Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-03-06

neither affirm nor deny. | need address no
word TO those, however, who really love the
Udion.
May speak before entering on so grave a
matter as the destruction of our national
fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and
hopes? Would 1t not be wise to ascertain
previously what we are to do? Will we ha-
card so desperate 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 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? l think
not Happily the human mind is so consti-
tuted that DO party can reach to the audacity
of doing this. Think. if you can, of sin
gle instance in which plainly written pro-
visions of the Constitution has ever been de-
MED If, by the mere force of numbers. a
majority shall deprive minority of any
clearly written constitutional right, it might,
in a moral point of view, justify a revolu-
ton. 1t certainly would if such right were
vital one; but such is not our case. ALI
the vital rights of minorities and of indi-
viduals are so plainly assured to them by af-
firmations and negotiations. guarantees and
prohibitions in the Constitution, that contro-
versies never arise concerning them. But no
organic law can be framed with provision
specifically applicable to every question
which may occur in practical administration,
No foresight can anticipate, nor any docu-
ment of reasonable length contain, express
provisions for all possible questions. Shall
fugitives from labor be surrendered by Ma
tional or State authority? The Constitution
does not expressly say. May Congress pro-
hibit slavery in the Territories? The Con-
stitution does not expressly say. Must Con-
gress protect slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. When
ever questions of this class spring up in our
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 govern
ment but acquiescence on the one side or the
other. If a minority in such case will Sc
cede rather than acquiesce, they make pre-
cedent which in turn will divide and ruin
them, for a minority Of their own will, will
secede from them whenever majority refu-
ses to be controlled by such a minority; for
instance, why may not any portion of new
Coufederacy year or two hence arbitrarily
secede against it precisely as portions OF the
present Union claim to secede from 1t? All
who cherish disuniOn sentiments are now be-
this. Is there such perfect identity OF inter-
ests among the States to compose new
Union as to produce harmony only, and pre-
vent renewed secession? Plainly, the mis-
taken idea of secession is the essence of an
archy. A majority, held in restraint by con-
stitutional checks and limitations, and al
ways changing easily with the deliberate
changes of popular opinion and sentiments,
is the only true sovereign of free people;
whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to
anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impos-
sible; the rule of minority, as permanent
arrangement, is wholly inadmissable, so that
in rejecting the majority principle, anarchy
and despotism is all that is left. | do not
forget the position assumed by some, that
constitutional questions are to be decided by
the Supreme Court. Nor do / deny that
such decisions must be binding in any case
upon the parties to suit, as to the object of
that suit, while they are also entitled to very
high respect and consideration in all paral-
lei cases by all other departments of the
Government. And, while it is obviously
possible that such decision may be erroneous
in any given case, still the evil effects fol-
lowing il being limited to that particular
case, with the chance that Fit may be over
ruled and never become a precedent for 9TH
er cases, can better be borne than could the
evils of 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
irreyocably fixed by decisions of the Su-
preme Court. the instant they are made in
ordinary litigation between parties in per-
sonal actions, the people will have ceased to
be their own rulers. having to that extent
practically resigned their government into
the hands of that tribunal; nor is there in this
view any assault upon the Court or the
Judge 1t 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 be-
iieves that slavery is right and ought to be
extended, while the other believes that it is
wrong and ought not to be extended. This
is the only substantial dispute, for the fugi-
tive slave clause of the Constitution and the
laws for the suppression of the foreign slave
trade are each as we'll enforced perhaps as
any law can ever be In community where
the moral sense of the people imperfectly
supports the law ITSELF The great body of
the people abide by the legal obligation in
both cases, az well after the separation of
the sections as before. The foreign slave
trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction In one
section, while fugitive slaves, now only par
at all by the other. Physically speaking we
cannot separate, cannot remove our respec-
tive sections from each other, nor build up an
impassable wall between them. The 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 country Can
not do this-they cannot but remain face to
face. and an intercourse either amicable or
hostile must continue between them Is it
possible then to make that intercourse more
advantageous or more satisfactory alter sepa-
rating than before? Can aliens make trea-
ties easier than friends can make laws Can
treaties be more faithfully enforced between
aliens than laws among friends2 Suppose You
go to war, you cannot fight always; and
when. after much loss on both sides, there is
no gain on either, you cease tghting, Inc OLD
Identical question as to the terms OF inter-
course is again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs
to the people who inhabit it. Whenever
they shall grow weary of the present govern
ment, they can exercise their constitutional
right of amending it or their revolutionary
right to dismember or overthrow 1t cannot
be ignorant of the fact that many worthy
and patriotic citizens are DESTROYS OF having
the National Constitution amended. While
I make no recommendation of amendments,
l fully recognize the rightful authority OF
the people over the whole subject, to be exer-
cised in either of the modes prescribed in the
instrument itself, and l should, under exist
ing circumstances, favor rather than oppose
a fair opportunity being offered the people
to act upon it. ! will venture to add that 10
me the Convention mode seems preferabie,
inasmuch as il allows the amendments to
originate with the people themselves, instead
only of permitting them to take or reject a
proposition originated by others not especial