Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-10-29
State Rights Not a Hsresv.

81. A vote for Thurman is vote for the
Calhoun heresy of State sovereignty, for
that exploded doctrine is embodied in the
Democratic platform.
- A vote for Thurman is vote against
Andrew JackSOn'S acts and teachings, who
for life time insisted upon and enforced
the absolute supremacy of the National
Government and put down all attempts at
nuiiihcatlOn. secession, or resistance, in
aEy form to Federal laws.''
State Sovereignty does not owe its
origin to Mr.. CALHOUN, and if it is here
sy, then the so-called Republican party,
in their attempts to make the Government
consolidated despotism, are alone ortho-
dox, and are starting the Government in
the path its trainers intended.
AS Colonies distinct and separate
the "Old Thirteen" leagued together to re-
sist the aggression of England. They
were governed by charters, each differing
from the other, some nearly approaching
t. republican, others more despotic, as the
whim or caprice of the King who granted
them dictated, yet, because the English
Parliament assumed to tax the Colonies
without giving them representation in
Parliament, they made common cause, and
in resisting the outrages committed on the
Colonial Government and on the people Of
Massachusetts. they armed for the strife
and fought the war of the Revolution
This exercise of Colonial Rights was the
groundwork of State rights, and was de-
cided long before Mr.. CALHOUN became
known, save as child in his own family
circle. aa-
fhc Colonies fought the war of the reYo-
luton as Colonies, distinct and separate, yet
leagued to resist a common foe, and when
England consented to the separation, the
treaty of peace was not that the United
States might be absolved from allegiance
to the British Crown, but that the prov
inces of Massachusetts, New York, Vir-
ginia, Georgia, North Carolina, South Car
olina. &C., each colony being named in the
treaty, might be free and Independent
States, and free of English control. After
The Revolution the league of States
continued, and under the Articles
OF Confederation, a Congress COM
posed of Representatives of the several
States-the colonies then assuming the
name OF States-continued its existence
with certain specified powers-the States
reser7ing the power to control the action
of their Representatives.
The Articles of Confederation were
found too cumbersome, and iU was sue
ceeded by the present Constitution. In it
the States formed solemn Union-not a
consolidated Government-for their own
protection. For this purpose they parted
with portion of their sovereign power,
but We're careful to part with no more than
was absolutely necessary to effect the OBJ
ject desired. Every power given to Con-
gress-to the President and to the Supreme
Court-were the gift of the States, for dis
tinct and specified purpose. And for fear
the powers thus granted might be con-
strued to include others not specifically
given to the Union, sweeping clause
was added to the Constitution, in these
words:
The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it TO the States, are reserved respec-
lively to the States or to the people,"
No language could be palmer. All the
powers the United States have for a
Government are the gift of the States
ceded to the Federal Government for a
specific and well-defined purpose, and all
the powers inherent in the States, in tt cir
sovereign capacity, not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor by
the compact prohibited to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people"
This great assertion of State Rights in the
Constitution, is now passed over as dead
letter-the fears the founders of the Gov
ernment had of an undue assumption of
power on the part of the Federal Govern
ment, was, during the war, more than real
lied. Without the assertion of the doctrine
OF State Rights in the Constitution the gen.
eral Government would never have been
founded-the Union would have died in
being born, and the States, each forming a
little Republic of its own, would have been
any thing but fraternal in their feelings to
{ ach other.
In the history of American Presidents,
none, except Mr.. JEFFERSON. planted him
self more firmly on the doctrine of State
Rights than ANDREW JACKSON. His cele-
brated veto of the Maysville Road Bill
was made on the ground that Congress had
no right to construct works of internal i'm
within the States, and so far
did he carry the doctrine that it was only
because the greet National Road through
Ohio was in the nature of contract-the
General Government agreeing to pay the
States 3 per cent. of the proceeds of the
5 lies of the public lands, in consideration
Of the State of Ohio foregoing her
right to tax them, and it was out
Of this fund that the National Road
through Ohio was to be built-that he
could be induced to approve of it. In his
veto of the United States Bank Bill, the
same doctrine of State Rights holds a
prominent place, and the Journal, in
charging that General JACKSON was op-
posed to the doctrine, shows that its editor
has read the history of his country, if he
has read it at all, to but little purpose.
Gen. JACKSON was opposed to nullifica-
tion-with him it was not the "rightful
remedy" Therein, and therein only, he
differed with Mr.. CALHOUN. The singular
doctrine thaG State, whenever it be-
lieves law of Congress oppressive, OF
whenever through whim or caprice, it
thinks it detrimental to its interest, to re-
solve that it shall not be enforced within
it's borders, is fallacy that the best
tie Rights advocates III the land utterly
repudiate. 1t is in conflict with the rights
which the States ceded to the General Gov
and which, once ceded, cannct be
resumed without the consent of the other
States, who are equally interested.
The States formed the Union-they gave
it all the powers it has, asd eighty years