The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-03-03
From the Springfield REGISTER.
Life and Times of Governor Edwards.

| following extract from the pages Of n WORK
which he has been for some time prepar
ing, and has now nearly ready for the
press, giving facts and incidents, political
social and personal, connected with the
life and times of his father, the Hon. Nj
nian Edwards-the first Governor of the
! State, we believe, and many years repre-
sentative in Congress Gov. EDWARDS was
one of the most distinguished, as he was
considered one of the most able, public
men of his day, and anything from h is
pen or lips Will be read with interest by
all our old citizens most of whom enjoyed
n personal acquaintance with HIM, and
were familiar with his career; but the fol
| lowing article will be estimated by all be-
cause of its exposition of principle that
is occupying more than an ordinary share
of attention at the present time. 1t shows
the views OF a statesman forty years ago
upon the doctrine Of popular sovereignty
in a phase that we believe has mot yet
been brought to bear in the discussion of
this question.
Mr. n. w. Edwards having left the city
Immediately after handing this document
to us, Inadvertently emitting to mention
upon what occasion Gov. Edwards gave
publicity to these views, we are unable to
give that information to our readers at
present-a circumstance to be regretted,
as that would lead to a more Ineligible
comprehension OF its merits
= At the time Virginia made her cession
there was "A numerous and wealthy pOpu-
lation within our limits, all citizens of Nir-
glnla, owing TO her allegiance, and entitled
TO her protection; and whom, therefore,
she had no more right to dismember from
the States and transfer TO another govern
ment. than she would have TO transfer the
citizens Of her counties of London and
Fairfax. Nattel, distinguished writer on
the laws of nations. says: a nation
ought to preserve itself 1t ought TO pre-
serve ali lis members. 1T cannot abandon
them; and it is under an obligation TO
them of maintaining them in the rank of
members of the nation 1t has not then,
a right to traffic with their ranks and lib
erty, on account of any advantages il may
promise itself from such a negotiation
They are united TO the society to be its
members They acknowledge the authori-
" of the State 10 promote, in concert, their
common welfare and safety, and not TO be
al its disposal, like farm or herd of
cattle. But the nation NAV lawfully aban-
don them III case OF extreme necessity (;
and II has a right to cut them of from the
body, if the public safety requires it. But
this province or city thus abandoned and
dlsmembered from the State, Is not oblig-
ed to receive the new master attempted to
be given to them. The people being sepa-
rated from the society Of which they were
members, they resume all their rights and
If 1t is possible for them 10 defend their
liberty against him who would suhiec,
them to his authority, they may lawfully
resist him pages l17-S)
1t was doubtless from the obligations
which these universally ackuow ledged
principles imposed, as we'll as from other
benevolent and political considerations,
that Virginia 20 particularly stipulated
that We should be admitted into the Tn
iOn-HOt shorn of a single attribute OF
vereignJy-not humiiiated by depen-
dence-not degraded by inieriority-not
deprived OF any right which we should
have enjoyed in common with herself
had no dIsmemberment taken viact; but
with the very same rights q sorere,.ys,y y, fres-
dam ami ,aftpegdeHc, a the original States
Though the people so dismetnbered
and transferred, were not bound to submit
to the new sovereign, Vet they might do
80; and the moment they yielded an IT
press amt tac,f cGEscnttO the compact of cs.s-
sion. they became parties TO it, and acquir-
ed vested right 10 all and everything stip-
ulated IN their favor; of which, thsy can
no more be deprived, than the people Of
Louisiana OF the rights secured TO them by
the treaty with France which ceded that
country 10 the |. :.
Their consent, also, subjected them TO
all authority which, as a consequence Of
the terms of cession. could be lawfully cx-
erciscd over them, and no more. 1t war
ranted no usurpatiOns. In giving it, they
must be presumed to have taken into view
the powers both OF the government that
transferred. and that which received them
and in submitting 10 government Of spe-
citied and limited powers, they subjected
themselves to no nudelegated authority
When, then. had the United States right
TO govern them? Never till their admis-
sion into the confederation; and then only
as a member thereof Why so? Because
no such power was delegated to them by
the articles of confederation and these
restricted their authority TO the powers
expressly granted How, then, were they
governed? Cut off from Virginia and ow-
ing no other allegiance to the I, ;. than
they had previously owed as citizens of
Virginia, they had a right TO govern them
selves: and were in the meantime entitled
by the terms of the cessIon, to the same
protection from the |. 5 as Virginia her
self As citizens of Virginia, which the
cession acknowledges they were, they had
vested rights and privileges BY what au-
thority, then, could the Legislature of Va
distranchise them. By that OF their State
constitution? But this was intended to
secure those rights and privileges, and all
who have submitted to its authority were
entitled to its protection How, then,
could the United States do it? Under the
articles of confederation But these gave
no such authority, and were intended to
protect the rights of all and every citizen
of each State in the confederation, SO for
as they had cognizance of them. If this
monstrous power of degrading any portion
of the citizens of free, sovereign and in
dependent State to colonial thraldom
without their consent, or any other act of
theirs to justify it, may be exercised over
population of fifteen or twenty thousand,
why may it not be extended to one-half or
any other number of the citizens of any
State in the Union? The principle is the
same however few or MANY its victims.
"The powers of the United States are
far greater and more national under the
present Constitution than they were under
the Confederation; yet it will not be pre-
tended that they could govern the District
of Columbia though ceded to them by the
States of Maryland and Virginia, but for
that clause in the Constitution that spe-
cially authorized them to do so. The Le-
gislature of Virginia could not, with the
consent of every State in the Union, with
out an amendment of the Constitution,
transfer the county or Fairfax, which ad-
joins the District, to the United States,
and subject the citizens of that county to
their authority; nor could the United
States, with all their enlarged powers, re-
ceive such a transfer. What, then, gave
the Legislature of Virginia greater power
over her citizens in the organized counties
of Illinois, than it now has over those of
the county of Fairfax? And how, then.
& Il