the writings-5-第47章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



any　State　of　the　Union　may　consistently　with　the　national

Constitution；　and　therefore　lawfully　and　peacefully；　withdraw　from

the　Union　without　the　consent　of　the　Union　or　of　any　other　State。

The　little　disguise　that　the　supposed　right　is　to　be　exercised　only

for　just　cause；　themselves　to　be　the　sole　judges　of　its　justice；　is

too　thin　to　merit　any　notice。



With　rebellion　thus　sugar…coated　they　have　been　drugging　the　public

mind　of　their　section　for　more　than　thirty　years；　and　until　at　length

they　have　brought　many　good　men　to　a　willingness　to　take　up　arms

against　the　government　the　day　after　some　assemblage　of　men　have

enacted　the　farcical　pretense　of　taking　their　State　out　of　the　Union；

who　could　have　been　brought　to　no　such　thing　the　day　before。



This　sophism　derives　much；　perhaps　the　whole；　of　its　currency　from

the　assumption　that　there　is　some　omnipotent　and　sacred　supremacy

pertaining　to　a　Stateto　each　State　of　our　Federal　Union。　　Our

States　have　neither　more　nor　less　power　than　that　reserved　to　them　in

the　Union　by　the　Constitutionno　one　of　them　ever　having　been　a

State　out　of　the　Union。　　The　original　ones　passed　into　the　Union　even

before　they　cast　off　their　British　colonial　dependence；　and　the　new

ones　each　came　into　the　Union　directly　from　a　condition　of

dependence；　excepting　Texas。　　And　even　Texas　in　its　temporary

independence　was　never　designated　a　State。　　The　new　ones　only　took

the　designation　of　States　on　coming　into　the　Union；　while　that　name

was　first　adopted　for　the　old　ones　in　and　by　the　Declaration　of

Independence。　　Therein　the　〃United　Colonies〃　were　declared　to　be

〃free　and　independent　States〃；　but　even　then　the　object　plainly　was

not　to　declare　their　independence　of　one　another　or　of　the　Union；　but

directly　the　contrary；　as　their　mutual　pledge　and　their　mutual　action

before；　at　the　time；　and　afterward；　abundantly　show。　　The　express

plighting　of　faith　by　each　and　all　of　the　original　thirteen　in　the

Articles　of　Confederation；　two　years　later；　that　the　Union　shall　be

perpetual；　is　most　conclusive。　　Having　never　been　States　either　in

substance　or　in　name　outside　of　the　Union；　whence　this　magical

omnipotence　of　〃　State　rights；〃　asserting　a　claim　of　power　to

lawfully　destroy　the　Union　itself？　Much　is　said　about　the

〃sovereignty〃　of　the　States；　but　the　word　even　is　not　in　the　national

Constitution；　nor；　as　is　believed；　in　any　of　the　State　constitutions。

What　is　〃sovereignty〃　in　the　political　sense　of　the　term？　Would　it　be

far　wrong　to　define　it　as　〃a　political　community　without　a　political

superior〃？　Tested　by　this；　no　one　of　our　States　except　Texas　ever　was

a　sovereignty。　　And　even　Texas　gave　up　the　character　on　coming　into

the　Union；　by　which　act　she　acknowledged　the　Constitution　of　the

United　States；　and　the　laws　and　treaties　of　the　United　States　made　in

pursuance　of　the　Constitution；　to　be　for　her　the　supreme　law　of　the

land。　　The　States　have　their　status　in　the　Union；　and　they　have　no

other　legal　status。　　If　they　break　from　this；　they　can　only　do　so

against　law　and　by　revolution。　　The　Union；　and　not　themselves

separately；　procured　their　independence　and　their　liberty。　　By

conquest　or　purchase　the　Union　gave　each　of　them　whatever　of

independence　or　liberty　it　has。　　The　Union　is　older　than　any　of　the

States；　and；　in　fact；　it　created　them　as　States。　　Originally　some

dependent　colonies　made　the　Union；　and；　in　turn；　the　Union　threw　off

their　old　dependence　for　them；　and　made　them　States；　such　as　they

are。　　Not　one　of　them　ever　had　a　State　constitution　independent　of

