Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1873-09-04

ton for the President of the United
States for troops, they Insisting that they
had right to judge for themselves
whether contingency had happened
on which the President had right to
call for troops; and they decided it had
not, and refused to honor the requisi-
tiOn.
Again, South Carolina seized upon
this doctrine in 1882 and attempted to
nullify the operation of the tariff law
within the limits of that State. Slavery
was the immediate cause of the late
rebellion, but the shareholders could
not have inaugurated the war except
by seizing upon this idea of the sover-
eighty of the States. They clothed
their design in that garb; they operated
through the machinery of tre States,
and without this doctrine they could
have accomplished nothing.
But its application in case of the re-
bellion was only the fourth use that
had been made of it. 1t Is a perpetual
threat against the life of the nation,
and the country is not safe so long as
there is any considerable number of
people who entertain this doctrine. 1t
is poisoned dagger always at hand to
be clutched by desperate factions. 1t
is ready-made instrument of destruc-
tion by any section of the Union that
may be estranged or excited against
the Government from any cause.
A MIsCHIEvOUs HEREsY.
In accordance with this doctrine, the
South claimed that secession was not a
violation of the Constitution, but au-
hA hxyi ifc ftIn n ,tal ,,NIn
In accordance with it, Mr.. Buchanan,
in his message to Congress in December,
1860, proclaimed that the Government
had no power to cOerce State to re-
main in the Union, and this proclama-
ton was sustained by the Democratic
members of Congress, with less than
half dozen exceptions.
1t is perfectly certain that the South
embarked in the rebellion believing
confidently that the Democracy of the
North would carry out in good faith
the principles they .had always pro-
fessed, and resist any attempt to coerce
them to remain nthe Union. In ac-
cordance with this doctrine, the Demo-
cratic members of Congress and their
leading politicians throughout the coun-
try during the war opposed as uncon-
stitutiOnal every great leading war
measure.
THE TRUE NATIONAL IDEA.
Now what do I oppose to this doc
trine? / assume that this Govern
ment was formed by the people of the
United States In their aggregate and
primary capacity. / assume that in
stead of their being thirty-seven ma
tions there is but one; instead of there
being thirty-seven sovereignties there
is but one sovereignty. There is vast
body of State rights, guaranteed and
secured by the Constitution of the
United States by the same Constitu-
tion that created and upholds the Gov
erDment of the United States; that
these State rights have the same guar
antee that the rights Of the National
Government have, are equally entitled
to the protection of the Supreme Court,
and that one set of rights is just as
sacred as the other.
Some confOund the ideas of State
sovereignty and State rights as being
one and the same thing, and seem to
suppose that State rights are only con-
sistent with State sovereignty, while /
assume that State rights are consistent
with national sovereignty, and are SAT-
est under protection OF the nation.
The Constitution gives one class of
rights to the Government of the United
States. They are specified, and they
carry with them the powers that are
necessary to their full execution and
enjoyment. The rest are to be held
and enjoyed bv the States, or reserved
to the people.
THE CONSTITUTION THE AGREEMENT
OF THE NATION.
The States have their rights by the
agreement of the nation. That seems
to be the important truth truth that is
so often overlOoked-that the rights Of
the States, sacred and unapproachable,
are so by the agreement of the nation
as much as are the powers that are con-
ferred upon the Government of the
United States.
In the consideration of this question
we must reflect that the nation had as
sembled in convention in 1877 and
there formed government, there de-
ciared what rights should be given to
the National Government, and what
rights should be reserved to the States,
and that in either case the grant and
guarantee are an act of national sover-
eighty by the whole people in conven-
tion Assem- bled. When we shall en-
brace this idea fully all the danger of
centralization will pass away, though
we discard the Idea of State sovereign
ty.
CONGRESS CREATED TWENTY-FOUR
STATES.
The doctrine of the Resolutions of
'9S, and Of the Democratic party, be-
comes especially impracticable and alb
surd, when we consider that twenty
four of the thirty-seven States were
made States by acts of Congress, and
but for such acts would to-day be Ter
ritorieS or foreign provinces. The Ter
ritOries out of which they were formed
save Texas, were the property of the
United States, and by tue Constitution
placed under the executive control of
Congress and deprived of every attri-
butte of sovereignty.
Will any one deny that the rights of
these twenty-four States, as States, are
measured and guaranteed by the Con-
Ohio was carved out of ter
ritory belonging to the United States,
and is the offspring Of an act of Con-
gress; and yet, according to Democrat
ic doctrines, as soon as Ohio was ad-
mitted into the Union she became a
sovereign and independent State-a
party to the compact by which the
was formed, which is
quite as absurd as man assuming to
be his own father.
Its to be remarked that the great
strain upon our Government has not
been from any danger of centraliza-
tion, but on the contrary has arisen
from denying to the Government the
constitutional powers, its national
character. Ifthe President and Con-
greSs, in the winter of 1850 and 1861,
had exercised their just constitutional
powers TO check the rebellion then just
we should have avoided
the calamities of a four years war.