Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1865-1869, 1865-05-31
RICHMOND WING.
.rn.IRA SMITH, Proprietor.
Relations of the States.

The New York World has been elucidating
the relations Of the States to the Federal
Government and to each other. Although
this subject mas been disposed Of in a great
measure by the results of the war, 1t still
nossesses practical interest. At all events
1t should be occasionally REQUIRED to- IN OF
der that the ieeli:g may be counterac'ed
that regards the preserved Union as
..Upion of force" and not one Of original
consent. The great fact to be always re-
Numbered is that the Constitution declares
that not one Of its provisions shall be
changed, except by the concurrent assent OF
three. fourths of the States.
Thu IVord adverts to the old South Caro-
lima grievance of the tariff, which led to
,uIIi6eation, to show that three-tourthS OF
the States could have ratified an explanatory
amendment declaring the tariff constitution
al and South Carolina would have been
clearly bound by that action. The same
npmber ofStates can now rstify an amendment
abridging some power admittedly reserved
10 the States, and the nOn-ratifying States
ara bound by their action. 1t is therefore
clear that the power which has no superior,
and before which all other powers must give
way. does not reside in the States as sepa-
rate political organizations, but In the States
acting together as the amending power
When any State sets up its sovereignty, and
declares any particular power not in the
Constitution, three-fourths Of the States
may either declare that il is in the Constitu-
tion or admitting that it is not, may put II
there and the refractory State is just as
clearly hound to submit as it is to submit to
the plainest provisions of the instrument
II would seem evident, then, that the alb
solnts and ultimate sovereignty, under our
system. is not in the individual States, whose
movers NAV be abridged without their con-
sent. but in the States associated in the
Union. lust in the same manner that, al
though the people are sovereign, every indi-
yidual among them is subject to authority
and bound 70 obedience, so, although the
States are sovereign, each particular State
is bound to submit to the joint decision oil
the sovereign power.
We suppose that three fourths ofthe States
could dissolve the Union and restore to each
State full sovereignty; or release any parti-
eular State from its Federal obligations and
permit its peaceable withdrawal. But to
.,n,ose a State can retire at its Cwn mere
will is as absurd in policy as it is contrary
TO the Constitution. The fundamental prin-
chile of our Federal system is the perfect
.,palitv of the States. From this it re-
sults that what one State may do, any
State NAV do. II State can withdraw
from the Union, being her own Judge OF the
sufHciency o. the reasons, then any State
NAV retire at pleasure. Now suppose
that Cuba had beenpurchased by the United
States when Mr.. Buchanan, as President
Folks Secretary of State, offered Spain one
hundred millions OF dollars for it. Suppose,
further, that the jealousy Of England, IRON
the proximity of the island to Jamaica, had
led her to make war upon Us, and we had
spept several hundred millions more in its
defence. Then suppose the war ended by
the recognition of our right, Cuba admitted
a. A State into the Union, and two months
thereafter, seeding in the exercise OF pre-
tended sovereignty; and then, as a sovereign
power, making treaty Of cession to England
would this have been according to the Con-
stitutionY If any State may secede without
the consent Of the amending power, then may
any other, and the interests OF the whole
I-piop are at the mercy of any gust Of pas
sion. or any freak of caprice, in particular
State. This is as repugnant to the Constitu-
ton as it would be absurd in practice, for 1t
assumes that each State is bound only by its
own will, while by the Constitution all the
States are bound by the action Of any three
fourths Of their number.