Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1861-07-10

destroy the Union itself? Much is said about
the sovereignty of the States, but the WORD
even is not in the National Constitution, nor,
as is believed, in any of the State constitu-
tions. What is sovereignty in the political
sense of the term Would 1t be far wrong TO
define it political community without po-
litical superior? Tested by this, no one of
our States, except Texas, ever was sover-
eighty, and even Texas gave mp the character
on coming into the Union, by which act she
acknowledged tie Constitution of the United
States, and the laws and treaties of the Uni
ted States made in pursuance OF States, have
their status in the Union made in pursuance
of the Constitution, to be for her the supreme
law. The States have their status in the Union,
and they have no other legal status. If they
break from this. they can only do so against law
.nd by revolution. The Union and not them
selves separately, procured their independ-
ence and their liberty by conquest or pur-
chase. The Union gave each of them whatev-
er Of independence and liberty it had. The u
nion 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 off their old de-
pendence for them, and made them States,
such as they are. Not one of them ever had
State constitution independent of the Union.
OF course it is not forgotten that all the new
States formed their constitutions before they
entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent
upon and preparatory to coming into the u
nion. Unquestionably 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 mischievous destructive but at
most such only as were known in the world at
the time as governmental powers, and certain
ly power to destroy the Government itself
had never been known as governmental. As
merely administrative power, this relative mat
g. -
principle, is no other than the principle of gem
erality and locality. Whatever concerns the
whole should be confided to the whole of the
genaral government, while whatever concerns
only the State, should be left exclusively to
the State. This is all there is of original prin-
ciple about it. Whether the National Con-
stitution, in defining boundaries between the
two has applied the principle with exact accu-
racy is not to bequestioned. We are all bound
by that defining without question. What is
now combatted is the position that Secession
is consistent with the Constitution, is lawful
and pesceful. 1t is not contended that there
is any express law for it, and nothing should
ever be implied as law which leads to unjust
or absurd consequences.
The \ atiun purchased with money the coun-
tries out of which several of these States were
formed. Is it just that they should GO off with
out leave and without refunding2 The nation
paid very large sums in the aggregate, | be-
lieve hundred millions to relieve Florida of
the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she should
now go of without consent, or without making
any return. The nation is now in debt for
money applied to the benefit of these so called
seeded States in common with the rest. Is
it just, either, that creditors shall go unpaid,
or the remaining States pay the whole? Part
of the present National debt was contracted TO
pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that
she shall leave, and pay no part of this herself
Sfata do nnf
er, and when all shall have seeded none is
left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to
creditors? Did we notify them of this sage
view of ours when we borrowed their money
If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing
the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to
see what we can do if others choose TO go ,or to
extort terms upon which they will promise to
remain. The seceders insist that our Consti-
tuition admits of secession. They have as
sumed to make national Constitution of their
own, in which, of necessity, they have either
discarded or retained the right of secession,
as they insist it exists in ours. If they have
discarded it, they thereby admit that on prin-
cipie it ought not to be in ours. II they have
retained it, by their own construction of ours,
they show that to be consistent they must
cede from one another whenever they shall
find it the essiest way Of settling their debts
or effectng any other selfish or unjust object.
The principle itself is one of disintegration
all the States save one should assert the pow
er to drive that one out of the Union it is
presumed the whole class of seceder poiti-
clans would at once deny the power and de-
nounce the act as the greatest outrage upon
State right. But suppose that precisely the
same act, instead of being called driving the
one out, should be called the seeding of the
others from that one, it would be exactly what
the seceders claim to do. unless, indeed, they
make the point that the one, because it is a
minority, may rightfully do what the others,
because they are majority, may not rightful-
ly do. These politicians are subtle and pro-
found in the rights of the miDorities, they are
not partial to that power which made the con-
Stitution, and speaks from the preamble, cali
ing itself: ssWe, the people, 1t may well
be questioned whether there is to-day ma
jority of the legally qualified voters of any
State, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in ia
vor of disunion. There is reason to believe
that the Union men are the majority in many,
if not in every other one of the so called Sc
ceded States, the contrary has not been de-
monstrated in any one of them. 1t is ventured
to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee,
for the result of an election held in military
camps, where the bayone are all one side OF
the question voted upon, can scarcely be con-
sidered as demonstrating popular sentiment.
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.
1t may be affirmed, without extravaganza, that
the free institutions we enjoy have developed
the powers and improved the condition of
our whole people beyond any example in the
world. Of this we now have striking and
impressive illustration. So large an army as
the Government has now on foot was never
before known, without a soldier in it but who
had taken his place there of his own tree choice.
But more than this, there are many single
regiments whose members, one and another,
possess full practical knowledge OF all the arts,