The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1875-09-03


they derive this sovereign attribute from
the paramount authority in the Fed
eral government? Let the ApalancHe
answer, as it does in its second no
doubt well considered article ",The
rights Of the States are well defined but
they do not include sovereignty, which
is one and indivisable and rested only IN
the Federal head, and does not belong
to the individual mem bers, or the States"
Here We find the same unqualified lanS
guage. One and indi7isable. and vest
ed only in the Federal head" If the
assertion were true, then the long cherN
ished belief tbas in America we had
made the great discovery which all past
ages failed to learn, "that all legiti-
mate Sovereignty resides in the people,
that government springs from them and
is made fer their benefit; that they
alone are the source Ct all power" is a
false and unreal mockery. The Supreme
Court of the United States has again
and again recognized the sovereignty of
the States: They (the States) became
entitled to all the rights and powers of
sovereign States from the time when
they declared themselves independent
As late as 1853 the Supreme Court
shows that there can be no conflict be-
tween Federal and State governments
when each is acting in its legitimate
sphere They declare: THE sover
eighty Of the United States and that of
q State are independent of each other
within their respective spheres, although
both exist and exercise their powers
within the same territorial limits"
AGleman rs Booth, 81 Hosg. sos.
But the only question between the
Aealanche and ourselves, is, does this
sovereignty still exist in a State The
AUalanche thinks it does not, and agrees
to surrender the dogma of State SOW
ereignty, and viii not consent to its as
sertion by any State thati consents to
and approves this as an article in the IN.
written treaty of peace between the
North and the South etc. This the
AcalancHe would have the country be-
lieve the present status of the States.
VIII the North go with it in this doca
trine? We think not The statesmen
Of the North repudiase the doctrine that
they sent armies to overthrow their own
State sovereignty, but say they went to
put down the claim Of the right to secede
from the Union, as advocated by the ez-
IRENE men of the South. State so7er~
eighty and the right to secede from the
Union are two very different things.
The claim to the latter has bean effectu-
ally disposed of by the war. If the doe
trine of the infallibiIity Of the Pope
could by any possibility be oYerthrown
by the force CT arms, no one would con-
tend that the Church of Rome has been
destroyed Neither does the overthrow
of the doctrine of secession destroy
State sovereignty. Hear a Northern
man upon that State sovereignty which
the AUalancHe seems to think they fought
to destroy, or did destroy by fighting,
BIr Il P KimbalI incidentally touches
upon the subject in his patriotic letter to
the Appeal "In proffer of our courtesy
and hospitality to the venerable Ex-
President we include every man, wo~
man and child in the South, fellowship
ing them as roinstated members of the
glorious American Union, possessing all
the rights and privileges guaranteed Jy
the Constitution Of the general goUeTa-
ment, and the Constitution Of each soU>
ereig1 State" Does Mr. KimbaH and
the people of the North outside of the
extreme Radicals, believe in this trans
forming article IN lie ungoritten treaty
of peace between the North and the
South, which entirely changes the rela>
tons Of the States to the Federal gov
ernment, strips them Of their old and
attributes; oveEthrOws the
claims of the people to being the source
of sovereign power, and locates that
iEdeyisable, unrestricted,
and unchecked by constitutional re,
straints in the Federal head p
None but those who desire to centraI~
lie all power in the Federal head advos
cate this destructive doctrine, That the
Federal governments paramount in the
powers conferred upon 1t by the Consti>
tuition, no one who uRde rstands the ma
ture of our complex government viii
deny. But that the State is sovereign
in all the powers reserved to the States
and people of the State is equally unde-
niable, and entirely consistent and har-
monizing with every legitimate and Sow
ereign right conferre upon the common
government by the Co institution. If the
very nature Of the Federal government
has been so changed by the war as to be
paramount and the only place where
- indivisable sovereignty resides, is it
not strange that the Northern people
have not d 'scoyered that in putting down
what has been elaine heretofore as the
right of accession, they destroyed their
own State sovereignty? And yet We
find millions of them, like Mr. KimbaiI,
still believing in, and asserting the full
doctrine Of the sovereignty Of the States. /
When the right of local government,
sprlnging from the sovereignty In the