Continental Monthly, Vol. I, No. V, May, 1862 by Various

V >> Various >> Continental Monthly, Vol. I, No. V, May, 1862

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

I am perfectly aware that Peru is not Mexico; but I beg the reader to
keep in mind my former observation, that Mexico _might_ have been at one
time peopled by a race who had Peruvian customs, which in after-years
were borne by them far to the South. The ancient mythology and
ethnography of Mexico presents, however, a mass of curious identities
with that of Asia. Both Mexico and Peru had the tradition of a deluge,
from which seven prisoners escaped; in the hieroglyphs of the former
country, these seven are represented as issuing from an egg.

It is remarkable that a Peruvian tradition declares the first
missionaries of civilization who visited them to have been white and
bearded. 'This may remind us,' says Prescott, 'of the tradition existing
among the Aztecs, in respect to Quetzalcoatl, the good deity, who, with
a similar garb and aspect, came up the great plateau from the East, on a
like benevolent mission to the natives.' In like manner the _Aesir_,
children of Light, or of the Sun, came from the East to Scandinavia, and
taught the lore of the Gods.

The Peruvian embalming of the royal dead takes us back to Egypt; the
burning of the wives of the deceased Incas, reveals India; the
singularly patriarchal character of the whole Peruvian policy is like
that of China in the olden time; while the system of espionage, of
tranquillity, of physical well-being, and the iron-like immovability in
which the whole social frame was cast, brings before the reader Japan,
as it even now exists. In fact, there is something strangely Japanese in
the entire _cultus_ of Peru, as described by all writers.

It is remarkable that the Supreme Being of the Peruvians was worshiped
under the names of _Pachacomac_, 'he who sustains, or gives life to the
universe,' and of _Viracocha_, 'Foam of the Sea,' a name strikingly
recalling that of Venus Aphrodite, the female second principle in all
ancient mythologies. Not less curious was the institution of the Vestal
Virgins of the Sun, who were buried alive if detected in an intrigue,
and whose duty it was to keep burning the sacred fire obtained at the
festival of Raymi.

'Vigilemque sacraverat ignem Excubias divum aeternas.'

This fire was obtained as by the ancient Romans, on a precisely similar
occasion, by means of a concave mirror of polished metal. The Incas, in
order to preserve purity of race, married their own sisters, as did the
kings of Persia and other Oriental nations, urged by a like feeling of
pride. Among the Peruvians, _Mama_, signified 'mother,' while _Papa_,
was applied to the chief priest. 'With both, the term seems to embrace
in its most comprehensive sense, the paternal relation, in which it is
more familiarly employed by most of the nations of Europe.'

It should be borne in mind, that as in the case of the Green Corn
festival, many striking analogies can be established between the Indian
tribes of North-America and the Peruvians. Gallatin has shown the
affinity of languages between all the American nations; at the remote
age when the monk visited Mexico, it is possible that the _first race_
which subsequently spread southward occupied the entire north.

Let the reader also remember that while the proofs of the existence or
residence of Orientals in America are extremely vague and uncertain, and
supported only by coincidences, (singular and inexplicable as the latter
may be,) the _antecedent probability_ of their having come hither, is
far stronger than that of the Norse discovery of this country, or even
that of Columbus himself. When we see an aggressive nation, with a
religious propaganda, boasting a commerce and gifted with astronomers
and geographers of no mean ability, (and the accuracy of the old Chinese
men of science has been frequently verified,) advancing century after
century in a certain direction, chronicling correctly every step made,
and accurately describing the geography and ethnography of a certain
region, we have no good ground to deny the last advance which their
authentic history claims to have made, however indisposed we may be to
admit it. One thing, at least, will probably be cheerfully conceded by
the impartial reader; that the subject well deserves further
investigation, and that it is to be hoped that it will obtain it from
those students who are at present so earnestly occupied in exploring the
mysteries of Oriental literature.

* * * * *

STATE RIGHTS.

