The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-10-02
Tho Old FIght Refought.

-
Tho Old Flight Refought.
In the midst OF q Presidential canvass it
is difficult to give to arguments upon the
nature OF the United States Government,
| and the meaning and force OF the Constitu-
ton, the calm study which they require.
The public mind Is occupied by the clap
trap OF the stump-speaker and the gushing
| OF the hack-writer. There is no time or OPP
~portunit7 for discussing the problems upon
whose solution, upon whose correct UNDER
standing, the whole future OF this country
depends. Yet three classes OF political lead
ers, after a fashion, continue to impress
their ideas upon the people. The first class,
at the head OF whom is Mr.. Alexander 81.
Stephens, maintain that this is a Federal
Republic, and that the Constitution Is q
compact between the States, each State
Judging for itself whether, the compact is
violated, and having the right to choose Its
own mode and measure Of redress. The Sc.
cond class, amongst whom may he numbered
| Carl Schurz and Horace Greeley, treat the
| united Staten. IA a natlon- of which the Con-
s~titution is the fundamental law, established
by the people for the people OF the land.
These statesmen see with alarm the en-
%croachments Of the legislative branch Of the
Government, and insist upon making the
States independent within the sphere marked
out fol. them by the Constitution. The third
class-men like Morton and his Disciples
contend that a majority Of the Congress can
do what they please, so long as they stop
short OF goading the people into revolution.
Upon the issue Of the struggle between
these three classes OF thinkers hangs the
destiny Of the Republic. The appearance,
therefore, Of a thoughtful, logical and digni-
fled reply to Mr.. Alexander q stephens's
History Of the War will give satisfaction to
even those who differ most from the authors
views.
stConstitutionalist,'" the author OF the
reply in question, entitled "a Review Of
sthe First Volume Of Alexander b. Ste
iphens's War Between the States, F" has under
taken the task because he believes that
''the old right OF secession, or the doctrine Of
'.the Kentucky resolutions, is the living
tissue" in the South; that ''the feeling OF
'"5ectionalism and hostility to the United
Estates Government is nursed with a bitter
smalignity," and that nothing will avail to
set the living n dangerous questions at
rest, but ''to change the will" which scan
'be done only by convincing the (Southern)
"mlnd, by such arguments as will expose
'''the sophlstry so diligently and powerfully
''taught for the last three -quarters OF o cen
i'tury."s sConstitutionalist" is mistaken in
thinking that the Southern people look
forward to a period when secession shall
be possible. Books like that OF Mr..
Stephens lave no other avowed object than
ito establish the fact that the South, In the
opinion OF its leaders, had the constitutional
right to secede. We admit that If a State
had the right to secede in 1860, 1t has the
right to secede, II it can, in 1870. But the
doctrine Of secession is practically dead, the
natural feeling Of hostility to the United
States is dying out, the sold flag" floats
peacefully where it could not wave a year
ago. And the reason is that the South de-
mands, and pleads for, reconciliation and
peace. She meets the North more than half
way, and If the bitterness OF l565-70 ~reyives,
the fault will not lie with the South, but with
the fiendish demagogues who ill the popu-
lar ear with lying stories about this people.
sConstitutionalist" has studied tho constitu-
tional questions under discussion deeply
and broadly, and his arguments will strike
with terrible force those who have been
trained ia the belief that MIR. Calhoun's re-
ply to Webster is unanswerable, and that
the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions are
to be accepted as q final declaration OF the
nature and powers OF the Federal Govern
ment. This has been our doctrine, but We
do not propose to rush into the lists In an
swer to 'Constitutionalist." That must
be left to Mr.. Stephens.
The plan OF "Constitutionalist" is to take
up the statements and arguments of
Mr.. Stephens and Mr.. Calhoun, to point
out their logical Inconsistencies, to ex-
hibit the defects OF their system, and to
show that, admitting Mr.. Stephens's theory
to be right, he is compelled, when he
faces the facts, to essentially modify it. He
argues that the Constitution was not rati-
fled by 'the States as political bodies, but
by the people as distinguished from those