Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-07-12

| LEI us iicH 64dlltnS Tue lGtIuaLlUu Oh tle
State Governments. TO see If any fractional
portions of the States have any recognized
| separate existence or authority. The forma-
tons of the State Governments of Tennessee
and Virginia are analogous. Tennessee
| adopted her present Constitution on the Both
OF August, 1884. at Nashville, and its pream-
BILE is "a follows: "We, therefore, the DIE
gdtes and Representatives. Of the People Of the State
Of Tennessee elected and in convention assem-
bed, have ordained and established the fol-
lowing amended Constitution for this State.
which we recommend to the people Of the State
for their ratification" Thus we see these
delegates were the representatives of the SOW
ereign people of the whole State. and that
the Constitution had to be ratified by than 49,
fore its ultimate adoption. Here, also. ihe
existence and separate authority of any frac-
ton of the State is entirely ignored. Aud
does not every officer of this State, from the
highest to the lowest, as well as every mem
Der of the Legislature and the Judiciary,
swear upon their assumption of Office, to sup
port this Constitution, and all laws passed in
pursuance thereof by Legislative authority.
How, therefore, can the law abiding citizens
of Virginia and Tennessee ahjure their allie
glance to the Southern Contederacy. by multi
flying and abrogating the laws, ordinances
and solemn cOmpacts OF the sovereign people
and their representative Legislatures? For
raj allegiance of their people to this Conftd-
eracy.
This doctrine of sectional alienation, or the
segregation of a sovereign State by any of
its yarts or sections, is of dtspotic character.
and opposed to the fundamental principles of
free government. The doctrine that part
should rule the whole, or minority the nIgjOri
ty. is the chief cornerstone of all despotic,
aristocratic governments. The Thirty Ty-
r. of thanS ha pnio nd
bles of Genoa, Venice. Zurich, Berne, and
Fribourg. claimed the right to rule the people
as privileged minority. on account OF their
superior wisdom or fortune or family. Agsin,
once admit the principle that fea0 have the
right TO rule the many, and you at once le
galiZe IriunpUirdte, such as once existed in
Rome, when Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey
overthrow the liberties of Romans, aud
reigned Lords paramount, or royal despOt-
ism, such as afflicted Sparta when'two Kings
sat upon the throne; or a solitary despotism
such obtained in France under Louis XIV,
or in Spain under Phillip III, or in Rome uu-
der Nero and Calligula. This doctrine of the
right of a few to rule the many-a part the
whole State, is the germ or seminal principle
OF despicable tyranny.
We will now prove that Il is not only sub
versive of all stable government, but totally
disrupts all political and social bonds. Con-
gressional districts are divided into countless
these into civil districts, and these into
nelghborhoods, and these latter into distinct
families. In the recent elections in East
Tennessee and West Virginia, many OF the
counties voted with the majority of their
States for separation and au alliance with
the Southern COnfederacy while these
voters constituted respectable minorities in
other counties, and formed majorities in many
civil districts and neighbornoods. Now these
maJorities of civil districts, neighborhoods.
and several counties of these divisions OF the
two States, have as much right to secede
from these tao divisions, and set up separate
governments for themselves, and form foreign
alliances with federal or foreign governments
as these two divisions of East Tennessee and
West Virginia have. Why have the former
not these rights? The majority of these two
divisions over these counties and civil dis
tricis was not near so great thai of the
whole State over these divisions, aud the doc
trlne that the minority should rule the ma
Jority is also applicable to their case. Then
II this doctrine be true, would it not divide
these States into an innumerable number of
separate and independent republics, aristo-
cracies, or monarchies of domestic and
others OF foreign allegiance. For the people
OF these petty governments would have the
sovereign right to ally themselves with any
government they might select. Would this
not disorganize the social and political bonds
OF counties, districts and neighborhoods, and
subvert all stable and uniform government
within the State?
Again, the law of nations repudiates this
doctrine of the independence and sovereignty
of the fragments of States. Suppose the
people of East Tennessee or West Virginia,
in defiance of the laws and sovereign power
OF these States, were, upon their own respOn-
sibility, to invade the territory of England,
hran or 9th Irnlu and
murder their inhabitants. Ii any of these
Foreign Governments were to capture any of
these selfstyled independent and sovereign
people. they would hang them as common
thieves and murderers. Why? Because the
International Law regards Nations alone in
their united sovereign capacity and respon-
slbllity, and not in their fractional parts and
lawless arrogations. Besides this dOctline
that individuals of section can diyest them
selves at s0iH of State obedience and legal
responsibility, legalizes and encourages the
infraction of all law and the commission of
many crimes with impunity. 1t would trans
form States into nests of corsairs, thieves
and murderers, as were once Tunis, Tripod
and Algiers
This is true of all civilized governments
that every part must be obedient to the will
of the whole-that the whole must protect
every part-that each individual member
muSI euUHit W Tue laws Ol the sovereign
power of State, and without this submits
sion of all, no protection and security Can
be extended to any.
Thus have we essayed to prove that this
doctrine of sectional independence of parts
of sovereign State, despite of its authority
or sanction, is subversive of all stable Gov
eminent and violatve of all law. See Chit's
Black, vol. /. p. 80 and 80; Story Com. on
G. vol. l. p. 2OS; Kent's Com, v. 1, p. Is;
Cranch, 48l Enc. Americana, v. XI, p.
sol Vat. chap. 3. p. 8, 9. 10; Wheat. l.. of
N. p. 126 and I27 Adams His. of Reps,
vol. lst Lieb. Pol. Eth, vol. l, from p. 24l
to 200; Wheaton, p. 324.
w. n. BILBO.