, 1875-01-13

A1s@4 @1SJ
------s-----
sTATE SOVEREIGNTY AGAIN.
When, Rono weeks ago, TIE TnlnuSE fore
told that the question which should divide
parties in the future WAS the very question
which had divided them in tho past, viz. !:
the question Of State Sovereignty, we were
told that that issue was q dead one, that 1t
was impossible 1t ever should bo agitated
again, and tAat it wRs ridiculous to drag
it IN its grave-clothes from the tomb.
Our Democratic contemporaries in the
North were unanimous in this verdict.
We refuted their arguments at the
time by counter arguments which
they have not answered, md which now they
will not attempt to answer, since facts have
established the correctness Of our prediction.
Tho Louisiana affair has brought out into
bold relief the question Of State Rights once
more. It has proved that tito question of
State Sovereignty is not dead; that 1t is not
dying; nay, that it is tic living question of
the hour.-tho question which s!,all divide
parties in the future as it has divided them
sinco the foundation Of tho Republic. Never
has tho sovereignty Of the States been pushed
to such m extreme as it has been within the
last few weeks. Hitherto, the right of tho
States to seccde from the Union was the ex-
trema form which the question Of State Soy
ereignty ass,imed. Now, the right Of a
State to anarchy is boldly proclaimed,
and it is urged that tho General Government
has no power to Interfere with the exercise of
that inaliennble right by tho good people Of
Louisiana. Whole oceans Of vituperatioa are
poured upon the Presidonts head because lu
has manifested disposition to save Louisl-
ana from reign OF terror, frona social chaos
and dissolution. The howl which has gone
up from the Democratic press throughout tile
country because Of tho presence of Con.
SHERIDAN Mt New Orleans meansth and only
this: The sovereign people Of Louisiana
have the inalienable right to cut ono anothcr's
Threats, and to mako the streets Of New Or
leana run red with Republican aud !" niger
blood. The question is whether they have
any such right or not /; md it is the old aues-
ton of State Rights, only under form more
exaggerated than ever before.
Those who vainly supposed that question
was dead and buried have shown themselves
lamentably ignorant OF the philosophy Of onr
history. The whole Of our political history
is the history Of the agitation Of that very
question. The Colonies during and after tho
Revolution were strongly opposed to all Gen.
tralized Government. 1t was natural they
should be opposed to It. The memory OF
the centralized Government OF London was
still fresh among the colonista, and they
heartily detested 1t. They intended
that there should exist after the Rev.
olution no such powerful centruliza-
ton OF Government rs had exist
ed before it, when they wero govern
ed by tho Mother Country. In their antipathy
for strong Government, they drew up tho
articles of Confederation and established
Government without the power to levy tax,
raise soldier, observe treaty, or amend its
fundamental law without the unanimous con-
sent Of its members. The Confederation waa
ono expression Of tho doctrine OF atata Sow
ereignty. It failed, because not In harmony
with our naturo MS people; because it
Ignored TINT no were nation. Tho Hobeli-
ion, second expression Of the same political
hercsy, failed for similar reason. A third
movement is now setting IN to royivo tho
sano question, andit, too, will fail. The Con-
federation failed, beoausaft took from the Gen.
eral Government Ill power. The doctrine that
the General Government could not intefere
with the iutern1l affafrs Of State oven to
prevent dissolution was exploded by tho War
of the Rebellion. Tho future will explode
the doctrine that it may not intcrfore with
the Internal affairs Of State to prevent
social anarchy aud dissolution. Whom the
Eoal issue in Louisiana Ia understood by the
people Of this country, it will bo found that
their political Instincts are a. true as they
wore In the day when the existence of tho
Union was threasened.
Ihe Constitution Of the United States
guarantees to tho several States republican
form Of government. Now there il not
State in tho South in which republican
form Of government would exist for tue space
Of year il it were proclaimed that the Con-
eral Government should not, under any cir
cunaatances, interfere with tho internal affairs
Of the Southern States. The proclo1na-
ton Of such policy would bo
the signal for . war Of races In
the South. Democratic State Governments
South would be totally incompetent to pre-
vent such war. Their sympathies would
be all opposed to tue colored race. 1t may
be doubted whether Democratic Governors
South or Democratic Legislatures, with their
antipathy for that racs, would do much to
oppose its determination or, With their ideas
Of State Hov veraignty, make acquisitions for