Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1865-12-29

ual within Its JURISDICTION. IL Is Dlndll
. upon each individual citizen, and If he I
sists it by force, he is guilty of crime al
is punished accordingly, anything in Il
e Constitution and laws of his State to the co
trary notwithstanding. But the Stat
themselves are not touched by the laws
the United States, or by the Constitution
t the United States A State cannot be indie
E ed, State cannot be tried, a State cannot
: hung for treason. The individuals in
t State may be SO tried and hung, but Il
State as an organization, as an organic men
Der of the Union still exists, whether its ind
vidual citizens commit treason or not.
: Mr.. Kelly: viii the gentleman fror
; New York Mr.. Raymond yield to me MT
ment for question?
Mr.. Raymond: Certainly.
Mr.. Kelly: desire to ask the gentlema
this question. By virtue of what does
State exist? Is it by virtue of Constitu
ton, and by virtue of its relations to tn
Union? What in does State of the Unio
exist? First by virtue of Constitution
and secondly, by virtue of its practical rela
tions TO the government of the Unite,
States. And further, l would ask, whether
those States acting by conventions of tn
people have not overthrown the Constitu
tiOn which made them parts of the Union
and thereby destroyed or suspended-phras,
it as you will-the practical relations whicl
made them parts of the Union?
Mr.. Raymond l will say, in reply Il
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr
Kelly, that it is not the practical relation,
OF State at any particular moment which
make 1t State or a part of the Union
What makes State part of the Union il
the Constitution of the United States; and
the rebel States have not yet destroyed that
Mr.. Kelly: The question proposed is
whether State does not exist by virtue of a
| Constituencies Constitution-which is a
thing which may be modified or overthrown
! Mr.. Raymond Certainly.
Mr.. Kelly: And whether these rebelliOus
| Constitutions or States have not been over
| thrown?
| Mr. Raymond: A State does not exist bv
virtue of any particular constitution. 1t
| always has a constitution at any specific
| time. a State has certain political relations
| to the Government of the United States but
the fact of those relations being practically
| operative and in actual force at any moment
| does not constitute its relationship to the
Government or its membership of the United
States. Its practical operation is one thing
The fact of its existence as an organized
community-one of the great national COM
munity of States-is quite another thing.
Mr.. Kelly: Let me interrupt the gentle
man one moment longer. | will ask him
whether, if the Constitution be overthrown
or destroyed and its practical relations cease,
there be any State left?
Mr.. Raymond: Why, Sir, if there be no
Constitution of any sort in a state, no law,
nothing but chaos, then that State would no
longer exist as an organization. But that has
not been the case. 1t never is the case in
great communities, for they always have
constitutions and forms of governments 1t
may not be a constitution or form Of Gov
ernment adapted to its relation to the Gov
ernment of the United States, and that would
be an evil to be remedied by the Govern
ment of the United States. That is what
we have been trying to do for the last four
years. The practical relations of the Gov
eminent of the United States were all wrong
and were hostile to that Government They
denied our jurisdiction; they denied that
they were States of the Union, but their de-
NAL did not change the fact, there was never
any time when their organizations as States
were DESTROYED.
A dead State is solecism, a contradiction
of terms, an impossibility. These are, l
cOnfesss, rather metaphysical distinctions,
but did not raise them. Those who assert
that a State is destroyed whenever its consti-
tuition is changed, or whenever its practical
relations with this Government are changed,
must be held responsible for whatever meta
physical niceties may be necessarily involved
in the discussion. l do not know, Sir, that
have made my views on this point clear to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kel-
ly,) who has questioned me upon it, and
am still more doubtful whether, even if they
are Ineligible, he will concur with me as
to their justice. But regard those States Just
as truly within the jurisdiction of the Con-
stitutiOn, and, therefore, just as really and
truly States of the American Union now as
they were before the war. Their practical
relations to the Government of the United
States have been disturbed and we have
been endeavoring through four years of war,
to restore them and make them what they
were before the war. The military, in the
field, has given us the means of doing this.
We car now re-establish the practical rela-
ton of those States to the Government aid
the actual jurisdiction over them, which they |
vainly attempted to throw of, is already re-
conquest over the rebellion; not a conquest
over the States whose authority the rebellion |
had for the time subverted. For these reasons
l think the views submitted by the gentle |
man from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Stevens), |
upon this point, are unsound. Let me next |
cite some of the consequences which it seems |
to me must follow the acceptance of his |
position. If as he asserts, we have been
waging war with an independent power,
with separate nation, | cannot see how
we can talk of treason in connection with
our recent conflict or demand the execution
Of Davis or anybody else as a traitor. Ger
tainly not. If we were at war with any
other foreign Power, we should never talk
Of the treason of those who were opposed to
us in the field. If we were engaged in
war with France, and should take as pri-
soner the Emperor Napoleon, certainly we
could not talk of him as a traitor, or as
liable to execution. think that by adopt
ing any such assumption as that of the hon
)rable gentleman, We surrender the whole
dea of treason and the punishment of
raitors. l think, moreover, that we accept,
virtually and practically, the doctrine of
State sovereignty, the right of State to
withdraw from the Union and to break up
he Union at its own will and pleasure.
10 not see how upon those premises we can
,scape that conclusion. If the Statess that
Engaged in the late rebellion constituted
themselves by these ordinances of secession,
II by any of the acts with which they fol-
owed those ordinances, a separate and indie
,endent power, l do not see how we can
eny the principles on which they professed
o act, or refuse assent to their practical re-
ults. j have heard no clearer, no stronger
tatement of the doctrine of State sovereignty |
$ paramount to the sovereignty of the nation,
han would be involved in such a concession. |
Whether he intends it or not, the gentleman
rom Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) actually
ssents to the extreme doctrines Of the adj
coates of secession. .
Mr.. Niblack l beg to inquire Of the gen.
the theory Of the gentleman
'om Pennsylvania, which he is combating :
-ould not also, if carried to its legitimate
make those who resisted the
Onfederacy in the insurrectionary States
uilty of treason to the Confederacy or to :
nose States? t
Mr.. Raymond: Twas just going to remark
lat another of the consequences of this doc
inc, as it seems to me, would be our ina !
ility TO talk Of loyal men in the South i.
oyal to what Loyal to foreign indie
endent power, as the United States would
ecome under those circumstances Ger
.inly not. Simply disloyal to their own
)vernment, and deserters, or whatever you !
ay choose to call them, from that to &