Houma Ceres. [volume] (Houma, Parish of Terrebonne, La.) 1855-18??, 1855-08-23

lGtO practice, legislatures. 'nstead vi pe-
ing deliberative bodies, with power to de-
eide, would be reduced to mere machines,
whose sole active function would be to
propose laws to the people, that each in
dividual might decide for himself whether
they should go into effect or not. The mi
nority, or the single disscntient, would in
yariably invoke the 'higher law" and re-
pudiate the decision of the majority. ALI
subsection would be at an end, govern
ment would be annihilated, man would re.
lapse into the individual sovereignty of the
savage. A principle which in its inevita-
bic, logical results, produces such fragrant
absurdities, which leads to the destruction
of society itself, must be essentially vi
cious. Religious observances and institu-
tons not being possible without that peace
and security which a strong government
can alone guarantee, the doctrine we as
sail is not only unreasonable and anti-so-
cial, but profoundly irreligious.
But if Government, in the constitutional
exercise of its powers, commands the gov
erned to do an act which outrages con-
science, which the moral sense indignant.
" repels. what then? Must he submit?
The alternative is evident and inexol able.
He must obey, or quit the State. The rights
of locomotion and expatriation are sacred,
and always present sure refuge against
legitimate tyranny. The individual can
not disobey and resist, because by becom-
ing member Of particular society, ne
has virtually promised entire obedience to
to the constituted will and power of that
society, to its government. By disobeying
he would be guilty of the moral dereliction
involved in the violation Of plighted faith.
If his conscientious scruples will not per-
NIT him him to bend his neck willing ly to
an authority which he himself has freely
recognized, then, consulting expediency,
it would be wise in him to abandon So
ciety Of which he is a dangerous member,
and thus release himself from the fulfill
ment Of an obligation which is repugnant
to his moral feelings. Of course, in ex-
aiming these questions, certain clear dis
tinctions are to be observed. Despotic
governments having mostly originated in
fraud and violence, there is not on the
part Of the subject the same acquiescence
or tacit promise to render entire obedience
to the supreme power, as is given in demo-
cratic governments, and therefore, resist
ance to them is mere question Of expe-
diency, having no moral character other
than that implied in the fact that rebels are
morally responsible for useless efasion
of blood. But the advocates of the ''high-
er law" turning against us our line or ar
gument, driving us to the ultimate results
Of our theory, may annul the alternative
which we have presented, viz: that of ex.
patriation, by supposing the whole world
to be subjected 10 the dominion Of single
government. In their brilliant and erratic
visions OF the future, they may predict, for
instance, the Constitution Of the "United
States of the World" Surprising that
the Congress Of that universal confedera-
cy, acting within the undoubted limits Of
its constitutional powers, should pass
law clearly and undeniably viola
tive of the moral code inscribed by
the Divinity on the heart OF the in
dividual--mus that individual tamely
submit, or must he draw the sword and
invoke the God Of Battles! If the law
wounds the moral sentiment Of but sin.
gle citizen. or of a small minority, resist
ance would only result in unproductive
slaughter, and would therefore be an OBJ
vious inffaction of that other natural law
that blood must only be shed in case Of
absolute necessity. We must not lose
sight Of the fact that passive resistance is
an absurdity, that man is created to act
and that if he has a rightto resist, he is