IS A STATE SOVEREIGN? 11 owe to our own Sovereign State." This is the doctrine which I propose to consider; and it is given in the words of one who is believed by many to have done more to make it the prevalent doctrine of the South than any other man, with the possible exception of John C. Calhoun. The words sovereign and sovereignty have been used in a loose and vague sense. A man may be said to be a sovereign in his own house; a captain of a ship is a sovereign, in a modified sense. In like manner, the words have been used in connection with governmental matters during our whole history. They are not in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; they are in neither of the Constitutions of Ohio, though they may be found in the earlier Constitutions of some of the States. They have been frequently used by those who never thought of attaching to them the strict meaning in which they have been understood and used by the political leaders of the South for many years. A sovereign State or Nation is properly one that has no political superior. This is the signification given to the word by Southern statesmen, and it is the one we must keep in mind when discussing the question of State Sovereignty. Is a State sovereign in this strict and only true sense of the word? Is it true that Ohio or Indiana has no political superior? My first remark in support of the position that there is no true sovereignty in any State, is that sovereignty leads legitimately to secession. This is the argument of Mr. Jefferson Davis and his associates; and I hold their conclusion to be irresistible, if their premises are admitted. Says Mr. D., before leaving the United States Senate, "I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State Sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union." And, again, speaking of Nullification, he says, "Secession belongs to a different class of rights, and is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign." This right of secession is not a revolutionary one, according to him, but a pacific, legitimate right, to be exercised whenever, and for whatever reasons, the State may deem proper. In his inaugural, he says, "It is an abuse of language to call the act of the Southern States in forming their Confederacy, a revolution." In a tract by Hon. Wm. D. Potter, published before the last presidential election, occurs this language: "It results from the sovereign character of the States, and from the nature of the compact of union, that any State, which conceives herself aggrieved beyond endurance, may, at her sovereign will and pleasure, shake off the bonds of a broken covenant and seek her safety in a separate nationality." And again, "The whole question is whether or not the State can release her citizens from their obligations to the Federal authority, and protect them under the sufficient shield of her own sovereign authority? This is the right which Mr. CORRESPONDENCE. HEADQUARTERS "NATIONAL UNION ASSOCIATION," No. 2, Bacon's Building, North-West corner Sixth and Walnut Sts., President I. W. Andrews: Cincinnati, Ohio, June 3, 1863. SIR: The National Union Association appreciated your able Address to them at their regular meeting last night, and unanimously adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That the thanks of the National Union Association be returned to President I. W. ANDREWS, for his instructive Address relative to the Allegiance of American Citizens, being a caustic criticism on the political dogma of 'State Sovereignty;' that the General Secretary request him to commit the same to writing, and to furnish a copy for publication under the auspices of the National Union Association." In communicating the above action, allow me to tender you thanks as requested, and to congratulate you that you have so logically and patriotically defended the Constitution of the United States from a fallacy which has misled thousands. The historic light you throw upon this vital topic will, I trust, serve to conduct many of them from their error. For the Executive Committee. JOHN D. CALDWELL, General Secretary. MARIETTA COLLEGE, June 4, 1863. DEAR SIR: I will endeavor to comply with the request of the National Union Association, to commit my Address of Tuesday evening to writing for the purpose of publication, though I can not, on account of my official duties, devote the time which I should be glad to give to the subject. I give my views to the public with the more readiness, as the request from your Association is the third I have received within the last ten days. Very truly, yours, JOHN D. CALDWELL, Esq., ISRAEL W. ANDREWS. General Secretary National Union Association. 1863, Oct 13. Charles E. Norton. (HA.1846) ADDRESS. Mr. President and Gentlemen: In accepting the invitation to address you, I have no purpose to endeavor to deepen your patriotic feeling, or kindle your enthusiasm to a higher pitch. I wish rather to discuss, calmly and dispassionately, one or two of the principles of our Government, and seek to ascertain its true character from its Constitution, from its workings, and from the history of its formation. I speak not as a politician, nor as a lawyer even, but as a citizen-believing that the Constitution was intended for the people, and was clothed in language which all intelligent citizens can understand. I am not ignorant that in presuming to discuss, in public, a constitutional question, I shall incur the censure of those who believe that all such discussion must be by politicians and political editors. I know well enough that such men, while they would allow to one occupying the position which I do the right to vote, and, possibly, to have an opinion on questions affecting the vital interests of the nation, are greatly shocked, and their sense of propriety outraged, at the idea of any public utterance or advocacy of such an opinion. The charge of meddling with party politics may be expected from those who are all the while promulgating doctrines which tend, whether they know it or not, to the utter subversion of all government; but this should not deter one from giving utterance to what he sincerely believes to be, not only truth, but truth vital to the nation. I shall not speak as a partisan, or discuss questions of party politics, but rather those which concern the nature of government; and I may express the hope that, in studying the Constitution and history of our country, I have been actuated by at least as sincere a desire to arrive at the truth, and that, in this public utterance of my opinions and the reasons for holding them, I speak with as strong a sense of my responsibility as those who would deny free speech to such as I am, and arrogate to themselves the exclusive privilege of giving publicity to their views. |