Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-02
Mr.. A. HI stephens on state Sow
ereignty.

public men the best qualified falrIy 70
represent and discuss the conflicting
theories of State Rights and Federal
authority which, after a political strug-
gle of more than a quarter Of century.
we're at last brought to decisive issue on
the field of battle. 1t is true that there
must always be a deficiency of practical
interest in the re-opening on paper Of a
controversy so decided; fer there is a
feeling, in both the readers and writer S
mind, that it is useless yet again to dis
pute with the pen the verdict once re-
corded by the sword. Nevertheless, in
lust; to a brave, high-minded, and
mo. unfortunate people, and il due re-
gard to historical truth and to the in
terests of political science, it is even
now worth while to hear what scholar,
a man of deep, political learning, of pro-
found knowledge of CO. hitutiOnal his
tory, of moderate opinions and temper
ate spirits, has to say in defense of prin-
ciples which, however generally re-
audiated in 1869, were generally enter
tained ten years ago, and which the
South Geemed --orth uphOlding with her
whole wealth and her best blood. Mr.
Stephens, if any one, may be expected
to think and speak fairly and impartially
on the subject. He was more consist
ent 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 exasperated
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 Southern 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 negotia-
tor and peacemaker; he is neither un-
popular with the North OF distrusted by
his own people. The opinions and ar
guments of such a man are entitled,
priori, to respectful attention; when
they are so just, so clear. so well-rea-
soned, so amply supported by authorities
of the highest character and of every
class as VIE find them in the volume be-
fore us, they cannot but assist us greatly
in forming a true judgment upon the
nature and merits of the controversy.
The plan of Mr. Stephens work is
simple and somewhat trite, but convent
ent f6r his purpose. 1t is written in the
form Of conversations with Northern
visitors at his Georgia residence each
of the three intsrIocutors representing
and stating, with great distinetness, and
we believe with perfect fairness, the
ideas of one of the principal Northern
parties, and defending them by authority
and reasoning, while the chef part of
course is played by Mr.. Stephens him
self, as the assertor Of the defeated
doctrine of State Sovereignty, to which
subject exclusively the present volume is
devoted. The argument is well arranged,
with a regard both to historical order
and logical sequence, and the PROPOSE
tions which the author undertakes TO
maintain are as well and cOnclusively
supported as any propositions admitting
of controversy well can be. Mr.. Ste
pheEs is superior to the common articles
of advocacy, or is too confident in his
cause TO need them. lie 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 rele-
yancy there can seldom be the shadow of
q doubt.
The Northern theory of Federal Sow
ereiguty as stated by Motley, and rein
forced by quotations from Story and
Webster, divides itself into two alter
native propositions The FIRST is that
the Staues eyer were sovereign, but de-
rived their existence and origin from the
Union. The second is that, granting
them to have been sovereign under the
first Confederation, their sovereignty
was resigned OF taken from them by the
Federal Constitution Of 1897. Mr..
Stephens meets these assertions by IN
dertaking to prove: That the Declare
ton Of Independence proceeded from
the colonies individually and seyerally,
and asserted their several independence
and sovereignty; and that their SOW
ereign character was constantly recog-
nized during the COnfederaey, l776-
1857.
That they did not part with it in 1887;
that some of them expressly reserved
it and that it was acknowledged by the
trainers of the Constitution, and had
been recognized by the highest author
tiles down to 1860.
That secession was legally competent
TO the Southern States, and was morally
justified by the conduct of their North
ern confederates.
The Declaration of Independence was
a joint act; but an act for which the
authority of each colony was sought
and received by its delegates to Con-
gress, and which was done by them in its
name and by Its authority. The Deelara-
ton pronounced the colonies to be
"free and independent States" The
articles of Confederation declared that
each retained its sovereignty, freedom
and independence. The recognition of
Great Britain was given not to the
Union OF Confederaey, but TO the States
and King George III acknowledged the
"United States-namely, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, Bay,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia-to be free, sovereign and inde-
pendent States" And Congress de-
elared that every inhabitant Of any of
the colonies owed allegiance thereto.
To assert, then, that the States were not
sovereign under the COnfederaey is to
contradict not only the plain facts Of
history, but the articles Of confederation
themselves.
The second argument, then, is the
'Ore plausible-to wit, that by the
Oser Union Of 1857 the States sur