The Restoration Of The Union

[palani]

http://www.sakoman.net/gutenberg/1/6...-h/16323-h.htm

The Continental Monthly, October, 1863

Exerpts from referenced article

If we say that the Federal Government may put the States upon any different footing than that established by the existing Constitution, then we virtually abrogate that instrument which accurately prescribes the means by which alone its provisions can be altered or amended. But, on the other hand, if we concede the right of each State, after making war on the Union until it is finally conquered, quietly to return and take its place again with all the rights and privileges it held before, just as if nothing had happened in the interim, then, indeed, do we make of the Federal Government a veritable temple of discord.

The insurrectionary government of the State may be only the government de facto and not de jure, using these terms with reference only to the State and its people, and not with reference to the paramount authority of the Union which, under all circumstances, deprives the insurrectionary State organization of any legal character whatever .

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

[charlesa6]

Thanks for the info.

[palani]

Wait, there is more!

April 1864 The Continental Monthly

http://www.sakoman.net/gutenberg/1/8...-h/18946-h.htm

Suppose that, the rebellion being overthrown, not even one man remains loyal to the Nation within the territorial limits of any single State, has the State ceased to exist? A State is called, in the language of publicists, a body politic. It is, in effect, a sort of corporation, administered for the benefit of its inhabitants by trustees whom they appoint. One of the maxims of law is that a trust shall not fail for lack of a person to execute it. It might, therefore, in such a case as the one supposed, be competent for the United States to designate persons who should take charge of the State Government, and administer it in trust for the children of its former recreant inhabitants , and as their legal and political successors.Reverting to the settled principles of the law, we find that the essential idea of a corporation is its immortality, or individuality, or the perpetual succession of persons under it, notwithstanding the changes of the individual persons who compose it. The State, like a corporation, has an individuality of its own, which is not affected by the changes of the individual persons composing it. It has an immortality, not affected by their entire extinction. Its own organic existence is not thereby extinguished. In other words, the State cannot be merged, or swallowed up, in the Nation.

I believe the article is referring to the Federal government as 'the Nation' whereas my belief is that 'the Nation' is the State. As for the rest of the article, the authors arguments would be equally applicable to the British view during Revolutionary War!

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

[palani]

Continental Monthly May 1862

http://www.sakoman.net/gutenberg/1/4...-h/14680-h.htm

This theory carried out logically, would make counties equal to States; towns equal to counties; wards and districts equal to towns; neighborhoods equal to districts and wards; and to come down to the last application of the principle, every one man in a neighborhood equal to the whole, in fact, superior, if the State rights doctrine be true, that the State is supreme within its own limits. The application of this principle ends society by destroying the order based on authority, and placing the State above the Nation, and the individual above the State.

Recommended reading ... Take a look at the Federalist Papers and then read this article. Looks like the old carrot and stick technique to me. The Federalist Papers (should be called the Nationalist Papers) gives all the benefits of a strong federal (National) government and this article tells you that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

So just what is wrong with the individual being above the State? The State is a corporation from the previously posted article. It should be at the next to the bottom of the heap.

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

[palani]

Found in Chapter 137 "Construction of Statutes", in The Revised Statutes of the Territory of Iowa of 1843

Fourteen. The word "State' when applied to the different parts of the United States, shall be construed to extend to, and include the District of Columbia, and the several territories so called ; and the words "United States" shall be construed to include the said District and territories.

Logical analysis of this sentence would indicate that the United States is indeed sans States but is not without territories!

So, when there is an announcement that the Union must be restored by all appearances the territories are being re-united with the District of Columbia.

[charlesa6]

Okay! keep it coming?

[palani]

Ok -

Atlantic Monthly
August 1863

http://www.sakoman.net/gutenberg/1/6...-h/16033-h.htm

But it should be remembered that this right has been, to establish Slavery by bringing in slaves from the old States,—not by taking citizens of the United States, and reducing them to slavery. If one such citizen can be enslaved, then can any other; and the very foundations of the Federal Government can be overturned by a State. For a government that cannot protect its own citizens from loss of citizenship by being chattellized is no government at all.

By some it is claimed that the Rebels have lost all rights as citizens of States, and are in the condition of the inhabitants of unorganized territories belonging to the United States,—and that, having forfeited their rights, they can never be restored to their former position, except by the consent of the Federal Government. This consent may be given by admitting them as new States , or restoring them as old,—the Government having the right in either case to annex terms and conditions.

There are others who contend that the Rebel States, though in rebellion, have lost none of their rights as States,—that the moment they submit they may choose members of Congress and Presidential electors, and demand, and we must concede, the same position they formerly held. This theory has been partially recognized by the present Administration, but not to an extent that precludes the other from being adopted, if it is right.

The Federal Government does not emanate from the States, but directly from the people. The relation between them is that of protection on the one hand and allegiance on the other. This relation cannot be dissolved by either party, unless by voluntary or compulsory expatriation. It subsists alike in States and Territories, not being dependent upon any local government. The Rebels claim the right to dissolve this relation, and to become free from and independent of the Federal Government, though retaining the same territory as before. We deny any such right, and hold, that, though they may forfeit their rights as a State, they are still bound by, and under the jurisdiction of, the Federal Government. This jurisdiction, though absolute in all places, is not the same in all.

In the District of Columbia, and in all unorganized territories, the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is exclusive in its extent, as well as in its nature. It must protect the inhabitants in all their rights,—for there is no other power to protect them. They owe allegiance to it, and to no other.

The inhabitants of the organized territories , though under the general jurisdiction of the Federal Government, are, to some extent, under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Governments. Each is bound to protect them in certain things; they are bound to support and obey each in certain things.

The people of a State are also under the absolute jurisdiction of the Federal Government in all matters embraced in the Constitution. They owe it unqualified allegiance and support in those things. But they are also, in some matters, under the jurisdiction of the State Government, and owe allegiance to that. There are many matters over which both have jurisdiction, and in which the citizens have a right to look to each, or both, for protection. The courts of each issue writs of habeas corpus, and give the citizens their liberty , unless there is legal cause for their custody or restraint.

A State, in the meaning of public law, has been defined to be a body of persons united together in one community, for the defence of their rights.

So by the last definition a 'State' is a body politic. Far cry from the definition of 'State' in a previous post. Also, one can surely rest easily now that the source of ones 'liberty' is known.



This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net