Page:Notes on the State of Virginia (1802).djvu/185

Rh Should a prudent acquieſcence, at a critical time, be conſtrued into a confirmation of every illegal thing done through that period? Beſides, why ſhould they rebel? At an annual election, they had choſen delegates for the year, to exerciſe the ordinary powers of legiſlation, and to manage the great conteſt in which they were engaged. Theſe delegates thought the conteſt would be beſt managed by an organized government. They therefore, among others, paſſed an ordinance of government. They did not preſume to call it perpetual and unalterable. They well knew they had no power to make it ſo: that our choice of them had been for no ſuch purpoſe, and at a time when we could have no ſuch purpoſe in contemplation. Had an unalterable form of government been meditated, perhaps we ſhould have choſen a different ſet of people. There was no cauſe then for the people to riſe in rebellion. But to what dangerous lengths will this argument be lead? Did the acquieſcence of the colonies under the various acts of power exerciſed by Great-Britain in our infant ſtate, confirm theſe acts, and ſo far inveſt them with the authority of the people as to render them unalterable, and our preſent reſiſtance wrong? On every unauthoritative exerciſe of power by the legiſlature, muſt the people riſe in rebellion, or their ſilence be conſtrued into a ſurrender of that power to them? If ſo, how many rebellions ſhould we have had already? One certainly for every ſeſſion of aſſembly. The other ſtates in the union have been of opinion, that to render a form of government unalterable by ordinary acts of aſſembly, the people muſt delegate perſons with ſpecial powers. They have