Ir is painful to see how some Democratic editors flounder about in a misty mid-region between the old doctrines of Federalism and the Democratic doctrine of State sovereignty. One Democratic exchange says it prefers "to follow Jackson, who was the first leading Democrat to rebuke the doctrine of State sovereignty." Our cotemporary is unhappily ignorant of the position of Gen. Jackson on this question as he certainly is of the principles of Democracy. Jackson was a strong advocate of the sovereignty of the States. In his first inaugural he calls the States "these sovereign members of our Union." In his first annual message, he calls Congress "the Federal Legislature of twenty-four sovereign States." In his second annual message, he declares it to be most important to sustain "State sovereignties." In his fourth annual message, he eulogized the principle of "State sovereignties." He was clear enough on that point, as every Democratic statesman has been from the days of Jefferson and Madison to the present time. In fact, to deny the absolute sovereignty of the States, is to strike the key-stone out of the arch of our system of Government. The Declaration of Independence declares "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." When peace. was made, each of the States was separately named as a sovereign party to the treaty. Two years after the peace, the Articles of Confederation between these States declared that

"each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence." These Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781, constitute the actual date of the Union. The nature of this Union may be gathered from Article III., which is as follows:

"The said States hereby severally enter into a £rm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon thew, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

The Union then was "a league of friendship" between these sovereign States, "for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare," &c. And so jealous were those "free and independent States" of losing the least moiety of their sovereignty, that they hesitated four years in forming the "league," or the Union. And when it was completed, that same jealousy of losing the least fraction of State sovereignty nearly defeated the objects for which the Union was formed. It was with the greatest difficulty that the States could be induced to keep up a sufficient representation in Congress to form a quorum. There were no adequate means of providing for the general defense, or of paying the public debt. To do this, Virginia proposed a Convention of all the States. This was the Couvention which framed the present Constitution. The instrument itself shows that, by adopting it, the States abandoned no fraction of

their sovereignty. They delegated certai. powers to the Federal Govern ment, to be exercised for the general benefit, but they surrendered no fraction of their sovereignty. Madison, the father of the Constitution, points out this distinction between a delegated and a surrendered power. He says: "A delegated is not a surrendered power." The sovereignty remains the immutable property of the States. They were none the less sovereign after they had delegated certain of their powers. They had only constituted the Federal Government the agent of their joint sovereignty, for the general benefit. The Federal Government, thereforo, has no sovereignty. It is only the agent of sovereignties. All its powers are derived, or delegated, and, therefore, not original, or sovereign powers. Sovereignty is, then, with the States alone. It is the aggregate will of the people of a State. It bears the same relation to the body politic that a man's will does to his body. It cannot be divided-it cannot be alienated. It may be delegated, but it cannot be transferred, any more than a man may transfer his volition to another.* Madison says:

"The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to its stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such ques

See this subject more tully argued in our leading article in No. 7 of the 1st vol. of THE OLD GUARD.

tions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

This was the precise ground assumed by the speakers at the Bergen County Festival. It is the doctrine held by the Democratic party ever since its foundation. The National Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan declared it in direct terms, by affirming the Resolutions of '98. And yet, astonishing vacuity! several Democratic editors have abused the speeches at the above-named meeting. Such abuse could only spring from a want of proper reading, or from a renunciation of the time-honored principles of the Democracy. This sentiment has not been peculiar to the Democracy. It has been shared by the great statesmen of all parties, North and South. It was advocated by Josiah Quincy, John Quincy Adams, by Edward Everett, when he was a member of Congress twenty years ago, and has several times been practically, or officially, acted upon by the New England States. It seems to us that any Democrat who denies these principles of absolute State sovereignty, and of the right of a State, in the language of Mr. Madison, "to be the judge in the last resort," &c., either lacks information, or is overborne by cowardice, or has gone over to the enemy. There are but three horns, and he must be on one of them-most likely it is the middle one. Some Democratic politicians have contracted a most disgraceful habit of falsifying for policy, since this abominable war began. We will thank any

man who dissents from the doctrines of the Bergen County Festival to attempt to refute them by argument, or by an appeal to the Constitution.

