Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1871-09-16

-
The result OF the Kentucky election
is, we think, q fair indication that
there will be no split In the demo-
cratic party because OF the "new de-
parture." There has been some ex-
cited discussion Of the subject, arising
more from thoughtless indiscretion
and Misunderstanding of the points
In controversy, than from any real
difference Of opinion as to the vitality
of the issues involved. The idea en-
tertained by the opponents Of the So
called departure" seems to have
been that its advocates favor the OBJ
noxious amendments, and propose 10
adopt their centralizing doctrines, as
part of the democratic creed. The
idle disputes rs to whether the amend
ments are de fdcto, or de jure, parts
Of the Federal Constitution, have
brought on. much learned argument
and no little ingenious sophistry but
both being founded upon a misappre- |
hension Of the real situation, are SO
much ammunition thrown away.
Not claiming to be the Representa-
tive of any ring, clique, or party, we
speak only Cor ourself, when we as
sumo that the amendments are clearly
n de fdcto part of the Constitution,
and as clearly not so, de jure; but
whether they he the one or the other,
they are binding upon the country,
until declared void by the Judiciary,
or repealed by the formal action Of
she States. In taking this view Of
the subject, we are conscious OF no
departure from the. genuine demo-
cratic faith, nor does 1t bind US to the
absurd idea that the amendments are
q finality and beyond the reach of
change. In this age Of progress, moth
ing can be more idle than the as
sumption that anything political, or
pertaining to art or science, Is final
ity. Why should the Constitution,
as 1t is, be more Of a finality than the
Constitution, as it was, when it came
from the hands OF the god-like men
who framed 1t? AS sacred as the
original instrument was held to be, it
soon appeared that amendments were
necessary, and the difference between
then and now is that the first amend
ments were made by honest men and
honest means, while the last were
made by dishonest usurpers, through
the agency of fraud and force. How
ridiculous, then, to detach the idea
of finality from the model Constitu-
ton Of 1850, and attach 1t to the pres
ent deformed and infamous offspring
Of fraud and force tyranny.
But, offensive as are the late
amendments to the spirit.of political
Justice and popular liberty, they are
binding upon us all, until declared
null and void by the Supreme Court,
or repealed by the people. Then,
where Is the treason to Democracy, In
the recognition of this fact, and in the
policy of submitting quietly to q
.grIevous wrong until a remedy /,
within our reach?
According to the ideas set forth by
the opponents of the new departure
the men and the party which inflicted
the wrongs of which we complain
should be as much a linality as ill.,,
acts they have perpetrated; still 1t Is
not charged against us, that we VIC
late any democratic theory or practice
by submitting to Radical rule unit
we can overthrowit. The distinction
between the actors and the act-be
tween the binding force Of the amend
ments, and of the enactments in con
formity Herewith, is scarcely percep
tible. Then it should.be as anti-dem
ocratic to submit to the force bill u
10 recognize our enforced obedience T.
the amendments under the sanction
of which that ubiquitous law wa
passed.
We recognize nothing, as finalIty
which the Radicals have done, IN vi
olation of the original Constitution
and the reserved rights of the States
But, knowing that we must get ri
Of that party before we can shake OF
its tyranny-and knowing that tn
only chance for the accomplishment
of either dosidoratuna, rests with tn
Democrats Of the North, we accep
the new departure IA a means {
strengthening their hands, and neve
intended, by that acceptance, to sug
gest, even, the iinality of the amend
ments, In case public sentiment ev,
demands their repeal. Every violl
ton Of the Constitution, every wron
done to the fundamental principles
free government have been the wor
OF the people of the North, the rem
edy Is In their hands, and IL they al
now willing to apply it, the Sout
will act foolish part, should it thro
any obstacle in the way by hype
critical view of its ancient rights,
wire.dmwn distinctions between po
icy and principle, In the midst of
revolution set ON foot by ambitio,
villainy, and propelled by fraud al
force.
The charge that men, entertainii
these views, are disguised allies
Radicallsm, Is an insult prompted
unreasonlng prejudice, aud would