Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1879-10-11

one Of the points above enumerated
demanding exhaustive argument.
Some of the positions will fall self
refuted before the facts which are
familiarity known before our people.
Some of them are not really points
at issue at all, rs our people do not
entertain the opinions or purposes
attributed to them; others will be
the subject of protracted and ex-
cited discussion, especially the cleo
tiOn laws above alluded to, and
their alleged bearing ON the doc
trines of State rights and State SOW
ereignty.
With regard to this last question,
while of course we cannot under
take to argue it at the fag-end of an
article, we think it best even now
TO define our position with a view
to future argument.
We maintain, then, on the one
hand, that the doctrine of State
sovereignty and State rights were
not the points at issue in the late
war, except the one right claimed
for State of secession as constitu-
tiOnal prerogative
That this doctrine of Constitutional
secession was never held in the
South except by a very small mi
nority, the great body of our people
considering the act of secession as
revolutionary and condeming it or
vindieating it as such according to
their predictions.
That neither State sovereignty
nor State rights were abolished as u
result of the war. On the contrary,
when the Republican party itself
had and exercised the power of
doing what it would with the Con-
stitution, it left it in this respect
unaltered.
That the Republican platform of
1860, before there was any war, and
the decisions of Chief Justice Chase
during and after the war and the
declarations of Republican states
men in Congress, especially those of
Mr.. Morton, of Indiana, during the
discussion of the last Presidential
election, all concur in maintaining
that all State rights remain invio-
liable and, in their sphere, as sacred
as the prerogatives of the Federal
Government in its sphere.
Trat the Democratic party North
and South, far from any revolution
airy purposes in this respect, is per-
feetly satisfied with the Constitution
as it stands, including all its amend
ments.
That the Republican party con-
taius within it a decidedly revolu.
tionary element, which looks upon
the Constitution as it stands as an
obstacle to their revolutionary pur-
poses of concentrating all political
power in the hands of the Federal
Executive.
On the other hand, we contend
that the opposition of the Demo
cratic party to the election law:
which they endeavOred to repea
last session does not necessarily in
vOlve the question of State rights al
all, and would be obligatory upoT
them if that matter were entirely
removed from the controversy, fol
That those laws not only substi
tute Federal for State action il
elections in a manner contrary t.
both the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, but strengthen the
executive department of Govern
ment against the will of Congress:
and the will of the people to the
extent of investing it with mOnar
chical powers.
These positions one by one viii
for long time occupy these edito
rial columns. We will say nothing
further in reference to them nov
except earnestly to call the atten
ton of our readers to the subject
The positions advanced by our an
tagonists presuppose the denses
ignorance of constitutional question:
in those who are expected to accep
them. All we desire is that they
may not find such ignorance wher'
they hope to meet with it, and wha
is equally important, that they ma!
not find among us an ilatteRtiOn Il
constitutional questions, which viii
suit their purpose just as well a
ignorance; the former we esteem ;
more imminent danger than thu
latter.