Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1876-02-19
STATE SOvREIGNTYs THEsKELE-
TON in TIE RADICAL CLOSET.

nounciDg the speech OF Mr.. Iuckers as
evidence that the. spirit Of rebellion is
still rife in the South 1t is natural
that defense of the rights of the
States should offend those who have
labored so earnestly, to erase State lines
and bring the whole people under the
dominion of centralized power To-
cate at Washington. But, did Mr..
Tucker claim for the States, the right
to exercise any of the functions OF
sovereignty expressly ceded to the Fed
eral government OH mol but he
controverted the Radical assumption
that the States have no rights which
Radicalism is bound to respect, and
thus committed treason against the
coming Caesar. The latest amendments
of the constitution, it is true, abrogate
the right to hold slaves, and no states
man desires its restoration. The war.
per Sc, merged the original constitu-
tional right of secession into the natu-
raj right of revolution, and these
two vexed question being definitely set
tied, what other right Of the States
has either been forfeited or surrender
ed? Not one. Il is true, that Congress
attempted to destroy another, by inter-
fering with citizenship and the fran
chise, in Southern States, but the usur-
patton was so palpable and the purpose
so base, that no effort has been direct
ly made to destroy the right, and the
attempt will have no other effect than
as dangerous precedent.
But it is the term, State sovereignty,
which arouses the worst passions of
the Radical leaders, who long for the
overthrow of the Republic, and the
substitution of an Empire. Yet none
Of them can deny that the States have
their Executive, legislative and judici-
airy departments, with full power to
enact and enforce laws for the prOtec-
ton OF the lives, liberties and property
ofthe citizens within their respective
limits, and to do all other things which
come within the province of those
three departments. What higher SOW
reignty belongs to the federal govern
ment within the limits prescribed for
the exercise gifts delegated powers? No
State, either before, or since the war,
has claimed the right to make treaties
with foreign powers, TO maintain stand
ing armies, or build navies, to regulate
inter national orinter-State commerce,
to coin money, or exercise any power
expressly coded to the general govern
ment. Still, their reserved rights make
each State sovereignty within the
limits of its Jurisdiction, as absolute
as can be exercised under the forms
and limitations ofour free institutions.
Nor do we endorse the generallyreceiv-
ed opinion that the States, in the forma-
ton of the Federal compact, alienated IN
toto their right to exercise those high
er functions of sovereignty which, it is
claimed, belong exclusely, to the gen.
eral government They mutually
agreed not to exercise them as States,
and within State limits, but to continue
to exercise them jointly, through
President and Congress of their own
selection, as the authorized agents of
AL in common. 1t was not the inten-
ton of the trainers ofthe Constitution
to build up a government independent
for absolute over the States and invest
it absolutely with all the muniments of
sovereignty which belonged in full to
each State prior to the act of fedora
ton. So far from intending such to-
tai alienation of sovereign rights, the
reserved right to choose Senators as
the representatives of the States in
their sovreign capacity, and Congress
men as the representatives OF the peo-
rle, shows eonslusively, that the inteu-
ton was, not to surrender their origi-
nal attrib ties of sovereignty, but to
continue to exercise them through their
authorized agent, the Federal Govern
ment.
This we believe to be the spirit and
theory of our mixed system of govern
ments, and whilst we do not claim for
the States, the right to any clearly
ceded power, we do claim that they are
sovreign-made so by their reserved
rights, and that it is their duty to pro-
estagainst the invasion Of those rights,
by their accredited agent at Washing
ton. We do not understand Mr. Tucker
rs claiming any more than this, nor
Mr.. Lamar as conceding anything here
claimed. Yet the former is denounced |
as the spokesman Of lurking'rebellion,
whilst the latter is commended for his
cOnciliatOry utterances-the difference
between them being that Lamar emu
merated the attributes of sovereignty
conferred upon the federal govern
ment, as proof of nationality, whilst
Tucker setforth and claimed the rights
not ceded as still belonging to the
States. If a Southern man can not ex-
press such opinions on the floor of
Congress without offending the whole
Radical party, the inference is that
Cancellation, at the North, means alb |
ject submission, on the part of the |
South, to whatever wrongs and insults !
the tyranny of corrupt administra- /
ton may infict upon it. We think it !
time that this programme was changed. /
No people on earth ever obtained re-
dress of wrongs or recognition of rights
by licking the hands of their oppres-
sors, and we scorn the cowardly AFRO
gance which demands silence and fawn- |
ing as the only protest against brutal
tyranny. We are more than willing to |
let by-gones be by-gones, but in bury
ing the past we are not willing to con-
sign to the same grave, the hopes and |
prospects of the future. There is not
a man In the North, with soul in his 1
body who does respect the Southerner
who boldly defends the rights of his |