Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-12-11
The Difficulties Before Is.

OF local self government which. by the inevitable
theory Of the Union belongs 20 each Of the
States. and which We maintain cannot be forfeit
ed under aus rational application of the suprem
acy that belongs t. the Constitution and laws OF
the United States We have invited the attention
OF readers to this subject. hecanse we are
satisfied that the entire theory Of conquest. as
applied 10 the States which are the theatre of an
armed iBsnrrectIon. will result, IL adopted. in
einbaTrassments and difficulties from which We
cannot extricate ourselves We believe that
have assigned some good reasons for this opinion.
But this pian Of conqEering the Southern States,
n II they were fOreign nations and holding them
I for = longer shorter perOd countries con
/ quered from an enemy, has other consequences
/ which demand the most serious attention of the
American people. We have TO consider whether
il can be carried ont without Destroying for our
I selves well as for the people Of the Southern
/ States, the Constitution for the sake Of which We
/ have fought We do not now refer 10 the
dangers arising from the institution OF armies OF
sufficient magnitude to bring about such result,
or TO he invasons OF personal liberty that We
4 know, from the experience we have already had,
must attend such enterprise. These are topics
worthy of our gravest reflection: but We allude
now the disregard and overthrow of those
features of our political system without which it
cannot exist. and the removal o. which will be Of
7 itself instantaneous revelation of the most
radical and far reaching character.
One Of the most important and essential fea-
I tures OF the Union consists in the fact that the
people of each State in respect to all matters of
government not committed by the Federal Con
stitution to the jurisdiction of Congress. are
sovereign people Each State-usng the term
as standing for the people Of the State in their
collected political ca Dacty-isa sovereign power
We may have our individual opinions on che ex
pediency or inexpedency Of this condition of
things; we may value NAV value less
what are called Slater tights; We may differ about
their extent; or may think that the natonal
sovereignty is endangered by the State sover
eighties, or may entertain the opposite opinion
But no sane man will undertake to deny that, as
"A matter Of right. and as a matter of fact the
people of his State, and of any other. exist
"a body polite possessed of a political sover
eighty, whether he holds that the Constitution
of the United States is compact between such
separate soveregnties, or whether he regards il
as a national government formed by the grant of
certain political powers proceeding from the PEG
pie inhabting each of the States Whatever we
may think on these subjects it is plain that our
political system, in respect TO the principle of
State sovereignty, can never be changed without
} a revolution that will shatter society to its very
foundations.
1t may please certain theorists 10 PROFOUND the
idea that the sovereignty OF State, be it more or
less can be forfeited for the rebellion Of major
ity of its inhabitants against the authority OF the
United States. Bat the question instantly arises,
to whom is il TO be forfeited? The idea of a for
fixture, whether of thing or franchise, whether
of right OF property or Of right OF distinct pO-
, litical existence, implies n superior capable by
paramount right of receiving and holding what is
forfeited. Who is this superior in relation TO the
, States of the Uniong Is It the Federal govern.
ment, or, in other words is il the people OF the
remaining States in their collective or national
capacity
r II will not help us to an answer to this qucs-
ton 10 refer to the rightfu supremacy of the Con.
stituiior and laws Of the United States. TIE
Constitution aud laws of the United States do not
bind the States, but they do bind the individual
inhabitants OF the States, the SUI
| preme law that IA TO govern their
individual conduct Ii was thought at the time
of the establishment of the Constitution and has
5 been believed ever since that this distinction was
e of great moment; and accordingly the whole OPP
Grafton OF the supremacy OF the national Consti-
tuition and laws has been secured and worked out
By applying individual forfetures and punish
ments TO every form OF rebellion, resistance or
S treason against the Federal authority. Now, if
We are 10 90 back and reverse all this, il we are
. to treat the Federal supremacy applicable TO
, States in their corporate capacity, and by that
0 application set up a paramount right capable OF
receiving and holding suppressing the State rs
a thing forfeited. must unread the Constitution
: and oyerturn It's characteristic principle.
If we look into tire ConsututOn-tbe only
bond or instrument that makes Us in any respect
: nation, or creates national rights-while we
y find that individuals may be judicially punished
by forfeiture tor the crime of treason, we DO not
find that State commit that crime that
Congress can punish it except as n personal
! crime We find, moreover, that the COustitu
ton everywhere assumes that the separate po-
litcal existence of each State is an ndestructibe
A
istence j. not derived by any grant from the PEG
pie Of the United States and is therefore not ca
pable of being resumed or extinguiShed by them
by reason OF any paramount right SrantOr or
! creator. Ii follows therefore that the political
t existence known State can be extnguished
bv the people of the United States only by an act
OF mere force; and 50 the theory of cOnquerng
and holding the Southern States ~ conquered
1 States will be Obliged to proceed. In other words
il must step out of the Constitution, and giving
! up the amenablity of individuals To the laws OF
, the United States it must undertake to extin-
cuish the government and political being of a
State just as a conqueror extinguishes by force
T the government and political being OF foreign
territory which he has wrested from his enemy.
can this be done without total overthrow of the
Constitution To ask the question is TO answer
: 1t But let Us follow the subject further In the
F, first place let Us suppose that during wal with
a foreign nation have made conquest
of portion of the enemy's territory
! The government OF the United States has the
power OF making var; bat this power not
conferred for the purpose of acquiring foreign
territory IL given in order that the rights
: of the country its citizens might be vindcated
o when necessary. by As of the Incl
r. dents OF this power, military possession may be
: taken OF portion of AN enemy's country, which
y amounts to conquest But the country so con
1 quercd does not become the property of the
: United States until a treaty has made il so; and
il has always been held by all our statesmen and
parties that when perfect title is thus obtained
: by treaty, at the conclusion of foreign war, the
: country so acquired cannot be held inde6nte '
asa conquered dependency. II must be treated
As part OF the property of the United States, out
; OF which new States 20 be formed aud admit
( ted into the Union; for the United States has no
i machinery and powers by which it inde6-
: nately hold and manage dependent and Subjuga-
: ted provinces Here then is one Limitation
upon the Federal power of conquest, even when
applied to the dominions of foreign nations for
when We acquire foreign territory by conquest
and treaty, must hold it according 10 our own
: Institutions and fundamental laws.
!" Again, Fe do not, perhaps, need TO reminl our
readers that the power 10 govern what in ouI
Il system are technic lily called territories, has
been the subject of fierce disputes which have
convulsed the country, and that even the people