Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

in the case of an intimate constitutional union like that of the United States, where it was evident that the interposition of the parties in their sovereign capacity, could be called for by occasions only, deeply and essentially affecting the vital principles of our political system.

"From these extracts it will, we think, be seen, that Mr. Madison, so far from removing the apprehensions of the protesting States, by disclaiming the doctrines attributed to Virginia, reasserts and insists upon those doctrines in the strongest terms. And though it was not proposed at that time to do more than appeal to the other States for expressions of opinion, similar to those of Virginia, in relation to the Alien and Sedition Laws; yet it was deemed indispensable to accompany that appeal by the distinct and positive assertion of the right of the State 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,' should all other measures fail in affecting a repeal of the obnoxious laws. That Kentucky understood the Virginia Resolutions in this sense is unquestionable. In responding to Virginia, she explicitly asserts the right of a State to judge not only of infractions of the Constitution, but of the mode and manner of redress' and still more explicitly declares, in the Resolution, of '98, that the several States which formed the Constitution, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULL FICATION by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument is the rightful remedy? On the whole, nothing, it appears to us, can be clearer, than that the Virginia resolutions were regarded in '98, as asserting some thing more than the right of a State to express an opinion, or to endeavour by reason and argument to induce a repeal of obnoxious laws."

It falls not within the design of this article to shew the practicability of a State's rendering a law of Congress inoperative within its limits, and yet to remain in peace with the other members of the Union. But we do feel it to be our duty to say a little as to some of the consequences which so many persons imagine would necessarily result from such an act. Mr. Madison pronounces, that "it would be attended with delays, with inconveniences, and with expences amounting to a prohibition of the expedient; not to mention its tendency to impair the salutary veneration for a system, requiring such frequent interpostions." Mr. Senator Livingston also thinks, that "whenever the intervention of the State is necessary to arrest the execution of the legislative powers of the government, in cases which the States may deem illegal, the government is gone." Our people are warned that such an example in our State, if permitted, would lead to another and another, and the Constitution would at last become " rope of sand," and "heads of contention to a disputacious people." If Chancellor Harper, in his eloquent speech at the Columbia meeting, is not more correct when he expresses his belief, "that if every State in the Union had the power to appoint a tribune, having an absolute veto on the acts

of the General Government, no great harm would be done or inconvenience suffered from it;" or if, again, in his own words, "such would not be a much better Constitution than such an one as our opponents represent ours to be;" we have, at any rate, one answer to all such objections, which no man can gainsay it is the EXPERIENCE of the PAST, that clear and "ratiocinative guide" to judgment and to conduct, which is worth, a thousand abstract speculations. This tells us, that the danger is not that the States will interfere too often, but that they will not interfere when it shall be necessary. Let our history be consulted. The government has been in operation for upwards of forty years. In 1798, there was a most palpable breach of the Constitution, particularly as regards the sedition law. It was an infraction which threatened to subvert the very foundations of liberty, in destroying the freedom of the press, and yet there was at that time no prospect that there could be an actual interposition of a State to protect its citizens, even had not the resort to the elective franchise corrected the procedure. How has it been in South Carolina? We have for ten years complained of the Tariff laws. Our legislature has remonstrated, and at this day, if we are to believe what the two parties in the State say, there is perfect unanimity in sentiment amongst our citizens, that the laws which oppress us are unconstitutional. The only difference of opinion is, as to the remedy to be pursued. Here we can come to no agreement, and there is no prospect of the State's acting upon her own interpretation of the federal compact. Does not this show the extreme difficulty of getting up an interposition of State authority to arrest usurpation? If with one voice, as is the case at present, the people of a State proclaim that the compact to which it is a sovereign party, has been violated, and that there is no hope of relief, this people cannot be persuaded, even in such an extremity, to stand upon their sovereignty and to assert their rights, can it be imagined that a case can ever occur in which the States would intefere, except in those instances of most flagrant violations of the Constitution, which threaten the lives, liberty and property of the citizens, and in which no hope can be sought except in legislative resistance? In such an emergency as this, can that man be enamoured with freedom who would not rejoice to see a State resorting to its rights as resulting from the compact, rather than submit to a government without a limitation of powers? By what other mode can the reserved rights and sovereignty of the States be secured than by this recurrence when necessary,

which so far from being too frequent, every real friend to American liberty must be sensible, may not be had even when it shall become absolutely indispensable?

