The tri-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1866-1868, 1866-06-30
NO 45

that by the one theory she ceases by
law to be State of the Union, and by
the other l,y crime, without and against
law. But the doctrine is wholly erro-
neous A State once In the Unionmnst
abide in it forever. She can never with
draw from or be expelled from it. A a
different principle would subject the
Union to dissolution at any moment.
1t is, therefore, alike perilous and nn-
sound. Nor do we see that it has any
support in the measures recommended
by the majority of the committee. The
insurrectionary States are by these
measures conceded to be States of the
Union. The proposed constitutional
amendment is to be submitted to them
as well as the other States. In these
respects each is placed on the same
ground Toconsult State not in the
Union on the propriety of adopting a
constitutional amendment to. the gov
ernment of the Union, and which isnec-
essarily to effect those States only conn
prising the Union, would be an absurd-
ity, and to allow such an amendment,
as States in the Union might desire, to
+ be defeated by the votes OF States not
in the Union, would be alike nonseIsi-
cal and unjust. The very measure,
therefore, of submitting to all the States
forming the Union before the insurrec-
ton constitutional amendment makes
the inquiry whether all at this time are
in or out of the Union a vital one. If
they are not, all should not be consult
ed. IF they are, they should be-, and
should be only because they are. The
very fact, therefore, of such a submits
sion comedies that the Southern States
are and never ceased to be States of the
Union. Tested, therefore, either by the
nature of our government or by the
terms of the constitution, the insurrec-
| ton now utterly and happily suppress
| ed, has in no respect changed the rela-
| tions of the States where it prevailed to
| the general government. On the con-
trary, they are to all intents and purpo-
ses as completely States of the Union
| as they ever were, and In further sup
port of this proposition, if it needed any
we confidently appeal to the fact that
the very measure recommended, con-
| stitutional amendment to be submitted
to such States, furnishes such support.
For, looking to and regarding the
rights of the other States, such a. sub-s
mission has no warrant or foundation
except upon the hypothesis that they
are as absolutely V States. 1t can never
be, under any circumstances, a profit
less abstraction" whether, under the
constitution, State is or is not State
of the Union. 1t can never be such an
abstraction whether the people of
| State once in the Union can voluntarily
or by compulsion he freed from the OBJ
legations it enjoins, or be deprived OF
the rights it confers or the protection it
affords A different doctrine neeessal1-
! ly leads to dissolution of the Union.
The constitution suppose that insurrec-
tions may exist in State, and provides
for their suppression by giving Con-
gress the power to provide for calling
out the militia for that purpose. The
power is not to subjugate the State
within whose limits the insurrection
may prevail, and to extinguish 1t as
State of the Union; but to preserve 1t as
such by subduing the rebellions by act
ing on the individual persons engaged
in it, and not on the State at all. The
power is altogether conservative 1t is
to protect State, not. to destroy 1t;
to prevent her being taken out OF the
| Union by individual crime, not IN any
contingency to put her out. The con-
tinuance of the Union of all the States
is necessary to the intended existence OF
|
formed by a constitutional association
of States, and it's integrity depends on
the continuance of the entire associa-
ton. If one State is withdrawn from
| it by any cause, to that extent is the
Union dissolved. Those that remain
may exist as government, but it is not
the very government the constitution
| designs; that consists of all, and its
character is changed and its power is
diminished by the absence of any one.
A different principle leads to disinteg-
ration that must sooner or later result
| in the separation of all and the conse-
quent destruction of the government.
To suppose that a power. to preserve
may, at the option of the body to " hich
it is given, be used to destroy, is prop
osition repugnant to common sense; and
yet as the late insurrection was put
down by means of that power, that
being the only one conferred upon
Congress to that end that proposition
is the one on which alone it can be
pretended the Southern States are not
in the Uuion now as well as at first.
The idea that the war power, as such
has been used, or could have been used,
to extinguish the rebellion is, on the
| Judgment of the undersigned, utterly
without foundation. That power was
given for a different contingency for
the contingency of a conflict with other
governments an International conflict
If it had been thought that power was
to be resorted to suppress a domestic
strife, the words appropriate to that
end would have been used. But so far
from this having been done, in the same
section that confers it an express pro-
vision is inserted to meet the exigency
of a domestic strife or insurreetion.-
Whether in the progress ofthe fort to
suppress an insurlpction, the rights Incl
dent to war as between the United
I States and foreign nations may not
!, arise, is a question which in no way
changes the character of the contest al
between the government and the insur