Year: 1865

If there is any State in the Union


that has been benefited by the doc


trine of State rights and by its asscr.


ton in days past, that State is AIichi-


gan. When the question of her
admission into the Union was before
the Congress of the United States, and


Congress turned usurper, refusing IL
admit the State, not only because Con


gress had passed no enabling act, but


because to secure the vote Of the great
and powerful State. Of Ohio in favor Of


tho then presidential candidate (An-
drew Jackson,) that same Congress
required that the only lake port,
Toledo, should be taken from her


boundaries, how did the people OF


Michigan then feel, talk and act in
the premises Her people claimed
the right to elect her own State officers
and their Senators and Representa-
tives in Congress, and did so, before
her admission, knocking then boldly
at the door of Congress for admission
as State of the Union, on an equality
in all respects with the original States.
And her rights in this respect were
ably and boldly argued by no less a
statesman and patriot than John
Quincy Adams. Michigan was then
democratic State, the Congress of
the United States was democratic, and
old Hickory himself was Democrat;
but instead of charging the people of
Michigan with disloyalty because they
asserted their rights, they resorted to
the arts of craftsmanship, and wisely
avoided collision of arms.


The principle of State rights was
therefore acknowledged as claimed by
the State of Michigan; nor was Gov
ernor Mason arrested, put into prison,
either before military or civil tribu-
nal, when with on army of Michigan's
first and oldest sons, he went into
camp TO protect and defend her soil
and territory. Principles had then
something to do with the action of the
government, of Congress and of the
States; while it cannot be denied that
party considerations controlled their
action in many particulars, as it does
now. 1t was in consequence OF this,
doubtless, that Congress claimed that
Toledo should belong to the State of
Ohio. But tho firm assertion of her
rights by the State of Michigan, led
to concession on the part of Con-
gress, which has been the means Of
wealth and progress which practically
she never would have possessed, but
for the acceptance of an equivalent in
the mining country on the borders of
Lake Superior. 1t was peaceful
compromise, it is true-but it was the
assertion of principle of State rights
which led TO it, and has secured to
Michigan those wonderful mines of
silver and copper and iron along the
shores of Lake Superior, extending
over hundreds of adjacent square
miles, and of which the editor of the
Chicago Republican says, "not mil
lionth part has yet been developed,
though the estimated products of the
mines from the beginning exceeds S40,-
100000" If, as the editor says, "it
had been a problem to furnish State
with treasures richer than gold or
it could hardly have been
better solved than now in Michigan"
that problem was furnished in the
bold and manly stand which her poll
ticians and people took in 1896, in
defence of her sovereign rights as a
State. If her people now ignore them,
why may not Congress or the govern
ment, in the assertion Of doctrine at
variance with the doctrine which the
people of Michigan then held and
to BY our people, attach the mining
country to the State of Wisconsin p
1t would be idle to plead the Consh-
tuition of the United States or the Con-
stitution of the State Of Michigan in
bar to such a proceeding, for the pro-
visions of both would be clearly ig-
nored, if the people Of Michigan now
concede the power to Congress or to
the Executive to LEeIsLATE on those
matters which pertain to our local
rights and which have never been de-
volved upon Congress by the States or
the people. If State rights be affirmed
for ourselves, however, let it also be
affirmed for the people of other States,
SO long at least as they preserve their
republican forms of government, which
Congress is bound in the outset, as a
sole condition Of admission into the
Union, to guarantee. 90 D.2