The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1881-05-06

~ WtOus, CnauSc 10 tue Tlsht
would, unquestionably, he desira.
ble- not because they are " solId,5 y
but because they are wrung; in.
deed, they ought to be solid on the
other side. The only ground to
which an objection to solidity, as
such, can be tenable, would be the
assumption that II is better for q
people TO DO divided-part in the
right and part in the wrong,-than
to be either wholly wrong-which
may be trae,-or whslly right
which is absurd.
/ am well aware Of tbs dangers
and evils-irrespectiye Of any con.
sideraiions of abstract right or
truth-of h etioadl divisions in poll.
tics, and presume that q vague aad
andefned sense of this Is the basis
OF the cavils against soliiily but
IL is not SO easy to perceive why
Southvn solidity should be tue ex.
elusive, or even the primary, object
of dread or deprecatiou.
II there was, ia the attitude OF
the South, or the principles on
which she is supposed to be united,
anything threatening the safety or
welfare of the North, or the coun.
try in general, the ground tor ap-
prehension might be intelligible.
But presume no intelligent and
candid person, OF whatever politi.
cal views, would claim that there
is, or has been for some years past,
any purpose of aggression, on the
part Of the South, with regard to
the rights or interest of any other
part OF the Union.
We have, 1t is true, heard much
OF alleged peril to "the results Of
the war" If [ righly apprehend
what are claimed as the results of
the war, they are all readily reduci-
BILE to two: (1) theabolition Of Afri-
can slavery, aud (2) the establish
ment OF the paramount authority
of the central government, and the
abrogation OF State sovereignty,
with its direct corollary, the right
Of secession. With regard to
slavery only the denscst and most
ignorant fanaticism could imagine
that the idea of its revival IN any
shape now exists in tho South.
Many OF US (among whom IL the
writer of this letter., were Ia prin.
ciple always opposed to it. Others
thought differently, and approved
of it as an existing institution; but,
now that it has been abolished, no
sane man would have it re,estab.
iished, even Ii it were practicable.
As to State sovereignty, If 1t has
net been effectually extinguishcd
beyond all hope OF reassertion or
resuscitation, the fault is certainly
not that of the South. During
the process of what was termed re-
construction, in the years lmme'
dlately following the war, the ma
iority OF the Southern States were
merely passive spectators, without
representation or participation in
the government Of the Union. That
Was entirely in the
hands of the North, and the North
Was controlled by the republican
party. Ii the Constitution was not
20 amended AZ to secure the prin.
ciple Of Capitalization, and to pre-
clude any future assertion of the
sovereignty Of the State, 1t was not
on account Of Southern opposition
or recalcitrance. Tue South was
altogether powerless to resist what
was done during that period by
the dominant section, under control
OF the dominant party, even il she
had been disposed and certainly
no disposition to undo 1t has been
manifested since.
; But if,-whcther purposely or
from neglect or indifference, the
old controversy between State
rights and centralism has been lett
still unsettled, it Is now certainly
not q sectional controversy. 1t was
such in 1880 only from its associa.
tion with the tariff question, and
in 1860 with that Of slavery in the
territories. These ,trcrc sectional
questions; but the former has long
ceased to be operative, as snch,
aud the latter hes bec0a'e utterly
extinct. The South has no more
interest in the maintenance of
State rights than the North and IT
there IL any likelihood Of future
claim OF the right of secession,
there 10 less reason to look tor it In
the South than in New England
(where it was first asserted), or Oh
The distant shores OF the Pacific.
The clamor against the solid
South" il therefore alike unwar-
ranted by any spirit of sectional
aggression, or BY any peril to the
legitimate " results OF the war;
lis potency as a partisan war cry
ia unleniable--the more unreas0n-
able, the more potent, perhaps. LIS
appeal il not to reason, but to tue
unreasouing passions OF the mnItl'
tude--especially to two passions,
which are always powerful when
com mbined--fear, and sectional aud
sectarian animssity. ln respect to
substantial merit or dignity II
stands, as seems to me, upon u
level with the cry of "Well-Poison'
ers n which animated certain me
di@val persecution Of the Jews, Of
that of isNo Popery p IN the Georg'
Gordon riots In London, q hundred
years ago. !.