Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-10-30
sacess,on-Dr. Gilmer's Letter.

words OF comment. III we were W 'e' ~
pass entirely unnoticed our readers
might infer that we had yielded 70 the
Doctors logic and were willing to con-
cede that he and those who agree with
him on the subject Of the right OF seces'
sion held sound opinions ON that ques-
ton.
The question OF a standing or falling
church has been said to depend upon
whether the creed OF the church could
be said to have been held scmper.
ubiq,ae, ct alb omnibus. Akin to this
definition OF the creed OF true church
is the fact that the States which seeded
from the Union in 1861 claimed the
right to do so. and affirmed in their
ordinances Of secession not only
that that right had always existed, but
spoke of it as if it had been
matter concerning which there could
be no two opinions. We drop argu-
mentation and stand upon the facts.
Certainly the people OF this State. or
the convention which rltifed the Fede-
raj Constitution, understood that Viz
cinia's ratification Of that instrument re-
served to her the right to withdraw from
the Union whenever she might choose SO
TO do. 1t is wrong to charge the mem
hers OF that convention with having en-
ployed the solemn form OF words which
they used in declaring that Virginia re-
tanned the right to withdraw from the
Union whenever she should consider 1t
her duty to do so-we say, it IL wrong
to charge the members of the Virginia
Convention Of 1888 with having
tried to deceive their constituents
by describing the right of revo-
luton in words which they know
those constituents would understand
to have been employed to describe the
right OF seccssion--to show that Viz
GINA had entered the Union as sove-
reign and independent State, reserying
to herselfthe right to withdraw from that
Union whenever in her opinion-not IN
the opinion OF all of her sister States
not in the opinion of one. two, or three,
or more of those States-the powers
granted to the United States should be
perverted to her injury or oppression.
Read those words once more. We give
them below. We ask any candid man to
say what in the very nature of things the
words we speak of must hare been I'M
derstood to mean at the time they were
employed in order to reconcile the peo-
pie OF Virginia to the new Union.
1t is an insult to the intelligence
Of tho people of Virginia Of that day,
and particularly to the members OF the
convention who prefixed those words to
their ordinance OF ratification, to say
that they intended merely to affirm that
Virginia had as sovereign State only
the same right OF revolution which she
had exercised as colony, when her sons
took up arms at the risk Of being hanged
therefor to achieve the independence of
the Old Dominion. No, Virginia was
in 1888 a free and Independent State.
Her sons had no more intention Of put
ting new yoke upon their necks than
they had of petitioning Great Britain
to allow Virginia to resume her humble
position as colony OF that country. We
are amazed to find intelligent, candid,
truthful men maintaining such a propO-
stion. Is there nothing more than the
right of revolution referred to in the
following unambiguous affirmation? We
quote:
1--WE, the delegates Of tho people OF Virginia,
do In the name and on behalf Of the people OF
Virginia, declare and make known that the
powers granted under the Constitution being
derived from the people Of the United States,
may be resumed by them whenever the same
shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.
and that every power not granted thereby re-
mains with them and at their will"
We, the delegates Of the people of
Virginia, in the name OF the people Of
Virginia do what Let common sense
answer. Was that solemn form of words
employed in order to declare that the
people of Virginia had reserved the right
OF revolution? Why this is the very
madness OF the moon. Tho right to
fight out OF any Union or any country
or kingdom does not depend upon YER
bal declarations. but upon physical
strength, upon the ability to do SO. If
DR.. GlLMER's construction OF the Ian.
guage above quoted is the correct one
the Virginia Convention Of l7SS ridiculed
the pretensions Of the people OF this State
by affirming that they had the right to
secede from the Union If they could fight
their way out. But the fact is that the
declaration we have quoted was intend
cd to affirm not that Virginia had the
right to fight out Of the Union, but that
she had the right to withdraw from it
without fighting at all.
The absurdity Of the contention We
are combating cannot but strike the
reader when he recalls to mind the fact
that the people Of Turkey. or Russia. or
China, have the same sort OF right OF
revolution which DR.. GILxER contends
the Virginia Convention Of 1888 asserted
in behalf OF Virginia. Truly the people
Of the Old Dominion las Virginia was
even then) asked for bread and received
stone. No, no. They knew what
they were asking for. and received it
1t was genuine bread-it was the right,
not the power to secede.
We have said enough. The question
whether the late conflict Of arms was
war between the States or not. We need
not discuss. II Il Z nero question Of
words. We may cay in behalf OF Virginia
orany other seeding State that abe could
Just ~ weli = not have fought through