The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1861-07-12

action DtfOre, NJ tnc hhO "e
abundantly show. The express pllghting OF
faith by each and all the original thirteen in
the articles of confederation two years later,
that the Union shall DO perpetual, is most
conclusive. Having never been States. either
in substance OF in name, outside OF the
Union, whence this magical omnipotencc Of
States rights, asserting claim of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself?
RELATION OF THE STATES TO TIE UNION.
Much is said about tho sovereignty IF the
States, but the word even is not in the ma
tional constitution, nor, as is believed in any
OF the State constitutions. What is a soyc-
reignty in the political sense OF the term?-
Would il be far wrong to define tia political
community without political superior
Tested by this, no ono of the States except
Texas ever was a 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 thereof. to DO her supreme law
The States have their status in the Union,
and they have no other legal status. If they
uItNk lIOin lllls Nll'N Ndl Wv ~ erlo''''e
law and by revolution. The Union, and not
themselves separately procured their indepen-
dcnce and their liberty, by conquest or pur-
chase. The Union gave each OF them what
ever of independence and liberty il has. The
Union is older than any OF the States, and in
fact, it created them as States. Originally
some dependent colonies made the Union, and
in turn the Union threw of their old depen-
dence Tor them and made them States, such
as they are. Not one of them ever had
State constitution independent OF the
: Union.
Of course il is not to be forgotten that all
the new States framed their Constitutions
before they entered the Union: nevertheless
dependent upon and preparatory to coming
into the Union.
UnqucstiOnably the States have the powers
and rights reserved to them in and by the
National Constitution, but among those
surely are not included all conceivable pow
ers, however miScheyiOus or destructive, but
at most such only as were known in the world
ut the time rs governmental powers; and
certainly n power to destroy the Government
itself has never been known us a government
tai, or merely administrative power.
This relative matter ofnatiOnal power and
States rights rs principle is no other than
the principle OF generality and locality
Whatever concerns the whole should be con-
fided to the whole general Government, while
whatever concerns only the state should be
left exclusively 10 the State. This is all
there is OF original principle about it.
Whether the National Constitution, in de-
fning boundaries between the two, has APP
piled the principle with exact accuracy, is
not to be questioned We are all bound by
that defining. without question.
What is now cOmbated is the position that
secession is consistent with the Constitution
lis lawful and peaceful. 1t is not conten-
ded that there is any express law for 1t, and
nothing should ever be implied us law which
leads 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 go oil
without leave and without relunding? The
nation paid very large sums-in the aggre-
gate, believe, nearly hundred millions
to relieve Florida Of the aboriginal tribes.
Is il Just that she should now be- OF without
consent or withOutmakinga any return? The
nation is now in debt for money applied
10 the benefit of these 50 caleb seeding States
in common with the rest.
Is it just either that creditors shall SO UNI
paid, or the remining States pay the whole!
\ Part of the present national debt was con-
tracted IN pay the old debts of Texas. Is 1t
just that she should leave and pay no part OF
this herself? Again. irone State may secede
~ may another, and when all shall have
seeded none is left to pay the debts.
Is this quite just to the creditors? Did
we notify them of this sage view OF ours when
we borrowed their money? ltwenOw recog-
nizc this doctrine by allowing the seceders to
90 in peace. il is dIiEeult to see what we can
do il Others choose TO 80 or to extort terms
upon which they will promise to remain.
The seceders insist that our Constitution
admits of secession. They have assumed to
make u national Constitution OF their own,
in which of necessity they have either dis
carded or retained the right Of secession as
they insist it exists in ours. II they have
discarded il thereby admit that it ought not
to be in ours. Ii they have retained 1t by
their own construction of ours, they show
that to b. consistent they must secede from
one another whenever they shall find II the
easiest way of settling their debts or enectinS
any other selfish or unjust object. The prin-
ciple itself is one of disintegrltiOn, and upon
which no government can possibly endure.
II al. the States save one shOuldassert the
power to drive that one out OF the Union, 1t
Is presumed the whole class of seeding poll.
tcians would at once deny the power, and
donOuncc the act rs the greatest outrage on
State rights. But suppose thatprecisely the
same act, instead of being called driving the
one out. should De called the seeding OF the
others from that one. it would be exactly
what the scccders clam to do, unless indeed
they make the point that the one, because
il Is minority, may do rightiully what the
Others, because they are a majority, may not
rightlully do. These politicians arr subtle
and profound in the rights of minoritics.--
They arr not partial to that power which
made the Constitution and speaks from the
preamble, "we, the people," Ii may well
be- questioned whether there is to-day ma
jority of the legally qualified voters OF any
State, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in
favor OF disuniOn.
MAJORITY OF UNIoNISTs N THE SOUTH.
There is much reason to believe that the
Union men are in the majority in many, IL
not in every other one, OF the socalled scce-
ded States. The contrary has not been de-
monstrated IN any one Of them. Ii is ven.
tured to affirm this. even in Virginia and
Tennessee, for the result Of an election held
in military camps. where the bayonets are all
on one side Of the question, can scarcely be
considered as demonstrating popular sen,i-
ment. AT such an election all that large
class, who are at once for the Union and
against coercion, would be coerced to vote
against the Union.
CHARACTER or TuE Two ARMIES.
II may be affirmed without extravaganza
that the free institutions we enjoy have de-
yeloped the powers and improved the condi-
ton Of our whole people beyond any exam.