The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-06-14

same article, it had been provided that "No
title of nobility shall be granted by the United
STATES Without such feature, expressed or
implied: the nation would not have had repub-
llcan form of Government. And it would have
been strange incongruity if the iStates had
been permitted to maintain aristocratic arrange
ments and institutions, from which the Nation
al Government was debarredl Yet this, BY
the bye, is the inconsistency of those who deny
that the Federal Government has any constitu-
tional right to maintain Slavery, and who, new
ertheless, concede that right to the StGtes-and
that, too in the face of plain and direct consti-
tutional prohibitions
1t may have been supposed by some that " a
title Of nobility" means only the name, or zap.
pellation of duke, lord, marquis, and the like"
Undoubtedly, the word is sometimes so used.
Neither the State nor the National Government
may grant either of these applications, for the
smaller is included in the greater As they
may not confer the prerogdtice of nobility so
neither may they confer The name For, by
comforting the name, they would be understood
as comforting the thing &he name signifies. 1t
would be puerile and absurd to suppose that
the State and National Governments were grave
ly inhibited from calling men lords and mobiles,
but were left free to confer upon them the pour
ers and prerogatires of mobiles A miserable
mockery and farce would our Constitution be,
on such construction.
Ii may also be said that if las | have main
tanned and proved) there are no positive laws
in the slave States instituting the relation of
master and slave, or creating Slavery, then no
slave State has been guilty of +" granting title
of nobility" and violating the Federal Consttu-
ton in this particular.
| answer, that although the State Govern.
ments have no positive law establishing an or.
der of nobility, they nevertheless tolerate an Or
der OF nobility among them against law. Not
only so, the official administrators of the State
Governments at the South, not only permit this
usurpation, but they assist TO sustain and en-
force 1t; and this they do against law-the
very last thing that the Federal Government,
under the Constitution, ought to permit, or to
tolerate. If the Constitution of the United
States does not allow the States to maintain an
order of nobility by law, much less can it allow
them to do the same thing against law If
there are no State laws as assuredy there are
none) creating the oligarchy OF Shareholders,
then an act of Congress, lberatng the slaves in
the States, would be no infraction of State
Rights" no interference with Estate insti-
tutions" Ii would only be protecting the citi.
zens of the United STATES, 'the people of the
United States" (the parties TO the Constitution,
as the Constitution promises 10 protect thenf;Y
securing the liberty of themselves, and their
posterity."
Suppose the existing State Administration in
Massachusetts, either ,rith or ,cithom any change
in the Constitution or the laws, should usurp
the reins of Government and install themselves
into monarchy and order Of nobility after the
European model: would it not he violation
of the Federal Constitution, which the Federal
Government would be bound TO terminate =?
The question is answered by the Constitution
itself. WILLIAM GooDEIL
For remainder Of Letter XXI, Era of May 3ist
whore II IL printed . the conclusion of Letter XXI