Oregon Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1870-1872, 1870-07-02
Exl Lain Yourself

The New York World is agitating
itself in the most lively manner over
"Grant's grammar" the President hav-
ing,s in his special message, used the
phrase, ga nation with which the Uni
ted States is at peace" The hyper>
critical World insists that he ought to
use the plural verb "are" instead of
''is." Now we respectfully submit that
this is not question of grammar, but
question Of politics. and that it was
settled by the war; Before the rebel
lion it mi ght have been considered
proper to say "the United States ale
confederacy of sovereign States;" but
now we say "the United States is ma
ton" The very thing that Lee sur.
rendered at Appomattox was the plural
of the verb.
And the Herald intimates very
strongly that that the position aakcn
by many, that the Government is uot
nation, but simply a confederation of
sovereign States; which doctrine We
have always contended was nothing
more or less thap the chief corner stone
! of notification and secession, because
if the States did not surrender their
sovereignty to the people, at the adop>
tion of the Constitution, then the
Southern States did have the right to
go out of the Union whenever they de-
sired. But the Herald is not specific
on the subject. Why does it not state
its own position? Why does it not say
one theory or the other, on subject so
important? Does it hold that we are
still a confederation Of sovereign
States, as contended by Randolph and
other great minds of that day, when
they opposed the adoption of the Com
stitution apd claimed that we ought to
remain in confederated state, and
that if the Constitution was adopted
this would be a consolidated govern
ment, with the entire sovereignty of
the State surrendered to the hole peo-
pie in the aggregate? ? or does it deny
the position taken by those great men,
who lived at the very time the Consti>
tuition was framed, and now insist, in
the face of history, that our form of
government was not changed at the
adoption Of tho Constitution, but that,
now as then, We are confederation of
, independent States, retaining all their
original sovereignty, save and except
, what, by the Constitution, they express
, ly delegated to the whole people F?
This question, according to the state>
ment of the States Rights Democrat,
during the late campaign, being the
vital question pending before the peo>
pie instead Of the eighth resolution,
we should be glad if the Herald would
define its position. But the position
taken by the Post, and endorsed by the
, Oregonian, are as wide from the mark
as that of the Herald. One is as abb
: surd as the other. It's position is, that
, prior to the war, 1t might be said with
propriety, that the government was not
} national one, but was confederation
of sovereign States; thereby admitting
as was claimed by Jeff. Davis, when he
picked up his hat to leave the Capitol
and join the Southern Confederacy,
that the South had right to secede
under the Democratic construction of
the Constitution, and all he asked was
to be let alone. Now we contend that
this position is untenable; it is not true
that the war has changed our form OF
government; and this question of gov
ernment was not settled by the war,
for every man must know, that in re-
public like ours, where the whole pow
er is in the hands of the people, politi>
cal questions are settled only by the
ballot, and not by the sword. Our late
war settled only the question of physf-
cal strength. What, / ask, in the name
of reason, would ali our battles and vic
tories amount to upon the question of
government, if, after they were all over,
a majority of the legal voters of the
United States should decide, by their
ballots, that the doctrine of secession
was correct. [ apprehend your bullets
would be of little use. Alexander H.
Stephens said, and that, too, after the
war was over, that the Southern mind
had undergone no change upon the
question Of the right to secede; they
had only been compelled to yield to an
| ..varpnwarinor forna and that M hnnever