Women -- Suffrage -- History; Women -- Suffrage -- United States -- History; Women's rights -- History; Women's rights -- United States -- History
That is what it has never been since the foundation of our
government in a large portion of our common country. The kind of
government the people of this country expect and intend to
have--State rights or no State rights, no matter how much blood
and treasure it may cost--is a government to protect the humblest
citizen in the exercise of all his rights.
When the rebellion of the South against the government began, one
of the most noted secessionists of Baltimore asked one of the
regular army officers what the government expected to gain by
making war on the South. "Well," the officer replied, laying his
hand on the cannon by which he was standing, "we intend to use
these until it is as safe for a Northern man to express his
political opinions in the South, as it is for a Southern man to
express his in the North." Senator Blaine, at a banquet in
Trenton, N. J., July 2, declared that a "government which did not
offer protection to every citizen in every State had no right to
demand allegiance." Ex-Senator Wade, of Ohio, in a letter to the
Washington _National Republican_ of July 16, said of the
president's policy:
I greatly fear this policy, under cover of what is called
local self-government, is but an ignominious surrender of
the principles of nationality for which our armies fought
and for which thousands upon thousands of our brave men
died, and without which the war was a failure and our
boasted government a myth.
Behind the slavery of the colored race was the principle of State
rights. Their emancipation and enfranchisement were important,
not only as a vindication of our great republican idea of
individual rights, but as the first blow in favor of national
unity--of a consistent, homogeneous government. As all our
difficulties, State and national, are finally referred to the
constitution, it is of vital importance that that instrument
should not be susceptible of a different interpretation from
every possible standpoint. It is folly to spend another century
in expounding the equivocal language of the constitution. If
under that instrument, supposed to be the _Magna Charta_ of
American liberties, all United States citizens do not stand equal
before the law, it should without further delay be so amended as
in plain, unmistakable language to declare what are the rights,
privileges, and immunities that belong to citizens of a republic.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account