Year: 1866

/ DelIlOnt TOrtelted their corporate eXIstenc


and iapsed into the normal condition o


territories. The other maintains tha
State existence is indestructible and tina


the Would-be seeded States remain il
the Union as States, though their reia


rion to the general government may have


been impaired by the act of rebellion


Both cOneede that rights have been for


feited, but differ as to the manner and de-
gree of forfeiture. The advocates o.


both seem TO desire the restoration of the
Irebel States, bnt upon different terms
corresponding with the different views Of


their present status


Both these theories proceed from 8
common pOstulate, which is not often
noticed. 1t is the assumption that the
Union Is a compact. 1t seems mutually
agreed that the United States Is the re-
suit of an agreement between States as
individual Corporations possessing inde-
/ pendent powers. The authority of the
| general government is held to be such as
has been delegated by States as original
fountains Of power-such authority as


the States have not expressly reserved to
/ themselves. There may be partisans on
either side who do not hold this view, yet
such seems to be the general opinion.
Now let US inquire into this assumption
and see if il Is we'll founded Is the
! Union a compact? Is it a compact of
States as corporations is it a compact of
] peoples? Is it a compact at all2 We
venture to say, no. The preamble to the
constitution declares that we, the people
/ of the United States. do ordain and es-
l tablish this constitution for the United
I'VE the peoples, or ''we the States. -
Neither does 1t say I'VE agree" or I'VE
l form compact under" but I'VE do or
dain and establish" Now for all prae-
/ tical purposes we might assume that at
the time of the adoption of the cOnstitu-
ton no colonial or State governments ez-
isted-that the people In the aggregate
assembled by their delegates and ordain-
ed and established" their constitution
The whole people collectively organized
their government, which they were pleased
to call the United States. No powers
were delegated by States, but by the peo-
pie. All powers not delegated to the gen
eral government remained to the people.
Every American became citizen not ofa
State but of the United States, which
was the sovereign authority to which he
owed his allegiance.


The general government being once
formed. 1t was required to recognize those
divisions Of the people then known as
States, and to guarantee them republican
forms of government. 1t was also au-
rhOrized to admit new States. But it
should be carefully kept In mind that
the States then existing or to be thereafter
formed, were theoretically or de factO
moulded from the people by the general
government. Also, that this indefeasible
right of the people to be divided into
States and recognized as such is one of
the fundamental principles of the consti-
tuition. The general government not only
might recognize the States then existing
hFye suH En hn Ia
established their government and author
ized and required it to mould them into
States. Tiiis excludes entirely the idea
Of a compact between States.


Now the constitution requires that each
State shall be guaranteed a republican
form 0f government. This itself implies
that the State is something different from
its form Of government But it can only
be one thing else, and that is its people
Yet even population may not, under our
system, necessarily constitute a State. 1t
may be limited in number and sparsely
scattered over wide extent of territory.
In this crude and normal condition it is
under the tutelage of the central power
1t remains thus until it arrives at its ma
jOrity, so to speak, when under the laws
It is entitled to be admitted to the full
rights of Statehood. But when once
thus admitted and recognized it can no
more be returned to its normal condition
than could one of the original thirteen
1t has now the adequate number of peO-
pie to constitute a State, and once recog-
nized as such, it remains such forever. 1t
can no more return to It's normal cOndi-
ton than can manhood return to child
hood. States are the slow growth of time
They may by misconduct forfeit rights
under the constitution. So a man, by
violating the laws, may place himself in
disadYautageous relation to the rest of the
community. He may be deprived of all
his rights by way of punishment. But
he is a man still no one would consider
him as having returned to the condition
of minority. Thus with States. By an
act of rebellion they may change their
relations to the central power, but cannot
relapse into the embryonic condition OF
territories.


individuals may commit treason, but a
State cannot. The idea of a great com
munity like Ohio committing treason IS
absurd. The majority Of the people may
withdraw the State from participation Ia
the general government. If every indi
vidual IN the State is dislOyal, then it II
dislOyal State, but a State nevertheless
While under the control of insurgents Il
has no constitutional government. Bur
when it has been reclaim ed from rebellion
the general government steps in and gives
it government republican In form. Ii
there be loyal minority, the government
should be SO far as possible entrusted to
them. IF there be no loyal minority the
State must be considered as in a condi
tion of war and treated accordingly. just
so far as it Is loyal 1t is entitled to civi
rights and to participation In the general
government. just so far as it is disloyaI
It is in a state of hostility, and should be
controlled by military power or by some
appropriate civil administration enforced
by arms.


The people being the State, it is with
them that the central power deals, and
not with any abstract or imaginary exist
ence. just so far and so long as the peo-
pie are disloyal, just so far and so long
they must be kept under the strong hand
of the general government. As they re-
turn to loyalty in good faith, they resume
their rights and privileges under the con-
stitutiOn. From the time the act OF
rebellion commenced, these rights were
suspended or remained dormant. As the
State did not die, so they did not. As
the people still exist, so their rights as a
State still exist, though properly withheld
from them until a sufficient number have
returned to loyalty to become the safe de-
positories of such rights. If the majority
ofa district in given State is loyal, its rights
should not be affected by disIoyal major.
tiles il other districts. So of the States
Whether State or district is loyal must
be proven by the tone, temper aud con.
duct of the people. Loyalty esoheWs all
. Al p