF 1872, as treason. They were sovereign States
and had right under the great principles of the
Revolution, to assume the separate and equal
station among the powers of the earth to which
the laws of Nature and of Natures God entitled
them, and it would have been destructive of our
system and principles of government to have
cOerced them back, since our union is one of
consent and not of force. But there can be no
doubt that using their right so unjustly and in
the midst of war to the injury of their co-Sates,
would have given the latter just cause OF war
against them, after their secession had made
them an independent and separate nation. But
if the principles laid down in our Declaration of
Independence are sound, there can in no case
exist, in the States seeded from, power to CO.
cree back into the Union, seeding State, nor
to execute the laws of the Union within its linn
its, for by secession it becomes foreign country
outside of the Union and beyond the limits of its
laws SecoDdly-The secession of a State or
States, for the cause of oppression or wrong-ifl
the cause actually exists, can never be rightfuy
resisted by the other Statesmen can it give to
the States seeded from just cause of war, even
though they should be injured thereby. For
they should not have perpetrated the wrong.
Nor, Mr.. Editor, can | believe that the estab-
lishment of these principles would make oar
Union "a rope of sand" On the contrary, 1
think every one must be satisfied that our pres