New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-05-11
"sTATE SOVEREIGNTY, ,,
LECTURE BE. snre.

Last evening Mr.. B. F. Sage delivered,
in Lyceum Hail. the fourth of the series of
lectures of the Louisiana Historical Society,
upon the subject of Sovereignty of the
States.
The members of the Historical Society
having taken their places on the platform,
Mr.. Sage was introduced by DR.. b. M.
Palmer, who concluded the eermony by say
ing that the present lecture would conclude
the series.
The lecturer took the ground that if
'thOse who had devasted our country"
were permitted to write our history, Jack
Cade, Wat Tyler, Benedict Arnold and
such characters would take their places side
by side with such men as StOnewall Jack
son, Bishop Polk and General Lee. Might
makes right. Treason never prospers, be-
cause, if it prospers, it is not treason. From
these premises, he concluded we must write
our own history.
His illusions to Puritanism were cast on
the side that it was absOlutism. Even now,
"infamy began to nib her slanderous
pen, hence no time was to be lost in making
this history. He said fit explanations
were to be made so that the world might
know the history of the "late unpleasant
ness" The world was to be impressed with
our facts and our deductions, and not those
Of our enemies. Our cause, which was self
government, should be vindicated. On the
topic, "Is free government failurep' he
seemed to think that, Notwithstanding
present appearances, it was not. The youth
of the country, to preserve selfgovern-
ment, should be trained to govern them
selves instead of being governed by laws.
Leading into the wide ground of selfgOv
ernment, he said neither the present de-
mOraization nor federal usurpation was
proof of the ineapacity of the people for
self-government. Federal usurpatiOns were
crimes.
The lecture was not suited to the popular
ear, being divided into so many "heads"
that a first hearer could not keep the run
of them. He fell in headlong to the groove
of State sovereignty, and described the
Union as an association of the States"
and took up the CalhOunistic dOctrin es,
followed with all their sOphistries. He
went largely into the definition of bus mess,
of the vice of lectures called "deep," and
hence lost sight of his subject in a series of
explanations, interspersed with many a
"hence" and consequently" of which it
was almost impossible to retain a connected
impression. He always reached the gro und
of ''this aggregation Of States" and to sup
pert his views and the old dead and gone
doctrine, brought up the line in the cOnsti-
tuition of New York which recognize d no
authority but that acknowledged by the
citizens. "Does this" said he, ''lOok like
recognition of federal authority ?" The
word federal was traced from its Latin root
all the way down the ages through Vattel
and writers on kindred subjects down to
the United States. This country was "a re-
public of republics; if a State could not
leave the compact (secede) it was no longer
a State, but province"
Upon this subject his lecture was simple
compilation of all the arguments in favor
of the great American heresy called the
sovereignty of the States, which he did not
seem to think the war had settled forever
and ever. He did not believe these were
dead issues. 1t. was an absurdity, like a
man swallowing himself-like a kitten
beating its own tail in race-to say that
the States ''shOuld be subject to their own
delegated authority" he meant subject to
Congress 1t was also an absurdity to say
that an individual in the States was sOve-
reign; he was a subject of the States. He
went back to the original States of England
Cthe very names of which are now forgot
ten). In vain the hearers listened for any
thing else but all the history, the argu-
ments, the statistics in regard to State
sovereignty. ''The usurpatOry and AFRO
CANT thing at Washington" was mere
agency.
In alluding to the Lincoln expression that
" the States were merely counties, he went
into the dismals on the idea that the States
owed any allegiance to the United States
government as violating the original COM
pact. The comprehension of the reporter
utterly failed to grasp the idea conveyed by
the charts which the lecturer showed the
audience. Each one looked like the picture
of one section OF rail fence, or the bars of
music. The demonstration was an attempt
to symbolic the construction of the federal
government. An illustration showing a
number of pillars uphOlding a series of
arches was more easy to get hold of as an
illustration of the building up OF the gov
ernment. This illustration came from the
Massachusetts, Sentinel, one of the early
birds of American journalism. The diagram
showing reconstruction was equally incOm-
prehensible. and bore no more relation to
the policy than bird's-eye view of Lafay-
cite square.
The lecture broke off suddenly, and the
audience, about thirty ladies and gentle
men, experienced great relief.