Wise Idea: “Fight in the Union”

War and Revolution in either event

South Carolina has voted for secession, but not all Southerners are certain to follow the Palmetto State’s lead. Henry A. Wise was Virginia’s governor from 1856 to 1860. Here the ex-governor explains his idea of fighting Black Republicanism within the Union. The Constitution already gives states the right to defend themselves when in imminent danger of being invaded.

From The New-York Times December 21, 1860:

SOUTHERN SENTIMENT; GOV. WISE INTENDS TO “FIGHT IN THE UNION.”

The Columbus (Georgia) Sun publishes the following letter from WISE. It gives the reasons for the Ex-Governor’s proposed fight “in the Union:”

ROLLISTON, hear Norfolk; Va.; Dec. 1, 1860.

DEAR SIR: Yours of the 22d was late coming to hand. (I now thank you for it. As to my doctrine of “fighting in the Union, it is one of true policy.

First — If a sovereign State is judge of the infraction as well as the mode and measure of redress, she may remain in the Union to resent or resist wrongs as well as do so out of the Union.

Second — If other States have infracted the Union, not she, the State wronged, is bound to defend the Constitution and Union against those who have infracted the one and threatened the other. Logically the Union belongs to those who have kept, not to those who have broken its covenants.

Third — The Union is not an abstraction, it is a real, substantial thing, embracing many essential and vital political rights and properties. It has nationality, lands, treasury, organization of army, navy, ships, dock-yards, arsenals, &c., &c., &c. Shall we renounce these rights and possessions, because wrongdoers attempt to deprive us of other rights? Is it not cowardly to renounce one right to save another? Are these lights not as precious as the mere right of properly in negroes? But

Fourth — If you secede you not only renounce the Union and its possessions, but you fail to unite your own people, because you do renounce these rights. Wake a man up to destroy the Union and the Constitution and he will stare at you and turn away. But tell him that the Constitution is infracted and the Union threatened by Black Republicans, and call him to aid you in defending both against those who would destroy both, and he will act heartily with you.

Fifth — Then how is this to be done? The third clause of tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States permits a State to keep troops and ships of war in time of peace, and to engage in war, when actually invaded, or when in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Now, are we not actually invaded? Is our danger not imminent? Does it admit of delay? May not a sovereign State so decide?

Sixth — And what is the difference? Will it not be war and revolution, in either event?

I say, then, stick to all your rights; renounce none, fight for all, and save all!

Yours truly, &c, HENRY A. WISE.

To Dr. J.A. PLEASANTS, Columbus, Ga.

Is this like having your cake and eating it, too? Of course, you could say nullification in general is like that. It seems a broad interpretation of Article 1 Section 10, at any rate. – especially given the Buchanan administration’s stance.