Daily national Democrat., 1860-12-28
Coercion,

place, we hold to the opinion that no Gov
ornment is fiL 20 exist which does not possess
the power to execute its own laws, The
Federal Government has a certain well detin-
ed authority, under the common constitution.
This authority must be exercised or the Gov
ernment is nothing. If the people of one
State can resist, those of another can do the
same, and it would not be long before the
Federal authority would be the merest myth
and every State a separate republic within
itself The idea is nonsense, and therefore
We reject it. The Government must be main.
tanned, and those who undertake to set at
naught its authority, must take the consc-
quenees. Those very men who are now in
favor of secession, would, after the establish
ment Of their new Coufederacy, under a new
Constitution, be the last to acknowledge the
right of resistance to lawful authority, be-
cause if they did, their Government would
go to pieces directly. No Government that
expects to stand can admit the right we speak
of, and il is better to maintain q Government
by blood than not to maintain it at all.
In the next place. we do not speak of CO.
ercing States, as such. The Federal authori-
| ty has no business TO recognize resistance to
the Federal laws as State resistance Tqdi-
uidUdiS must be held responsible. If any
officer of State Government throws himself
in the way of the execution Of Federal law,
he is answeTable as an individual for his in
fraction of authority. If five hundred or five
thousand citizens resist Federal authority
they are all mere individual violators of the
law, and should be treated as such. They
cannot take shelter behind State authority
There is no such thing as such a subterfuge,
in the constitution of our government
States are impersonalities, and cannot be
tried for violations of the law, but individual
citizens of States can. Therefore, if the Gov
ernor of a State or the members composing
the Legislature, or other officers of the State
take it upon themselves to resist the laws,
they are to suffer and not the people at large,
unless they also embark in this resistance
1t follows, then, that Mr.. Buchanan's notion
! that the Constitution never contemplated a
declaration of war by Congress against
State, does not touch the matter in hand at
all. There is no necessity for declaration
of war against State. The point is to exc
cute the laws, and to put down by force any
mob, big or little, helter-skelter or organized
that attempts resistance. The Federal Gov
ernment is Government of the people, and
it need not act against States in their capaci-
ty of States, but against individuals. And
this is what Mr. Madison meant, lin the re-
marks quoted by Mr. Buchanan in his mee-
sage) when he opposed, in the Convention
which framed our Constitution, the resolu-
tion authorizing an exertion of the force of
the whole against a delinquent State" Mr..
Madison said chat the more he reflected on
the use of force, the more he doubted the
praeticability, the justice and the efficacy of
it, when applied, [mind the words when ap-
piled to people collectively and not individu-
ally, a union of the States containing such
an ingredient seemed to provide for its own
destruction The use of force against State
would look more like declaration of par
than an i'Rictioa Of punishment, and would
probably be considered by the party attacked
as dissolution of all previous compacts by
which it might be bound He hoped that
such a system would be framed as might rem
der this resource unnecessary, and moved |
that the clause be postponed"
Well, such a system was framed, and it was
framed so as to act on individuals in contra
distinction to States, in strict accordance with
Mr.. Madison's idea. The President did not
quote quite enough from Mr. Madison, and |
we have supplied the omission.
Lastly, we favor the forcible execution of |
the laws-in the manner contemplated by |
Jackson-because, we do not believe that it |
will produce results quite so terrible as those |
which have been so vividly depicted by the |
imagnations of some. When it comes to re-
sisting the Federal authority, on their own
individual responsibility, without the form of
State impersonalty to take shelter under |
you will not find quite so many persons that
desire that kind of distinction. Furthermore |
there are ardent lovers of the Union, oil !
through the South, who would refuse to
abandon the standard of our common eoun- |
try, and embark in secession and revolution |
1t Is mistake that the whole South is in q |
blaze for secession. There are hundreds of
thousands of men who do not desire il and
are satisfied that there is no necessity for it.
Let it be understood that each man, who sets
out to resist the laws does it at his own indi.
vidual risk and with the legal penalty fol-
lowing at his back, and you will soon see
men defining their positions as Union and
Anti-Union men. If State only is to be
held responsible, why then, of course, it
makes but little difference whether indiuidt-
ais in the State do one thing or another, for
the acting officials, in such case, would to
oil intents and purposes constitute the State,
and no matter how large party might be
opposed to them, the policy of the State
would be determined.
There is nothing like vigorous and de-
termined administration of the laws. With
out it, there is no security, either for life or
property; without it rebellion stalks ram
pant, and in order to keep peace, by nom
execution of the law, the very evils that are
dreaded, from a forcible execution of the law,
are certain to come upon the country. Why
not have turmoil and trouble, in order to
maintain the Government, as well as to have
turmoil and trouble on account of not main
tanning it? If you have no government,