Newspaper Page Text
have sought to save the poor lamb’s
| , - there has been quite a lively little
.j~P jn the premises. As soon as some
unfortunate has stuck his
into somebody else’s back or blown
dit top of his skull off, the philanthro
and philanthropistesses turn out in
threat force and invade the cell of the
P.avful homicide with tarts, and tracts,
‘id cold boiled chicken, and jelly, and
advice. They employ learned
counsel for him, write sympathizing let
ters to the papers in his behalf, “ see’’
t;ie Stati*s attorney, aud if all these
‘cuts fail, bore the Governor for a par
,£n f u r that “ sweet young man,” whose
fre-h life some “ grouty ” old judges and
iuu rs wish to untimely end. When all
'this, also fails, and sometimes it does fail,
then the saints take anew tack and de
rive an immense satisfaction from minute
accounts of the last hours of the con
demned. It is a regular business with
the larger Northern papers to have “exe
cution reporters,” and whenever there is
to be a hanging these connoisseurs tire
>scn t any distance, and at any cost, “to do
the thing in style.” For a second time
the poor, dear murderer is invaded,
looked at, talked to, inspected inside and
out. and every word that tails from him
telegraphed to the “enterprising” sheet.
When the poor wretch is brought to the
gibbet, the reportorial pens go like mad
How pale his lips were, whether he
ilinched or stumbled, how he shook hands
with his ghostly attendant, and whether
he forgave the sheriff', just at what mo
ment he was swung off', and how mauy
times he kicked, aud whether, on being
cut down, his tongue was entirely bitten
through, or only half bitten through
these are the things recorded in their
most minute particulars aud gloated
over at ten thousand breakfast tables in
the new civilization.
But then what else is to be expected
when in the inner circles of this civiliza
tion, in the sancta sanctorum of tire
elite j ;u hear that morality is a myth,
and koc an “idealization,” and duty
tinan.s sell, and that there is indeed no
bed hilt only our lanc} r that there is one.
l , who wnte this, have heard in large
public assemblage women of good char
acter address audiences on topics that
should never be heard out of the strict
er and Miiostic or professional privacy, and
i have seen in a social gathering other
womwi of fair repute hob nobbing on a
perfect equality with the dissolute of
their ex. These things I had once heard
bu h <*k Ilk-iii only to be the offspring of
pi» t> feeding or sectional dislike, but
no\s I know them, and worse, to be too
U*ue. There is a madness in this new
cmiiz'iUoii that makes me shudder to
think that there are any so blinded as to
si-r.d their .-uns and daughters from the
yet iintairit and South to be educated in an
atmosphere where so vile a phrenzy
leigns.
But one grows bitter, and yet it would
take not a man but an angel to keep his
temper in the presence of that abomina
ble presumption which dares to vaunt
this kind of civilization as the very
crown aud bower of the times. Well is
it. for America that there is yet one clean
spot within her borders, one Country, at
least, where the social tone is pure as the
violet in comparison to these gaudy,
noxious, Ah uiiting weeds.
Tyrone Powers.
DAVIS AVD LEE 5
OR, THE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS.
An attempt to ascertain from the Fed
eral Constitution, from the acts of the
pre-existent States, and from the con
temporaneous exposition of the fath
ers, the SOVEREIGNTY, CITIZENSHIP,
allegiance and treason of the Uni
ted States, the obligation of the Presi
dent's Conititutional Oath, and the
seasons why the trial of the Confed
erate Chiefs icas evaded. By one of
the Counsel of Jefferson Davis’
CHAPTER II. —PERVERSION.
As “the Government” now claims
“absolute supremacy,’’ and exercises
a,M * enforces the same, whenever it
thinks “necessity,” “the safety of the
re P ui lie,” or even “good policy” requires
u » “we, the people,” have obviously lost
our freedom. And we can only retake
and enjoy it in its active seuse of self
government by reasserting and reastab-
the original Federal plan, and
"" eeiort 1 keeping our General Govern*
] ffM- within our “supreme kw” estab
it, and compelling the said gov
‘ iitnent to work, as our agenev, under
our sovereignty, with the legal force or
-1 gmallv contemplated—the same that the
k tale governments work with— and that
no military force, except to aid
j‘ Je civil authority, and put down any
J'u’.i'kJ criminal opposition thereto,
-the States being the sole sources of all
1“’ V ”C Federal military force against any
°1 the people, without or against State
authority, is treasonable.
