The weekly union record., 1865-07-08
Principles Of Parties.


for the Presidency. The questions which d.
yided the Federal and Republican parties
from Washington 10 the close Of Madison's
Administration grew out of our foreign rela
tions; commencing with the French Revolu-
,ion and ending with the downfall OF Napo-
leon. These were transient and comparative
y trivial so far as principles were concerned
The alien aud sedition laws which have been
SO much deprecated were really Of but little
importance, as Involving any political princi-
pie and could not have been so wicked as some
have supposed since they were supported and
approved BY Washington. whose patriotism
and purity Of character are beyond all doubt,
and were decided by the Snpreme Court TO be
constitutional. The only thing which survived
was the doctIine Of State Rights as set forth
in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of
'9o and 80. Ii the Convention which formed
The Constitution there was party who con-
tended for plan Identical in principle with
that of the Confederate gorernment so called,
and for IFS efficacy depending mainly on pro
viston, providing that any State refusing to
comply with the acquisitions and ordinances Of
said Government should be coerced to 40 so bg
military force. This was known then, and
has been known ever since, as the State
Rights party. This plan, as whole, was
voted down, hence it is said that the conven
tion voted down the principle of coercion.
But coercion was not voted down as an isolated
proposition, but only as a part of one great
trhole-the rriOie being the proposition voted
down.
But the other and ruling party in tbe Con-
vention adopted the plan of National Gov.
ernment, independent of the States in the ex-
ercise of its functions, Invested with sovereign
ty to the extent of its powers, aud the final
judge Of those powers, and operative on indi.
viduals, as all real Governments ever have
been and ever must be; coercng when coercion
is necessary to maintain and execute the laws
by them enacted. The former or State
Rights plan, relied on coercion of States as
States; the latter or National plan, relied on
coercion Of individuals. The first was rejected,
the last was adopted. The first is now and
ever has been the platform of the State Rights
party, except the coercion of States, which
they very conveniently but very dishonesty
leave out. The essence of the State Rights
plan was this very principle of coercion Of
States as States, without which it would have
been ridiculous for the Government resting
simply upon league or compact has no RENE
dy for neglect or dsobedience but coercion of
its members-those members being States and
not individuals.
ln 119S Kentucky passed her famous Reso-
lutions and sent them to all the other States
for rejection or adoption. Virginia alone re
sponded in favor of those Resolutions, The other
thirteen States repudIating them. Such was
the Judgment passed upon those Resolutions
by the vast majority of the States and the
people thereof at the time. And here they
would have ended had it not been that there
happened TO be particular use for them aris
ing from the condition of the institution of
slavery. The slave power caught them and
have held them up from that time to the late
rebellion IN terrorem over the beads of oil who
dared or were disposed 10 question their claims
or measures. During all this time they have
been 4 standing threat OF dissolution, secession
and war. Mr.. Jefferson was not known TO be
their author for twenty years after they were
written. Mr. Madison declared 10 80 that
they did bot justify notification, and General
Jackson repudiated their principles entirely.
The Southern Confederacy, though in name
and profession founded upon the principles of
those Resolutions, was compelled to ignore
and did ignore their principles, in practice
acting upon directly opposite principles. The
use for them having passed away with the re.
belliou, it would seem that they might well be
suffered to rest, but it appears that the rebel
lion-loving Democratic party still cling TO
State Rights as the sheet anchor of their
hopes. The vexed question Of slavery will
probably soon be forever settled by an amend
ment of the Constitution. Would it not be
the highth Of wisdom 10 settle the question OF
State Rights By au amendment to the Consti-
tuition in like manner? As to the issue of
negro suffrage attempted to be raised it may
be a question for action of the individual
State, but cannot properly enter into the
arena of national politics. As it is presented
by opposition papers it amounts at the most to
tempest in teapot. There is nothing new
or vital in it. Some States have allowed ne
gro suffrage from time immemorial, and in the
early days of the Republic all the States but
Georgia and South Carolina allowed free ne
groes to vote. Let slavery aud State Rights
be disposed OF, and there will be little for the
Democratic party to rally upon.
THE French Emperors Life OF Cesar does
not sell well. OF course the officials and The