Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1865-06-14

in history, we say, are rare results Of
exceptionahle circum stances, aud never
lasted longer than uutil ueighbor pg,
powerful, numerous peoples arose, or
thought il worth while to compete With
them. Let IL never be forgotten that
little nationaliies are, alike With the
larger, subject 20 all the causes Of ma
tionsl decline. They are st least equally
susceptible 20 most. and evidently much
more 40 10 many, of the Inhu-
ences productive Of national destrue-
ton. They are equally so to internal
revolutions, petty squabbles, jealousies
and rebsllions. Does history prove
otherwise? I challenge su answer.
They are much more subject 10 external
attack, destruction ylsBd absorption.
Does history contradict me Ia this and,
if not, what becomes Of the argument
in favor Of narrow territories or limited
populations? assert without fear
that historical evidence is in- favor of,
nay, proves, the proposition that large
populations and territories are the con-
ditiens of stability and permauenee;
and also those which are commonly co.
incident with the highest development.
What internal Peaca or security did
Great Britain enioy-what immunity
from external violence did it hope for or
expect, until united q How was ir with
Ireland Was she internally euiet.
eontented, prosperous, progressiyei Was
she happily secure from external attack
Was Eux xland, Ireland. or Scotland, Shen
sepatetes ever as easily eircumstanced,
as lcoatented, as progressive OF as k,cure
| in any point Of view as they have been
since the union? Occasional eruptions
there have been amongst them since un7
til they finally coalesGed. Bat what was
the history Of them before 2 Fable tells as
tales, but what is the historical truth
How was France while divided into
| powerful prineipalities q What about
Spain, while similarly situated2 How
about the records Of Italy and it's diFi-
sions? And what is the true reading of
the Otheracise really great and prosper
GUS States Of divided Germany fsiIs not
the large extension and numerous popu-
] lation Of Russia, the reasons of its Sc
eurity and permanenee2 Is not its gov
eminent thus rendered strong against
both internal disturbances from its fac
tious mobiles, or turbulent populations?
| Would any portion of its immense ter
-ritory, so far as human ken can tell, pre-
sent fairer prospects than under its aba
solute but secure dominlops2 Suppose
1 its population somsphat further ed
vanced, and governed By constitutional
/ representatives, would security, stability,
or their accom- panying almost invariable
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES developement
be thereby necessarily endangered2 |
".don't see it in that light Neither do
I see why ethers should. II we bad no
West our country would have been, dis
mem bered during the late disputes or
contest If we had had mo South we
might yet have suffered from internal
quarrels, wars, and perhaps disruption.
The truth is, the central power of large
| country, when good enough-based
on the popular suffrage Of a
Homogeneous population-not to cause
general dissatisfaction, is necessarily
the most powerful, stable aud prosper
GUS of any, because Of the evident fact
that not one section or isolated and dis
/ connected portion can usually hope TO
succeed against the government which
has been derived from all, and is still
supported by hedmajority Such a gov
ernment csn' only exist when thus sup
ported, aud slight differences - even
! momeutous changes from its organizes.
| tion-are commonly easily adjusted or
effected by peaceful elections, successive
discussions, Just discrimination, ana, in
the view of the majority,fair sentiments
Let those who dare, then say nay. Re
belHon against such a government, sup
ported by such a msjority, will yet be
generally acknowledged to betoo serious
and onerous an undertaking TO be feared
as likely to be lightly or frequently at
tempted; whereas, discomfort or mis-
understanding under other forms OF
national authority, can alone eyentuate
in the humiliation Of the governing
power, by revolution, overthrow, or con-
tinual concealed conspfrscies-which in
fahbly engenders despotism. But why
follow the wearisome history of unpopu-
lar governments So far, they certainly
can claim no advantage over OURS, how
ever they are viewed by the .discrim-
mating aud unbiased student OF history.
The absence of reVoluGoa and the
maintenance of orig nal boundaries, II
not their extension, is regarded as de-
teIminTug the propriety, validity and
strength of popular or. repu blican gov
ernments Have goyernmeutslpfs an
opposite order ever succeeded in main.
tanning themselves for heightened Pc
riods without internal convulsions, with.
out revolution, aud without attempted
if not completed-change ofbounderies
And, If mot, why is not the argument
such as il. is--quite as gsed against
etdeys as against ours. You must clearly
understand do not anticipate that any
such argument can sooh be made avaiia-
be against US It's wersh, such as il
{ has, is'good against out. opponents sys,
tenn alone, in modern times. 81,