The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1865-07-13
Modern "ssCpuDIicanS'.-Old
SCs;lHs ..'E'ncing.,

SSEAOO2 SsESS.
Every persOn who has carefully obsery>
ed the political opinions of the so-caled
Republican" or "Union" leaders. during
the past four years, will have seen the
close resemblance which exists between
them and the adherents to the royal cause
when the thirteen United States of Amer
lea were struggling for their iudepcn-
dence.
Every feature which distinguished a
republican form of government from Il
monarchy was then ridiculed and con-
demncd by those who were popularity
known as Tories; and every feature which
distinguishes monarchy from govern
ment by the people, to-day, is approved
and promoted by those who, under the
name of republicans, now claim to be the
especial friends of the government.
The political maxim, The government
is made for the benefit of the people. not
the people for the pleasure OF the govern
ment," was then, as it is now, condemned
as radically wrong.
That governments are merely the
agents Of the people, was then, as it is
now, pronounced dangerous heresy.
That governments owe obedience to the
legally expressed will Of the people was
then, as it is now, pronounced reasonable;
while silent obedience to all the meas
urcs of the government, at al times, was
pronounced at that time, as it is at the
present, the highest and holicst law.
That the government was above al law
either fundamental or statutorv tho, os
now was practically cone;dcreI unoucss
tionablc; and those who denied or doubt
cd, were then. rs ,hcy are now, denounced
as dislovei and criminal.
Lest, hut not least, the government in
stead of the people, was declared to be the
sovereign, to whom every person within
the jurisdiction of the government, it was
said, owed at al times, an implicit and
unalloyed allegiance; while the unrestrain-
Ell will Of the government was pronounced
the supreme law, and whoever questioned
that extreme monarchical tenet was de-
nounced. as he is now denounced. as a rebel
and n traitor.
Prominent among the conflicting senti-
mcnts of the day, as it still is. even in
America, was the tenure of membership
in the State, or citizenship-in other
words, the basis of a mans right to par
ticipate in pubic affairs, as a member Of
the Society or Commonw wcalth.
The different colonists, following the
precepts learned from the fathers, insisted
that membership in the society or body
polite should be controlled by the society
itself, and generally that it should accom-
pany taxatiOn-that there should be no
taxation without representation. On the
other hand, the loyal colonlsts, in harmony
with the government, sat home," denied
instanced the case of the inhabitants of
Manchester, one of the heaviest manufac-
turing towns in England, the greater
number or whose inhabitants were entire
ly disposesscd of the right of suffrage At
the same time, while they claimed that all
were subjects, they insisted on the right of
the government to determine who should
and who should not be citizens
In like manner the peculiar loyalists of
to-day assume that the government, instead
of the body polite or commonwealth, shall
control the right of suffrage. They admit
the existence Of the several States of the
Union, as they were in 1860 the interven-
ing period being, by them, considered an
interrcgnum-and they acknowledge, as
far us suits their purposes, both the Con
stitution for the United States and those
for the several States; yet in the face of
the provisions of all these, they assume
that-not the Congress of the United
States nor even the federal government, as
such, but-one department of that gov
ernment, "the President OF the United
States" possesses the sole right whenever
he shall be pleased to exercise that right,
to grant to those who are not members of
State, or to withdraw from those who
are recognized and loyal members Of a
State, their right to participate in its
business agreeably to its own laws. All
this, and more, we are told, can be done
by "the President of the United States y
whenever he will, and either with or with
out nominal reason-indeed it can be
done, they say, without the authority of
any law or the precept of any court, and
in open and undoubted defiance Of both.
1t was said, some years since, by one of
those who professcd to know, and who did
know what was Whigism and what was To-
ryism. that
"a share in the sovereignty of the State,
which is exercised by the citizens at large,
in voting at elections, is one OF the most
important rights of the subject; and in
republic ought to stand foremost in the
estimation of the law. 1t Is that right by
which we exist as free people, and it
certainly, therefore, will never be admit
ted, that less ceremony ought to be used