Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1861-06-28
VOLUME %, NO. 80.

did not promulgate. did not ratify. wsrs
not even named In the Consultation it
was ordained and established directly by tl.s
people. delegates chosen everywhere for tls
special purpose. AZ to sovereignty. that
was phrase mauife'tly Inapplicabls, and
Of which the last had been heard. ~ w,
then thought. when the States severed them.
selves from the British throne aud its frudL
traditions. No State could bo sovereign Of.
tar surrendering to q Constitution avowedY
supreme, all the. great a,tribates OF sovsr-
eighty. No State could coin money. or
emit bills OF credit, nor pass or post fs'io
laws. nor MAINTAIN Armic. or nsyies. nor
grant letters Of marque, nor make compaeis
with other States, nor bold intercourse with
foreign powers. nor grant title- Of nobility
-" this Constitution and the laws mads in
pursuance Of l, shall be the supreme Law II
,hs land, anything in the Constitution or
Laws Of State 10 the contrary notvi,li.
standing" Mr.. Motley we'll a,k'. Z" Coz 4
language he more impsrial' Could q
claim TO State sovereignty be more cori.
pletely disposed Of at worl7"
4 very telling corrobora,ion Of this view
is to b. found in the fact tha, the ques,io,
was anticipated and Tough, at the time "
making the Constitution IL was no bin
adoption OF Institution. the force and effect
Of which were not clearly foreseen. liar,
!. contemporary evidence -
Z" However grsss h're.y !, may be ('alI
the fedcrali.t. Recommending the new Con.
ai,ution) 10 mlintain that party tos
compact ha. right TO revoke tha, compact.
the doctrine has had respectable advocate.
The possibility ol such a question shows q .
necessity otlayins the foundation OF OFT
National Government deeper than In 10
mere sanction Of delegated authority. Ito
fabric Of American empire ought 70 rest on
the solid ba.l. OF the consent Of the people" B"
"Therc wa. q party" 'ays Mr. Motley.
" advocating State rights and local 'eli'go''
srnmeui. in Il, largest sense, and party
iaroring u more consolidated and nationhl
government. Tho National or f-ierai par
" triumphed in the adoption Of the ne"
government. |, was strenuously support 1
and bitterly opposed on exactly the 'ap
grounds. its iri,nd. aud foes both agre,d 4
tha, it had pa, an end to the system Of cot.
iederacy. Whether Il we're an adyantageors
or nolious change. all agreed that ,ic
thing had been done" And the Supreme
Court. m an important case, thu. confirm
ed this reading:
II ha. been .,id that the sut~. were .o'
ere,:p, were completely independent, an :
were connected with each other by l'agu,
Thi. j. true. Bot when these ahiei so'
erci,n,is. converted their league into . Coz
crnmcnt. when they converted their Con-
src-. Of Ambassadors in,o Le;l'latnr.
empowered 10 enact laws. the whole char.
actcr in which th, States appear underweu.
change.
Thu. by the Constitution Mr.. Motley -
warranted IN asserting, that ",he uss Of
fprce-oi armies and nayics Of whatevcr
.,rens,h-in, order - compel obedience g.
the clyil and constitutional authority. -
no, wicked war i. not civil war. is nos
war at all. :" hut is the lawful. the boundsr
exercise OF the power the President swear'
% WELD Tor the preservation Of the nation
Bu, more pr,c, cal question is the rigls
of revolution. thc right Of peaceful revol"-
ton which the S1uiherners have 80 boldly
claimed. AMI which ,one Ensli.hmen seem
disposed t. think it wanion OF the President
to refuse them
Mr. Motley only recognizes one sort OF
peaceful revolution. that elected by thr
voice Of tie whole people in national con-
ycn,ion assembled II any States OF an
individual. like 10 rebsl against the feders
mth)rity. Mr.. Motley allows them thi
right: but he insists that they should car
ry their live. 10 their hands. and undssuh
edly beard the constituted powers, no. Sncat
iugy plead to he allowed to rcbe, with in.
punity. llancock said. 4" We shall oil ham,
together - and frankl.a added, Yes, or
se shalt all hang SEPARATELY" This si' how
,he fathers o, the II pablo d,feI tho maze.
ty OF England.
There !. this difference between the two
rebellion.. that whilst the rebsls asainsl
England seeded as last resource, after
persevering and iru,les eaJrts to obtain
redress Of serious grievances. the rebels
against The United States have ssoeded OIL
accoun, OF grievances only expected. and H.
contempt OF any other remedy. but Mr.
Motley insists that, at least they shsll re
-emble each other in being openly and avow.
ej. lie demands that II the Southerners
arc dsrermin'd TO ,eeede they shall not lead
hack ,h, community to barbarism by estab-
fishing theory Of disin.egIation as nor.
NAL process Of national life, but shall frank
ly dare the issue and brave the Consequence
Of treason.
we are compelled to hasten to q eiosc.
though the rich mine OF argument and proc.
aud illustration would we'll repay more cop
ioas excerpts. Mr.. Mo'ley's paper " o.
riched by many quotations from author
ties, by varied and striking analosies. h.
proves, also, conci.ely and eonelu'ively.
that neither in the laws. in the conduct OF
the Northerners, nor IN the relations ot
parties, can there be found the smallest az
cuse Tor the disruption which the South
erner. have etected-no constitutional quss