Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1861-07-12

many good men to willingness to take
up arms against the government the day
after some assemblage of men have en-
acted the farcical pretence of taking their
State out Of the Union, who could have
been brought to no such thing the day
before.
This sophism derives much, perhaps
the whole Of its currency, from the as
sumption that there is some Omnipotent
and Sacred Supremacy pertaining to a
State, to each State Of our Federal Union.
Our States have neither more nor less
power than that reserved to them in the
Union by the constitution, no one Of
them ever having been State out Of the
Union. The original ones passed into
the Union even before they cast off their
British Colonial dependence; and the
new ones each came into the Union di-
roctly from condition of dependence
excepting Texas and oven Texas in its
temporary independence was never de-
signated 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 limited United 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 Union, but direct
ly the contrary, 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 orin name outside ofthe Union,
whence this magical omnipotence of State
rights, asserting claim Of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much
I is said about the sovereignty of the
States but the word, even, is not in the
national constitution, nor, as is believed
ia any of the State constitutions What
is a sovereignty in the political sense OF
the tenn? Would it be far wrong to
dofne it "a political community without
political superior 2" Tested by this
no one of our States except Texas ever
was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave
up the character on coming into the
Union, by which act she acknowledged
tho constitution Of the United States
and the laws and treaties Of the UniteC
States, made in pursuance of the consti
tuition to be for her the supreme law o
the land.
The States have their status in the
Union, and they have no other legal sta
tus. If they break from this, they can
only do 50 against law and by revolution.
The Union, and not themselves separate
ly, procured their independence and their
liberty; by conquest or perchase the
Union gave each Of them whatever of
independence and liberty it has
The Union is older than any of the
States, and in fact it created them as
States. Originally some dependent CO.
lonies made the Union, and in turn the
Union threw of their old dependence for
them and made them States, such as
they arc. Not one of them ever bad
State constitution independent Of the
Union,
OF course It is not forgotten that all
the new States framed their constitutions
before they entered the Union, neyerthe-
less dependent upon, and preparatory to,
coming at0 the Union.
UnquesEonably the States have the
powers and rights reserved to them in
and by the National Constitution; but
among these surely are not included all
conceivable powers, however mschicv-
GUS or destructive; but ,at most, such
only as were known in the world at the
time as governmental powers, and GER
tainly powefto destroy the government
itself had never been known as govern
mental---as a merely administrative pow
cr. This relative matter Of national
power and State rights, as a principle, is
no other than the principle of generality
and locality.
Whatever concerns the whole should
be confded to the whole-the general
government; while whatever concerns
only the State should be left exclusively
to the State. Thisis all there is Of origi-
nal principle about it. Whether the
national constitution, in defining the
boundaries between the two, has applied
the principle with exact accuracy, is not
to be questioned We are oil bound by
that defining, without question. What
is now combatted is the position that Sc
cessiou is consistent with the constitu-
tion--is lawful and peaceful.
1t is not commended that there is any
express law for it; aud nothing should
ever be implied as law which loads 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 90 of without leave and without
refunding? The nation paid very large
sums, in tho aggregate, / believe, nearly
one h,tndyed millions, to relieve Florida
Of the aboriginal tribes.
Is IL just that she shall now be of
without consent, or without making any
return? The nation is now in debt for
money applied to the benefit Of these So
called seocdiing states in common with
the rest. Is Il just, either, that credi-
tors shall 90 unpaid or the remaining
States pay the whoIo2 A part Of the
present national debt WAS contracted to
pay the old debts Of Texas. Is IL just
that she shall leave and pay no part Of
this hcFsclf2