To impress upon the reader at this
point the absolute sovereignty of the
people, and the subordination of their
governments, as well as the perfect simi
i laiity, in created existence, character,
! and vicarious authority of the Federal
and State governments; and, moreover,
I ai ) absolute and unquestionable
basis for further exposition, let us have
the sacred testimony of the fathers as to
the seat or residence of original, absol
ute, and iueontrollable authoritv, i. e.,
sovereignty. It is well to observe here
that every organic law expressed or im
plied that “all political power is in
herent in THE people,” so that the fath
ers did not, in the following extracts,
express their opinions merely, but truths
—the very institutes of freedom.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE FATHERS.
Said Hamilton, in the Convention of
New York, in 1788, speaking of the pro
posed system: “What is the structure of
this Government ? * * * p eo _
pie govern.. They act by their immediate
representatives.” He evidently knew
of no “absolute supremacy” in “the Gov
ernment.” John Jay, of New York, the
fust Chief Justice of the United States,
wrote as follows, in his “address to the
people of that State, in favor of the
federal Constutition: “The proposed Gov
ernment is to be the government of the
people. All its officers are to be its offi
cers, and exercise no rights but such as
the people commit to them. The Con
stitution only serves to point out that
part of the people’s business which they
think proper by it to refer to the manage
ment of the persons therein designated.”
Hoes not that mean the constitution of an
Agency ? Judge Parsons, one of the
greatest statesmen and jurists of Massa
chusetts, in the ratifying convention of
the State, characterized the Federal Gov
ernment as “a government to be admin
istered for the common good, by the
servants of the people, vested with dele
gated powers, by popular elections, at
stated periods.” The Federal Constitu
tion,” continued he, “establishes a gov
ernment of this description, and, in this
case, the people divest themselves of
nothing; the government and powers
which the Congress can administer are
the mere result of a compact made by
the people.” The people divest them
selves of nothing,”’ said Judge Parsons;
that is to say, they govern themselves,
using an agency for that purpose— Qvi
I'acit per ahum facit per sc. But our
modern interpreters say that “the Gov
ernment has “absolute supremacy,” and
can coerce “the allegiance” of the very
States that gave it existence. Said Gen.
C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in
the ratifying convention of that State:
“ Ihe sovereign or supreme power of the
State, with us, resides in the people.
Ihe General Government has no powers
but what are expressly granted to it. By
delegating express powers, we certainly
reserve to ourselves every power and
right not mentioned in the Constitution,”'
Said Chancellor Pendleton, the Presi
dent of the ratifying convention of Vir
ginia: “The peopie are the fountain of
all power. They must, however, dele
gate it to agents, because from their
number, etc., * * * they cannot
exercise it in person.” Said John Mar
shall, the great judge, in the same con
vention? “Those who give may take
away. It is the people that give power,
and. can lake it back ; what shall re
strain them l They are the masters who
gavejt, and of whom the servants hold
* * * Are not Congress and the
State Legislatures the agents of the peo
ple ? Said James Wilson, who was
the leading statesman of Pennsylvania
in both the Federal and State conven
tions: “The supreme, absolute, and un
controllable power is in the people before
they make a constitution, and remains
in them after it is made.” The absol
ute sovereignty never goes from the peo
ple.” The Father of his Country wrote
to his nephew, Bushrod Washington,
November 10, 1787, as follows: “The
power under the Constitution will always
be in the people. It is entrusted to their
representatives. * * * their ser
vants. * * * They are no more
than the creatures of the people.” Said
Madison (who is often called “the Father
of the Constitution,” and who certainly
was “its ablest expounder,”) in article
40 of the Federalist: “The Federal and
State governments are, in fact, but dif
ferent AGENTS AND TRUSTEES of tllO peo
ple. * * * The ultimate author
ity [ i . e., the ‘absolute supremacy ,’j
wherever the derivative may be found,
resides in the people alone.” Aud he
said in the convention of Virginia, in re
ference to tin* parties to the LLiion, that
the phrase “the people” did not mean
the people as composing one great socie
ty, but the people as composing thirteen
sovereignties.” And it may be stated
here that generally when the fathers used
the phrase “the people,” constitutionally,
they meant the people of the sovereign
*-tate, that were the actors in making the
MMIB ©F fll
Federative Union. They could not have
meant otherwise, for the simple reason
that the people were the States, and the
States were the people.
