Imágenes de páginas

affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our National fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution— certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by National or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new Confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A

[ocr errors]

majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and
always changing easily with deliberate changes of pepular opinions and
sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects
it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is im-
possible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly
inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despot-
ism, in some form, is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional ques-
tions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such
decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to
the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect
and consideration in all parallel cases, by all other departments of the
Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decisions may
be erroneous in any given case, still, the evil effect following it being
limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled,
and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than
could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid
citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital
questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by de-
cisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased
to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their
Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Nor is there in this view any assault upon the Court or the Judges.
It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly
brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn
their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes
slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is
wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dis-
pute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the
suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps,
as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the
people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people
abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in
each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse,
in both cases, after the separation of the sections than before. The
foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now
only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our re-
spective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between
them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence
and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our coun-
try cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and inter-
course, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. It is

impossible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before. Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add, that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision now to be implied constitutional law, I have no objections to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live, the same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and

[merged small][ocr errors]

have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their
own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue
and vigilance, no Administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly,
can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole
subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an
object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never
take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no
good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied,
still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point,
the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration
will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were
admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute,
there still is no sungle good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence,
patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet
forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way,
all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is
the momentous issues of civil war. The Government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.
You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government;
while I shall have the most soleiun one to “preserve, protect, and de-
fend” it.
I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be
enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds
of affection.
The mystic cord of memory, stretching from every battle-field and
patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad
land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as
surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

The declarations of the Inaugural, as a general thing, gave satisfaction to the loyal people of the whole country. It was seen, everywhere, that while President Lin. coln felt constrained, by the most solemn obligations of duty, to maintain the authority of the Government of the United States over all the territory within its jurisdiction, whenever that authority should be disputed by the actual exercise of armed force, he would nevertheless do nothing whatever to provoke such a demonstration, and would take no step which could look like violence or offensive warfare upon the seceded States. In the Border States its reception was in the main satisfactory. But, as

a matter of course, in those States, as elsewhere through
out the South, the secession leaders gave it the most
hostile construction. No effort was spared to inflame the
public mind, by representing the Inaugural as embodying
the purpose of the President to make war upon the
Southern States for their attempt to secure a redress of
The President's first act was to construct his Cabinet,
which was done by the appointment of William H. Sew-
ard, of New York, Secretary of State ; Salmon P. Chase,
of Ohio, Secretary of the Treasury; Simon Cameron, of
Pennsylvania, Secretary of War; Gideon Welles, of Con
necticut, Secretary of the Navy; Caleb B. Smith, of In-
diana, Secretary of the Interior; Montgomery Blair, of
Maryland, Postmaster-General ; and Edward Bates, of
Missouri, Attorney-General. These nominations were all
confirmed by the Senate, and these gentlemen entered
upon the discharge of the duties of their several offices.
On the 12th of March, Messrs. John Forsyth, of Ala-
bama, and Crawford, of Georgia, requested an unofficial
interview with the Secretary of State, which the latter
declined. On the 13th they sent to him a communication,
informing him that they were in Washington as commis-
sioners from a government composed of seven States
which had withdrawn from the American Union, and that
they desired to enter upon negotiations for the adjustment
of all questions growing out of this separation. Mr. Sew-
ard, by direction of the President, declined to receive
them, because it “could not be admitted that the States
referred to had, in law or fact, withdrawn from the Fed-
eral Union, or that they could do so in any other manner
than with the consent and concert of the people of the
United States, to be given through a National Convention,
to be assembled in conformity with the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States.” This communication,
though written on the 15th of March, was withheld, with
the consent of the Commissioners, until the 8th of April,
when it was delivered. The fact of its receipt, and its
character, were instantly telegraphed to Charleston, and

[ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »