Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-07-19
Jefferson Davis once Moro Explains
nis Idea OF the tnIon aud the
GenNes

The Jackson Miss CLARION prints
the following letter.
BEArvoiR. MISS, june 2o, 1855.
' Coionsl i. l.. Power. Clarion ONE
Dear Sr,-Amoug the less-in-
formed persons NJ the North there ex-
-ts an opinion that the negro slave
nj the South Wa mere chattel,
having neither rights nor immu-
mites protected by law or public opin-
ION. Southern men knew such was not
the case, and other, desiring to know
could readily learn the fact. ON that
error the Landed story Of " ncle Toms
CABIN was founded, but Il Is strange
that Unitarian and shrcwd people Dad
not ask why slave, especially valua-
BILE. Wa, the object Of priyation and
abuse Had il been a horse they
would have been better able 10 Judge.
and would most probably have rejected
abe story Tor rs ,mprobability. Many
attempts have been 90 cvade and mis-
represent the exhaustive opinion of
ChieCJusticc fancy IN the " bred
Scott" case, but II remains unan.
swercd.
" From the statement in regard 10
Fort Sumter q child might suppose that
a foreign army had attacked the United
Statcs-ccrtainly could not learn that
the State Of South Carolina was merely
seeking possession Of fort on her own
soil, and claiming that her grant Of the
site had become void.
"The tyrant's plea Of necessity to
excuse despotic usurpation IS offered
for the unconstitutional act Of emanci-
patton, and the poor resort to prejudice
is invoked in the use ofthe epithet re-
bellion "A word inapplicable to States
generally, and most especially 80 to the
sovereign members of a voluntary
union. But, alas for their ancient pres
tige, they have even lost the plural re-
ference they had in the Constitution,
and seem so small to this utilizing tut
ton as TO be described by the neutral
pronoun it, Such language would
be appropriate to all imperial Govern
ment. which in absorbing territories re-
quired the subjected inhabitants to
swear allegiance to it.
Ignorance and artitice have CON-
bined so to misrepresent the matter of
official oaths in the United States that
it may be we'll to give the question
more than passing notice. When
the sovereign, independent States of
America formed a constitutional COM
pact of union it was provided in the
sixth article thereof that the officers
Of the United States and'Of the Seye-
raj States shall be bound by oath or
affirmation to support this Constitu-
tion, and by the law Of June |, 1889,
the form Of the required oath was pre-
scribed as follows: Il, A b, do
solemnly swear or affirm las the case
may be- that | will support the Con-
stitution Of the United States
That was the oath. The obligation
was to support the Constitution. 1t
created no new obligation, for the clti-
zen already owed allegiance to his re-
spective State, and through her to the
Union Of which she was a member.
The conclusion is unavoidable that
those who did not support, but did not
violate the Constitution, were they who
broke their official oaths. The General
Government had only the powers
delegated TO it by the States.
The power to coerce a State
was not given. but emphatically
refused. Therefore, to invade State,
to overthrow its government by force
of arms, was a palpsble violation Of the
Constitution, which officers had sworn
TO support, and thus to levy war against
States which the Federal officers