Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-04-03
ArALLAcIous ARerMrNr.

In attempting to controvert the impreg-
nable positions assumed by the National
htelligenoer against the Civil Rights bill.
the New York Ereaiag Post has substantial
ly turned its back upon the principles of its
whole life. An able and strenuous resist
ance to latitudinarian views Of the powers Of
the Federal Government, and maintenance
Of the rights Of the States have been marked
features Of that journal. It support of the
bill under review is based upon a claim for
unlimited power Of the general Government
and reduction Of the STATES TO mere de-
Tendencies As if aware Of this inconsis-
tency in its course, it seeks TO palliate it by
contending that the argument which claims
for the several States authority over the
rights in question, is the same By which
State secession was attempted to be justified.
II says:
The whole argument Of the Iafelligeaoer against
the Civil Rights bill is but secession in disguise.
II is an insdious repetition of the doctrine out Of
which grew tho rebellion. IL the General Gov
eminent hsd nc power Of protecting It's citlZenSJt
has right to their allegiance. III ~ cUnfers On
| them no benefits, il can claim from them no sup
port The doctrine cOntended for by the Inteiii-
| gcRccr would sever the connection between the
Federal Government and those who live under it,
| and prepare the way for another attemptto throw
of the authority Of the Union.
| In this there is neither candor nor logic.
A claim of State sovereignty to the extent Of
controlling, each for itself, its domestic poll
cy touching the rights of their citizens in
their courts, and the security of their per-
sons and property under State lawsuits
| jurisdiction being subject to the limitations
and restraints of the Federal Constitution
is very different from the claim of State
to Withdraw from the Union Of States under
the Constitution, and to declare the latter a
nullity in respect to its citizens. Indeed
they are so widely different that journal
of high character should be ashamed to as
sert that there is any resemblance.
The Posts statement that the argument
which overthrows the Civil Fights bill tends
TO weaken the bonds of Union is unwar-
rented. This, indeed, will be the effect o.
tic Jill lAHtii III liiS CNShb " ITO DSSOihiAie
law, and such is the opinion of the President
who says in his veto message:
The tendency of the bill must be to rcsuscitat'
the spirit Of rebellion, and to arrest the progress
| of those influences which are mere closely draw
| ing around the States, the bonds Of Union ant
| peace.
This result is obvious, because the propo
sed bill works fundamental alteration il
the character of the Government, and tendi
thereby to the promotion of discomfort in thu
minds of that vast majority Of the people o
the country who consider consolidation anC
secession as twin evils.
If the Post does not intend TO desert the
Constitution in this its great day of trial, i
must revise its opinions on this measure
Loose expressions about the general nature
and Office of Governments and the attemp
to derive extraordinary powers from Sc
vague source, cannot be safely permitted
in Government whose powers are prescrlb
ed and limited in a written instrument
When the latter shall be substituted by the
"higher law" there will be few rights " il
this country civil or what not to contend
| about