New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-04-09


Can any GOOD epsis put u che attempt
for twill only be an attempt to renew
before this nation the doctrine Of State
Sovereignty! We know that the herasies
Of notification and secession were predi-
Gated upon the assumed sovereignty of
the States, and we know that the effort to
carry out these asserted rights as incident
to State sovereignty, deluged our country
with blood. Can anything better be ex-
pected in the future from arraying so
called sovereign State against the national
government? We would seriously advise
the agitators of the exploded heresy to
ponder and beware. The question Of
State sovereignty is NO longer an open
question. 1t forms, in legal parlance,
res adiudicata. The sentiment Of the
nation is that the decision Of the question
is fnality.: 1t cannot again be enter
tanned. The question has been finally
determined both by Intellectual combat
and by arms. 1t was settled by the great
intellectual combat of 1880, in the Con-
gress of the United States, by the conflict
of galaxy of great men, who brought in
to the discussion more exhaustive re-
search, greater knowledge, and more abil-
ity than are possessed by any living men.
Whatever could be said in support of the
doctrine of State sovereignty was
said. All that the powers, the learning,
the eloquence, the tact, the genius
and the pride of Calhoun, McDufie,
Hayne, Hamilton, Poindexter and others
could present, was utterly refuted by the
severe logic of Daniel Webster. James
Madison, the father Of the constitution,
was then living He Endorsed fully the
exposition of Mr.. Webster, and addressed
him letter complimentary of his sound
and mastery elucidation of the constitu-
tpn and the character of the government.
Thus the question was then settled, after
the memorable and gigantic encounter
that continued for many months. But,
said the advocates Of State sovereignty,
there is no settlement of the question, for
when sovereigns disagree there is only the
ultra ratio reg,m, decision by arms. It
is sad reflection that it has been settled
by arms After the fearful strife that did
settle it was over, General Lee, with q
magnanimity which, we regret to say,
very many of his warmest admirers do
not possess, said: cit has now been settled
by the arbitrament of arms that the
States are not sovereigns, that State has
no right to secede."
Shall the subject be taken up again and
begun with where it first began? Surely
not. State sovereignty is dead cock in
the pit. It can never crow again.
What! Shall we have to do over
again what has SO often been done !?
Must we produce the speech of Mr..
Madison in the convention of 1887. where
he said, in reply to Luther Martin, that
"the States never had any of the attri-
butes of sovereignty; that they were
mere political corporations; that if there
were sovereignty anywhere it was in Con-
gress?" Shall we point to the remarks Of
Edmund Randolph, in the same conven-
ton, upon presenting his project of a
constitution, ON which occasion he said
that it was his purpose to restrict the
States as far as possible, leaving them
only a local jurisdiction? Are we called
upon again to show what kind of gov
eminent the men who made it intended to
make, taking their intentions from their
own declarations? Must we reproduce the
we'll defined views of government an
nounced by Alexander Hamilton?
The first in wisdom where they al were wise.
Are we again to exhibit the two letters
of Mr.. Jefferson-one written to Mr..
Monroe, the other to Edward Darlington
found in the second volume Of his cor
respondence)-in which he asserted
broadly the right of Congress to coerce
State? Shall we have to open the consti-
tuition of the United States, and point out
the many things which sovereign"
State is forbidden to do, and to show in
that instrument what is the supreme law
of the land? Must we reproduce history
to show that the so-called sovereign
States were linked together by q rope of
sand under the articles of the old confed-
eration-just precisely such form of
government as it is asserted by the uto-
plan doctrine of State sovereignty was
established by the constitution of
1887? Shall we be required further
to show that just the kind of govern
ment contended for yet by the visionary
advocates of the so-called States rights,
was exhibited by the attitude Of the
States under the government of the old
confederation-a government powerless
for good, and abundantly fruitful of
evil, the contempt and derision of the
world? That seeing its utter worthless
ness, the trainers of the constitution,
under the sanction of the people, formed
a government having the requisite
strength to endure the Weiss tudes of the
world at large, and to Withstand domestic
violence Shall we have again to appeal
to common sense to make plain the fact
that government of petty sovereignties,
with no bond of union, no binding
force anywhere except their own caprice,
is simply impossible; that such govern