The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1863-08-28

the :" Union as It was; T." her Senators and Repre-
sentatves would gladly, and without other ques-
ton than as to their l.yalty and the regularity
of their election, be received at Washington. or
course her citizens would be under the same obi
cation to obey all Federal laws before the re-
MISUNDERSTANDING all laws passed while the State
was unrepresented, through the criminal and vol
untary conduct of its own citizens, in the Federal
Congress and any of her citizens who is guilty
OF treason, or who has committed any offence
against any Federal law, would be liable to be
tried, condemned, and punished for his crimes as
he was before treason had attempted to withdraw
that State from the old Union.
But the captious objector who can Seelno vir-
tue in the " Union it was" unless every jndi-
vdua Shareholder has the continued right to hold
his slaves in perpetual bondage, afirms here,
that the Emancipation Proclamation renders
restoration OF the Union as it was, impossible.
We answer that this does not follow by any
means and for two reasons, viz
First, The Proclamation only affects the rela-
tiOuo VI LuC oAaNC " LIS 4hC VI
tie master or the slave to the State are in no
sense atfected by it.
Second, The Proclamation does not in any
way interfere with the right of any State to pass
any laws it chooses in regard to slavery In that
respect, each State stands precisely as it did be
fore the Proclamation was issued.
1t is perfectly plain from this that State sover-
eighty is not in the least assaulted by this Procla
nation. 1t is only the indiriduaL right of the
stakeholder to his slave that is taken away, the
right of the slave to his freedom, that
is bestowed. State sovereignty is no more at
tackled by it than it would be by a Shareholder
who by deed of manumission should libera,e his
own sla yes.
To recur to the supposed case Of North Carroll
na After her repentance and restoration to the
Union, We can imagine the shareholders in that
State still cGnging to their slaves, in spite OF the
Proclamation. If this claim is made in q Iowa
spirit, it will take the form Of suit at law, in
which it will be left foY the court to decide
whether the Proclamation did free the slaves as
it assumes TO. This question will of course be
carried to the highest tribunal in the land, the
Supreme Court of the United States If that
Court decides that the Proclamation was lawfully
issued, and freed the slaves in the insurgent
States, as it assumes to free them, then North
Carolina will be obliged to obey it, and all the
resources of the nation will back the Government
in maintaining it. If the Supreme Court hold
that the Proclamation is nullity, it will be tue
duty of Vermont, and every other loyal State to
obey such decision. And the rights of the
State of North Carolina, or its sovereignty, would
be no more drawn in question in such case than
in any suit between parties in court. The only
question to be decided would be, Was the Proca-
nation lawfully issued II it was the slaves are
free if not, they remain the same as before the
Proclamation was issued. The absolute rights of
the several States are not affected any way by the
decision, but the power of the Executive under
the Constitution will be defined and settled.
This we believe to be plain, simple statement
of the question presented by the Proclamation of
Freedom, stripping it entirely of everything ex-
cept the absolute rights growing out Of it. OF
course, whenever the argument shall be made in
the Supreme Court, every resource of logic, illus
tration, history, all analoges drawn from the usages
of civilized nations, and fair estimate of the ex.
traordinary powers with which the President is
clothed in times of rebellion, would be made to
contribute to the strength of the case on the side
of Freedom. If the Proclamation then and there
stands, it will be established that it was from the