Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-24

wrongs under which she had long suffered
they might have "thought twice" before
they fred upon Fort Sumter. There was
large Union majority in Virginia MP to
the time OF tbs issuing OF Mr. LIscoLs's
proclamation calling for seventy lave thou
sand troops 70 pat down the so-cailed re
bellion.n The Virginia convention which
adopted tho ordinance Of secession was
when IL first assembled Union conven-
tion-that is, was opposed TO seces-
sion or any attempt to secede from
the Union. The firing upon Fort Sumter
was our own act. yet none the less dld II
Gre the southern heart and cause Virginia
to cast in her lot with that OF her sister
States. State after State had adopted
ordinances claiming the right 20 withdraw
from the Union. This clam was at the
bottom Of all the secession movements.
As We said in the little paragraph quoted
BIZ the Spirit. nothing else made secession
possible - than the doctrine that the hrst
allegiance Of every good citizen was due
10 hrs State. We might add that nothing
else made 1t possible to ratify the Consti-
tuition Of the United States.
Suppose there had been in the Federal
Constitution as il came from the conven-
ton that framed il section denying to the
several States which might ratlfy 1t the
right to withdraw from the Union: Would
Virginia ever have ratified it Z Never. It's
ratification was secured only by entering
of record in the journal OF the convention
ratifying it the declaration that virginia
would, notwithstanding its ratification,
continue to possess the right 70 Withdraw
from the Union whenever the powers
granted 10 the Federal Government under
the new Constitution should be perverted
TO her injury or oppression. She, of course,
was TO be the Judge as to when that injury
or oppression had become intolerable.
If the southern States did not possess
the right 10 secede from the Union, then
there wa. no war between the States. but
a nero attempt at revolution. There were
no Confederate heroes, but large army OF
rebels The war was on our part ofen-
sive instead of defensive. 1t was an at
tempt to destroy the Government. not
patriotic endeavor to preserve the free in
stitutions handed down to US by our
fathers.
Bat we need not argue this point. How
would it have been possible to unite the
southern people as one man to fight the
battles of mere revolt against the Gov
eminent 70 which we owed our first
allegiance? We will let the Spirit answer.
Professor GIIDERsLExvE. rs quoted in the
Baltimore Sun Of yesterday, has an able
article on this subject in the Atlantic for
January 1t fully corrobora.es ell that we
have said in the foregoing remarks or pre-
yiously. The Professor says in so many
words that it was this profound belief in
the doctrine of States rights that was the
controlling force in southern politics up
to the outbreak OF the war and during its
continuance. When wa. was declared. oil
differences sank into nothingness in de-
fence of the common cause, says the Pro.
fessor. The unanimity was wonderful.
Large numbers of southerners desired the
preservation of the Union and were OPP
posed to secession; but they had been
taught that their paramount obligation
was to the State. We now quote Professor
GILDHRsLEEvE
"when the State called there were no parties,
and the only trace OF the old difference was a
certain rivalry which should do the best fighting.
This ready response to the call OF the State
showed very clearly that despite varying theories
of government the people Of the southern States
we're practically Of one mind as 70 the seat Of
the paramount. obligation. Adherence TO the
Union was matter Of sentimental mattec Of
interest"