The theory of State Rights, as expounded by its advocates in its
application to the several States of the American Union, is subversive
of all government, and calculated to destroy our political organization.
Its tendency is to weaken the central government by minute division of
the power necessary for its maintainance. Without power to make its
authority respected, no government can live. The doctrine of State
Sovereignty detracts from this authority by lessening the power which
upholds it. Thirty-four-States, each claiming exclusive authority to act
independently on any given subject, have only one thirty-fourth part of
the strength that they would have, were they all acting under and
controlled by one central head. That central head in our Union is the
Federal Government, formed by and growing out of the Constitution, and
it must exist for the protection of each of its thirty-four members, as
well as for itself, the connecting power. Its acts must not be disputed
by any one of the States or by any number of them acting in concert. If
one or more States may defy the central authority or attempt to withdraw
from its government, any other States may do likewise, to the ruin of
the political fabric erected at so much cost, and in its place would
spring up scores of weak and unprotected communities. But, says the
State rights advocate, this central power will have too much authority,
too much control over the States; will become despotic, and in time
destroy the liberties of the people. How? By whom will those liberties
be destroyed? This central power, styled the Federal Government, is
formed by the people, is of the people, is for the people, and has only
such power as the people gave it; and thus being of and from the people,
it (or they) can not destroy its (or their) own liberties. Were our
government hereditary instead of elective; were our institutions
monarchical instead of republican; had we privileged classes perpetuated
by primogeniture, there might be some danger of placing too much power
in the hands of the Federal Government; but formed as our institutions
are, framed as our Constitution is, educated as our people are, there
can be no fear of having the central power or general Federal Government
too strong, or its authority supreme. Without strength there can be no
authority; without authority there can be no respect; without respect
there can be no government; without government there can be no
civilization. The doctrine of State rights as applied to the communities
forming the American Union, elevates the State over the nation, demands
that the Federal shall yield to the State laws, and completely ignores
the supremacy of the united authority of the whole people. 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. Civilized
societies are but the aggregation of persons coming or remaining
together for mutual interest and protection. This mutual interest
requires certain rules for the protection of the weak from the
encroachments of the strong in the society, as well as from outside
enemies. These rules take the form of laws. These laws must be
administered; their administration requires power. This power is placed
in the hands of certain members of this society, community, or State, as
the case may be, for the good of the whole State, and each individual
claiming protection from the State, or whose interest is promoted by
being a member thereof, is under moral as well as legal obligations to
submit to this authority thus exercised by the chosen executors of the
public will. Rights that might pertain to one man on an island by
himself, do not attach to man in civilized communities. There he must
not go beyond the landmarks established by law, and he agrees to this
arrangement by remaining in the State or community. The same principle
is equally applicable to the States of the American Union. Before the
adoption of the Federal Constitution, they were separate, distinct, and
so far as any central head or supreme governing power was concerned,
independent States, or, in fact, sovereignties. True, they had tried to
get along under a sort of confederation agreement, a kind of temporary
alliance for offensive and defensive ends, but which failed from its own
inherent weakness, from the lack of that cohesiveness which nothing but
centralization can give. Prior to the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, these different States were like so many different
individuals outside of any regular society; were merely so many isolated
aggregations of non-nationalized individuals. Experience showed them
their unfortunate condition; as separate States they had no strength to
repel a common enemy, no credit, no money, no authority, commanded no
respect. So it is with an individual outside of society. These States
were then in the enjoyment--no, not in the enjoyment but merely in
possession--of State rights to the fullest extent. They had the right to
be poor; the right to be weak; the right to get in debt; the right to
issue bills of credit, (was any one found who thought it right to take
them?) the right to wage war with any of their neighbors; the right to
do any and all acts pertaining to an independent sovereignty; but these
rights were not all that the people of these States desired; and after
trying the independent and the confederate State policy until experience
had shown the utter fallacy of both, they met in convention and passed
the present Constitution, and formed themselves into ONE NATION. This
Constitution, compact, copartnership, confederation, combination, or
whatever it may be called, was and is the written foundation
(voluntarily made) on which the NATION is built and maintained.

The charter, instrument, or Constitution, defines, by common consent and
mutual agreement of the parties voluntarily forming it, the powers,
rights, and duties of the national government growing out of and based
on this Constitution. Among the powers thus delegated to the National or
Federal Government, and to be used by the legislative authority thereof,
are the following:

'ARTICLE I.--SECTION 8.

'The Congress shall have power--

'1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay
the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare
of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall
be uniform throughout the United States.

'2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

'3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian tribes.

'4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.

