Idaho semi-weekly world. (Idaho City, Boise County, Idaho Territory) 1867-1868, 1867-10-02
MORE RADICAL INCONSISTENCY.

No faction or party ever betrayed more glar
ing inconsistency than has the Radical party
upon che doctrine Of State Sovereignty. From
the inception Of the movement which led to
the organization Of the Republican party, in
1854. their. chief stock in trade, save alone the
negro hobby, was the ultra Interpretation Of
the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ol
1889. Their re-affirmation of the EXTREMIST
Interpretation of the State Sovereignty doc
trine was one of the chief planks of their plat
form of 1856, and again of the platform OF
1850, upon which Lincoln was nominated.
But when, in the full swing of Executive and
Congressional supremacy, they controlled the
States, the Radicals turned upon their own
State Sovereignty record, denounced that doc
trine as reasonable heresy," and declared
that paramount allegiance was due from the
citizen to the National Government and that
the States were but creatures Of the Union.
This is the general doctrine of the Radical
party still, but we find that whenever the OPP
portunity is presented, by which they can, in
any particular State, or upon any particular
question, seize upon authority not justly or
rightfully belonging to them, for their party's
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, the Radicals yet continue to
re-assert the most extreme State Sovereignty
views, and shape their actions agreeably to
such views. In support of this we quote the
following from late exchanges:
r. a Il
may be remembered, not long ago declared the
test oath of the Missouri Radicals unconstitu-
ti0nal. But the Supreme Court of Missouri
the other day in the Blair Ridgley
case, proceeds that on the broad ground that
while Federal Sovereignty is limited and de-
rived, State Sovereignty is original and inhe-
rent, being limited only in regard to powers
explicitly surrendered. South Carolina never
spoke more strongly on the point than these
Radical Judges of Missouri, as may be inferred
from utterances like this: y
THE States, when they entered the Union. re-
tanned all their original power and sovereignty,
cept such expressly surrendered to the Gen.
eral Government or they were expressly prohibited
from exercising. Subject to these exceptions they
are Independent commonwealth, and the exclusive
judges of what is just and proper for their well
fare, happiness and safety
Yet further these opponents of Missouri ideas
assert:
'Prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution
the respective States possessed unlimited and
stricted sovereignty, and retained the af-
terward except far they granted certain powers
to the General Government or prohibited themselves
from doing certain acts. Every State reserved to
itself the exclusive right of regulating it's own inter-
nal government and police
"Independent commemorative, almost "un-
limited and unrestricted sovereignty" "exclu-
sive judges of what is just and proper for their
own safety" exclusive right of regulating
their own government and police" Why,
these phrases, true though they be, sound so
oddly, coming from Radical lips that they form
a very suggestive Indication of difficulty in the
way of the consolidation policy.
True, this exposition of the doctrine of State
Sovereignty is leveled at the Supreme Court of
The United States, and is pushed to degree
which cannot be sustained. It is a case in
which the Judges of State declare their iu.
risdiction superior to that of the Court of the
nation, precisely as was done by the Radical
Judges of Wisconsin in the days of the Fugi-
tive Slave Law. But the whole argument ap-
plies with equal cOgency to controversy be-
tween State and Congress, with negro suf-
rage as the point in dispute. When, there
fore, Mr.. Sumner brings up his scheme for
egisIating negro suffrage into all the States, |
ct us not forget that the Radical Judges of
5he Supreme Court of Missouri has proclaimed
these States Independent Commonwealth, /"
each possessing /" the exclusive right of regu-
ating its own internal government. . The]
principle, thus applied, is old as the Union,
ind needed not the indorsation of the Missouri |
Bench. But its reaffirmation in this connec-
ion is reasonable, as an answer from Radical
Ups to the most aggressive of Radical de-
hands.