National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-01-26

victory - Hoop la
The Sovereignty Of American Barbnrism'
In 1871 Clement l.. vallandigham of Ohio,
proposed to the democratic party a new de-
parture" That mole-blind organization had
not ceased up to that time to ballot openly
against the reconstruction acts of congress
and the fourteenth and fifteenth amend
ments to the constitution. The democratic
legislatures of the states Of Ohio and New
Jersey had passed resolutions. respectively,
withdrawing the consent of each Of those
states previously given for the ratification Of
the fourteenth amendments and the democratio
legislature of Now York had passed rosolu-
lions withdrawing its consent previously
given for the ratification of the fourteenth
amendment. The executive proclamation
of the ratification of the fourteenth amend
ment by the requisite three-fourths of the
states was dated July 90, 1863 and that
of the fifteenth amendment was dated March
80 1870.
Mr. Vallandigham's proposition, reduced
to plain English, was this: THE union.lov-
ing people of the United States are de-
temined on the subject Of these amendments,
and the democratic party will only destroy
itself by keeping up an open resistance to
them. They arc tho bonds under which
the ex-confederates have been put to
keep tho national peace. The confederate
cause is known to DO ours, and that
has gone down. Tho penalty of its fail
ure is the freedom and enfranchisement of
the blacks. This punishment is greater than
we can bear; but we can only avort 1t by
falsely pretending to submit to it cheerfully.
The lions skin being too short we must exc
it out with tho fox's. Let us accept tho
amendments as part of the constitution, and
then construe them according to the old CAL
houn rule of interpreting that instrument
to wit, that they mean nothing which sove-
reign states under democratic control can
object to-
This was the spirit in which the democ-
racy, on the motion of one of its ablest lead
ers. approached tho debate on tho power
granted by the amendments. twas the key
note to the democratic opposition in senate
and house to tho bills for their enforcement
! The democratic statesmen in congress demon
strated to the satisfaction Of the democratic
party that tho amendments were only
intended to prevent the states from enacting
| 90 ;nti nj
rage, ballot.box stufing, and the like frauds
upon the elective franchise, and that these
crimes could be committed with IMMUNITY by
individuals in the states unless the state au-
thorities objected. They contended that the
police powers" under which the rights Of
person and property and the privileges and
immunities of citizens were protected. could
ouly be exercised by the states, and that if
the states did not see iit to exercise them
there would be no remedy.
The republicans were amazed at the au-
dacity of this proposition, and pointed to the
final clause of each amendment, which reads
Congress shall have power to enforce this
amendment by appropriate legislation" Most
of the trainers of the amendments were still in
congress las well as the men who had in congress
opposed their adoption. The enforcing of the
amendments had up to that time been uni.
versally deemed the vitalizing of the right:
they recognized, and which had not before
been the subject of constitutional guarantee.
These rights were national citizenship and
the right to vote at both state and national
elections. Whatever was appropriate and
necessary to the maintenance of these newly
recognized rights was included in the powel
granted TO congress. This was tho position
maintained by every republican lawyer o
note in the land.
The democrats pretended to believe that
no legislation would be appropriate" which
went further than to operate upon state in
case it should enact laws for the protection of
only a portion of its people, or should legis-
late against the privileges or immunities o
citizens. Such a construction as this was, Of
course denying any grant of power whatever
to congress. Suppose any state should abridgt
any citizens privileges or to deny to an.
person the equal protection of the laws, wha
then? Why he would contend in the United
States supreme court against the constitu'
tionality of the state law. He would
not go to congress, nor is it possible
to conceive Of an act Of congress lev
D eled at state either commanding
it to do right or forbiddng it to do wrong. l
such a theory could be, we are assured that il
could not precede the misconduct of the state
Imagine the time to have arrived whom, &C
cording to democratic construction, congress
could legisate under the amendments. TIL,
bill would read something like this
, Whereas the states are forbidden by the const
O tuition Of the United States to Gbridge tho priv
ileges or immunities of citizens OF the Unite
States, or to deprive any person Of life liberty o
property without due process OF law, or to deny
A any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro
lection OF the law, or to abridge the right to vot
on account of race, color, or previous condition
sGryitude.
And whereas the legislature Of the state of Mis-
sissippl so abridged, &C., or denied, &C., as az
G pears by the net of its legislature, approved I'll
q - day Of, lSS--.
Now, therefore, be 1t enacted, &c., That II sha
be unlawful for the state Of Mississippi to enfoTc
s. the said act
8 But beyond that nothing could be don