The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1861-07-13
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA, SATURDAY, JULY 49, 1861.
! Justice, Is to thin to merit any nosiee.

: it's justice, is to thin to meris any notice.
I With rebellion thus sugar coated, they hay
: been dragging the public mind OF their see
) tion for more than thirty years, and until .
{ length they have brought many good mel
: to willingness to take up arms against th,
I Government the day after some assembiag,
7 Of men have enacted the farcial pretense 81
taking their Ssate out Of the Union, whs
could have been brought TO do no such thin.
: the day before. This soPhism derives much
: perhaps the whole Of i,s currency, from thu
: assumption that there is some omnipoten,
and sacred supremacy pertaining to State
. To each State of our Federal U0ion, nuv
: States have neither more nor less power than
that reserved to them in the union ty the
Constitution. No one Of them ever having
J been State out Of the Union, the original
ones passed into the Union even befers they
} cast offthe British Colonial dependence, and
the new ones came into the Cmon directly
] from = condition of independence, excep,
Texas, and even Texas, in its temporary in.
dependence, was never designated a State.
The new ones only took the designation OF
State On coming into the Union, while tha,
name was frst adopted for the old ones only
who took the designation Of States on CON-
ing into the Union; while that name was ffrst
adopted for the old ones in and by the Col
onies, were declared to be free and indie
pendent States, but even then the ohiec.
plainly was not to declare their independ.
ence OF one another, or of the Union, but
decidedly the contrary, and their mutual
pledge, and their mutual action before, at
the time, and afterwards absolutely shows
the express plighting Of faith BY each and
all OF the original thirteen 10 the article Of
confederation two years later, that the Un-
ION shall be perpetual, is most conclusive,
having never been States either in substauce
or in name, outside Of the Union.
Whence the magical omnipotence Of
State Rights, asserting a claim Of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself +? Much
it said about the sovereignty Of the States,
but the word is not in The National Consti
tuition, nor, as it is believed, in any of the
State Constitutions. What is a Sovereignty
in the political sense Of the term Gould
it be far wrong to define it political com.
muuity, without a political superior? Tested
by this, no one Of our States, except Texas,
ever was sovereignty and even Texas
gave up the character on coming into the.
Union, by which act she acknowledged the
Constitution of the United States, and the
laws and treaties Of the United States made
in pursuance of the Constitution to be for
her the supreme law af the nd. The
States have their status in the Union, and
they have no other legal status. II they
break from this, they can only do so against
law and by revolution. The Union, and no,
themselves seperate, procured their indie
pendeuce and liberty, by conquest or pur.
chase the Union gave each of them what
ever independence and liberty it had. The
Union is older than any Of the States, and
in fact it created them as States originally.
Some dependen. colonies made the Union,
and in turn the Union threw of their old de-
pendeace for them, and made them States
such as they are. Not one of them ever
had a State Constitution before they entered
the Union. Unquestiona the States
have powers and rights reserved to
them in and by the National Constitution,
but among them surely are not included all
conceivable powers, however mischeivous
or destructive, are known in the world at
the time as Governmental powers, and GER
tainly power to destroy the Government
itself was never known as Governmental
or administrative power. This relative
matter of National power and State rights,
as a principle, is not other than the prin-
ciple or generality and locality. Whatever
concerns the world should be cou6ded to
the whole, to the general good. while what
concerns only the State, should be left ex-
clusively to the State. This is all there is
Of any real principle about it, whether the
National Constitution IN defining bound
aries between the two, has applied the prin-
eiple with exact accuracy is not to be ques-
toned. We are also bound by that defining
without question. What is now combatted
is. that secession IL consistent with the
Gonstitution-is lawful and peaceful. II is
not contcnded that tqere is any express law
for it, and nothing should ever be implied
for law which leads to unj Just or absurd
consequences. The nation purchased with
money the countries out of which several Of
these States were formed. Is it just that
they should 20 of without leave, and with
out refunding The nation paid very large
sums in the aggregate, believe hundred
millions to release Florida of the oborigi3al
tribes is it just that she now 60 of with
out consent, or withou, making any return?
The nation is now 10 debt for money applied
to the benefit of these so called seceeded
States, in common with the rest. Is il Just
either that creditors shall 90 unpaid, or the
remaining States pay, while part of the
present national debt was contracted to pay
Ihe old debts Of Texas2 Is it just that she
shall leave and pay no part Of this herself.
Again. If one State may secsde, so may
another, and when all shall have seeded
none is left to pay the debts. IL this quite
Just to creditors 2 Did we notify them Of
this sage view Of ours when We borrowed
their money? II We now recognise the
doctrine Of allowing the seceders to 20 in
peace, it is difficult to see what We can do If
/ others choose to 60, or to extort terms upon
which they will promise to remain. The
| seceders insist that our Constitution admits
secession. They have assumed to make q
National Constitusi on Of their own, in which
thy have, of necessity, discarded or rs.
tanned the right OF secession, as they insist
it exists in ours. II they havs discarded it
in theirs, they thereby admit that, on prin-
ciple, it ought not TO BE- in ours it they
have retained it, - BY their construciiop il
exists 10 ours, they show that to be oon-
sissent they must secede from one another
whenever they shall end it the resdiest way
Of settling their debts, or affecting any other
selii.h or unjust object. The principle It.
self 10 one Of fdisintsgratios, and upon which
no goveruEeus can possibly endure.
Il II all the States save one should assert
the power to drive that one out OF the Union,
il is presumed the whole class Of sscede'
politicians would At once deny the power and
denounoe this set - the greatest outrage
upon State rights. Bot suppose precisely
the same act instead Of being called driving
them ont, should be called the seeding ol
the Others from that one, il would be exactly
What the secedsrs claim 70 do, unless indeed
they make the point that the one becaus1
! it is minority may righsfuIly do xhat the
others because they are q majority may no
, rigbtfaily do. These politicians are subtle
. and profound on the rights Of ninoriiiss
{ they are not pastiai to that power whicl
: constitutes and spesks from the preamble
> calling itself 60 We, the people" u ma.
. we'll be questioned whether there Is io-da'
. . ma;o,itv of The IexaIiy qualified voters o