[333] resolved to judge for themselves of the “mode and measure of redress,” and to exercise the right, enunciated in the Declaration of Independence to be the unalienable endowment of every people, to alter or abolish any form of government, and to institute a new one, “laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” By no rational mode of construction, in view of the history of the Declaration of Independence, or of the resolutions of Kentucky, can it be claimed that the word “people” had any other meaning than that of a distinct community, such as the people of each colony who by their delegates in the Congress declared themselves to be henceforth a state; that none other than the people of each state could, by the resolutions of 1798-‘99, have been referred to as the final judge of infractions of their compact, and of the remedy which should be applied. Kentucky made no decision adverse to this right of a state, but she declared, in the impending conflict between the states seceding from and those adhering to the federal government, that she would hold the position of neutrality. If the question was to be settled by a war of words, that was feasible; if the conflict was to be one of arms, it was utterly impracticable. To maintain neutrality under such circumstances would have required a power greater than that of both the contestants, or a moral influence commanding such respect for her wishes as could hardly have been anticipated from that party which had, in violation of right, inflicted the wrongs which produced the withdrawal of some of the states, and had uttered multiplied threats of coercion if any state attempted to exercise the rights defined in the resolutions of 1798-‘99. If, however, any such hope may have been entertained, but few moons had filled and waned before the defiant occupation of her territory and the enrollment of her citizens as soldiers in the army of invasion must have dispelled the illusion. The following correspondence took place in August between Governor Magoffin of Kentucky and President Lincoln—also between the governor and myself, as President of the Confederate States—relative to the neutrality of the state:
This text is part of:
[333] resolved to judge for themselves of the “mode and measure of redress,” and to exercise the right, enunciated in the Declaration of Independence to be the unalienable endowment of every people, to alter or abolish any form of government, and to institute a new one, “laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” By no rational mode of construction, in view of the history of the Declaration of Independence, or of the resolutions of Kentucky, can it be claimed that the word “people” had any other meaning than that of a distinct community, such as the people of each colony who by their delegates in the Congress declared themselves to be henceforth a state; that none other than the people of each state could, by the resolutions of 1798-‘99, have been referred to as the final judge of infractions of their compact, and of the remedy which should be applied. Kentucky made no decision adverse to this right of a state, but she declared, in the impending conflict between the states seceding from and those adhering to the federal government, that she would hold the position of neutrality. If the question was to be settled by a war of words, that was feasible; if the conflict was to be one of arms, it was utterly impracticable. To maintain neutrality under such circumstances would have required a power greater than that of both the contestants, or a moral influence commanding such respect for her wishes as could hardly have been anticipated from that party which had, in violation of right, inflicted the wrongs which produced the withdrawal of some of the states, and had uttered multiplied threats of coercion if any state attempted to exercise the rights defined in the resolutions of 1798-‘99. If, however, any such hope may have been entertained, but few moons had filled and waned before the defiant occupation of her territory and the enrollment of her citizens as soldiers in the army of invasion must have dispelled the illusion. The following correspondence took place in August between Governor Magoffin of Kentucky and President Lincoln—also between the governor and myself, as President of the Confederate States—relative to the neutrality of the state:
1881.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.