The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1861-07-08


the Constitution. Not one of them ever
having been State out of the Union, the
original ones passed into the Union even
before they cast OFF the British Colonial de-
pendenee, and the new ones came into the
I Union directly from a condition of indepen-
dence, except Texas, and even Texas, in its
| temporary independence, was never desg-
mated State. The new ones only took the
designation of State on coming into the I'm
j ion, while that name was first adopted for
the old ones rho only took thedesignation of
1 States on coming into the Uni1n while
that name was first adopted for the old ones
in and by the Colonies, were declared to be
/ free and independent States, but even then
the object plainly was not to declare their
/ independence OF one another, or of the I'm
ion, but decidedly the contrary, and their
mutual pledge, and their mutual action be-
| fore, at the time, and afterwards absolutely
shows the express plighting of faith by each
/ and all of the original thirteen ia the arti-
1 Gle 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
| the magical omnipotence of State Rights, as
| serting claim ofpower to lawfully destroy
| the Union itself Much is said abont the SOW
ereignty of the States, but the word is not in
the National Constitution, nor, as is believ-
ed, in any of the State Constitutions. What
is a sovereignty in the political sense of the
term; could it be far wrong to define it a
political community, without political SUI
/ perior. Tested by this, no one Of our States
except Texas, even, was a sovereignty; and
even Texas gave up the character on COM
/ ing into the Union, by which act she ac-
/ knowledged the Constitution of the United
/ III l. , zp.1.
ted States made in pursuance of the Consti-
tuition, 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 liberty by conquest
or purchase; the Union gave each of them
whatever independence and liberty it had
| The Union is older than any of the States,
and in fact it created them as States orig
inally. 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, indie
| pendent of the Union. OF course it is not
forgotten that all the new States framed
| Union. Nevertheless, dependent upon and
preparatory to coming into the Union, un-
questionably the States have the power and
rights reserved to them in and by the Ma
| tional Constitution, but among them surely
are not included all conceivable powers,
however mischievous or destructive known
in the world at the time as governmental
powers, and certainly power to destroy the
the Government itself had never been known
/ as governmental but merely administrative
power, This relative matter of national
power and State rights as a principle, is not
other than the principle of generality and
locality. Whatever concerns the whole
should be con6ded to the whole, TO the gen.
eral good, while what concerns only the
State, should be left exclusively to the State.
This is all there is of any real 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 combated in the position that seces-
sion is consistent with the Constitution, is
lawful and peaceful.
1t is not contended that there is any ex-
press law for it, and nothing should ever
be implied as law which leads to unjust or
absurd consequences. The nation purchas-
ed with money the countries out of which
several of these States were formed Is it
/ just that they should go of without leave,
and without refunding The nation paid
very large sums, in the aggregate, | believe
hundred million, to release Florida of the
aboriginal tribes, is it just that she now go
/ off without consent or without making any
return2 The nation is now in debt for
money applied to the benefit of these so
called seeded States, in common with the
rest. Is it Just either that creditors should
go unpaid aud the remaining States pay,
while part of the present national debt was
contracted to pay the old debts of Texas
| Is it inst 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 pay the
debts. Is this quite just to editors? Did
we notify them of this sage view of ours
when we borrowed their money If we
now recognize the doctrine Of allowing the
seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see
what we can do if others choose to go, or to
extort terms upon which they will promise
| to remain. The seeeders insist that our Con-
stitution admits secession. They have assum-
ed to make a national Constitution of their
own, in which of necessity they have either
discarded or retained the right of secession,
as they insist it exists in o1rs, if they have
discarded theirs, they thereby admit that on
principle, it ought not to be in ours. If they
have retained it by their own construction Of
ours, they show, that to be consistent they
must secede from one another whenever
they shall find it the readiest way of set
Ting their debts or affecting any other selfish
or unjust object. The principle itself is che
of disintegration, and upon which no gov
eminent can possibly endure.
If all the States save one should assert
the power to drive that one out Of the IN
ion, it is presumed the whole class of sece-
ding politicians would at once deny the pow
er and denounce this act as the greatest out
rage upon State rights. But suppose pre-
cisely the same act, instead of being called
driving them out, should be called the Sc
ceding of the others from that one, it would
be exactly what the seceders claim to do,
unless, indeed, they make the point that the
one, because it is minority, may rightfully
do what the others, because they are ma
jority, may not rightfully do. These politi-
| clans are subtle and profound on the rights