Year: 1876

sI0ES.


In the ferment of popular feeling and the
excitement produced by exposure Of frauds,
and the expectation aroused by floating
rumors Of others the subject Of invsstiga-
ton and yet to be exposed, the public at
tention is diverted from an event of more
importance than these, or than any which
has occurred since the close Of our civil
war. That war. in the intensity and mag
nituGe of its conflicts, was bu! the reflex of
the aDtagonisms which produced it, and
the moral Results which flowed from it logi-
cally should be commensurate with the
causes which provoked and the energies
which worked out its accomplishment and
shaped its career. This, indeed, must be,
in one direction or the other, either to
maintain and perpetuate or overthrow and
obliterate the principles for which the war
was fought. Such mighty forces, put in
motion by the most powerful agencies
which humanity can WELD, cannot expend
themselves ''in thin air." their power will
roll on, perpetuating itself, vast and pene-
trating in their Influence, for ages to come.
Cause and effect are as much the law of the
moral SIS of the natural world, and moral
causes, though silent and unseen, are as
widespread and enduring in their influence,
as powerful in their energies, as the grand
est exhibitions Of physical power in the
material world. The event to which we
refer is the decision Of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the cases, one from
9th Os,;c;
constituting what are commonly known as
the enforcement acts of 1870.


We do not propose legal criticism of
the opinions in these cases. Such would
perhaps not be in good taste in a newspa-
per, nor acceptable to majority of our
readers, but the political aspect of these
decisions is a proper subject Of discussion
by the press, and is more significant than
even the legal, important as that is admit
ted to be.


The war was but conflict of ideas
ideas which have clashed from the adoption
of our Federal Constitution-which had
collided through the press on the forum
and on the hustings, and at last reached
their logical issue upon the battlefield.
Our dual system of government involves
this danger, if, indeed, it did not Involve
in its elimination and ultimate adjustment,
the ordeal of civil war. The citizens of
the United States and of the States were
the same, and both Governments claimed
their allegiance. Necessarily allegianceto
one or the other must be superior and
supreme. The advocates of nationality
maintained that the highest allegiance was
due to the United States, the advocates of
State rights that it was due TO the State.
This was the issue which eliminated in
civil war. Slavery was not the cluse of
the war. 1t was the object upon which
the lightning descended. The lightning
was this conflict Of ideas, this clashiug of
systems of government. When the war
begun 1t was proclaimed on the one side
that it was a war for the Union; on the
other that it was q war for State rights.
Around these central ideas gathered all the
other antagonisms which civil war rang
ing along geographical boundaries would
arouse, and swelled the struggle to dimen-
sions which amazed the world. At the close
of the war, ending in the triumph of the
Union armies, slavery as one Of the dan
gers to q permanent and peaceful Union was
swept away, and the dogma Of peaceable
secession was for a time suppressed. The
Federal Constitution was amended, as was
intended, so as to prohibit slavery in the
United States and to secure pernlanency to
the Federal Government and perpetuity to
| the Union by the creation of citizenship, OF
the United States, thus asserting the para;
mount allegiance due to the Federal Gov
ment, and settling forever, as was hoped
and believed, the Yexed question of SOW
ereignty between the Federal and State
| governments.


Until tins amendment there was no pro


vision of the Constitution which ordained
or by express terms recognized citizenship
of the United States. There was only an
imputed citizenship of the United States
implied from the relation of the citizens of
the States to the Federal Government, and
recognized by the Government and the
courts. The rights Of citizens of the States
as citizens of the United States were Judi
ciaIly defined, and meagre as they were, the
elimination of them had constituted the
sharpest collisions and marked epechs in
the history of the nation. The Dred Scott
decision is q memorable landmark, and
from its conflicting opinions emerged the
currents Of thought which rapidly pre-
cipitated civil strife. The popular mind
had been trained to think that citizenship
of the United States was an exalted con-
ditioo. approaching in dignity and often