Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1861-03-08


previously, Why we do it7
Will you hazard SO desperate step while
there is any possibility that portion OF the ills
YOU fly from have real existence? Will you,
while The certain evils you flee to are greater
than all the real ones you fly from?
Will y GU risk the commission cf so fearful a
mistaken All profess to be content in the
Union, ifall constitutional rights can be main
tanned. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly
written in the Constitution. has been denied? l
think not. Happily the human mind is so
constitutedthat no party can reach 10 the au-
dacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of
single instance in which plainly written provi-
sion of the Constitution has ever been denied.
If by the mere force Of numbers, u majority
shall deprive minority of any clearly written
constitutional right, it might, in a moral point
of view, justify revolution it certainly would
if such right were vital one-but such is not
our case. The vital rights of minorities and of
individuals are SO plainly assured to them by
affirmations and legal guarantees and prohibi-
ton of the Constitution, that controversy never
arises concerning them. But no organic law
can ever be framed with provision specially
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 sur
rendered by National or State authorities p
The Constitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in territories The
Constitution does not expressly say From
questions of this class spring all our Constitu-
tional controversies, and we divide upon then,
into ma jorities and mnorities.
If the minority will not ac4uiesce, the major
lty must, or the government must cease. There
Is no alternative for continuing the government
but acquiescence on thu one side or the other.
The m ;norty in such case, will recede rather
than acquiesce.
They make precedent which will in turn
ruin and divide them, for minority of their
own will secede from them whenever q mn jor-
ity refuses to be controlled by such q minority
For instance, why may not any portion of a
new Confederacy, n year or two hence, arbi-
trarily sscede again, precisely as portions o.
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 new Union as to
produce harmony only, and prevent a new Sc.
cession ?-plainly, the central idea of secession
is the essence of anarchy.
A majority, held in restraint by Constitution
al check and limitali ions, and always changing
easily with deliberate changes of popular opin-
ion and sentiments, is the only true sovereign
cessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity
is impossible. The rule of the minority, as q
prominent argument, is wholly inaccessible, so
that, rejecting the majority principle: anarchy
or despotism in some form is all that is left
do not forget the position assumed by some,
that CO Institutional objections to be decided
by the Supreme Court; nor do | deny that
such decisions must be binding, in any case, to
the parties to suit, or to the object of that suit,
while they are also entitled to q very high re-
spect and consideration in all parallel cases by
all other departments of the government and
while it is obviously possible that such deci-
sion may be erroneous in any given case still
the evil effect following it being limited to that
particular one, with the chance that it may be
overruled ard never become precedent for
other cases, can be better borne than could the
evils of Il deficient practice.
1t is duty from which they may not shrink
to decide cases properly brought before them.
1t is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn
their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believe slavery is
right, and ought to be extended, while the 9TH
er believes it is wrong and ought not to be ex-
tended. This is the only substantial dispute.
The fugitive slave clause in the Constitution
and the law for the suppression of the foreign
slave trade, are as well enforced, perhaps, as
any law can ever be, in community where
the moral sense of the people imperfectly sup
ports the law itself The great body of the peo-
pie abide by the dry legal obligations in both
cases. and few break in each.
This. / think, cannot be perfectly cur ed
and would be worse in both cases after the sep.
aration of the sections than before. The for
eign slave trade now imperfectly suppressed,
would be imperfectly revised without restr;c-
ton in one section, while fugitive slaves, now
only partially surrendered, would not be at all
by the other.
Physically speaking we can't separate, we
can't remove our respective sections from bach
other, nor build an impossible wall between
them. A husband and wife may be disagreed,
and 60 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 ia ce,
to face, and intercourse, either hostile or amic-
able must continue between them. Is it DOS
sible, then, to make that intercourse more ad-
vantageous or more satisfactory after separa-
ton than before ? Can aliens make treaties
better than friends can make laws2 Can trea-
ties be more faithfully enforced between aliens
than laws can among friends
Suppose you go to war you cannot fight al
ways and when, after much loss on both sides,
and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the
are again upon you,
This country, with its institutions belongs to
the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall
grow weary of our existing government, they
can exercise their constitutional rights in
amending, or through revolutionary right to
dismember or overturn it.
| cannot be ignorant of the fact that many
worthy and patriotic citizens are DESTROYS of
having our National Constitution amended
While make no recommendation, fully re-
cognize the full authority CT the people over
the whole subject, to be exercised in either of
the modes presented in the Constitution itself,
and should under existing circumstances IA
vor either of them offered A fair opportunity
being offered the people to act upon it, will
venture to add that to me the Constitutional
mode seems preferable in that it demands
amendments to originate with the people them
selves, instead of only permitting them to take
or reject propositions originated by others not
especially chosen for the purpose, and which
might not precisely suit. as they would wish
others to accept or refuse.
l understand proposed amendment to the
Constitution. which amendment. however, |
have not seen has passed Congress, to the eff
feet that the Federal Government shall never
interfere with the domestic institutions, inclu-
ding that of persons held to service
To avoid misconstruction of v hat have said,
l depart from my purpose not to speak of par
ticular amendments, so far rs to say, that hold
ing such provision now to be implied con-
stitutional law, hope nobody will cater to its
being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his author
ity from the people, and they have conferred
none upon him to fix the laws for the separation
of the States The people themselves can do
this if they choose. but the Executive as such,
has nothing to do with it. His duty is to adj
minister the Government as it came into his