Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-06-13
BOMBAY MORNING, /: JUNE 10, 1870

EUNtAf mUnNlNos e AcNN ~
THE late elections in New York,
and the preparations in Ohio for a
thorough. canvass, indicate a pause,
if not a check, in the career Of Radi-
cal madness, which has cursed n
country during the past ten years.
The issue is steadily forced upon the
country, until the people in every
State. North as well as South, must
decide for or against a great central
government, whose very existence
presupposes the abolition Of all State
sovereignty, and whose continuance
must hinge upon the surrender Of all
State authority, and all individual ac-
cOuntability thereto. The sooner this
issue comes, in open form, the better
for the country; and as the Demo-
cratic party has always been the party
advocating the largest rights OF indl-
viduals and States, and the limitation
OF power in the Federal Government,
it must necessarily be the organiza-
ton best prepared to carry on the po-
liticaI contest that is looming up, like
a dark cloud, between that power, on
the one hand, and the States and
people on the other. No man can
mistake the legislation Of the present
Radical Congress. AS by "recon-
~struction " it hopes to retain power in
the South, 50, by bold and defiant
legislation, it hopes to perpetuate
Radical rule in the Union. MOrtOn's
speech, BrownlOw's letter, and the
late act to enforce the Fifteenth
Amendment, all point to n object
a fOregOne conclusion to give to Con-
gress the control Of State legislation
in all matters, political and judicial.
The freeing of the negro; the sensa-
ton rumOrs in regard to Southern So
ciety; the well known fact that most
Of the men occupying seats in Con-
gress as members from the South
ern States, are 4" representatives of
the South in no sense whatever; and
their consequent desire to prevent a
restoration of such usages and rights
as will give the South its true and
honest representation at the National
Capital, all these but show. what a
deep interest the Radicals have in
a~bolishing State governments and
the accountability Of representatives.
As pure and as great a statesman as
was Mr.. Webster, no man Of the Re
public has contributed as much to the
fatal dogma that ours is a government
Of popular mGjOriGes rather than of
soUereiqa States. The celebrated de-
bate between him and Hayne, in 1928
20, and the still more famous n be-
tween him and Calhoun in 1S3l-'32,
turned upon this very question which
now seems likely to arouse the people
throughout the Union. John Ran
dolph had Just returned from Russia;
he heard both Webster and Calhoun;
and, though no secessiOnist, he pro-
nounced Calhoun's speech in answer
to Webster theablest exposition of the
character of u government he had
ever heard from human lips.
In all his great political efforts,
Webster claims ours to be a gOUeTH-
meat QfHe people and not ofthe States.
He always dwelt upon That clause in
the Constitution which says: the
people of the United States;" and
took the ground which the %sagacious
mind of the great Henry predicted
would be taken by all who desired to
see a strong, central government es-
tabIished at the expense Of the rights
of the States. Webster's speeches
upon this question have been the texts
ofall cOnsOlidatiOnists; while his glow
ing picture of Liberty and Union"
has been 50 often repeated by Sophie
morical declaimers as to create, in the
Northern mind the idea that "Union"
without Liberty" is as desirable as
Liberty" without Union" All adj
NIT that the constitution was ratified
by the States, in their sovereign Ca
pacity; and that it can be amended
only by States. It is therefore, the
creation if not the creature of the
States. InstatingaH this, we state moth
ing new. But, the cOnsolidationists
claim that when that instrument says,
eve, thepeople Of the United States
it means that ours is a government Of
popular majorities," and not Of the
States; and that Congress represents
the "peOple." Hence the persistent
effort to subordinate the ''States' to
the central government. After read
ing the speeches of Calhoun and
Hayne, and the late work Of Mr.. Ste {
phens upon this subject, one may well I
conclude that the argument is ex- S
lausted; but, as rash as it may appear, {
cannot refrain from remarking that [
.hese profound statesmen have omit
one agument which seems to con- t
ain the solution Of this question as in [
nutshell. We have never read Mr.. J
stephens work as thoroughly as we t
,ould wish, but our examination of it e
eads US to believe that, as elaborate q
Is it is, he too, has omitted this illus 0
ration; one so simple and conclusive i
Is to create surprise that it has not 4
)een used before. The New York 0
Tribune has a table showing the popu- r
alton of the States in 1860, and their C
probable population in 1870, based /
lpOn just calculations of increase. i
Counting New Mexico, we now have S
.hirty-eight States, with a population 3
3~9,OOO,OOO. Let Us now use the il s
u~stration TO prove that ours is a gov
eminent Of the States and not of the S
{
Sixteen Of these States have 4
.hirty-four Of the thirty-nine millions 9
y people, and yet they cannot amend 5
he Constitution, because that requires r
he consent or approval of three c