the　Union。　　Of　course；　it　is　not　forgotten　that　all　the　new　States

framed　their　constitutions　before　they　entered　the　Union

nevertheless；　dependent　upon　and　preparatory　to　coming　into　the

Union。



Unquestionably　the　States　have　the　powers　and　rights　reserved　to　them

in　and　by　the　national　Constitution；　but　among　these　surely　are　not

included　all　conceivable　powers；　however　mischievous　or　destructive；

but；　at　most；　such　only　as　were　known　in　the　world　at　the　time　as

governmental　powers；　and　certainly　a　power　to　destroy　the　government

itself　had　never　been　known　as　a　governmental；　as　a　merely

administrative　power。　　This　relative　matter　of　national　power　and

State　rights；　as　a　principle；　is　no　other　than　the　principle　of

generality　and　locality。　　Whatever　concerns　the　whole　should　be

confided　to　the　wholeto　the　General　Government；　while　whatever

concerns　only　the　State　should　be　left　exclusively　to　the　State。

This　is　all　there　is　of　original　principle　about　it。　　Whether　the

national　Constitution　in　defining　boundaries　between　the　two　has

applied　the　principle　with　exact　accuracy；　is　not　to　be　questioned。

We　are　all　bound　by　that　defining；　without　question。



What　is　now　combated　is　the　position　that　secession　is　consistent

with　the　Constitutionis　lawful　and　peaceful。　　It　is　not　contended

that　there　is　any　express　law　for　it；　and　nothing　should　ever　be

implied　as　law　which　leads　to　unjust　or　absurd　consequences。　　The

nation　purchased　with　money　the　countries　out　of　which　several　of

these　States　were　formed。　　Is　it　just　that　they　shall　go　off　without

leave　and　without　refunding？　The　nation　paid　very　large　sums　（in　the

aggregate；　I　believe；　nearly　a　hundred　millions）　to　relieve　Florida

of　the　aboriginal　tribes。　　Is　it　just　that　she　shall　now　be　off

without　consent　or　without　making　any　return？　The　nation　is　now　in

debt　for　money　applied　to　the　benefit　of　these　so…called　seceding

States　in　common　with　the　rest。　　Is　it　just　either　that　creditors

shall　go　unpaid　or　the　remaining　States　pay　the　whole？　A　part　of　the

present　national　debt　was　contracted　to　pay　the　old　debts　of　Texas。

Is　it　just　that　she　shall　leave　and　pay　no　part　of　this　herself？



Again；　if　one　State　may　secede；　so　may　another；　and　when　all　shall

have　seceded；　none　is　left　to　pay　the　debts。　　Is　this　quite　just　for

creditors？　Did　we　notify　them　of　this　sage　view　of　ours　when　we

borrowed　their　money？　If　we　now　recognize　this　doctrine　by　allowing

the　seceders　to　go　in　peace；　it　is　difficult　to　see　what　we　can　do　if

others　choose　to　go　or　to　extort　terms　upon　which　they　will　promise

to　remain。



The　seceders　insist　that　our　Constitution　admits　of　secession。　　They

have　assumed　to　make　a　national　constitution　of　their　own；　in　which

of　necessity　they　have　either　discarded　or　retained　the　right　of

secession　as　they　insist　it　exists　in　ours。　　　If　they　have　discarded

it；　they　thereby　admit　that　on　principle　it　ought　not　to　be　in　ours。

If　they　have　retained　it；　by　their　own　construction　of　ours；　they

show　that　to　be　consistent　they　must　secede　from　one　another　whenever

they　shall　find　it　the　easiest　way　of　settling　their　debts；　or

effecting　any　other　selfish　or　unjust　object。　　The　principle　itself

is　one　of　disintegration　and　upon　which　no　government　can　possibly

endure。



If　all　the　States　save　one　should　assert　the　power　to　drive　that　one

out　of　the　Union；　it　is　presumed　the　whole　class　of　seceder

politicians　would　at　once　deny　the　power　and　denounce　the　act　as　the

greatest　outrage　upon　State　rights。　　But　suppose　that　precisely　the

same　act；　instead　of　being　called　〃driving　the　one　out；〃　should　be

called　〃the　seceding　of　the　others　from　that　one；〃　it　would　be