Abuse is easy-as easy as lying. It is the weapon of ignorance or hypocrisy, and is such a close imitation of the notorious vice of Republican journalism, that we are mortified to see any Democratic editor resort to it. But they say, there must be no split in the Democratic party. Then let them see to it that they do not make one. If they would have no split in the party, let them leave Lincolnism to its fate, and return to the old, time-honored doctrines of Democracy. The less unity we have in the support of a crime that deluges our land with blood, the better. The sooner the chains of the unholy coalition with Abolitionism are broken, the better. What language can express the just contempt of an honorable man, and a patriot, for the mountebank politician who constantly denounces the despotism, the crime of Abolitionism, and straightway devotes the army of his country and the blood of his countrymen, to the support of its war! All support given to such a cause is devoted to the destruction of our country. God of heaven, what infatuation-what crime! We want peace within the borders of the Dem

ocracy; but it must be peace on Democratic and not on Abolition ground. The masses of the party are sound. Nine out of ten look upon this war as a stupendous crime against Democracy, and against Constitutional liberty. Let the nine stand fast by their old Democratic colors, and the tenth man will not be missed, if he happens to get swamped in the greenback marshes of Republicanism. Peace to his ashes. But let Democracy, and liberty, and the Union live! There cannot be, and there ought not to be, a Union without liberty. A forced Union is not only an impossibility, its at tempt is a crime. For three years now the Democratic party has been holding the Goddess of Liberty, while the Abolition party committed the act of violence upon her sacred body. The Democratic masses are, at last, about to wash their hands of this foul crime. Let every town and county, and State be organized on the old platform of Democracy. Its banner is Peace and Union, in glorious distinction from Lincoln's black and piratical flag of War and Disunion.

Silius Stalicus says:

I CANNOT sleep! Why? Midnight is without a moon !—without stars! The hour is sullen and still. Why should not a man sleep when all nature is quiet in the darkness? There is a world within a man, not always in harmony with the world without. What availeth a quiet pillow to an unquiet spirit? Mad thoughts of war rush through my brain! War between my countrymen !-between my kindred-between bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh! An ocean of blood! mountains of dead! My countrymen! -my friends! Two hundred thousand widows! Five hundred thousand orphans! O God, I shall go mad! I am torn with alternate fits of rage and shame. All day I read of nothing but levics of troops; equipments of fleets; the drafted; the conscripted. See nothing but soldiers marching and counter-marching in the detested and damnable evolutions of murderous war. Hateful sight! It burns into my eyeballs; it tortures my heart by day; freezes my blood. I carry the cursed visions to my pillow; night is made hideous. My brain is on fire. In agony I begin to pray. My prayers fall in broken ejaculations-in curses. call upon God to curse the Abolitionists, the authors of the ruin. I remember the commandments of the divine One, who said, "love your enemies." I begin to pray for them, but my heart smites me in the face. If I loved them, I should hate myself. If I did not hate them, I should not love my country this bloody incarnation

I

of the spirit of cant, sophistry, scdition, and murder. I said, this land was the abode of peace-the Abolitionist has made it one of war. We were a humane and an enlightened people-he has made us a nation of savages. We were a united people— we lived in fellowship around the altars of our fathers-he has driven us apart, and thrown those altars down in blood. All nations feared and respected us. All nations despise us.

Our name rose upon the peoples of the earth, like the sun after a night of storm-he has made it a morn of blood. Our States stood forth as distinct and harmonious as the planets of heaven in their orbits-he has set them flying apart, like meteors of fire.

Alas! I remember the glowing words of the good old Abbe Raynal, who sat there in France contemplating the glorious termination of our Revolutionary struggle, blessing God to see us become a free nation. Let me refresh mine eyes by reading the praise which so great a genius bestowed upon my new-born country:

"Heroic country, my advanced age "permits me not to visit thee. Never "shall I see myself among the res"pectable personages of thy Areapa"gus; never shall I be present at the "deliberations of thy Congress. I "shall die without having seen the