New Oregon plaindealer. (New Oregon, Iowa) 1859-1866, 1861-07-19

s,de the Union. whence this magical ON
,ipotrpcc of State rights, asserting claim
or power to lawfully destroy the UnioN Itself?
Much is SAID ofthe Sovereignty Of the States
but the word even is not in the natlona
Constitution nor, it is believed, in any of thel
Site Constitutions. What is sovereignty 7
Would It he far wrong to declare it pc tito.
al community withouta political superior
Tested by this, no one of our States except
Texas wasa sovereignty. and even Texas
gave up the character on coming INTO the
Union. nv which act she acknowledged the
Constitution Of the United States and laws
and treaties Of the United States, m Ike III
pursuance of the Constitution, to be forever
her supreme law.
The States have their status in the Uulon
and they have no other legal status. If they
break from this they only do so against law
by revolution. The Union, and not them
selves separated, procured their independence
and their lihertv.-By conquest or purchase
the Union gave each OF them whatever OF III
dependence and liberty it has. The Unloa
is older than any Of the States ana in fact 1t
created them as States Originally some de-
pendent colonies made the Union and in re-
turn the Union threw off their old depenence
for them and made the States such as they
are. Not one of them ever had State Con.
stitution independent of the Union. VI
course it is not forgotten that all the new
States formed their Constitutions before they
entered the Uuicn, nevertheless dependent
on the preparatory to coming into Inc
Union.
Unouestionably the States have the powers
NV n National
Constitution but among these surely are not
included all conceivable powers, however
mischievous or destructive. But at most
such only as were known IN the Worlu az
that time as governmental powers, and GER
tainly power to destroy the Government
itself had never been known as Govern
mental merely administrative power This
relative matter Of national power and States
rights as principle is no other than prln-
ciple of generality and locality. hatever
concerns the whole should be confined TO the
whole General Government, with Whatever
concerns the State should be lett exclusively
to the State. This is al! there is left OF the
original principle about it. Whatever the
national convention in begning the oounda-
ries between the two as applied to the prln'
ciple with exact accuracy is not to be queS-
toned. We are I'll bound by that definition
without question. What is now comoatted
is the position that secession is consistent
with the Constitution, is lawful and peaceful.
1t is not contended that there is any express
law for it. and nothing should ever be i'm
piled as law which leads to unjust and ah-
surd consequences The nation purchased
with money the countries out Of which sew
eral of these State were formed. Is it just
that they should 90 off without leave or with
out refundings The nation paid very large
sums, in the aggregate, believe, nearl'
SlOO,OOO,OOO, to relieve Florida from the
aboriginal tribes Is it just that she should
now 20 off without consent or without any
return The nation is now in debt for mon
" applied for the benefit of these so called
seeding States, in common with the rest
Is it lust either that creditors shall go un-
aid or the remaining States pay the whole:
A part Of the present national debt was con-
tracted to paw the old debt of Texas. Is it
Just that she shall leave and pay no part Of
this herself?
Again if one State may secede 90 may an
other, and when all have seeded, none IS
eft to paw the debts. Is this quite Just to
creditors? Did we notify them of this sage
view Of ours when we borrowed their money?
five now recognize this doctrine by allowing
the seceders to 60 in peace it is difficult to
see what we can do If others choose to 60, or
to extort terms upon which they will prom
se to remain. The seceders insist that our
Constitution admits Of secession. they have
assumed to make national constitution of
their own in which, of necessity, they have
either discarded or retained the right of Sc
cession as they insist it exists in ours. If
they have discarded it they tt ereby admit
that on principle it ought not to exist in ours.
If they have retained it by their construction
of ours it shows that to be consistent they
must secede from one another when they
shall find it the easiest way Of settleing their
debts or effecting another selfish or unjust
object.
The principle itself, one of disintegration
and on which no government can endure. Il
all the States save one should affect the pow
err to drive that one from the Unior, it is pre-
suned the whole class of the seeded poll
ticians would at once deny thu power and
denounce the act as the greatest outrage up
on State rights. But suppose that precisely
the same act instead Of being Led driving
one ont, should be called the "seceding' OF
the others from the one, it would be exactly
what the seceders claim to do, unless. indeed.
they make the roint that the one. because it
is minority may rightfnlly do that which
the others. because they are the majority
may not rightfully do.
These politicians are profound in the rights
of mnorites. They are not partial to that
power which made the Constitution and
speaks from the preamble calling itself Eve
the people," 1t may we'll be questioned
whether there is to day State except, per-
haps. South Carolina, IN favor Of disunon.
There is much reason to believe that the
Union men are in majority in many if not
in all of the seeded States. The contrary
has not been demonstrated in any of them
1t is ventured to affirm even those Of Virginia
and Tennessee-for the result of elections