The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-02-20
Character Of Our oovernment.


~ Reading Matter on all Four Pages.
Character Of Our Government. s ul
The doctrine of State Rights, as 1t has been
understood and expounded by the leaders of
the Democratic party, involves most singular
inconsistencies. 1t becomes, in fact, the doc
trine of State Sovereignty, making the indi-
vidual States superior to the combined power
of the whole. l h"2D sDi'5' q .la'sz3 2
President Jackson ignored this doctrine of
Calhoun in 1882, and not in theory only,
put in practise and in fact, insisted that the
Union must and shall be preserved. The
Democrats insist that the Federal Union is a
mere compact between the States, and there
fore that any State, at its own option, has the
right to withdraw from the compact and to as
sumo its asserted normal Independence. ID =
The party opposed to this disintegrating doc
trine assert that the federal Union is an agree
ment, not of the States, but an ordination of
the people, in their sovereign power, and that
this ''bond Of union" frtmed by them was In
tended to be perpetual, that no State or num-
Der of States, as such, have power-short of
revolution-to break it, and that, as no State
can enter the bond without the consent of the
whole, obtained through Congress, so no State
once admitted can absolve itself from that re-
latioE except by the consent of the whole. 1t
Is on this ground that the Southern revolt
was resisted and put down. n73 p..r
Before the war the view of State Rights or
Of State Sovereignty TO which we have re-
ferred, was the prevailing view of the Dem
ocratic party. Mr.. Buchanan went nearly to
this extent. True, he denied the constitu-
tional right of state to secede, but then he
denied the constitutional right Of the federal
government to prevent or put pown secession,
thus making of our '.bond of union" mere
rope of sand. 1t was ON this doctrine that the
rebellion was virtual ly justified by all the Dem
ocratic Conventions of the North. They new
er enunciated single positive, unqualified de-
NAL of the right of secession. They may
have regretted the course of the South, they
may have talked lugubriously Of our "wayward
sisters" they may have complained of their in
gratitude in cutting away from their friends Of
the North, but in no case, that we can now
call to minl, did they put forth a single ear
nest, emphatic protest against the doctrine of
secession, denying the right of the thing, and
asserting that State had no power to absolve
itself from the federal government Uni
formly the doctrine enunciated by:a Southern
Senator found favor in Democratic councils
that allegiance was due to the state, but no al
A. ga L.
cause no allegiance is worthy of the name
which can be overruled by superior authority.
| Since the results of the war have been
known and the attempts to establish riva.
| govenmont within the old Union have so sig
nally failed, we find the Democratic party con-
verted to the most ultra federal doctrines, and
the magnates Of the party, with great deal
of unanimity, now take the ground not only
that State cannot absolve itself from its al
legiance to the Union, but that it cannot even
disturb its own relations SO far as to work a
forfeiture of any of its rights. Had the
South succeeded in its attempt to break up
the Union no such utterance would have been
heard from any Democratic source. ,r.
Since the South has failed to ruin the coun-
try, the Democratic expounders of constitu-
tional law are disposed to give them chance
to rule it again as they had done for half a
century before the rebellion. To this end il
is insisted that they SHALL after voluntarily alb
dicatlng their seats in the national councils,
and following that abdication by fearful and
bloody war, not only be allowed to resume
their old-timel positions, but even the right to
do so is contended for, and the denial or re-
sistance of such a preposterous claim is brand
ed as an act of despotism and unwarranted
usurpation.
But while such utter federalism is charac
terizing the Democratic party, occasionally
there wilb. crop out a fact which shows thai
the old doctrine of State sovereignty is no
abandoned ;--only, we suppose, held in abey
ance until such time as its practical asser
ton will promise better results for that part,
than the rebellion has yielded. A few day
since a colloquy arose in the q. s. Senate be
tween Senator Clark of N. H., and Senate
Davis of Kentucky. Mr.. Davis is Demo
Graf, sound in all respects, and his definition
is not to be disputed as the authoritative def
milton of his party. In that colloquy Mr.. Da
Government is a political partnership. N,
persons but the partners who formed the part
nership are parties to the Government. Her
is a Government formed by the white maj
alone. The negro was excluded from tn
formation of our political copartnership; b
had nothing to do with it; be had nothing t
60 in its formation. .ll i. .t..... -,
Subsequently, in reply to question, M
Davis said il. swas close corporation" int
| which only particular class Of persons coul
be admitted as additional partners; Europe
ans but not Africans or Asiatics.
In this article we shall not stop to conside
the absurdity that an Egyptian, a Carthagen
an, Tripolipolitan or Persian is not as goot
or as good material of which to build reput
Lie, as Neapolitan, a, Portugee or even a
Irishman, but only wish to direct attentio
to the new illustration of the character of tn
Government accordidg to the very latest Dem
ocratic definition. 1t is a partnership merely
Of course, it not being limited to any pal
ticular term of time, it may be dissolved q
the option of any one of the partners. Thi
is the case with all business partnerships, nc
otherwise definitely provided for. Asa
Such, then, is our Government; mel
partnership, from which each party has powe
| at any moment, to withdraw and yet we ar
told by the same Democratic authority tha
having withdrawn, solemnly and formally, an
backed that withdrawal by fierce and blood