Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-05-28

afed precise VI ike tne tories OF Il rs.
T4,s fereed aedience, or the imprlf,o on
ment ~ tbeir persons and seizure Of
their pronertv bv The revolutionary Gov
ernmenti did not make them parties to
its acts. On the col 'trary, they were its
Victims.
AHanec,p the Courts hneJk \ e.
all persons dOmicaed in q seeding State,
Il acted as States. bA + 'OSAs'hsnce2'?
The conclusion does not follow from a
premises. .wThey owe S qN lifted allegi-
ance to the State their person vs. and prop
erty are subject to is laws kfence they
acted az States in organizing tue rebel
lion ! Certainly that does not deserve 70
be called drgamesst. But the Court was
not there to say frankly and msnfully,
1fThese States were sovereign: Their
Withdrawal from the Union was in law
the act Of all their citizens, because It
was the act of each State in its sovereign
capacity. Therefore, all IT'S citizens are
alien enemies.U And yet, with q SIM
gular sunconsciousness Of absurdity
they 90 on to say that they acted as
States claiming to be sovereign over al
persons and property within their limits,
and asserting a right to absoIve their cit
liens nom their allegiance to the Fede-
raj Government There is no claim,
without a party thar makes il, no Hsaer-
| ton Of a right, except by a person OF
corporation asserting it. The States
acted, then; preferred the claim, n
made the assertion. 1t Uds the STATES,
then, that seeded, not part of the people
of each, rebelling. Certainly the Court
did not mean that all the persons domi-
ciled in each State acted as a State, and
preferred the claim to be sovereign, and
Dretended to absolve themselves from
their supreme allegiance because all did
| not, in fact, concur In that action, but
very many opposed it, and continued
loyal
1t is pertinent to enquire what, ac-
eOrding to the logic Of the Court, if all
persons domiciled in the State acted as
a state" and became by that action as
a State" enemies to the Federal Gov
eminent, and their property liable to
capture and confiscation, and they
"none the less enemies because they
were traitors, what. we say, was after
wards the status Of those, so becoming
enemies, who took up arms against their
State, and fought on the Union side?
Did they continue enemies the fiction
prevailing over the fact? .
1t is also pertinent TO deny that, even
on the premises Of the Court, citizens of
the United States, not citizens Of Arkan-
sas, for example, but merely domiciled
therein, were parties to the action Of
the State, even if secession was the &C.
ton of the State, and did sever il from
the Union and make it a foreign and
hostile State as Il did. A citizen Of
Hlineis, domiciied there, was not q
partv to that action, if he did not concur
in it, and if he withdrew forthwith from
the seeding State.
And it is absolutely certain that no
one, whether only dOmiciled or fully a
citizen, not GoneUrring in the action
taken, was a party TO it, by effect
of law, against his will, unless the act
was the act of Sovereign State, sever
ing the State in its entirety and integ
rity, and every one of its citizens as part
of itself, from the Union.
And the Court, uttering the words rs
it were uneonsciously, IS if under some
resistless influence, and mechanically,
says, Several of these States have COM
bined to form a new Confederacy; "
d" their right to do so is now being decided
by wager Of battle" "AHpeTSOHS resid-
ing in these States have cast off their
allegiance and made war on the Gov
eminent, and are traitors" HOW have
they done this, those of them who OPP
posed it, and remained "loyal ?" Ger
tainly not by their iRdiUidUal action.
How then? There is but one answer.
The State did it. She was Sovereign
her act was the act, in law, of all her cit
liens, aud put an end to their supreme
allegiance" against their will, and made
them traitors in spite of their opposition.