The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1861-07-10

Union directly from condition of depend
ence, excepting Texas; and even Texas in
its temporary Independence, was never des-
lignated State. The new ones only took
the designation of States on coming into the
Union; while that name was first adopted
for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the United Colonies
were declared to be free and independent
States.
But even then the object was plainly not
to declare their independence of one anoth-
er, or of the Union, but directly the contra
ry, as their mutual pledge and their mutual
action before, at the time, and afterwards,
| abundantly show. The express plighting
of faith, by each and all of the original
! thirteen, in the articles Of confederation,
two years later, that "the Union shall be
| perpetual" is most conclusive. Having
never been States either in substance or
in name outside of the Union, whence this
magical omnipotence of State rights, assert
ing claim of power to lawfully destroy the
| Union itself? Much is said about the SOW
ereignty of the States, but the word even is
| not in the national Constitution, nor as is
believed in any of the State Constitutions.
| What is a sovereignty in the political sense
of the term? Would it be far wrong to de-
fine it ''a political community without a po-
litical superior Tested by this, no enc
Of our States, except Texas, ever was SOW
ereignty, and even Texas gave up the char
acter on coming into the Union, by which
act she acknowledged the Constitution of
the United States, and the laws of the Uni
ted States, made in pursuance of the Con-
stitution, to be for her the supreme law of
the land. The States have their status in
the Union, and they have no other legal
status. IF they break from this, they can
only do so against law and by revolution
The Union and not themselves separated,
procured their independence and their lib
erty. By conquest or purchase. the Union
gave each of them whatever of indepen-
dence and liberty it has
The Union is older than any of the States,
and in fact, it created them as States. Ori-
/ ginally, some dependent colonies made the
Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off
their old dependence for them, and made
them States, such as they are not one of
them ever had State Constitution indepen-
dent of the Union. OF course it is not for
gotten that all the new States framed their
Constitutions before they entered the Union;
nevertheless dependent upon, and prepara-
tory to coming into the Union. Unquestion-
ably the States have the powers and rights
reserved to them in and by the national Con-
stitution; but among these, surely, are not
included all conceivable powers, however
mlschlevous or destructive, but at most such
only as were known in the world at the time
as governmental powers, and certainly q
power to destroy the government itself was
never known as governmental or merely
administrative power.
This relative matter of national power
and State rights as principle. is no other
than the principle of generality and locality.
| Whatever concerns the whole should be con-
hded to the whole, to the general govern
ment; while whatever concerns only the
State should be left exclusively to the State.
This is all there is of original principle about
it. Whether the national Constitution, in
defining boundaries between the two, has
applied the principle with exact accuracy,is
not to be questioned. We are also bound
by that defining without question. What is
now combatted is the position that secession
is consistent with the Constitution, is law
full and peaceful. 1t is not contended that
there is any express law for is, and nothing
should ever be implied as law which leads
to unjust or absurd consequences.
The nation purchased with money the
countries out of which several Of these
States were formed. Is it just that they
shall go off without leave and without re-
fundinga The nation paid very large sums
in the aggregate, believe, a hundred
millions-to relieve Florida of the aborigi-
nal tribes. Is it just that she shall now 60
off without consent or without making any
return? The nation is now in debt for mon
ey applied to the benefit of these so-called
seeded States in common with the rest. Is
it just either that creditors shall 20 unpaid
or the remaining States pay the whole .
Part of the present national debt was con-
tracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is
it just that she shall leave and pay no part
of this herself?
Again, if one State may secede, so may
another, and when all shall have seeded
none is left to paw the debts. Is this quite
just to creditorss Did we notify them ot
this sage view of ours when we borrowed
their money If we now recognize this
doctrine by allowing the seceders to 90 in
peace, it is difficult to see what we can do il
others choose to go, or to extort terms upon
which they viii promise to remain.
The seceders insist that our Constitution
admits Of secession. They having assumed
to make national constitution of their own
in which, of necessity, they have either dis
carded or retained the right of secession, as
. they insist it exists in ours, if they have
discarded IL, they thereby admit that or
principle it ought not to be in ours. If they
have retained it, by their own construction O
ours, they show that to be consistent they
must secede from one another whenever they
: shall find it the easiest way of settling thei
debts, or effeeting any other selfish or unjus
object. The principle itself is one of disin
tegration, upon which no government Cal
endure.
If all the States save one should asser
, , the power to drive that one out of the Union
it IS presumed the whole class of seeede
politicians would at once deny the powe
and denounce the act as the greatest outrag
upon State rights. But suppose that pre-
cisely the same act, instead of being calle,
driving the one out, should be called the sc
ceding of the others from that one, it woul
be exactly what the seceders claim to dc
unless, indeed, they make the point that tn
one, because it is minority, may rightfuI