The daily gazette., 1882-08-05
WILMINGTON. DEL. SATURDAY. AUGUST s. 1854
gEFEERsoN ann MULTIPLICATION.
Young Democrat "StiIl Further Demon
strates the Political ignorance of the
New York Editor.

Young Democrat " StiIl Further Demon
strates the Political Ignorance OF the
New York Editor.
10 THE EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE 1T
was attempted In my letter of the LIST inst.
TO show the fallacy of the attempt of the
Mo17aitg Mems to connect the name of
Jefferson with anything like notification,
and L still maintain that IL was done effect
| ually, but to meet the NelgS' continued ner-
version OF Jefiersonian principles, will sub
init few more reasons:
1t will be noticed that the first resolution
cited by the Negs In its article OF the Sd inst
says nothing about notification. Does not
| even hint at the exercise of force. Is only
declaratory Of opinion and binds no one.
| is directed at the Federalist usurpation of
. undelegated powers and not at actual
powers conferred by the Constitution, and so
far as the strong terms used are concerned
| Mr.. Madison himself somewhere says they
were only regarded by the assembly " as
giving accumulated emphasis to the declara-
| tion that the Alien and Sedition acts had, I'm
the opinion Of the assembly, violated the
Constitution of the United States, and not
that the addition of them could annul the
| acts or sanction resistance of them" Now,
this is no more like the South Carolina State
Rights doctrine or Calhoun nulilication, as
The resolution nowhere suggests anything
but peaceable and constitutional means OF
redress
The Relcs, after quoting two original
drafts, written in JefIerson's own hand
writing, of the Kentucky resolutions, which
declare Qualification" the ''rightiul
remedy" jumps to the conclusion that
Jefferson is thereby not only defender
but the father Of nullilleation. Nothing is
81
drafts are genuine and were written by him,
the fact of their not having been adopted by
his advice is the best evidence of his disap-
prOval Of them. For he did not advise the
adoption of the Kentucky resolutions of
lTt9, as may be seen In the letter misgls0ted
by the NeDs, namely, that of September 5,
l799, to Wilson G. Nicholas, wherein he de-
ctines To prepare anything for the Kentucky
Legislature Of that gear. The only thing
Jefferson sends Nicholas in the letter just
referred to is list of their suggestions,
which bear no resemblance whatever to the
notification portions of the resolutions
actually adopted.
Another important consideration is the
Interpretation of the resolutions by the
States named by the Neios as condemning
the language as " bold and reasonable"
and one of those States by the way, shortly
after held the Hartford Convention. 1t must
be remembered that at that time those States
were ruled by the Federalist party and the
resolutions were dissected by all the inge
nuity that aristocratic passion usually
stimulates, and no such charge was made as
the use OF force to obstruct the operation of
Federal law, as may be seen in "a letter from
Mr.. Madison to Edward Everett, published a
little while after it was written IN the North
american RevieD in August, 1880, of which
the following is an extract
"If any further light on the subject could
be needed, very strong one is reflected in
the answers to the resolutions, by the States
which protested against them. n
Had the resolutions been regarded as
avowing and maintaining right, in an in
dividual State, to arrest by force the eXecu-
tion Of law of the United States, 1t must
be presumed that it would have been u
spicuous object of their denunciation.o
SO that those resolutions, vindicated as
they often have been, on their text, upon
contemporaneous Interpretation and dis
abused OF notification by the Father OF
the Constitution" himself, are still con
founded with modern heresy known as the
South Carolina doctrine of States Rights.
But over andabov all documentary evidence
completely exonerating Mr.. Jefferson from
all responsibility for the invention of that
heresy, towers his record of straightforward
balanced Federal Union which would
guarantee the great right of local self
government. Thereis an inherent improb-
ability of man laying the foundation OF
destruction Of that to which the best years
and efforts OF his life have been given to
construct.
And what was the answer of the country
to those resolutions and to JefIersonlan prin
ciples In general The very next year after
the passage OF the resolutions, the Republi-
can or Democratic party was everywhere
triumphant, placing Mr.. Jefferson at the
head of the Government and continuing to
re-elect him or his intimate friends for "a
years afterward. What became Of Federal
ist opposition to the principles of local self
government Doomed to continual defeats,
and after the election of Mr.. Monroe
nothing more was heard of it, except as it
has reappeared from time to time In the
Whig and modern Republican parties.
As to the relative merits of the methods of
acquiring knowledge of political history,
whether 1t is done by "piecemeal" or by
Consecutive study depends much upon
opportunities, and matters little SO far rs re-
suits are concerned The contrast drawn
by the Neaos reminds one of the weakness
of West Point officers, crammed full of
"technique,' when they endeavor to depre
ciate the victories of competent citizen
generals by criticizing their methods. If
the editor of the NeWs had gained his knowl-
ledge even by "piecemeal, much less by
consecutive study" of contemporaneous
history, his attempt at presenting facts in
connection with the times of the Virginia
resolution of 179S could not fail to make
"this discussion interesting
YaIfNa nFAtocRAT