The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-10-14


1.naster-builders,' would, as we have said.
have settled the rights of the states on
this question forever. but for the fact, as
Mr.. Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts,
tells Us. that the North was controlled
by expediency. and not by principle in the
consideration of them. These resolutions,
when adopted by Virginia and Kentucky,
were sent to the Northern Legislatures
for their concurrence: and the distinguished
Senator from MaEsa chusetts. from whom
we are quoting, says in terms. in his life
of Webster. that when the resolutions were
thus submitted. they were not opposed
on constitutional gCunds, but only on
those of expadiency and hostility to the
revolution they were considered to en-
body:"-that they did not, and could not.
cite any constitutional principle as ground
for their objection, only they held mat the
revolution involved in their application
was at that time inexpsdient. In other
words, II did not pay the New England
States To endorse the principles OF those
resolutions then: but when they thought
they We're being oppressed by the Fed
erai Government few years later Gas
ne shall presently seq. they were not only
ready TO endorse these resolutions, but
actually threatened to secede FROM the
Union. But l wish to advance a step fur
ther in the argument. and to inquire
% Where The doctrine Of secession ORR
sinatcd? ana
fey What distinguished Northern states
men have said Of the right both before
and since the war.
Here We may properly add the clear
statement of an able Northern writer. who
declares his opinion presently to be quoted
IN fun that at the time the Constitution
was accepted by the States. there was not
a man in the country who doubted the
right OF each and every State peaceab!y to
withdraw from the Union. In fact, we
nav at once answer our first inquiry by
saving that the doctrine OF secession orisi-
mated in neither section, but was rec oS-
nized al the first as underlying the Con-
stit,rtion accepted by all parties. In con-
firrnation of this view. but particularly with
respect TO the region. OF its earliest, most
frequent and most threatening assertion,
We proceed to show further, that a recent
Northern writer has used this language:
NONE DOUBTED THE RIGHT.
"A rop,,lar notion is that the State
rights-secession or disunioa doctrine-Was
originated by Calhoun. and was South
Carolina tleresy. But that pouular notion
is wrong According TO the best Informal
ton i have been able 10 acquire on the
subject, the STATE rights, or secession
doctrine. was originated by Josiah Quincy,
and was a Massachusetts hereSy-
This writer says Quincy first enunciated
the doctrine in opposing the bill for the
admission OF what was then called the
Orleans Territory" now louisiana IN
ISL, when he declared. that IF the bill
PASSED and that territory was admitted,
the act would be subversive of the Union
and the several States would be freed from
their federal bonds and obligations; and
that. as it will be the right OF all (the
States, so il will be the duty of some. 10
prepare definitely for Il separations AMIGA
bly, if they can, violently if they must.
Whilst this author may be right an char
acterizing the development of the doctrine
and fixing this right ''Massachusetts
heresy.'' he is wrong in fixing. upon its
first progenitor, and in saving that the date
OF its birth was as late as 1871: for in 1862
one Colonel Timothy Pickering. a Sena-
tor from Massachusetts, and Secretary OF
State in the Cabinet of John Adams.
complaining of what he called 1.-The oitljres-
sions of the aristocratic Democrats of the
SOUTH said: "I will not despair: will
rather anticipate a new Chnfederacy-
'"That this can be accomplished
without sp;lling one drop of blood have
little doubt cit must begin with
Massachusetts The proposition would
be welcomed by Connecticut: and could
we doubt of New Hamnshire? But New
York must be associated: and how is her
concurrence to be obtained? She must be
made the center of HE Confederacv. Yer
mont and New Jersey would follow. of
course. ard Rhode Island of necessity"
THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
In lS14 the Hartford Convention was
called and met III consequence OF the OPP
position OF New England to the war then,
pending with Great Britain. Delegates We're
sent 10 this convention by the Legislatures
of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Con-
necticut and several counties and towns
from other Northern States also sent rep
resentatives. This convention, after de-
liberating with closed doors on the pro-
priety of withdrawing the States repre-
scented in It from the Union, published an
address, in which 1t said, among other
things:
IF the Union be destined to dissolution
: it should. if possible, be the work
of peaceable times and deliberate consent.
Whenever it shall appear that the
causes are radical and permanent, separa-
ton by equitable arrangement Will be
preferable to an alliance by constralnt
among nominal friends. but real enemies
In 1889 ex-President John Quincy Adams
in an address delivered by him in New
York, said:
The indissoluble link of union between
the people of the several States of this
confederated nation is after all. not in
the right, but in the heart. IF the day
should ever Gomez may Heaven avert it,
when the affections of the people of these
States shall be alienated from each other.
the bonds of political association VIII not
long hold together parties no longer at
tracted by the magnetism of consolidated
interests and kindly synpatllies: and far
better Will il be for the people of the dis
united States to part in friendship with
each other than to be held together by
constraint.
This same man presented to Congress
the first petition ever presented in that
body for dissolution of the Union.
Mr.. William Rawle. a distinguished
lawyer and jurist of Pennsylvania. in his
work on the Constitution, says this:
1t depends on the State itself to re-
tain or abolish the principle of represen-
tation. because 1t depends on itself
whether it will continue a member ofithe
Union. To deny this light would be in
consistent with the principles on which
all our political systems are founded,
which is that tbs people have in all cases
right to determine how they will be
governed
In the case Of the Bank of Augusta
against Earle. 13 Peters. 590-5s2. it was
decided by the Supreme Court OF the
U-ited States the same year in which Mr.
john Quincy Adams MADE his speech
e.. -..,.-~