The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-04-12
states Rights.
Q HTalEII

Ahe word NS sovereignty ID less
understood than any other in the polit
cs vocabulary" Where does it exist
in this government?
In Great. Britain it resides in Par,
lament. Louis XIV very distinctly
pSissea but its habitation in France
when he said, "L, etat c'ea moi!''
Where i il With us7
Can abe, States which are restrained
bythe Constitution be deemed Sovereign.
IsSCosgfess Sovereign, when it's powers
are afhrmatiyely granted? The power
which amends aud can amend the
Constitution at, amy time, this alone is
illimitsble. o Here We have Sovereignty.
The State governments and tho general
government are the mere creatures Of
ahis 6mnipotence-mere tenants at will.
The adoption of the Constitution was
. yarrrendcr Of tho Sovereignty of the
indisidual States to the states united
This shows that tho United States is
not 4 Confedsracy but a composite
S,.ts S'f&T sTiqso ta
yHhere the Sovereignty re.ldes there
allsgiapee isddue. When allegiance is
nofsdnesthere can be no treason. The
Constitution provides for treason to the
United States. The Articles of Con-
federation, on the other hand, did not
provide, for any treason against the Con.
feaeIatiop for this were an impossibili,y.
Alisgiance 10 due to the composite whole
ofsahichithe states are members.
Eueh Is a rugged synopsis of the argu.
ussnt Of a very Intelligent writer in
latssa pusm5sr! of the Southern Law
Review ,b.Hsia ar5
ThS reasoning is certainly elsar.ss ~
But even if the stgnmens is defective,
aesording to the States Rights concep-
sion OF the late war tho Southern States
beeame Econauered provinces, aud are
beppdd to saecopt the laws imposed by
their sictors. The victors claim to
have imposed the theory outlined above
upon their subjusated enemies. He.ce
forth the States rights men arc estop.
Ped'spou their own principles from con-
testiugahAt theory.
The states rights theory is hence
forth and forever an exploded hcrcsy
fst9 che nationalist, and and abrogated
aystsm for the States rights man.
The former regards the war as having
judiciaily' decided tho theory always to
have beon wrong, the latter as having
lsgiSla.iyoly substituted for it the other
ths9sy,i s,s
Here then, il the refutation Of the
doctEiae of ST. '-s rights and here the
defeat and sub, sion Of its votaries.
But We have regarded the doctrine of
Statss rights as wrong on higher, NOR
aI.gFeHrds.
Higher even than the sublime patriot.
ism and fkrvid eloquencs of Daniel
wsbs.sr's views of our system, we have
rested our opposition to the dogma.
AR, Webster says "What the Consti-
tuition says of itself is as conclusive as
what Iit,ssys on any other point. Does
il eailitselfa compact? Certainly not.
Bus it declares itself Constitution
What 10 . Constitution Certainly not
league, oompact or confederacy but
fundamental iaw. In the Constitution
it-zis tho people who speak and not the
States.
This logical statement Of the nature
and scope Of our government as manifest.
cd ip the Constitution, taxed the great
fayee sand ability Of Mr. Calhoun in the
Ersss debate. And whethor he ever
FSfatsd Il, iss question for .ho parties
to rs,argus ad Gbttun.