Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-11-05

iating and advantageous to her. We
are undoubtedly, as the legal phrase is,
/ estopped to deny that We ceased TO De in
| the Union, Il the doctrine Of eStoppel
can apply. a man may, in many cases,
so act and deal as to be estoppsl to deny
what is really false, to allege what is
true, TO clsim a right or set up a title
that really exists.
But it is also 3 principle that estOppels
must be mutual. The North cannot in
sist on the one in question, and at the
same time allege what we are estopped
to ailege, or deny what she insists ire
cannot deny. For then there would be
two inconsistent and s~utsgOnistic estop-
pels, and how could both prevail? Lsshe
not equally estopped to deny that We
went out Of the Union, and to trest Us as
a conquered country? II she insists
that We are bound by our assertion Of the
right to withdraw from the Union, so
that We cannot now claim to be in il,
she must admit that our States are in the
Union and that would be to admit that
all the reconstruction legislation is usur,
patton and that our States are uujustly
denied representation in Congress.
It is quite evident that logic can settle
nothing now. Chop it as you will, and
it remains individually true that the
Southern States did leave the Union,
whether they could or could not rightfuly
do it. And it is certsinly not only dis
advantageous but suicidal for them now
to claim any rights Oh the ground that
they never ceased TO be members Of the
Union. Wal sewers all ties; and the
Supreme Court righttully held that
everybody in the Southern States were
parties to the war waged by their States,
and their property liable to seizure. Il
is idle for the Chief Justice TO say that
the decision gives no c~Ountenance to the
idea that the seeding States did cease to
be in the Union. II it did not by direct
implication decide that, it was a Judicial
villainy. One such decision as it would
have been if it did not go to that length,
would make a Court contemplate.
We have always admitted that our
States we're DO longer in the Union, and
that the Congress Of those that remained
iE it was s lawful Congress. II the Pres
ident did not think so, be ought to have
refused to recognize that Congress as
such. A man is no Statesman that does
not accept the consequences Of his theo-
ries, and ~unhinchingly follow them to
their results. It is q cowardIy Court
that does not do it.
sNe sdmit that Congress has the right
to re-sdmit the Southern States into the
Union or to govern them as Provinces,
as it plesses, and to dictate the terms Of
re-admission. We will not stultify our
selves, by denying its right to exercise
the powers OF conquest over US, so far as
its own patent OF power gives it the
right and power to do so. But we claim
that these rightsOf conquest and govern
ment are dOubly limited. For, first, not
because We have any rights to assert,
personal to Us or our states, but because
the Congress derives all its powers from
the Constitution, and the Supreme Court
has expressly decided that it has not and
cannot lawfully exercise any powers out
side Of that Constitution. or course zee
cannot complain Of that. 1t is a Con-
gress Of the Northern States, and IL then
permit II to exercise powers not given il
by them In the Constitution, zee can not
be heard to object. We are no parties TO
the Constitution We grant no powers
by it. There is no usurpation on the
rights Of OuT States.
Therefore we do bot Insist unon or d.
mand any rights FOR the Southern States.
as in the Union and under the Constitu.
ton. But We do insist that their people
are not without human rights. Those
exist even IN conquered Provinces
under 8 Republic. The United States
have no right to subject Us to g despot.
ism q thousand times worse than
that against which they rebeled
IS Colonies. They have no right
TO substitute the absolute and ar
bitrary will Of q military com
mauder over Us I'm the place OF law.
They have no right to abrogate and de-
stroy all the great safeguards Of human
liberty. These have an existence outside
Of the Constitution. They are older than
it. The despOt has no right TO rule
without law. GOD could have no right
10 rule the world so: His law is not the
arbitrary exercise Of His wiH, but the
dictates Of the Infinite Wisdom,-or, as
Saint THOMAS AoUINAs said, "a thing
is not right because Con wills it: but He
wills it because IL is right" His laws
are immutsble, because they are the
expression Of His nature, Of His perfect
wisdom and love as well as Justice
No humaH despotism can have
It's foundation in right GOD alone
Of right Is deslOtic. A despotism
established by a Republic Is a crime. It
ha5 no right TO govern otherwise than
by just laws, enacted by the proper leg
islAtive power. It cannot rightfully
govern by the arbitrary and often vicious
Will Of n military OF execu i've subordi.
nate; and the government Of the South
ern States to-day is AS infamous as that
Of Poland under the Grand Duke CoN-1
sTANTINB, or the Netherlands under
ALvA. II Congress had established
civil governments over our States, and
governed their people by laws enacted
by ITSELF and administered By Courts of
Justice, we would have had no right tn
complain. But We are enslaved. when
the privilege OF the writ o. HAbeas Cor
pus is denied, and arbitrary arrests and
i-mprisonments are allowed, and Gene
rails interfere with The course Of civil
and the people have none OF the
common rights Of men. Psrdoned, the
are entitled to the rights Of free
men, if not TO those Of citizens and
Chsrta declared that no freeman
should be destroyed or disseized without !
iue process OF law. The men Of Eng !
and who were protected by it did not {
'ote. The great charter said " To no ,
me will we sell, to no "a will we deny, Z
o no n will we delay justice" The
legTo brought TO Englshd from a colony e
q which be was a slave was entitled 10 I
be writ Of Habeas Corpus, but be was h
OF 3 voter. O