The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1869-09-17
MisGellauRnns.
From tile Sunday Recieac, March 2Oh.
MR.. A. H. STEPHENS ON STATE SOVEREIGN
TY,

TY.
Mr.. Alexander Stephens, the Vice Presi
dent OF the lll-fated Southern Confederacy,
is perhaps OF all American public men, the
best qualified fairly to represent and dis
cuss the conflicting theories of State rights
and Federal authority which after politi-
cal struggle of more than a quarter of a
century, were at last brought to decisive
issue on the field of battle 1t is true that
there must always be deficiency of prac-
tical interest in the re-opening on paper of
a controversy so decided; for there is
feeling, in both the readers and the writer's
mind, that it is useless yet again to dispute
with the pen the verdict once recorded by
the sword. Nevertheless, in Justice to a
brave, high-minded, and most unfortunate
people, and in due regard to historical
truth and to the interests of political sci
ence, it is even now worth while to hear
what scholar, a man of deep political
learning, of profound knowledge of consti-
tutional history, of modetate opinions and
temperate spirit, has to say in defense of
principles which, however generally repu-
dated in 1869, were as generally entertain
ed ten years ago, and which the South
deemed worth unfolding with her whole
wealth and her best blood. Mr.. Stephens,
II any one, may be expected to think and
speak fairly and impartially on the subject
lie was more consistent than any Northern
opponent OF secession-nearly all of whom
had, at one time or another, declared in
favor OF it; he is less embittered and exas-
perated than any Southern secessionist.-
He opposed secession from the first on
Southern grounds; he upheld, on the same
grounds, the right and duty of every South
ern citizen to abide by the decision of his
state; he was true to his cause to the last,
yet the only part he took in the war was
that OF the negotiator and peacemaker; he is
neither unpopular with the North or dis
trusted by his own people. The opinions
and arguments of such man are entitled,
Prlor, to respectful attention: when they
are just, so clear, so well-reasoned, SO am
ply supported by authorities of the highest
character and OF every class as we find them
In the volume before us, they cannot but
assist us greatly. in forming true Judgment
upon the nature and merits of the contro-
versy.
The plan of Mr.. Stephens work is sim
pie and somewhat trite, but convenient for
his purpose. 1t is written in the form of
conversations with Northern visitors at his
Georgia residence; each of the three inter
locutors representing and stating, with
great distinctness, and we believe with
perfect fairness, the ideas of one of the
principal Northern parties, and defending
them by authority and reasoning, while
the chief part OF course is played by Mr..
Stephens himself, as the assertor of the de-
1eated doctrine of State sovereignty, to
which subject exclusively the present vol
ume is devoted. The argument is well ar
ranged, with a regard both to historical
order and logical sequence, and the propo-
sltlons which the author undertakes to
maintain are as well and as conclusively
supported as any propositions admitting
OF controversy well can be. Mr.. Stephens
is superior to the common articles of advo-
cacy, or is too confident in his cause to
need them. He never stoops to weaken or
misstate the opposite view; he takes the
strongest points of his antagonists case, as
stated by its most eminent advocates, and
meets them with arguments and facts about
whose relevancy there can seldom be the
shadow of doubt.
The Northern theory of Federal sovereign
ty, as stated by Motley, and reinforced by
quotations from Story and Webster, divides
itself into two alternative propositions The
first is that the States never were sovereign
but derived their very existence and origin
from the Union. The second is that, gran
ting them to have been sovereign under
the first Confederation, their sovereignty
was resigned or taken from them by the
Federal Constitution of 1857. Mr.. Steph-
ems meets these assertions by undertaking
to prove: That the Declaration Of indie
pendence proceeded from the colonies in-
dividually and severally, and asserted their
several independence and sovereignty and
that their sovereign character was constant
ly recognized during the Contederacy, 1776-
1857.
That they did not part with it in 1887;
that some of them expressly reserved it.;
and that it was acknowledged by the fra
mers of the Constitution, and had been re-
cognized by the highest authorities down
to 1860.
That secession was legally competent to
the Southern States, and was morally justi-
fed by the conduct of their Northern con-
federates.