Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-12-14

revolution that will SKATER society TO is very
L
1t may please eertaintbeorists to PROFOUND the
idea that the sovereigntypf State, be il more or
less, can be forfeited for Che rebellion Of amajor
ity Of its Inhabitants against the AUTHORITY Of the
United States But the question instantly arises,
to whom is it to be forfeitedf The idea of for
fixture, whether Of thing or franchise, whether
Of right OF property or of right of distinct po
litical existence. implies superior capable by i
paramount right of receiving and holding what is
forfeited. Who is this superior in relation to the
States of the Union7 Is it the Federal govern
ment, or. in other words, is il the people of the
remaining States in their collective or national
capacityf ~
IL will not help us to an answer to this eues- |
ton refer to the rightful supremacy of the Con
sttutior and laws of the United States. TIE
Constitution and laws of the United States do not
bind the States, but they do bind the individual
inhabitants OF the States, as the su-
preme law that is to govern their
individual conduct. 1t was thought at the time
of the establishment of the Constitution and has
been believed ever since that this distinction was
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 forfeitures and punish
ments to every form of rebellion, resistance or
treason against the Federal authority. Now, IL
we are to go back and reverse all this, if we are
to treat the Federal supremacy applicable to
States in their corporate capacity, and by that
application set up a para mount right capable Of
receiving and holding or suppres-ing the State as
thing forfeited. we must unread the Constitution
aud overturn its Characteristic principle
If we look into the Consutution-the only
bond or instrument that makes US in any respect
nation, or creates national rights-whie We
find that individuals may be judcially punished
by forfeiture for the crime of treason, we do not
find that State can commit that crime or that
Congress can punish it except as a personal
crime. We find, moreover, that the Copstitu-
ton everywhere assumes that the separate po-
litcal existence Of each State is an indestructible
existence. The franchise involved ia that
istence is 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 as grantor or
creator. IL follows therefore that the political
existence known a State can be extinguished
by the people of the United States only by an act
OF mere force; and so the theory of conquering
and holding the Southern States as conquered
States will be obliged to proceed. In other @ords
| il must step out of the Constitution, and, giving
| up the amenabity Of individuals to the laws OF
the United States, it must undertake to extin-
guish the government and political being of a
State, Just as a conqueror extingulshes by force
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
| il But let us follow the subject further. In the
first place let us suppose that during war with
foreign nation we have made a conquest
| of portion of the enemy's territory.
The government of the United States has the
power of making war; but this power was not
! conferred for the purpose of acquiring foreign
territory. Ii was given in order that the rights
of the country its citizens might be INDICATED,
when necessary, by arms. As one of the incl
dents of this power, military possession may be
taken of portion of an enemy's country, which
amounts to conquest But the country so con
quered does not become the property of the
United States until treaty has made il so; and
it 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 indefinitely
asa conquered dependency. II must be treated
as part OF the property of the United States, out
of which new States are to he formed and admit
ted into the Union; for the United States has no
machinery and no powers by which it can indeh-
nately hold and manage dependent and subjuga-
ted provinces. Here, then il one limitation
upon the Federal power of conquest, even when
applied to the dominions of foreign nations; for
and treaty, we must hold it according to our own
institutions aud fundamental laws
Again, we do not, perhaps, need TO remind our
readers that the power to govern what in our
system are technically called territories, has
been the subject of fierce disputes which have
conyulsed the country, and that even the people
of the North are agreed upon its extent and ma
ture, although it is universally admitted, as II
necessarily must be, that this power is applicable
only to acquisitions which have come to the Unit
ed States by the cession of foreign nations or
Indian tribes.
But now let us figure to ourselves that eleven
States. by every just theory of this Union, ex
cepting that of secession, still within its pale
four of them original parties TO the establishment
of the Constitution-are seized as foreign con
quests, and their imm ediate and unconditional
right TO participate in the government of the
Union Is denied. To what part OF the Constitn
ton shall resort for means of holding and
governing them2 We must resort to some part
of that instrument, for it is among our settled
public maxims that the government OF the United
States is not general sovereign, capable OF hold
ing and managing dependent ana conquered
countries as other sovereigns can and do whose
rights, authority and capacities are OF different
nature. We must go TO the Constitution OF oui
country to fnd its power to do anything what
ever Shall we then resort to the war power fol
the means of governing the Southern State:
when we have conquered themf We shall ind
that this power embraces no conquests but those
obtained in foreign wars, and that even these dc
not become the property of the United States
until the possession is confirmed by treaty. And
il we are to resort To the war power. the wal
must become chronic and perpetual; Tor il we are
to govern from that source OF power the source
must beforever open, and all the doc
trineswhich have been asserted Deces
sarv attendants and conditions of
stale of war, aud which now press SC
heavily upon US, must be in perpetual activity
Or. shall we resort to the territorial clause of the
Constitution, and endeavor TO make 1t applicable
to States whose soyereignties we have suppressed
We shall End that the power which il oonfer
extends only TO property which the United States
has acquired from a foreign nation, and tina
| Virginia or Georgia cannot be acquired unit
we have first made the people of those State:
foreign nations, and then compel them to ced'
their country to the United States.
Further. the idea of conquest and subsequent
readmssion into the Union implies the right anC
power to divide or consolidate those States; fo
the power Of a conqueror over the mere politca
status OF a conquered territory is unlimited. Blu
what il the theory of the Union in respect to rep
resentation in the Senate9 BY that theory eact
State is called to be represented bytwo Senators
and it holds this as an absolute right. to which
no conditions are or can be attaehed The theor,
of conquest assumes that this right has been for
feited by rebellion, OF that IL is extinguished b.
the Intervention of u civil war. The precedent
then, will and thus: That when the people o
certain States of contiguous situation and simlla
interests have. in period of passion and excite
ment, undertaken to leave the Union, aud t ha
been necessary to repress by military power tn
combinations they have formed for the purpose