Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1864-07-29
state Rights.

Stale kkngnts.
The new editor Of the Grass Valley Ma
tional has been for years State Rights man
Of the Calhoun school. he has advocated
the doctrine that all power not granted By
the people 70 the United States Government,
under and by virtue Of the Constitution, re-
mains not with the people, as the Constitu-
ton SAYS, but with the several States. he
processes TO be strict constructionist, and
hence opposes the Government for using
only doubtful powers. He claims also 70 be
a Jeffersonian Democrat, and sets mp before
the ewes Of the people the principles promul-
gated by Thomas Jefferson as the ne Plus
tyro Of everything holy and sublime. In adj
vocacy Of his State Rights Democratic doc
time, he insists that the North commenced
this war upon the South BY passing aPer-
sonaI Liberty bills, forbidding the rendition
Of fugitive slaves 20 their masters, in direct
and open violation Of the Constitution Of the
United States and two Federal laws upon the
subject. He says that twelve Abolition
States /" had passed such Acts prior 70 the
attack upon Fort Sumter; ergo the South
was justified in seeding from the Union, and
in waging war against Northern aggression.
Nov, we take issue with the editor Of the
National, and here proclaim that not one
State in the Union ever enacted any law in
violation OF the Constitution OF the United
States or any law Of Congress upon the sub
ject Of fugitive slaves; and we defy the editor
of the National to produce such a law, or to
find such a one upon the statute books Of any
State in the Union. What the Northern
States did was simply to enact laws deelar-
ing every man who entered their territory to
be freeman, until the contrary was shown,
and to prohibit their citizens, under severe
penalties, from aiding, or assisting, or abet-
ting in any manner or form, in kidnapping
aud carrying out Of the State any man,
whether white or black. Even our own State
-California-passed a similar law under a
Democratic Legislature, which law YET re-
mains on our Statute book
But suppose, for the sake Of the argument,
that such laws were enacted BY the twelve
Abolition States" what thens Do two wrongs
make riehts Does the fact that one State
violated Constitutional provision, and law
on the Federal Statute book, justify secession
by another States Suppose the States OF the
North did encroaeh upon Southern institu-
TORS, was the Government Of the United
Sta rs TO blame for il? Is the war now being
waved by the South war against twelve
Abolition States" to compel them 70 repeal
their fugitive slave laws, or IS II war
against the United States Governments II
II IL against the former, then let the leaders
OF the rebellion so proclaim II II Is
against the Government, then, we ask, what
has the Government done 70 merit such q
war. What act has the Government Of the
United States ever committed against the
people Of the South, or Southern Institutions,
that justi6es this rebellion against its an-
thority
The editor Of the National may deal IN
sophisms as mueh as he plesses, but until
he can answer the foregoing queries satisfac-
toFily as against the Government, be cannot
make any intelligent man believe that the
South IS justifable in waging war against the
Government Of the United States.
The laws which are complained Of were on
the statute books Of the States for years prior
70 the election Of James buchanan to the
Presidency Why were tAey not repealed
during his ofirial term, when nearly al the
s;sates that had such laws were controlled By
ne Democracy Why were no objections
urged against these laws while Buchanan
ocsupisa the Presidential chair The truth
i thst these laws, so bitterly complained Of
now. were merely the presext Of secession.
Thsy were not the caIlse. and the editor Of
he National knows ---lStrada Gazefts-