Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-09-03
The Rev DsB5rtuFs.

} Ares singing the self-same strainf
@s---u----
The Kew Departure.
From the Jackson CTenn.) Dsmocrat.l
The Trenton Gazette in its issue OF
the 18th inst. urges the Democracy to
accept the New Departure in the fol-
lowing style:
ssThe Democracy is still in the mi
nOTity, and to succeed must obtain re-
Inducements from the opposite party.
The question then to be considered is
how shall we attain that object at the
| least sacrifice Of principle2 To accept
the "NeW Departure - s0-ealled, is
10 sacrifice OF principle. The history
Of the world is history OF depar-
lures"
/ By "'impracticable issues" we pre-
sumo the Gazette means opposition 20
the amendments, the reconstruction
measures, and the Irregularities intro
duced into the judicial system Of Ken
l tucky, for instance. We presume that
all these things are to be accepted
with the same reverential and devoted
feelings with which we secept any
one or all of the articles fthe old Con-
stitutiOn. II this is not conversion
to Radicalism, we should like to be
informed what it is; or, what is the
elementary issues between New De-
parturist thus accepting the amend
ments, and q Radical? For ourselves,
we frankly confess that we can see
none.
We hold that the fundamental prin-
eiples Of Rsdicalism-the first prinei-
pies of political philosOphy-are con-
/ tanned in the amendments. Here
| lies the foundation upon which the
entire supeFstruetuTe has been raised.
| That the amendments were passed in
open violation Of the Constitution, is
mot g debatable question, but stub
born fact. This ,audaciOus disregard
Of Iaw-of the most sacred law-the
organic law Of the land-whereyer
| that stands in the way, is the ground
| principle OF Radiealism. To tear down
| the old government, to erect a cen
| tralized government In Its stead, to
vest the whole power In the National
| Congress, to degrade the free States
into dependent provinces, and to leg
| islate for them as council for a mu-
Hicipality, is the central fact Of Radi-
calism-the central fact Of the Amend
ments; and it is precisely this which
/ the Democracy is now called on to ac-
| cept and approve. And if this is se-
| ceDted, what is not acCepted-Or, If
any one prefers, WHIST is rejected2
| New Departurists may differ from
| Radicals as Radicals differ from one
another, in regard to the application
of principles embraced ia the Amend
ments; but this is a small matter, and
does not imply elementary issues at
all. We are now speaking OF necessa-
ry logical effects. Men who advocate
the New Departure may honestly
think that thre sre great issues Of an
elementary nature between them and
Radiealism. We think otherwise,
and hold thst a true analysis viii
show that we are correct in our judg-
ment. Genuine acceptance Of the
amendments necessarily implies gen
uine acceptance OF all the essentials Of
Radicalism.
Is the doctrine Of State rights to be
surrendered or maintained? We do
not mean the right to secede rom the
Federal Union, but the right OF the
States to regulate their own internal
affairs-the right to declare the quail
fication of voters? That this right
in large sense was understood to ex-
ist by the fathers Of the Republic and
by all our statesmen down to the elec.
ton Of Mr.. Lincoln, we shall not stop
to prove, for it needs no proof. Now,
Radicals hold that the doctrine "of
State sovereignty has perished by the
sword raised in its defense" The
amendments which we are called
upon TO accept, assert the same
thing. Let man examine the Ian
guage Of the courts through our his
tory, down to the election of Mr.. Lin
coin, and he viii see that the sover-
eighty OF the States is an ever recur-
ring maxim. An early declaration Of
the Supreme Court was, that "The
several States are stlll foreign to each
other for all but Federal purposes"
In the case OF Mccullough VS.. Mary
land. the declaration OF the Supreme
Court was: "NO political dreamer
was ever wild enough to think of
breaking down the lines which sepa-
rate the States, and eCnfOunding the
American people into one common |
mass. OF consequence when they act, |
they act ia their States"
The sovereignty Of the States in sn |
matters touching their own internal |
affairs, is woven into our literature, |
and was never called inquestion by the |
statesmen and jurists of our better
days. Being inWrOught into Amer
lean literature, it was a part of the !
vital spirit Of the minds Of our greatest |
and best men; and hence they en- |
balmed it in their writings and made |
it immortal legacy to the posteri- /
ty for whom the fathers put up their |
hOliest prayers. This sovereignty Of /
the American States is not the right /
to seeede or 20 nullify law Of Con |
gress, however heated minds may /
have perverted it to that purpose, but |
il is the right simply to be civily free,
and TO nourish the heaven-bOrn spirit 1
Of liberty, the right Of protection /
against q Capitalization OF power.
The interpolated amendments to /
the Constitution were meant TO
distroy this wholesome doctrine
and practice of the American
system Of government. They have
destroyed lt in part, and If these
malign amendments are accept
ed by the Democracy, the fact, as well
as the theory of State rights has passed
away, never, perhaps to reappear;
and certainly it viii not reappear, till
after the lapse Of many sad and bloody
revolutions. When the strongest
barrier against the encrosehments of
usurpatiOn and tyranny is broken
down, the race to imperial despotism
is soon finished. La one word, the
living question BOw before the Amer
can people is happily put by Mr.. A.
III. Stephens in these pregnant words:
"One OF the great live questions
row, therefore, before the people of
the United States, is, indeed, the con-
question, not whether a
State has a right to seceie, or nUliify
an act Of Congress, but whether q
State has any right which the Federal
may not at its pleasure
set aside"
The problem Of the Republic has
long been before the world. Our
fathers did not fight for a theory,
but for liberty. They were sue
cessful. They secured 10 by a COnstitu-
tion 60 lust and admirable as to extort
praise from the unwilling lips Of those
who resQned over nations, and from
the partisan adherenss Of unjust pow
sr. Shall we tarnish their holy work;
shall we give up the contest for Hber-
ty; shall we see American freedom
perishiDg, and publicly acQuiesce Ia
the atr0cious acts Of violence which
c0nsign her to the t0mb2 After the
great beginning, after the spectacle OF
50 much glory, after the land had (