No framer of the Constitution ever
did, or could, characterize the Federal
functionaries they were providing for
otherwise than as the States themselves
did as “substitutes aud agents,” who were
to be and remain as “citizens” and “sub
jects” of the States, being elected by
these to execute their will; and yet, as
has been shown, the so-called states and
expounders of the day venture to assert
that the Government is “ absolutely su
preme” and holds the States in alleyi
ance.”
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERVERTERS.
For immediate and direct contrast, let
us here note the leading dogmas of the
Massachusetts school of so-called ex
pounders. Pretending to cite the fath
ers in proof, they teach that oneness of
will and action, and not a concurrence of
wills, caused the Constitution; that
thereby the American people, though
once states, have become a national unity
—an undivided nation, the apparent sub
divisions of which are provinces or
counties—mere fractions and not con
stituents of the nation; that tho Consti
tiou being “the supreme law of the land,”
“the Government” has “absolute su
premacy,” and a right to exact and en
force “the allegiance of the States” to it;
aud finally, that the Commonwealths of
New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
et a!s., have no status or rights except
such as are reserved and assigned to
them in the Constitution; or, in other
words, that they are reduced to counties
or provinces. These ideas are expressed
in Lincoln’s first inaugural; in the ad
dress of the Philadelphia Convention of
1866; in Professor Jameson’s work,
called The Constitutional Convention ;
in the New York Times and New York
World, and substantially in Webster’s
speech of 1833 It will be duly seen
that all history, all words of the fathers,
all the records of the States, and all the
archives of the country show that these
statements are absolutely untrue! Such
teaching assumes that we have no politi
cal beings called States; no “ Federal
Constitution;” no “United States;” no
“Union of States; and no “citizens of
States,” as the Constitution itself teaches;
but that the States are consolidated into
one Staae, and “the Government,” hav
ing “absolute supremacy,” is to control
and protect not merely the people, but the
States they compose, us subjects. In
other words we have an empire, of
which “the Government ” is the corpor
a'e sovereign. The action of “the Gov
ernment,” has been precisely in accord
ance with these ideas. It lias vindicated
its “absolute supremacy” vi et armis,
and coerced the Staffs to yield their
wills, and consider themselves in the fu
ture as aggregations of subjects, whose
only rights are “reserved in “the great
charter”—the Constitution; and who are
privileged as “groups of voters,” to ex
press their wishes for the consideration
of “the Government.” In truth, the
States are no more!
THE SELF-CONSODII)ATION OF “THE GOVERN
MENT.
While this fraudulent and treasonable
destruction of States and consolidation
of their people into an undivided nation
is going on, another radical and corres
ponding change is being wrought in the
character and theory of “the Govern
ment.” Originally a “Senator” was a
citizen and subject of a State, elected by
her to execute her will; the “Represen
tatives” were such subjects, elected for
such purpose by the people of the State;
the Senators and Representatives were
the delegation of a Stale to the Congress
of States, and they with the executive
and judicial officers (these also being
elected or appointed by or for the States)
constituted the Federal Government.
Thus we see that our States were a
federation, and our General Government
purely a Federal one. These separtely
elected, separately swore, and separately
responsible functionaries, were sent by
each State to act as individuals, with her
authority for the good of all, i e, “to
provide for the common defense and pro
mote the general welfare,” and to be
checks on all the other functionaries—
the whole system being one of checks
and balances to prevent consolidation and
tyranny. But these separately elected
and vicarious creatures have effected the
worst form of consolidation, for they now
claim corporate capacity, independent
existence, original right and authority,
discretion outside of the Constitution, re
gal perogatives, and in short, all the es
sentials of sovereignty, This self-formed
corporate body has not merely an esprit
de corps, but an oneness of will and pur
pose characteristic alike of a corporation,
an oligarchy, or an autocrat.
CjEARISM.
Under the forms of a repubiication
federation, then, we have a consolidated
empire and a corporate despot, just as
the Homans hail “an absolute monarchy
disguised in the forms of a common
wealth.” (Gibbon.) The parallelism
will hereafter more fully appear.