'5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign
coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

'6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities
and current coin of the United States.

'7. To establish post-offices and post-roads.

'8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

'9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

'10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the
high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

'11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and
make rules concerning captures on land and water.

'12. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money
to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

'13. To provide and maintain a navy.

'14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces.

'15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws
of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

'16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in
the service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of
training the militia, according to the discipline proscribed by
Congress.

'18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers
vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof.'

The first two words in this section--'the Congress'--completely annul
the separate integrity of States. The Congress of what, and for what?
The Congress of the UNITED STATES, acting for the UNITED States, as a
UNIT, a WHOLE, a UNION. The only allusion in this section to any thing
like a right existing in any State after the adoption of the
Constitution, is the right to officer the militia, and these officers
are to 'train' the militia, _under the direction of Congress_, and not
under State laws--a clause which of itself strikes a decisive blow at
the theory of independent State rights. In no one of these
specifications is there a single allusion to any 'State.' Every power
enumerated is given to the '_United_ States,' to the 'Union' formed by
virtue of the Constitution. Never was there a more perfect absorption of
atoms into one mass, than in these specifications; but to make the
principle still stronger, and as if to remove any doubt as to 'State
rights,' the first clause of the Ninth Section of the same Article
expressly prohibits any State from importing certain persons after a
given date, which, when it arrived, (in 1808,) Congress passed a
national law stopping the slave-trade--a trade that some of the States
would have been glad to encourage, or at least, allow, if they had had
authority to do so. This right was taken from them by the Constitution,
in the year 1808; up to that time they had that right; but after that
date the right no longer existed, and Congress passed the law referred
to, in accordance with the power given them by this clause of the
Constitution.

But this First Article of Section Nine is not all in that section that
smothers State rights; for Article Five declares that vessels bound to
or from one State need not enter, clear, or pay duties in another. Why
this specification, if the States were to be supreme in their own
limits? (and this doctrine of State rights is, in its essence,
supremacy.) Independent states exact clearances and entrances, and
demand duties from foreign vessels, but never from their own. State
rights are ignored in this Article. But to prevent any possibility of
any State ever exercising the rights of sovereignty now claimed by the
advocates of this most pernicious doctrine, from which has grown the
present gigantic rebellion, Section Ten, of the same Article, goes on to
declare that--

'1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money;
emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a
tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, _ex post
facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant
any title of nobility.

'2. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any
imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be
absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the
net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports
or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United
States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and
control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of
Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in
time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another
State or with a foreign power, or engage in war.'

Language can not be stronger; intentions were never more clearly
expressed; thoughts were never more explicitly set forth in words.
Nothing is left for doubt; all is concise, positive, and binding.
Nothing is left to be guessed at; nothing left that could be construed
to mean that States 'may' or 'may not.' 'SHALL' and 'SHALL NOT,' are the
words used to define what the States are to do or not to do. The very
slight 'right' given to the States to lay duties for executing their
inspection laws, carries with it a proviso, or command, that the
proceeds of such duties must be paid into the National Treasury, and the
very laws that the States might pass for this purpose must be approved
by 'THE CONGRESS.' What Congress? The Congress of the UNITED STATES--of
the UNION. Every vestige of State sovereignty, of 'State rights,' is
utterly annihilated in these clauses.

Independent, sovereign states may and do make treaties, alliances, grant
letters of marque, or coin money; in fact, no 'State' or sovereignty can
exist without these powers; and the fact that these powers are all taken
from and denied to the States of the American Union, is conclusive proof
that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to allow the States
the sovereignty now claimed for them, and which the rebellious States
are endeavoring to maintain. This heresy must be exorcised now and
forever.

Is there any thing more in the Constitution (and bear in mind that no
right is claimed for any State except in accordance with this
instrument, which is still in full force except in those rebellious
States where this disorganizing doctrine of 'State rights' has
uncontrolled sway) making the Union supreme and the States subordinate?
What says the following section?

'Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And
the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which
such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the
effect thereof.'

