The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1864-06-15
CADIZ OHI0 WEDNESDAY, JUNE l5 1884,


, it. South Carolina, Georgia and Florid
should never again appear as State or il
name in this Confederation. Is their ex
clusion guarantee to them of republican
government?
Has any gentleman asserted in this debat,
that these powers are incompatible with re
publican government? Not one would ven
ture so far. Then | submit that the condi
ton in which Congress may act has not aris
en-. IF Congress may insist upon the thret
fundamental conditions prescribed in thi
bill, in the case of the States resuming thei
relations to the Union, then submit that
by party of reasoning, it ought to insis
upon their incorporation into the constitution
of the State remaining steadfast to the Tn
ion. If they are essential to republicanisn
in the one class of States they are equally ST
in all.
Gentleman do not assert, but they do as
sumo, and this is the basis cftheir whole ar
gument that, because the Federal Govern
ment mnst guarantee republican form Of
government, it may therefore prescribe
what particular form of republican govern
ment State must adopt. This is obvious
ly wrong. Mr.. Madison, in The Federalist
refutes it:
GAS long, therefore, as the existing repub-
lean forms are continued by the States
they are guaranteed by the Federal Consti-
tuition. Whenever the States may choose tc
substitute other republican forms, they
have right to doso, and to claim the FEEDER
al guarantee for the latter. The only re-
striction imposed on them is that they shall
not exchange republican for anti-republican
constitutions; q restriction, which, it is pre-
slnned, will hardly be considered as Il griey-
| ance."
The conclusion, then, to which | am for
ced is that under the language Of this clause
of the Constitution Congress has no author
ity to prescribe the conditions asserted in
this bill, whatever may be the relation of the
seeded States to the Federal Government,
and whatever may be the effect of their Sc
cession upon the constitution and State gov
ernment then existing. | have chosen thus
| far to argue this question on the lower
| grade Of the mere construction of the letter
and the obvious spirit of the Constitution.
| | have done so because the gentleman from
Maryland asserted over and over again that
he found his authority to pass the bill in
the clause of the Constitution which have
cited; and he deduced from that source all
the powers which are claimed to belong to
the Federal Government for the perposes of
this war The question rises, however, far
higher and propose to follow the gentle
man in his discussion of it into other re-
gions.
The gentleman maintains two propositions
which lie at the very basis of his views on
this subject. He has explained them to the
House, and enforced them on other occas-
ions He maintains that, by reason of their
secession, the seceeded States and their citi-
zcns have not not ceased to be citizens and
States of the United States, though inca
pable of exercising political privileges under
the Constitution, but that Congress is char
gcd with high political power by the Con-
stitution to guaranty republican government
in the States, and that this is the proper
time and the proper mode of exercising it. u
This act of revolution on the part of the
States has evoked the relation of the States
to the Federal Government. This theory of
the gentleman is one of them The ratif-
cation of the Constitution by Virginia, es-
tablished the relation between herself and
the Federal Government; it created the link
between her and all the States; it announced
her assumption of the duties, her title to
the rights of the confederating States; it
proclaimed her interest in, her power over,
her obedience to the common agent of all
the States. IF Virginia had never ordained
that ratification she would have have been
an independent State; the Constitution wo' d
have been as perfect, and the union between
the ratifying States would have been as COM
plete as they now are. Virginia repeals that
ordinance of ratification, annuls that bond
of union, breaks that link of confederation.
She repeals but single law, repeals it by |
the action of sovereign convention; leaves
her constitution, her laws, her political and |
social polity untouched. And the gentle
man from Maryland tells us that the effect
of this repeal is not to destroy the vigor of
the law, but is to subvert the State gov
ernment. and to render the citizens inca
pable of exercising political privileges
that the Union remains, but that one party
to it has thereby lost its corporate existence,
and the other has advanced to the control
and government OF it.
Sir, this cannot be. Gentlemen must not
pater in double sense. These acts of Sc
ccssion are either valid or they are invalid -
IF they are invalid they separate the State
from the Union. if they are invalid they are
void, they have no effect the State officers
who act upon them are rebels to the Federal
the States are not destroyed
their constitutions are not abrogated; their
officers are committing illegal acts, for which
they are liable to punishment; the States
have never left the Union, but SO soon as
their officers shall perform their duties or
other officers shall assume their places, will
again perform the duties imposed and enjoy
the privileges conferred by the Federal COM
pact, and this not by virtue of new ratif-
cation of the Constitution, nor a new ad
mission, by the Federal Government, but by
virtue of the original ratification, and the
constant uninterrupted maintenance OF po-
sition in the Federal Union since that
date.
Acts of secession are not invalid to des-
troy the Union, and valid to destroy the
State governmentsand the political privileges
of their citizens. We have heard much of
the two-fold relation which citizens of the
seeded States may hold to the Federal Gov
ernment that they may be at once bellig-
erents and rebellious citizens. | believe
there are some judicial decisions to that eff
feet. Sir, it is impossible The Federal
Government may possibly have the right to
elect in which relation it will deal with them;
it cannot deal with them at once and the
same sine in inconsistent relations. Bellig-
erents being captured are entitled to be trea-
ted as prisoners of war; rebellious citizens
are liable to be hanged. The private prop
erty of beligerents, according to the rules of
modern war, shall not be taken without com
pensation; the property of rebellious citi-
zens is liable to confscation. Belligerents
IRE not amenable to the local criminal law,
nor to the jurisdiction of courts which ad-
minister it; rebellious citizens are, and the
officers are bound to enforce the law, and to
exact the penalty of its infriction. The Sc
,eded States are either in the Union, or out
Of it. If in the Union their constitutions
are untouched, their State governments are
their citizens are entitled to all
political rights, except so far asa they may