The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1863-03-27
WHO ARE THE TRAITORS.
The Question Of Loyalty Discussed.

II is undoubtedly true, that the people oil the
loyal States are divided into at least two polit-
ic;lT parffes. One Of these is iseomPosed Of those
who yield IN unconditional support to the Fed
cral administration; the other of those who are
willing to support the administration only in a
faithful exercise of all its Legitimate powers II
becomes, then, important to decide which OF the
parties named isthe most truly loyal TO the gov
ernment; or rather, (as there can be no degrees
Of loyalty between theul,) which is really loyal
and which really disloyal. tits quite notorious
that the party which insists that the admins
tration should be given an unqualified and un-
questioning support--should be sustained, re-
gardless of what it may do, whether right or
wrong-assumes to bc the only loyal party in
the country, and, of course, that all those who
will not assent to their loose notions respecting
the political duty of the citizen, and the claims
of the government on his allegiance, are there
fore traitors. Ii the people of this country
were living under despotism t.:cre might be
some sort of reason in contending that they owe
and should rcndcrabsolute obedience to their SOW
reign: But they live under republican govern
mcnt, of limited and defined powers and juris-
diction.-They, moreover, arc Its creators,
and it is their creature. Their obedience to it's
commensurate with the powers and jurisdiction
with which they have voluntarily invested it,
and beyond it has, and can have, no just claim
of authority over them. IIesovereignty ofth
peol'le is original and plenary-that Of the gov
ernment they have instituted for their welfare
both State and Nationals derivativc and
partial. The people, therefore, owe the gov
ernments of the States and of the Nation only
so much submission and fealty as is correspon-
dent with that measure of their inherent SOW
ereignty which they have delegated TO those gov
ernments. And here we must take distnc-
ton between Constitutional government, and
the men who undertake to administer it. a
people may be entirely loyal to the political sys-
tenn they have created for their government, and
yet entirely opposed to the action Of those whom
they have appointed to enforce that system. The
agents employed to execute certain powers, un-
der oath, may violate them. The trust is there
by broken. But because those who gave the
powers and rcposed the trust, complain OF the
faiihlessness of their trustees, they surely do
not, therefore, oppose the trust,or the thing en-.
trusted nor can they be fairly accused fer any
such felly.-lIcnce people who censnre their
political rulers for grossly exceeding their del
egated powers, are surely not guilty of III
fidelity TO the government, which is a very
different thing from the administration.
Let us go step further i'll this argumcnt.--
If censuYe of those who abuse political trust,
by exceeding or peryeriing it is not crime, but
u duty, what should be thought Of those who
aid and abet such usurpation? Who, pray,
are dislcyal to the government! They who re-
sist encroachment on the Constitution, or they
who countenance and encourage encroachment
Are they disloyal who hold the private citizen
and the public officer TO the laws of the State
or they who by agreeing to support the latter
in treating the laws with contempt, virtually
incite both the people and their servants to
disregard and overthrow the laws? 1t seems TO
us that while the party which insists only on "A
faithful adherence of the people and their SER
wants to the laws is really loyal, those who
would support an administration in violating
the laws, arc but aiders and abtttors of treason.
We never supposed that tll9 day would ever