A State, therefore, _may_ so legislate, that is, it _may_ have acts and
records, but each other State SHALL give to the records and proceedings
of all the rest 'full faith and credit.' Does not this enactment
thoroughly negative all theories of the exclusive supremacy of State
rights? Independent sovereign States do not, in the absence of treaties,
give any faith or credit to the records or proceedings of other
independent states. Our States are not only compelled to do this, by
this section, but must do so in accordance with the manner prescribed by
'the Congress' of the UNITED STATES, of the UNION, and of the NATION. No
other congress is mentioned.

'SECTION 2.

'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several States.'

By this clause a native or naturalized citizen of Maine can conduct
business, hold and convey real estate (the highest civil, social, and
judicial tests of citizenship) in the State of Georgia. The citizen of
Minnesota can do likewise in New-York, and so of each and in all the
States. Independent states or supreme sovereignties do not allow these
privileges to any but their own citizens. The United States do not,
neither do other nations. Citizenship must precede the right to hold and
convey real estate. All governments are naturally jealous of the alien.
By this clause, no American citizen can be an alien in any State of the
American Union. He is a citizen of the nation. No State can pass any law
demanding more of a citizen not born, though residing within its limits,
than from one born therein, or place him under any restrictions not
common to the native or other citizen of such State. Not a vestige of
'State' exclusiveness is there in the clause. Every idea of State
supremacy is blotted out by it. A heavier blow is, however, dealt at
State rights in the following section:

'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
against invasion, and, on application of the Legislature, or of
the Executive, (when the Legislature can not be convened,) against
domestic violence.'

The greatest of all rights that an independent state can or may have, is
the right to adopt its own form of government; but this clause
completely destroys such right on the part of any State of this Union to
frame its own form of government. No State, for example, can have a
monarchical government; since the United States are to guarantee a
_republican_ form: and no State can adopt an hereditary or theocratic
government, because the UNITED STATES are bound to give each State a
republican government. In like manner we might run through all the forms
of government that have ever blessed or cursed our race, without finding
one which can he adopted by any State of this Union, except the single
form of 'republican,' named in the Constitution. But can a State bereft
of the right to frame its own mode of government be said to be possessed
of '_sovereign_' 'State rights,' or could a more effectual provision
against their development have been formed than this?

'This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby; any thing in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding.

'The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several STATE LEGISLATURES, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the United States and of the SEVERAL
STATES, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
Constitution.'

This Constitution, these laws, these treaties, _shall be the supreme
law_, no matter what 'State' constitutions and 'State' laws may declare.
'Shall!' is the word, and there can be no doubt as to its meaning.
Again, members of the State Legislatures, and all officers of the
several States 'shall' be bound to support the 'Constitution.' Where are
the 'State rights' in these clauses? Every State and every State
official is made subordinate to and an executive of the acts of the
'United States,' and the United States constitutes a '_nation_'. That is
the only word which meets our case. WE ARE A NATION, not 'a
tenant-at-will sort of confederacy.'

The waters of the Bay of New-York and of the Hudson river flow entirely
within the States of New-York and New-Jersey. One of the vested rights
of an independent state, is that known as 'eminent domain,' or supreme
ownership, implying control. Apply this doctrine of State rights in this
case, or rather, allow it to be applied by the States named above, and
they could prevent the navigation of these waters by any but their own
citizens or those to whom they might grant that privilege. If this
doctrine of State rights is sound, these two States would have the right
to levy tolls or duties on every vessel that sails those waters, as the
State of New-York exacts tolls on her canals. Such power thus exercised,
would cripple commerce, inconvenience the public, and utterly destroy
all comity between the States. This exacting tolls for navigation of
waters is one of the most offensive systems left us by past generations.
It is so odious that modern governments decline to submit to it in cases
where there is no doubt as to 'State rights,' as in that of the 'Sound
Dues' exacted by Denmark. If, however, the State is supreme within its
limits, it has a perfect right to exact such tolls. But no State in this
nation has any such right under the Constitution. Its existence would
destroy the Union by placing each State under the laws and exactions of
either one of the others. The troubles growing out of such exactions
would beget dispute; these disputes would beget open strife, which would
end in open rupture and the downfall of the NATIONAL UNION.

The 'UNITED STATES,' 'the Union,' 'the Nation,' are _supreme_. The
States, _as States_, are subordinate; as 'parts,' they are inferior to
the 'whole.' The 'State rights' doctrine is wrong, disorganizing,
destructive of national life, and must be destroyed.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20