The military trained and military,
sonled war-secretary of the aforesaid
corporate despot, recently said : “In the
Old World, it is said that the army is the
safety of the empire ; with equal truth
we may say' that the army is the safety
of the republic.” Explained by recent
events, this means that what an army
backed despot or despotism chooses to
style the republic, is to be preserved by
the army, even against the poople that
compose such republic. T t means that
“the Government” has the right to en
force its “absolute supremacy,” vi et ar
mis, in and against the will of a State,
and that “so far State sovereignty,” to
use the words of Webster, “is to be ef
fectually controlled.” All this has the
full and clear ring of Caesarism, :>nd it
is consonant with Seward’s phrase, “If
they don’t keep he peace, we must keep
it for them.” Both are symphonious
with the “little bell,” acd seem to har
monize with a certain active-transitive
verb of the imperative mood, “Let us
have peace.”
WILL OUR PEACE BE OF CONTENTMENT OR
OF FORCE ?
A military man can be satisfied with
the “order” that “reigns in Warsaw
hue let us hope that when President
Grant comes to realize that he is a civili
an, instead of a soldier; that he must act
by the written discretion of his sover
eigns, instead of his own ; that his duty
is executing ready-made civil laws
for all the people, instead of enforcing
peace with the bayonet in a discontent
ed section; that our Government is rc-1
publican and not despotic ; and, above j
all, that his judgment and conscience are
under oath “to preserve, protect, and de
fend the Constitution,” and not under a
mere partisan pledge to observe ail elec
tioneering platform; he will give to his
ejaculation a hortative, or precatory, in
stead ol an imperative sense; and that
his peace signifies the disestablishment
ot the army and the restoration of ihe
absolute autonomy or the States, so that
they, as the I’athet s intended, shall gov
ern themselves —locally by their home
agencies, and federally by their Federal
one. Grant’s constitutional oath—like i
that ol every officer of “the Govern- j
meat”—requires him to treat the States j
as sovereigns, and to consider armies aud !
the commanders thereof as not only sub
jects ol tire States, but raised aud sup
ported by their means, and moved solely
by their authority. Nay, more, he is
oath-bound to see that such army is em
ployed tor defense, and not for attack of
iS rates; and to at no federal soldier ever
cros.es a State boundary except by her
command, permission, or call.
i lesideut Brant can but sec and know
and lcmember that the States are equal
bodies. No power can be above them,
because the Constitution is their law, and
the Government is provided for in, and
controlled by the Constituion. That in
strument says, “ each State shall ap
point ” Presidential electors. For the
said States, these electors chose General
Grant. He is sworn “to preserve, pro
tect, and defend the Constitution.” To
keep his oath, then, he must regard the
States as his sovereigns, and he must deal
with Louisiana just as he does with
Massachusetts and New York.
[Round Table.
From the States.
GOV. A. G. BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI.
History repeats itself; and it has just
made repetition of one of its basest phases
in the person of Gov. Albert G. Brown,
of Mississippi. There never yet was an
oppressed people who did not generate a
brood of betrayers among themselves.
It has been for example, a lucrative busi
ness in Ireland to “mouth” and rant
against the “Saxon,” until the “Saxon”
offered the patriot his price; when
straightway he began to talk in a strain
of loyalty so like that of Gov. Brown,
that one half believes it is some old story
of British bribery and Irish apostacy that
he reads, instead of a letter —recently
published—of an ex Governor of Missis
sippi. Gov. Brown has started down an
inclined plane. The progress he has
made, foibids hope of his return. “Easy
is the descent;” and whatever he may
have been in the past, we admonish the
true men of the S utli that have nothin^
O
to hope from him hereafter. He has
turned his back on his State, on true
friends who have loved and trusted him,
on himself!
It was long ago remarked that “ the
renegade was worse than the Turk;” and
the apostate from the cause of liberty in
variably becomes the most supple and
conscienceless instrument of tyranny.
From this class oppression gathers most
efficient and serviceable recruits. From
this class have come the meanest tools
that ever did a despot’s bidding, ft ™
high praise of mankind to say, that they
have always visited these men with in
famy ; and it is some mitigation of the
hatefulness of tyranny itself, that it
loathes and despises such creatures, even
while it uses them.
