The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1879-08-01
naln srAsn ZOE arArE n.surs.

is Of distinguished Massachusetts,
family, Of ancient Federalist stock. He
presented the doctrine Of State Rights
in fearless and accurate form. in this
manner:
!" Foreign critics have sometimes
found fault with our excessive rever-
ence for the Constitution. We do well
to venerate that which has made us a
nation. But let us beware of mere lip
service and beware that in practice
we submit TO and preserve it. We are
ready to infringe both the letter and the
spirit of tho Constitution io the excite
ment of party contests. Nothing can
be moro fatal, for within its sacred
limits lies the well being Of our politi.
cal system.
Within those limits, too, lies the de-
feated principle of the great conflict be-
tween nationality and separation. In
tie last decisive struggle the rights of
States were sorely wounded. 1t could
not have been otherwise when their
most jealous advocates used them as
the sword and shield of slavery and
dashed them against the strong rock Of
national existence. The injury then
suffered by the rights of States is the
gravest result of the war, simply from
its effects upon our minds and habits of
thought. We have been insensibly led
TO regard violation of State rights
with indifference, if not with approval.
The principle of States rights is as
vital and essential as the national p.in-
ciple itself. If the former, carried to
extremes, means anarchy, the latter,
carried to like extremes, means cen
tralization and despotism. So long as
we have the strong barrier Of the States
we are free from usurpation and plebis-
cites. Here in the North States rights,
have naturally become words Of evil
significance, and are even used TO reyile
political opponents. This is not only
bad in itself, but it involves an amount
of historical hypocrisy which is intoler-
able. The most meagre outline of our
history suffices to show unmistakably
that the separatist principle has existed
everywhere and has at some time burst
forth everywhere into dangerous ac-
tivity. If this teaches nothing else it
should at least enforce the wholesome
doctrine Of consistency and charity.
That separatism should have existed
everywhere was not only natural but
inevitable. The government of each
State was old, familiar and beloved
when the Union was formed. The
State represented the past. With its
existence were entwined all the memo
ries and traditions which carried men
back to the tolls and sufferings of their
hardy ancestors who had made homes
in the wilderness that their children
might be free and receive continent
for their inheritance. The hearts Of
men were bound up in their States.
The Federal Government at first ap
pealed only to their rea-on or their in
terest. To their States they turned as
the objects Of their first allegiance.
This sentiment knew neither North nor
South, East nor West Nothing is
more false than to associate the doc
trine of States rights with any partic.
.ular part of the country, or exclusively
with those States which last invoked its
aid. Nothing is palmer than that the
States and the party in power have al
ways been strongly national, while the
minority, call it by what party name
you will, has as steadily gravitated to
ward States rights. There has never
been moment Of peculiar stress and
bitterness when the truth of this has
not been brought home with sharp dis
tinctness."
We would like to ask our Radical
friends, who were the first to promul
gate the doctrine of State Rights, what
they viii do with the letter and spirit
of the Constitution VIII they for
party purposes infringe both the letter
and spirit of that sacred instrument