Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-08-05
Abolitionism Explained---No 5.


wonder how politicians define State Sover-
eighty From their manner of speaking, State
Sovereignty would seem to include a right to
Cypress as many Of the people as may be I'M
fortunate enough to become the victims of State
power. It would seem to be right against
justice, right to maintain all wrongs, and de-
feat all the ends of government. The prevail
ing notion of State Sovereignty, ifsuch thing
may be called notion, is one of the range
absurdities which become popular by a habi of
taking up theories thoughtlessly as some care
less writer or speaker or as some designing dem
agogue may givea leading direction. Itignores
all distinction between State rights and State
wrongs. 1t forgets that the justice of States
internal police widely and deeply affects thegrcat
interests of society beyond a States own bounds.
The blindly conceded claims of lawless State
Sovereignty guard the entrance of all relief to
its crushed victims A correct definition of
State Sovereignty might do something to dispel
cruel delusion. Will intelligent thinking
men object to the following? State Sovereignty
is the authority of the people of a State to do,
through their State organization, whatever is
necessary for their own welfare and CONSTANT
with natural justice and the general rights of
society. This definition has three qualities
which, trust, will commend it to favor. First
it is eonsiderate of all rights, secondly, it gives
to State all the authority necessary for State
purposes and thirdly, it assumes that State
Sovereignty belongs to the whole people, and
not exclnsivdeto a. portion of them who may
manage to get Che State organization under
their own control. All this is Ineligible and
does not require blind faith in contradiction.
If my definition is correct, then State Sover-
eighty is outraged by shareholders who reduce a
portion of the people to chattelhood, deprive
the rest of their rightful influence in State af-
fairs and take the whole control of a State
into their own hands. They who insist upon
putting down such usurpation and restoring the
people to their rights, are the true advocates of
State Sovereignty. If the Union is not the guar
dian of State Sovereignty as / have defined it,
| know not what benefit the great body of
southern people derive from it. States are nat
urally bound by the obligations Of protecting
justice but when they become confederated
for the express purpose of establishing justice
and promoting the general welfare, federal
obligation is added to the obligations of nature.
Now, compare my State Sovereignty, curbed
by right, and subordinated to the great inter
ests of society and the welfare of The nation,
with that feroclous monster of the name which
has been let loose in the Union to "break in
pieces and dcvour.'
Near the middle of my No. 6, "not prima-
rly for the United States should read " not
primarily for the territories of the United
States" The omission makes nonsense, and is
doubtless chargeable to the pen. But the pen
was innocent when further along abuses and
perversions )" was made to read "abuses and
provisions" The other numbers have been
printed with more than the usual correctness Of
newspaper articles. lSMITH