The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1875-01-27
THE STAINS OF LOUISIANA

CQcTils $OOuSGlCuCIOu w UC@'A uPoA'
the Louisiana military usurpation,
and declared that we had an unequal
Union Of the States, and that twenty
six Of them had conquered the other
eleven, and the latter had no rights
except such as the former chose to
give. We were greatly struck with
the novelty Of this Interpretation OF
our fundamental law, and thereupon
proceeded to ask our contemporary
several questions in relation thereto.
We have hadrn direct reply, but~the
following, from Sundays issue of
that journal, we suppose is intended
as defense of it's very peculiar the
ory. It says ~ -
CAS- Louisiana was. first purchased
with the money Of the Nation, then
defended from a foreign foe by the
National forces, and at last conquered
by the army and navy Of the Nation,
there is no pecul liar sanctity of State
sovereignty inhering THAT State
She was bought with money by JEFF
ferson, defended against the British
by Jackson, and when in insurrec-
ton conquered by Farragut and Ben
Butler. We rather think after this
that she may be said to belong to
we, the people, who have formed "a
more perfect Union
Because Louisiana is part of a
purchased territory, because it was
defended BY the United States against
foreign foe "and was at last con-
quered by the army and navy Of the
Nation,' we are told 'there is no pc
culiar sanctity Of State sovereignty,
No, we don't claim that Louisiana
has the same rights precisely Of ev-
cry other State in the Union. When
it was admitted in the Union it was
stipulated, as in the case of all other
new States, that it was to stand upon
an "equal footing with the original
States" The Constitution makes
provision for Union Of equal State
sovereignty. It does not provide for
an unequal Union for a Union of
two classes or sorts Of States, one
having more rights than another. II,
because the Union bought Louisiana
it has greater rights there than other
States, the same principle will apply
to Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Ne
braska, Nevada, Oregon and Califor-
MIA, whose territory was all carved
out Of domains which were bought by
the United States. The CONNER
calls principle, therefore, has very
large application. 1t may, if it
pleases, tell lis how or by what means
the contract which the Federal Gov
eminent made with these States has
been repealed Or set aside. - ~
The fact that Louisiana was de-
Tended against the British by the
United States does seem to initiate
much against State equality. The
Nation happens to have defended
New York, Maryland, Virginia and
Ohio against the attacks of the Brit
ish.. According to the greateonsti:
tutional cxpounder at Fourth and
Race streets the States above named
have less State rights than others,
because foreign enemy chose to d.
rect his forces against them in the
war from 1912 to 1915. Thus the
Commercial makes the sensational
power depend upon poidS hich the
British assaulted. We have not the
least idea that the Commercial wri-
ter ever read a single clause in the
Constitution; and we, therefore, in
form him that by section fourth of
article fourth it is provided that the
United States 'shall protect each Of
the States against INVASION Thus,
how the United States Government
obtained any increase Of power by
fulfilling constitutional duty when
it defended it in louisiana New
York, Maryland and Virginia against
foreign invasion, we should like to
be informed by the Commercial sage.
But in addition the philosopher in
forms US that "when in insurrection
she was conquered by Farragut and
Butler" This is a monstrous dis
play of observation-disclosures. According
to the idea upon which the late war
was fought, Louisiana, as State,
was not in instruction. at all. -. It
was only certain PERSONS down there
who were in individual insurrection.
The Washington Government was
after them, and was not after the
State, whose constitutional rights
onn4;n.al :. mn N - -.