The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-07-14
THE DALLAS HERALD. WEDNESDAY MORNING. JULY a. 1880


record. They did not conceal their hostility
TO the federal and state governments nor
DENY their enmity to AL laws which protected .
the liberties of white men. The constitution |
stood in their way, and they cursed 1t
bitterly the bible was quoted against them,
and they reviled God Almighty himself | !
know that the mind of man, like his body, |
is fearfully and wonderfully made | uHder-
stand all the difficulty of Analysing human
passions, and admit we should not Judge
harshly of motives but how these heartless
oppressors of their own race could have any
care for tn freedom of the negro passes my
Unles; you can explain it
otherwise, the judgment of history must in
evitably be against the sincerity of their
anti.slavery professions In the present
aspect of the case it seems impossible to be-
lieye that love Of the negro was not assumed
as mere excuse for enslsying the white race
lust as their ancestors put on n pretense OF
piety to crafty their appetite for the property
and blood of better people than themselves.
You must positively reconsider this subject
before YOU again undertake to present the
Aboltionists to the world in the respectable
garb of fanatics. think YOU will find that
the crew Of the May flower brought over and
planted no germ of AN en-" which has
tlourished with more vigor than their canting
hypocrisy.
Here let me say again, that the vices
and wickedness OF the Plymouth colo
nists are not to be visited on the heads
OF their children, according to the flesh.
Among them, in every part of the country,
I,n, 81
ants Of the church, and virtuous, patriotic
Democrats, who are nU more responsible for
the crimes of their ancestors thana pea ,eahle
Seotchman is for tn raids nnd robberes
which in past generations we're committed
by his clan upon the English border, But
you acknowledge that you get your political
ideas from them you boast that your party
has no doctrines of public law and no notions
of public duty which were not planted at
Plymouth. Therefore, it is not only proper,
but necessary, to show what these doctrines
and ideas We're.
FUNDAMENTAL LIE.
pass now 10 n later period. You say that
there were two radically different theories
about the nature of our government; 1.-The
north relieving and holding that we were u
Nation, the south insisting that we were only
confederation of sovereign states. 1t is not
true that any such theoretical conflict ever
existed between the sections. That the arti-
cles Of confederation first, and the constitu-
ton atterwaTd, united the states together for
certain purposes therein enumerated, and
thus made us n nation among nations, WAS
never denied that | know of By any party.
But this national character was given to the
general government by sovereign states who
confederated together for that purpose. They
bestowed certain powers on the new political
corporation then created, and called it the
United States Of America, and they expressly
served To themselves all the sovereign
rights not granted in the charter. Demo.
cratic statesmen had no theory about
it. They SAW their duty written down
in the fundamental law they swore to
perform 1t, and they kept their oaths. They
executed the powers OF the general govern
ment in their whole constitutional vigor for
that, rs Mr., Jefferson said, was "the sheet
anchor OF our peace ut home and safety
abroad" and they carefully guarded the
rights of the states as the only security we
could have for a Just administration Of our
domestic affairs. This WAS universally as
sented to Ms right AID true. No counter the.
DRY was set up. Difference of construction
there might be, but all admitted that when
the line of power was accurately drawn be-
tween the federal government and state SOW
ereignty, the rights on one side were AS sacred
as those on the other. But within two or
three years last past, the low demagogues OF
your parry have got to putting in their plat
forms the assertion that this is a Nation and
not n confederation. What do they mean
What do You mean when you indorse and re.
produce it! Do you deny that the states
were sovereign before they united? Do you
affirm that their sovereignty was wholly
merged in the federal government when they
assented to the constitution? Is the tenth
amendment mere delusion? Do you mean
to assert that the states have not now, anC
never had, any rights Mt all, except what are
concede to them Mt the mercy of the INA
ton" No doubt this new article was in
serted in the creed of the Abolitionists be.
cause they thought it would give sort OF
pIausibility 10 their violent intervention Will
the internal affairs of the states; but this il
so false, so shallow and so destitute of all re
spectacle authority that it imposes upor
nobody.
| SECESSION A YANKEE PRODUCT.
As part of this conflict of theories, anC
resulting from it, you describe the south a
insisting that each state had right, Mt it
own discretion, to break the union, and con
stantly threatening secession, where the ful
rights of slavery We're not acknowledged
In fact and in truth. secession, like slavery
was first planted in New England. There i
grew and tlourished and spread its branche
far over the lard, long before it was though
of in the south, and long before 81 ul
rights of slavery" were called in ques jon b,
anybody. The ant-Democrats of tb.t re
gion, in former as well as in later times
totally misunderstood the purposes f'r whicl
this government was made.
They regarded it as mere commercial
machine, by which they could make sucl
"gayneful pilladge,' if allowed to run it thei
own way. When they were disappointed il
| this bv Cprtain nprfnrtlv inst and nonstitu