Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1869-07-01
CknfralfHnflAa.

! SeAiL8It16ktons
Upon their custom OF re-afiirming the
Inullifieation and secession resolutions oI
'98, and upon their continual reiteration
Of he indefinsble cry of State Rights.
and upon their war for secession. the
Democratic party have assumed thst
| they are the peculiar defenders of that
kind of government in which each CON-
munity administers its own affairs, as
far as is compatible with the rights OF
the whole, and that the Republican party
is for u centralized and consolidated gov
ernment, in which the powers now ex-
el cised by the local communities shall
bs transferred 10 the central power. But
this A contrary 70 the entire histoEy Of
the country, and to the distinctive ma
lures of the two parties under all their
different names. 7al -s'fi.s ist7
The system of independent govern
ment by each ocaI community was al
ways most diffused in those States which
have been mise steadfast in their oppo-
sition to the Democratic party, both
under its present name aud its previous
name of Republican. In the New Eng
land States the system of government
by local communities existed before the
formation of the States; it formed the
States and exists there In its broadest
di6usien. As we progress 10 the section
Of country which has always had the
strongest tendency 90 the Democratic
party, we find this local administration.
centralized in the counties and in the
State, and the rights of the people alb
sorbed in the rights of the State. The
system which ceutralizes power in the
State Government, is by no means a
'highsform of commune government 1t
is subject to all the dangers which are
ascribed to a centralized Republic.
, We have seen to what q despotie point
this centralized Stats power was carried. :
and how utterly it crushed the indes
pendence of the local communities and
of individuals, in the outbreak OF the
rebellion, when citizens, towns and
counties, unconscious of any rights of
local government, helplessly declared.
that they must go as their State went
In matter involving everything in.
private or public welfare, they declared
themselves the abject subjects of the
ceatral power of the State. This is the
extreme of scentralization. And when
individuals and communities thus abne-i
gate their rights and become subjects of
. central power, the-larger the scope of
the central power the less dangerous it
is to individual liberty; for small despst-
isms are always the worst.
: ALI our history shows this difference
in the nature Of the two parties. In the
North, where the Democratic party in
itsvarieus phases has always been weak
est, commune government is most ex-
tended, individual independence isl
higher, the State is q lesser feature in
the business Ofgovernmsnt, and in the
matter of real enroachments upon iindi-
vidual liberty by the national power
there has always been the most consist
ent resistance In the South, which
naturally drifted into the Democratic
party, the prevailing ideas had but the
alternative of two centralized powers,
one the National Government which it
was always disposed To make absolute
when in its control; the other the State,
which 1t looked upon as q fortress of
resistance to the sNational Government
when il was in the control of the other
party. In all this, there was hardly a
notion of local government or of indi-
vidual Independence. i ..1 -"
All the arbitrary po wefs which grow
out of war were always repugnant to-
the parties which under different names
have opposed the Democratic party
under its different names, while on the
other hand it has always made il q party
policy ~ agitate for war, which always
brings out the arbitrary powers. Il in
vented the practice Of placing embargoes1
on our own commerce, which was most
tyrannical and outrageous exercise of
arbitrary power: and its despotism was
exceeded by its foslishness. IL made the
war of 1872, for party policy, in which it
set up the right of conscription by the
United States Government, and its right
to appoint officers OF the militia when
called into the national service. These
things, when exercised against the
Democratic rebellion, they called CEN
Jefferson, who was q secessionist when
in. the minority, was consoIidationist
in practice when in power. He claimed
for the Executive the Supreme right to
Judge the constitutionally. of its own
acts, and denied any power of the judic-
iary to pronounce upon its legality. He
authorized the seizure of prominent citi-
zens by the military power in the pres
-enee of the courts, and he wanted habeas
corpnssuspended over the whole country
that he might dispatch them by military
power, He said that the Constitution
must besuspended when the publicsa
required. l.,..,Ie,
General. jackson declared Louisiana
his military camp, and the inhabitants
subjected to military law, and he so held
them long after the public danger had
passed. He put writer on trial for
mutiny for. arguing in the press that
military law ought 70 cease since peace
was made and he put q Judge on trial fer
mutiny for issuing writ Of habsas cor
.pus to relieve the other. He shot a party
Of Tennessee militia men, who left the
camp, believing that their term of en-
listment had expired but who recon
sidered the matter and returned to duty.
The Democratic party admired and justi-
fed these acts OF centralized arbi-
trary power. They were according tol
Its nature: fhey formed the chief sle-