From a rule which has proved univer
sal in history, the South cannot hope for
exemption. She must be prepared to
learn that some men in whom she has
confided, were scalawags in disguise, and
when she sees them in the market-plaoe
bartering patriotism, integrity, manhood,
honor and conscience for the apostate’s
price, it is only left to make them so in
fhmous that their influence will go for
nothing, and their example be so hateful
that the most audacious scoundrels will
hesitate to follow.
If Gov. Brown hoped to conceal his
treachery by the pretense of making
best of a bad state of circumstances; if
he thought to hide his apostacy, and
keep his fellow-citizens in ignorance of
his perfidy, he is the victim of vain delu
sion, for his letter is saturated, permeated,
and oozes throughout with Black Repub
licanism; it is a compend of the worst
ideas of the worst men of that party; and
it is therefore an advertisement of his
treachery, not only in Mississippi, but in
all parts of the country wherever it shall
be read. We find it painful to contem
plate!
Look at the specification he makes of
men from whom the South has some
thing to hope. If he had named Beecher,
Greely, and Chase, who, at long intervals,
have seemed to grow weary of the eter
nal hate, and manifested some brief and
temporary' purpose to relent—we could
imagine that a weak man might be de
ceived, and mistake sheer exhaustion in
wrong-doing for an intent to desist. But
that ignorant and beastly ruffian, Wade,
who is so essentially a tyrant that if he
had none else upon whom to expend his
brutality, he would beat his wife and tor
ture his children, is the type of five
other ultras who Gov. Brown is satisfied
will do us justice if the case is fairly
“put before!” And yet all know, and
none knows them better than Gov.
Brown, that since the close of the war—
a time so prolific of infer ml devices—
no measure lias been suggested of death,
banishment, confiscation, disfranchise
ment. or oppression in any of its multi
tudinous shapes, which four at least of
these five have not been eager t > inflict
on the South IB* is even so affronted
as to sav that the Southern people “have
been made to believe that these men are
their enemies,” “pursuing them in a ma
lignant spirit” “through a mere love of
vengeance.” As if all who had sought
to vindicate and shield rhe South were
calumniators; and as if the “malignant
spirit” and “love of vengeance,” by
which these men are inspired, were not
made patent to the world by all their
votes and speeches, as well as by their
daily walk and conversation !
Gov. Brown is so thorough a Black
Republican, that he has lost all concep
tion of our Federal Government, save
only the Congress, lie makes no allu
sion whatever to the Executive branch;
and only incidentally, for a special pur
pose, (and then most unfortunately for
the veracity of his statement,) to thdJu-
diciary. >Since the Presidency of An
drew Johnson, the Executive had been
ruled out of the Government, and his
functions usurped by Congress. The
Judiciary, to which, with bitter mockery,
he says appeals may be made, has been
hampered by restrictions, and divested of
all appellate jurisdiction in cases of trans
eendant importance. But even when it
has been reached (as in the McCardle
case,) and it has held the legislation of
Congress unconstitutional, it has been
constrained by intimidation, to defer for
a year, if not indefinitely, the publication
of its decision ! These “Reconstruction
Acts,” to which Gov. Brown yields an
assent so servile, he knows to be flagrant
ly unconstitutional, and so pronounced
by a Court which, under the tyranny
dominant, durst not promulgate its de
cision ! And yet he libels the intelli
gence of Mississippi by writing this sen
tence: “If Congress violates the Federal
Constitution our appeal is to the Su
preme Court!” He libels her intelli
gence by the public assumption that he
will find believers.
It is against opinion that the force of
Black Republican tyranny is directed
: with bigoted and relentless rigor. No
i man, no State, no section has any l ight
to question or to controvert the platform
of a Black Republican Congress. It is
disloyal to do so. They are enemies of
“the nation” who do so, and must be
suppressed. More than once have promi
nent, though perhaps indiscreetly pre
i mature Republicans declared the purpose
! 0 f the party to be to disfranchise Demo
crats everywhere because of their dis
loyalty. Gov. Brown is an apt scholar,
and has caught the ideas of his new asso
ciates like a contagion ! Hear him :
“ Convince Congress that when we con-
5