Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-01-22
aThe Catholic Telegraph on FlshtinE for
the UutOu


dependence has it, from "the consent of
the governed" If the people of New York
consent, they are bound by it. If the people
OF South Cai olina do not consent to obey it,
they are free from its control. There can be
DO forcing people to remain in the Union,
unless by actual abandonment of the princi-
pies for which you pretend to fight.
1--WE have said thus much to set forth what
is in our view-the logical meaning of
fighting for the Union AS to the policy
TO be pursued, we have nothing to say. We
seem to cut adrift even from the traditions of
our own little past. The world is all before
us where to choose. Catholics would prefer
amity and alliance and will support any
just policy that may be adopted for the re-
establishment of our now paralyzed pros
perity."
We do not take issue with the Telegraph
on the policy or propriety of forcing any
body to remain in the Union; nor with the
principle of governing only those who con-
sent to be governed and we would gladly
see the time when Government can safely
let loose from its restrictions and penalties
these who find them inconvenient or dis
agreeable; and when it shall only turn the
other cheek to those who commit violence.
But we do question the principle implied,
that this Government has any less right to
enforce its laws and maintain its integrity
and unity than any other.
Why should it have2 We believe the
divine right of Kings is an obsolete idea; SO
with the rights of hereditary succession, ex-
cept so far as the admission of this right con-
duces to the peace, welfare and good govern
nf ha Go of4 hot
governments exist by the consent of the
governed. This assertion in our Declaration
of Independence did not limit itself to re-
publican government. 1t included all govern
ments. Therefore, no doctrine can be de-
rived from that, to make our case different
from that of monarchical governments. All
governments exist by the consent of the
governed. Does it follow that any individ-
ual can withdraw his consent at will, and as
sert his individual independence He can,
according to this principle, if construed as
the Telegraph construes it. But society re-
CARDS such multiplication of sovereignties
as incompatible with its peace and it
! coerces individual Independence, and makes
| it succumb to the rule of the whole, If an
Individual can not seeede from Government,
how many will it take to constitute the
right2 If Government can -coerce an in
dividual to remain subject to it, at what
number does its right of coercion cease?
We suppose that the Telegraph does not
deny the right of European Princes to CO.
cree their rebellious subjects. Even the
Supreme Pontif has maintained bis author
ity ever the States of the Church by armed
force; and when a French army restored
him to his throne, after the exile of '49, the
Christian world approved it. We suppose
that Catholics do not TALL back on his spir-
itual authority to justify this, for they hold
that his temporal title to govern the States
Of the Church is perfect They hold, also,
that his government is the best for his
people.
There is nothing in the nature or con-
struction of our Government that abrogates
any right of force which any Government
bas. 1t is a question of policy whether it
will coerce South Carolina or all the rest of
the South that it can coerce; but there is
no more question of right than there is as to
the right Of the State of Ohio to coerce its
citizens to the penalty the law.
We know that, in theory, our Government
is broken down and made imbecile by the
misuse of terms; but little investigation
will dissipate this mischievous fallacy. 1t
is called the United States; hence people,
shutting their eyes to all history and to the
Constitution, argue that if States united,
States can dissolve the Union. But it is not
a Union of States at all, but of the sover-
eign people. The name has come to it from
the obsolete Confederacy of independent
States. That broke down entirely. Theh a
Convention of the people of the United
States met and formed a Government, dis
carding State-sovereignty, and declaring,
I'VE, the people of the United States, in or
der to establish more perfect union, estab
lish justice, insure domestic tranquility, pro-
vide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America
The "United States were the United
States then existing, sovereign and inde-
pendent, and each in conflict with the other,
so that the historians of that period say that
nothing but the exhaustion Of the Revolu-
tionary War prevented them from breaking
out into war. The people of the United
States met to abolish the Union of States
and make Union of the people. The
States then being independent, the people of
each acted separately in giving their assent
to the Constitution. But that was not an
act of State sovereignty, but an act of the
sovereign people of each State withdrawing
the sovereignty from the State and transfer
ing it to the Federal Government. The fact
that the people Of each State accepted the
Constitution in their sovereign capacity no
more preserves that State sovereignty and
carries it into the Constitution, than the as
sent of a woman to the marriage ceremony
reserves her individual sovereignty.
The name United States remained, but the
sovereign States were abrogated, and were
theneeforth no more sovereign than counties
and cities are. 1t will be a curious fact 10
those whose ideas of the Union are derived
from the lingo of State Rights and Secession,
that the makers of the Constitution carefully
avoided the recognition of any future exist
ence OF sovereign States. The representation
by States in the Senate was strenuously re-