exactly　what　the　seceders　claim　to　do；　unless；　indeed；　they　make　the

point　that　the　one；　because　it　is　a　minority；　may　rightfully　do　what

the　others；　because　they　are　a　majority；　may　not　rightfully　do。

These　politicians　are　subtle　and　profound　on　the　rights　of

minorities。　　They　are　not　partial　to　that　power　which　made　the

Constitution　and　speaks　from　the　preamble　calling　itself　〃We；　the

People。〃



It　may　well　be　questioned　whether　there　is　to…day　a　majority　of　the

legally　qualified　voters　of　any　State　except　perhaps　South　Carolina

in　favor　of　disunion。　　There　is　much　reason　to　believe　that　the　Union

men　are　the　majority　in　many；　if　not　in　every　other　one；　of　the　so…

called　seceded　States。　　The　contrary　has　not　been　demonstrated　in　any

one　of　them。　　It　is　ventured　to　affirm　this　even　of　Virginia　and

Tennessee；　for　the　result　of　an　election　held　in　military　camps；

where　the　bayonets　are　all　on　one　side　of　the　question　voted　upon；

can　scarcely　be　considered　as　demonstrating　popular　sentiment。　　At

such　an　election；　all　that　large　class　who　are　at　once　for　the　Union

and　against　coercion　would　be　coerced　to　vote　against　the　Union。



It　may　be　affirmed　without　extravagance　that　the　free　institutions　we

enjoy　have　developed　the　powers　and　improved　the　condition　of　our

whole　people　beyond　any　example　in　the　world。　　Of　this　we　now　have　a

striking　and　an　impressive　illustration。　　So　large　an　army　as　the

government　has　now　on　foot　was　never　before　known　without　a　soldier

in　it　but　who　has　taken　his　place　there　of　his　own　free　choice。　　But

more　than　this；　there　are　many　single　regiments　whose　members；　one

and　another；　possess　full　practical　knowledge　of　all　the　arts；

sciences；　professions；　and　whatever　else；　whether　useful　or　elegant；

is　known　in　the　world；　and　there　is　scarcely　one　from　which　there

could　not　be　selected　a　President；　a　Cabinet；　a　Congress；　and　perhaps

a　court；　abundantly　competent　to　administer　the　government　itself。

Nor　do　I　say　this　is　not　true　also　in　the　army　of　our　late　friends；

now　adversaries　in　this　contest；　but　if　it　is；　so　much　better　the

reason　why　the　government　which　has　conferred　such　benefits　on　both

them　and　us　should　not　be　broken　up。　　Whoever　in　any　section　proposes

to　abandon　such　a　government　would　do　well　to　consider　in　deference

to　what　principle　it　is　that　he　does　it；　what　better　he　is　likely　to

get　in　its　stead；　whether　the　substitute　will　give；　or　be　intended　to

give；　so　much　of　good　to　the　people。　　There　are　some　foreshadowings

on　this　subject。　　Our　adversaries　have　adopted　some　declarations　of

independence　in　which；　unlike　the　good　old　one；　penned　by　Jefferson；

they　omit　the　words　〃all　men　are　created　equal。〃　Why？　They　have

adopted　a　temporary　national　constitution；　in　the　preamble　of　which；

unlike　our　good　old　one；　signed　by　Washington；　they　omit　〃We；　the

People；〃　and　substitute；　〃We；　the　deputies　of　the　sovereign　and

independent　States。〃　Why？　Why　this　deliberate　pressing　out　of　view

the　rights　of　men　and　the　authority　of　the　people？



This　is　essentially　a　people's　contest。　　On　the　side　of　the　Union　it

is　a　struggle　for　maintaining　in　the　world　that　form　and　substance　of

government　whose　leading　object　is　to　elevate　the　condition　of　men　to

lift　artificial　weights　from　all　shoulders；　to　clear　the　paths　of

laudable　pursuit　for　all；　to　afford　all　an　unfettered　start；　and　a

fair　chance　in　the　race　of　life。　　Yielding　to　partial　and　temporary

departures；　from　necessity；　this　is　the　leading　object　of　the

government　for　whose　existence　we　contend。



I　am　most　happy　to　believe　that　the　plain　people　understand　and

appreciate　this。