As regards other consequences of the interposition of State authority, we think that the time has arrived when it would be unpardonable, nay criminal in us to conceal our belief, that there is no system of measures which can be recommended at the present crisis, which may not ultimately lead to actual and serious conflict, if there be not in the other States a disposition to listen with patience to our complaints, and such a devotion to liberty and the Constitution, as to cause them to regard our measures as taken rather with a view to have the cause of quarrel amicably adjusted, than as dictated by an angry spirit, or by an indifference to the inestimable blessings of union. The alternative ought to be placed fairly before our citizens, and they ought to be reminded that the recovery of lost privileges may be attended with some risk. But we seriously believe, that as we are now situated, it is a possible, but scarcely a probable case. We are of those who think that an interposition of the veto of a sovereign State against the operation of the Tariff act, accompanied with patriotic appeals to the people of the United States, and the good sense of Congress, and with a declaration that it was provisional, and should cease the instant that there should be an assurance that the case should be submitted to Congress, would have no other effect upon the President than to make him sensible of his high obligation to submit the subject instantly to the assembled wisdom of the nation. The difficulty under which we have laboured in the South is, that with our best efforts we cannot be heard in the common council; and we moreover see no prospect of it, until we shall make up an issue with the government, and our case shall be regularly called up for hearing and trial in the halls of Congress. But let it not be understood by these remarks, that we advocate resistance, excepting as a last resort. We only design to shew that in a milder course there cannot be the risk which is generally imagined. It is in the power of the State to do much in the way of legislation. This species of warfare, judiciously conducted, would so embarrass the government, as to drive it from its ground "by the rebuking force of public opinion." We forbear to go into details, nor are we satisfied that such a course of measures would give us relief. It may, however, be worth an experiment, and every experiment is justifiable if it can put off the day when the State shall be placed on her sovereignty.

The subject is a momentous one for South-Carolina, and this must be our apology for the length of this article. If there be a subject of poiguant regret at this conjuncture, it is the want of unanimity which prevails amongst our citizens. We ask of some of the distinguished leaders of parties to ponder well on the unhappy spectacle we how exhibit to the other States, and to the world. If there exists in the bosoms of all that pure spirit of freedom which would regard unqualified submission as the worst of expedients, there may yet be a middle ground on which we might all meet. In the name of patriotism let this ground be occupied forthwith. If united, we may save the Constitution, and with it the sovereignty of the States. If divided, there is no hope for the liberty and safety of the South. The will of the majority becomes the Constitution, and the States have no rights.

ART. VIII.-1. Novum Testamentum Græcè. Textum ad fidem Codicum Versionum et Patrum recensuit, et Lectionis Varietatem adjecit D. Jo. JAC. GRIESBACH, ed. 2da. Halae Saxonum et Londini. 1796-1806. 2 vols. 8vo.

2. Remarks upon the Systematical Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the New Testament. By the Rev. RICHARD LAURENCE, D.D. Oxford. 1814. 8vo.

3. An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the authorized text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. By the Rev. FREDERIC NOLAN. London. 1815. 8vo.

4. The New Testament in the Common Version conformed to Griesbach's standard Greek Text. Boston. 1830. 12mo.

GRIESBACH'S edition of the Greek Testament, with an amended text, is known to every biblical scholar. His smaller

manual edition, published at Leipsic in 1805, has obtained general circulation in this country by means of a reprint at Cambridge, Massachusetts, as far back as 1809. We should not, therefore, have undertaken now to notice it, but for the late publication mentioned last on our list. The alterations made by Griesbach in the received text, are, for the most part, so unimportant, (with three or four pregnant exceptions) and so little discernible in an English version, that we are really at a loss to imagine any assignable reason for the publication of his work in that dress, unless such may be found in a desire, (not obscurely indicated in the significant terms "STANDARD TEXT,” gratuitously applied by the editor) under the cover of an amended text, to conciliate favour with merely English readers of Scripture for the changes which he has introduced in certain very weighty passages having a direct bearing on the most important doctrines of the christian faith. As the subject however, with whatever view, has been brought anew before the public in this popular form, we shall avail ourselves of the occasion it presents, to afford to the class of general readers, an opportunity of knowing what has been done by Griesbach and others in the criticism of the Greek Testament, and of forming an opinion how far his edition may be entitled to the prerogative claimed for it, of establishing a standard text. Such being our purpose, we must claim the indulgence of our more learned readers, if it shall lead us into some details with which they are, probably, already familiar; and of our readers in general, if we should not succeed in the endeavour to make a dry and intricate subject quite as attractive, or as intelligible as we could wish.

The autographs of the writers of the Old and New Testaments having long since perished,* the Holy Scriptures, like all other ancient writings, have been transmitted down to us, until the invention of the art of printing, by means of written copies. They have, consequently, been subject, in common with all other works, to the errors incidental to such a mode of transmission. The most practised and careful writer, in transcrib- · ing a work of such length as the New Testament, could hardly fail to commit numerous errors. And, especially, when we advert to the circumstance, that the most ancient manuscripts were written continuously, without any spaces or marks of division between words, it is apparent how much the chances of error

* Cardinal Baronius, however, would have us believe that the autograph of St. Mark's Gospel, written a Latin, and on cotton paper, is still preserved in the trea sury of St. Mark, at Venice. Credat Judæus! See Baronii Annal. Ecclesiast. ann. 45, p. 460, and Marsh's Michælis' Introd. to N. Test. vol. iii. p. 226.

« AnteriorContinuar »