Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1879-10-11
SATURDAY. OCT S
COMMUNICATED.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY.


1t is assumed that history repeats IT.
self every one hundred years. The as
sumption seems to be verified in the
renewal of the old contest once settled
in this country, but now re-opened by
the advocates of consolidatiou-com-
monty but falsely STYLED republicans, on
the great question of where sovereignty
belongs. The old Federalists who were
conspicuously represented by Hamilton,
Jay, ct. al, in the formation OF the COM
pact, maintained that all sovereignty
should be lodged in the Federal gov
crnment. Whilst Jefferson, Madison,
ct. al, maintained successfully that the
States were sovereign per Sc; aud hence
the power not delegated by express
terms in the confederation was reserved
10 the States and to the people. This
was regarded all through the prosper
Gus years of democratic administrations
as a settled question, and acted on as
such by all the States and the general
government and by many legislative
acts. But in this age OF retrograde lib
erty and prosperity the old contest is
revived by the affective descendants Of
the former, and accepted by the patriot
ic adherents of the latter. The old,
stale and fGtid policy OF claiming It as
a necessity to rule the masses by armed
pOwer is the corner stone still claimed
by the abolitionists as legitimists of the
descent of ancient federalism, alias mon
archy, of the transatlantic nations. On
the other hand, democracy claims now
as their predecessors under the sacred
name of republican claimed, and estab-
ljshed in the articles Of confederation
the sovereignty OF the States. Except
in such ceded particulars as were named
in the bond of union-and never ques
toned by sound statesmen from That
day to this, and never will be doubted,
except as a means of tyrannical descrip.
ton.
Although, it was legally a settled
question for many years, yet there were
always malcontents, made up of the am
bilious aspirants, opposed TO Republi'
can Democracy, who under many names
set up their pretentions to place and
power; always bestriding some sympa-
thetic hobby portentious with deceptive
sentiments, which, when arrayed against
State sovereignty, as an ignis fat,uS, it
mislead the unsuSpecting, but with in
tent plain enough to show the anlmas
of the defeated school Of Hamiltonlsr.
This undue stratum Of antidemocracy
was unfortunately thrown to the surface
in the division Of the great democratic
party of 1860. And its fag ends gath,
cred together in an hotch-po'ch admin.
istration; one of its avowals made an at
tack upon the sovereign rights OF the
States. This declaration was anticipa
ted by a withdrawal of several of the
States-the srpedisncy Of which | have
always doubted. But, it is demonstra
ted truth, that it was the violation, ol
threatened violation of the sovereignty
of the States IN their reserved rights
which led to the breach; and not the
exercise of State rights which led 10 the
late troubles between the States.
think, it may be assumed with per
feet freedom of veracity, that, bad the
States been untampercd with, that nc
breach between them would have oc
Cured The opposition to slavery was
merely the sensitive nerve on which the
blow against State sovereignty was
struck. Hence the failure TO accomplish
under the array of manufactured prcju
dice, the object so dear the monarch.
cal heart, viz, the result of the war as
az overthrow Of State sovereignty. The
thing accomplished is merely the aboli
ton of slavery, and even that is an Incl
dent in the reunion of the States. Had
the avowal been to destroy the sOver
eighty Of the States, in fearless and
manly manner, with the same success as
that accomplished against one OF Its
mere petquiSiies, then indeed, State SOW.
eeignty would be a feature of the past
in our government. But thank God fol-
the hopes of the sacred ties which bind
its admirers around the tree Of liberty.
The mistake of the abolitioIst is the
hope of the States; and the perpituity
of the republic. Instead of q war on
State sovereignty direct, they only
fought against one Of the sanctions per.
tinent to a single provisions, which be
inc now revised and accepted, by those
who tried hard TO maintain it, is the
only thing accomplished, save aud ex'
cept, the Incubus Of debt, as an eternal
Stigma on lis parents.
But these modern strong government
lists under old Harniltonian clothing are
claiming, that the war knocked State
sovereignty in the head. "The wish is
only father to the thought with them.
Even we ordinary minded people, know
that a revolution in government cannot
be affected without bona fde avOwal
of such a purpose, by the reyolutlonistsj
which was not the case as we have seen
by the abolitionists.
This brings me very briefly TO con-
slider who were the revolutionary party.
The administration party claimed the
right and purpose Of interfering with
one of the reserved rights of portion
OF the States. The other eDdeavored
to protect the sovereignty of the States
in that reserved right which was threat
ened in a portion of them. This was
the square issue between the abolition
lists iu power and the democrats out of
power, which brought on the conflict.
Which party, then, was in revolution or
al war with the constitution Most
clearly the party at issue with the exist
ing aud established features in the or