The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-02-03
The Resolutions of l7ss.

More than half our disputes In church and
state come from attempts to keep old formulas
in force after the events which gave them
meaning and vitality have passed away. Some
OF our politicians absurdly seek to revive the
controversy over the famous Virginia resolu-
tions of I79S. Several Democratic conven-
tions have re-affirmed them by their title, and
the Pennsylyania Republican convention de-
nounced them as embodying pestilent doc
.trine.s We do not believe that one out of fif-
ty OF those who vote for or against the old
resolutions know anything about them, their
meaning or their object.
The alien and sedition laws had been pass-
ed by Congress, which was control ed by the
federal party. The Kentucky Legislature had
adopted series OF resolutions protesting
against these acts, and James Madison drew
up similar series which were sdnpted by the
Virginia Legislature, of which he was not a
member. They avowed the eeter -nination of
Virginia to defend the constitutions of the
United States and of the States, but to resist
every attempt to increase the power of the
federal government by forced constructions of
general clauses, as tending to consolidation
and the destruction of the liberties of the
States, and they protested against the alien
and sedition laws as unconstitutional and dam
gerous to liberty. The New England Legis-
iatures pronounced against these resolutions
and approved the offensive laws. But public
opinion went with Virginia, and Mr.. Jefferson
was elected President in 1900 by the Republi-
can party, on the basis of the Virginia Iesolu-
tions. The Southern Democracy have since
inferred from the resolutions the right of re-
| sistance, as well as protest, against what they
considered unconstitutional acts of the gene
| raj government. Hence notification in 1882,
and secession and rebellion in 1861, both plant
ing themselves for justification on the Virgin
10 : solutions of 179S. I93b
If is -'e that the Interpretation given to
the doctrines. It Mr.. Madison by our modern
traitors ia oror 40 9,rsefsion, and that Henry
Claw ALWAYS detsnSad S re resolutions, at the
same time that he was an ca. sss ofPonent o1
the notification and secession u S V.' nor
nave our northern democrats taken l. ~.
gtnla resolutions in their southern sense. D..
lt should be serious question with patriotic
democrats whether it is either right or polite
to adhere to a formula of doctrine capable of
such perversion and practical mischief. Ifthey
thmk there Is present need to make the Cioc-
trlne OF state rights prominent, on account of
supposed danger OF the absorption of the DOW
ers of the states by the general government.
let them make a new declaration on the sub
ject. Surely they know what they believe.
and can confess 1t In their own words. with
out borrowing the phraseology of a previous
century. 1t any state right IS now irnperiled.
let them say what right, and what is the perii
and how they purpose to defend it. If they
can show any real danger they will find the re-
publican party Of this day as sincerely devot-
cd to the genuine doctrine OF state rights as
was the republican party of 1900. But If all
that our democrats want of the Virginia reso-
lutions is to use them as bait to catch
southern m gudgeons, the game may be losing
one. The gudgeons have torn their mouths
TOO severely to be very eager for the bait at
present; and the rank and file of the northern
democracy will not be likely to look with much
favor upon party creed that has already cost
themselves and the country SO much. No,
democrats, the resolutions Of 1796 may have
been very good in their day, but they are OBJ
| solete; they do not fit the events Of to-day or
| the possibilities of tomorrow. They are not
| wanted at all. Better consign them to the
keeping of history.-Erchaage. 81