Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1863-10-10
WRiTTNN FOR THE COLUMBIA DEMOCRAT.
State Rights and Reconstruction.

WRirrNS FOR THE Columbia DEMOCRAT.
State Rights and Reconstruction.
These two questions are so intimately
connected that they should be considered
together. 1t is undeniable that States
have certain rights; and their origin and
extent should be understood now, more
than ever, inasmuch as Reconstruction
is proposed OH novel basis.
The principal States comprising this
Uaion were originally Colonies of Great
Britain, formed by grants or charters from
the mother country, wherein their duties
and privileges were expressly Defined
They were dependent only on the mother
country. When these colonies cast off
their allegiance to Grept Britain and be-
came States, they were independent not
only Of The mother country, b~t Of each
other. Such being the case they were
sovereign and independent States, and
as such, possessed of full power. For
the common defence these States formed
a League or Confederacy, of their own
free will, and retained all the rights and
privileges ofindepcndcnt States, save those
delegated to the Confcdcracy.
But it worked badly-another conven.
ton was called, and for more perfect
Union, "the present Govern ment was or
dained, with the present Constitution for
for its guidance and maintainance. This
Constitution had many able enemies, who
maintained that too much power was ia
ken from the States and given to the gen.
eral Government and Patrick Henry
one of Liberty's abest advocates-declar-
ed, that ''it had an awful squirting to-
wards monarchy"
Iu this instrument it was distinctly de-
clared, that "all powers not delegated tt
the General Government are reserved tc
the States respectively" Here, then,
we have the doctrine of Estate rights
distinctly declared and defined, and that
too, in tho very instrument which is the
F basis of the Republic-the Supreme Law
OF the land-and higher than proclama
tions or acts of its sworn executors, sucl
as Presidents, Congresses, or Polltica
Conventions.
There need be no confusion on tn
question of "State Rights" 1t is unde
: niable that they possess aH powers no
delegated TO the general Government, ant
in case OF doubt it is only necessary t.
consult our Chart, the Constitution. Th
illogical and unwarranted extension Of tn
doctrine has led to the present rebellion
and if successful, would end ia anarchy
while denying States their just rights, ha
led to tyranny, and if successful, woul
! end in despotism.
, Seen by the light of the above facts
t what right has President, or Congress
1 to reduce State to the condition of
Territory, as is seriously proposed by til
leading powers? Clcarly y the Constitutio
, does not give them the power, and a.
their authority is derived from that il
strument. 1t declares that the citizens
y our State shall be entitled to all the priv
leges and immunities of the citizens of al
g other State" Such being the case, II
moment law and order are re-establishe
-, in South Carolina she has as indispl
g table right to elect her Governor, Cor
gressmen, and Judges as Massachusetts,
bat if reduced to a territorial conditic
she would be deprived of that right il
asmuch as the President would appo
the Governor and Judges, and the Del
gates in Congress would be without Il
power to vote.
Again, the Constitution declares, tn
o "Congress shall not interfere with the
d mestic institutions of any State" 1t h
!, already done SO by the emancipation ac
=, - or rather an inferior power has done SO,
q the President and this proposed plan Il
oe only ''interleres" further, but blo'S out
a. STATE entirely, In the face of these clal
AZ AZ es no one can maintain that the propos
- plan can be executed cOnStitutiOnaIy.
us If this be so, how can the President,
Cabinet, or Congressmen JarT, much ]