Litchfield enquirer., 1868-03-26
A Secession Candidate.

thefolEowing remarkable language:-
 tsA-ciyii war may unfortunately assume such gi- gaftic proportions and involve so large section of the country in it's general meshes as to destroy the federal government, but a can necer destroy the Sales; for they are ute primary soreresgtes, the original dispensdtories 9 po.eer and whatever changes may occur in the form or thelr govern ment, its substantive character is never lost. Our Union is union of separate Saes of seuerdt bod ies politic; and not consolidation in which thelr separate existence is lost in the general body"
 Now the man who wrote the foregoing paraeraph.is secessionist! We do not mean by ''secessionist'' an active partisan of the South in the late war, but one whose. view of the relative powers of the States and the Union. under our Constltu- O, Calhoun in his celebrated Resolutions on the powers of the government, offered in the United States Senate during the NuIlifcation agitation of 1883. We quote the first of those resolutions entire:--
 "ResoIced, That the people of the seceral States composing these United States are united as par ties to a constitutional compact, to which each State acceded dS separate SOcerelgn community, each binding it self by it's own particular ratfca- ton; and that the Unlon of which said compact is the bond, is union bet,oeen use &aes ratifying l.
 Asapneeessary consequence from the foregoing, Mir. Calhoun, in his third reso- lutiot, states his dissent from the following propositions:- -.a--.:
 ssThat the people of these United States, taken collectively as individuals, are HOW, ever have been united on the principle of the social compact and as such are now formed into one nation or people, or that, they have ever been 50 united in any one stage of their political existence; that the people, of the several States composing the Union have not, as members thereof claimed their sover- eighty; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the general government; that they parted with their right of punishing treason through their respective ntate governments; and aas Asey hare not Me ertght of jotdging m he last resort as 70 e eLte1d 0f the pOlcerS reserued aud of consequence of Hose delegdted."
 In what does Mir. Calhoun's first resolu- ton differ from Mir. English's proposition, except that the latter asserts the dogma of State Sovereignty somewhat more strongly? The similarity of language, even. is so greatlas to indicate that the nominee of the Democracy has directly OF indirectly cop jed the great Secessionistl .. Certainly, granting MT. English's premises, there is no avoiaihg MT. Calhoun's conclusions!
 Totally different from the theory of Messrs. Calhoun and English is that of Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, and James Madison. In reply to MT. Calhoun's Resolutions on the powers of the govern ment," ssMr. Webster propounded four counter-resolutions of which the following is the. .first:- :-7se.',.-.. .rt.. .....
 ''That the constitution of the United States is notaleague, a,confederacy, compact between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities; but government proper, founded on iatioiis between itself and individuals. 'G'I
 President Jackson in his memorable proclamation against the Nullifers, says:
 'The constitution of the United States, then forms 3 government, not league; and whether it be fofmed by compact between the States, or in any other niahnef, it's character is the same.F It is asgosernment in which all the peopieare repre- sentbds which operates directlyren the people in- dividuall aot upon tte States . .,.o .
 MT. Madison, in letter to MT. Everett, publishsd iAsthe North American Review, August, 1880, stated his views thus:-
 "It [the Constitution was formed by the States that is ty the people in each of the states in their sovefeign capacity; and was formed, consequently by the same adtIority which formed the State constitutipns.' g; n1i5A12{; ;s1t3o 3e 3IGzr
 Ittwas upon Mir Engiish's theory, that the Union is destrnctible but the States in destructible, that ''our Union is 9 union of separate States; of several. individual bodies poItie." that these States are '"the prinary sogorignties, the original dispen- satcries of power,'', that Gen: Robert E. Lee. MT; Alexander H. Stephens, and oth- CT noted Sontherners acted in 1861! :, <
 They thought it their duty to give their, allegiance to :..the primary sovereignty and original sdispensatory of power rather thanto the subordinate delegated authori- tyItofhe indestructible State, rather than to the sdestructible Union!, fMr, English is right, they were right. We, do not, however, propose to re-argue this old ques- tionsIi 1t hos been tried before higher Court than afny known to the Constitution of ftbeI United Ut d. tbssFo before the God of of Battles Aand the Southern gentlemen who prosecdsed their cause for four awful years, adnlit that the Judgment which D. has gone against them, is conclusive. Nevertheless, the esiltenacity of, the reactionary De- mocracy of Gonnectic1ut, sencouragedby the temporary success of 1867; has reopened the issuenof 1s6fIi The result ought not to be doubtfra.st assoy asigaaisai5 oa iilIao
 Perhaps ssi ought los soi state that it is. h very much doubted Shether Gov. English him self .EEoteat the address in question. Even in such a.fact we can see no excuse. A thirty yyaars'dsesof the electoral privilege has been of little service to, him if he can be brought to subscribe to. and declaim in puBa8s. the heresy Of John C. Calhoun in its grossest form, without knoFingi ' We think the war record of old Connecticut