The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-03-16
rs 1T A NATION, OR SHALL 1T
REMAIN A LEAGUE!

the word "nation" or national as
applied to this union of states. 1t
belongs to our religion to refuse to
use such words, not because of
any antagonism, but because
of devotion to form of
government that still fingers
and which may be retained in its
purity, provided the popular will be
made to assert itself more than in |
the single act of voting for one or
another man, every four years, for
the presidency. AS long as
"bosses" control and while they even
command subserviency from Demo-
cratic senators in Democratic states,
for the privilege of deciding be-
tween one and another Republican
for official position, so long is this
country in danger of becoming i'll
reality a nation. A nation, to define
by a very modern appellation, is
bossism"-one great boss with
bosses for each state, after the nature
of satrapy, but in civil sense. In
effect therefore this country is quite
a nation, but in principle it is
league, and therefore we hold to
the latter and say federal" instead
of national" and "union" instead oil
nation" In 1855 the Repub-
lican party had its origin
as the then governor of Texas wise
ly prophesied, in an alarming ag-
erosion upon popular rights and a
proposed gross violation of the SOL
emn pledges of that public faith
upon which the union was founded.
The states made the federal gov
eminent supreme in the sphere
of its delegated powers; and
the states were not thereby
annihilated, but were left supreme
within the sphere of reserved
powers. How could such an organ
lied government be a nation? The
several sovereign and independent
states ordained general govern
ment for distinct purposes, and
therein the distinctive character of
each state was recognized, and its
identity preserved. But Republic
cans hold that the United States Is
nation, not league and to the I'M
rejecting mind this may appear to
be true. General and state plat
forms enunciate the doctrine, and
the Republican bosses are trying
to hold the people to
the idea until they may
forget all about federation amid
the usages of the new dispensation.
How seldom do we read nowadays
of the federal constitution" the ex-
preston having almost fallen into
disuse under the usurpation of "na-
tion." Gradually, says writer, this
political heresy is being filtered into
the minds of the masses, and the
way prepared for the final consum-
nation of the purposes of those who
are aiming at nationality, or strong,
consolidated, powerful and aristo-
cratic, semi-monarchical form of
government. The advocates of this
heresy do not believe in the ability
of the people to govern themselves.
They pervert history, and either ig-
norantly or willfully misrepresent it
when they declare that the constitu-
ton created either a nation or a
league. To affirm either to be true
is to affirm a falsehood. The pre-
amble to the constitution declares,
among other things: eve, the peo-
pie of the United States, in order to
form more perfect union, ."
do establish and ordain this consti-
tuition for the United States of
America" In what respect was
it to be a more perfect union ?
There was union existing be-
tween the states under the articles
of confederation at the time of the
adoption of the federal constitution.
1t was a union formed, too, upon
written compact, as is the union
under the constitution. How, then,
was the latter to be "more perfect
union ?" The states were parties
to both. The states framed and the
states adopted the federal constitu-
ton. Wherein did the latter differ
from the articles of confederation,
that it did not ike them create q
league? 1t was "to form a more
perfect union" in this, that unlike the
articles of confederation, the cOnsti-
titution of the United States, and
the government under 1t were to
rest upon the authority of the peo-
pie of each state, just as the consti'
tuition of each state rests for its au.
thority upon the assent of SOW.
ereignty-the people-not the PEG,
pie of all the states as collective
mass, but of each state as separate
political community. The articles
of confederation rested on the au'
thority of the governments of the
several states-mere creatures Of
, sovereignty, by which the states
: admitted themselves to be bound
only as they possessed the power to
make treaties. Hence it was
: league. Ratification was
simply an act of legisla
ton, the faith of which rested
with the legislative department o.
the government while ratification o.
: the constitution was not the act o.
government, but of sovereignty il
its broadcast republican sense, while
the constitution, therefore, is more
: binding than was the confederation
it did not make the people
of the several states one people
but recognized the states through
the people of each state-the tru'
representation of sovereignty. Thi
is why the STATESMAN has refused
+ to adopt nation" and Irrational,
and why it adheres to "union" ant
federal" 1t does so in opposition t.