The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-07-23
STATE LINES AND RIGHTS.

In recent article on the admission of
Utah, and referring incidentally to
States rights, the Journal said it wished
''to be on record against that political
heresy which is rapidly striding to the
front, as it did thirty years ago, and
fraught with as many dangers-that any
State may regulate all of its institutions
in it's own way" Whereupon the New
York Evening Post remarks:
What the Journal calls that political
heresy" is the doctrine upon which the Re-
Abraham Lincoln having been elected upon
platform which declared
That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of
the States aud especially the right of each State
to order and control its own domestic institu-
lions according to its own judgment exclusively,
is essential to thai balance of power on which
the perfection and endurance of our political fab
ric depends.
The editor of the Journal ought to "read
up" a little on the history of his party.
The editor of the Journal has read up
little on the history of his party, and
has learned that it occupies considera-
bly, more advanced ground than it did in
1861. There has been good deal of
history made since then. The world
has moved, and the Republican party
has learned something if the Democratic
party has not. The Constitution of the
United States is a good deal stronger
now than it was when Abraham Lincoln
was elected. The power and authority
of the national government are more
extensive, and the dangerous dogma of
State sovereignty is not nearly SO influ-
entail or potent for mischief.
The Republican party of 1860 partook
of the temper of the times. The De-
mocracy had been in control of the gov
eminent long time, slavery had dom
mated the public mind and conscience,
and the doctrine of State sovereignty
had been industriously worked to lay
a foundation and furnish pretext for
secession. The Republican party was
essentially anti-slavery, but it did not
dare to demand its abolition. Slavery
was encircled and protected by the awful
sanctity of State sovereignty. And so
the Republican party yielded to the
temper of the times and the demOraliz-
ing influence of Democratic domination
so far as to recognize the right
of State to maintain an institution
which was opposed to every principle
of right and justice, and which
contained the seeds of political
dissolution and death. 1t is en-
tirely true that Lincoln was elected
on a platform of non-interference
with slavery in the States. Neither he
nor the Republican party had any idea
at that time that the Constitution con-
tanned such tremendous undeveioped
powers for the preservation of the Union,
and that it would become necessary to
exercise them even to the extent of dis
regarding State lines and State sOver-
eighty and wiping out the sacred do
nestle institutions intrenched behind
them. When in the course of the prose-
cutiOn of the war for the national life it
became necessary to do this, it was
done. The platform declaration on
which Lincoln had been nominated and
elected did not stand in the way when it
was found that the preservation of ma
tiOHdl SOfcICiSulS was IhhuitCly mOIc
important than that of State sOver-
eighty, and the life of the government
than that of slavery.
The Republican party of 1889 would
not repeat the platform declaration of
1850. 1t recognizes and respects the con-
stitutional rights Of the States, but not
to the extent of asserting the doctrine of
State sovereignty. The better construc-
ton of the Constitution, and the one
now practically established, is that a
State may regulate its domestic affairs
in it's own way, provided that way is not
in conflict with the national Constitution
or the general welfare. The future con-
struction of the Constitution and admin
istration of the government will be more
and more distinctly on that line. State
lines are fainter now than they were
thirty years ago, and they will befstill
fainter thirty years hence. The first
century of our national existence was
largely devoted to an exposition of
State rights. 1t is probable the second
century will witness a steady and pro-
gressive development of federal power.
The predOminance of centrifugal force
will be followed by predominance of
centripetal, and while the States will
not be unduly dwarfed the Nation will
more and more take precedence.