The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-11-17
stephens VS.. Bledsoe-The Right OF
Secession.

occupied singular position in the est
nation of the southern public. Hisspeeches
made Just before the late war commenced
his abstinence from such active parteips,
ton in the prosecution of that war as i',,'
been expected from him, and, more thaii an
we suspect, the manner in when ho.'".
PAPERS are in the habit of speaking OF h.,n'
;,5,,.os = ao,,+ nc 10 whether he really
believed the southern States hao i's". "
secede from the Union. No man conid give
nooa -.oson for doubling Mr.. STEPHENs's
sa,o.;o, IN his own section. He it was who,
in 1880. when few men would have dareo
70 deliver such language in such q place,
uttered in Washington city the startling
imnrecation, "Let the curses Of the
"etcrnal God rest upon the traitor who
"will not stand by his own section"
Whilst still q leading Wing member
Of Congress, however, he seemed much in
cliued towards acting with the uncompro-
missing Democrats from his section. His
fidelity to his party was then in the same
sor. Of doubt which afterwards appeared
to surround his position as q champion of
Tie doctrines Of the rights Of the States.
1t was doubtless a prejudice against him
imbibed during the war that caused Profess
sor BLEpsoE, the able editor of the Balti-
more Quarterly Reuieon, to criticise Mr..
STrPHEHS's Constitutional View of the
Late War" in captious and unfriendly
NJ hot
quarterly he took the distinguished Geor-
cian TO task, and charged him with va
rious offences. The public has reason
to thank Professor RLEDsoE for this
review; for it has called Mr.. STEPHENS
ont in a loGg letter, which appears in the
Baltimore Statesman Of last week, in which
he defines his position in the most unequi-
vocal language, and clears ND every doubt
as to the opinions he holds land has
always heidi in reference to the rights OF
the States. lie shows that his book is con-
sistent with his previous record rs states
man, including in this latter, of course, his
celebrated srcech of 1860 before the Lecis-
lature Of Georgia in denuuciation o. the
nrorosal to sccede from the Union. Ee |
demonstrates that whilst this speech w"S
directed against the policy Of secession, It !
clearly admitted the right Of secession
that whilst it denied las well il might the
right of the Legislature of Georgia to pass
an ordinance of secession, it pointed to the
people themselves, speaking through q con-
,rIt c,,c1e
IN ordinance. He shows that he never,
IS charged by his reviewer, coufoundea
the right of secession with the right Of
revolution, and that the error Of the re-
viewer resulted from a careless porusal or
inexcusable misapprehension OF the lam
guaCe employed in his book. He admits
that he did not and does not believe in any
constitutional " right Of a State TO secede;
but il right super-constitutioncl-an i'll
herent, indefeasible, sovereign right, of
which the trainers Of the Constitution never
dreamed of divcsting the States, and for the
exercise of which they therefore made
no provision. lie quotes the following ex-
tract from his book on this point:
"Now, as to the righttu'neSs Of the States
thus resuming her sovereign powers. In
doing it she seeded from that Union to
which, in the language of Mr.. Jefferson as
well as General Washington, she had
acccded rs a sovereign State. She repealed
her ordinance by which she ratified and
agreed to the Constitution and became
party to the compact under it. She de-
clared herself 10 longer bound by that
compact, and dissolved her alliance with
the other parties to it. The Constitution OF
the United States and the laws passed in
pursuance of it were no longer the supreme
law Of the people Of Georgia, any more than
the treaty with France was the supreme Law
of both countries after its abrogation in
1T9S by the same r;ghtful authority which
had made 1t in the beginning. In answer
to your question, Whether she could do this
without a breach Of her solemn obligations
under the compact, l give this full and
direct answer: She had perfect right to
do SO, subject to no authority but the great
moral law which goyerns> the intercourse
between Independent Sovereign Powers,
Peoples, or Nations. Her action was sub
Ject to the authority Of that law, and none
other. Under the circumstances,
and the facts of this case therefore, the
legal as we'll as moral right on the part OF
Georgia, according to the laws of nations
and nature, to declare herself no longer |
bound by the compact, and to withdraw |
from the Union under it, was perfect and |
complete. These principles are too incon-
testably established to be questioned, much |
less denied, in the forum of reason and
justice"
In his letter Mr.. STEPHENS says:
% II was not by virtue of the Constitution
that this right [of seceBsionl was to be ex-
ercised, but by virtue Of that sovereignty
of the State by which the constitutional
compact was entered into"
s'These are the principles in which was
educated. From the time that | entered
public life, and even before, held the same,
as the records can abundantly establish"
We agree with Mr.. STEPHENS, as it seems
to us almost every other candid man must,
that "there was no balance of power estab-
"lished between the North and the South, as
"sections, in the Constitution" Our sec
tional complaints on that score were un-
founded.
Mr.. STEPHENS shows that the ReUtea1 was
as unfortunate in its reference to THUCY
pIDEs as in its criticisms upon his own con-
sistency. He is fortified on every side.
Eoytpp haa Cd for az no