Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1861-08-02
The Duty OF Coercion.

|
with a request to publish a communication il
contains over the signature of James Touch
stone, in which the duty Of coercion by the
Federal Government is more clearly set forth
than in any document we have read for some
time The communication is in reply to one
published ina former issue, signed "Anti-Coer
cion." We copy the material portions of tho
article, and ask all our readers to peruse II
carefully, especially those who may be in favor
of making treaty of peace with the rebels:
You say you "do not recognize the constl-
tutional right of secession, but concede to eU-
eru people the right Of revolution, who are
brave enough to meet the consequences Of their
rebellion" | understand you here to mean
what you say, that every people who are
dissatisfied with their government" have the
right to revolt. Please notice that the term
"eyery people is comprehensive enough to
embrace "all the world and the rest Of man
kind" and might include southern negroes !
Please also remember that you take wrong
position at the very start of your communica-
ton. For instance, while you "concede the
right of revolution to every people without
any qualifications, you forget to "concede'
the right of putting down revolution to "eve-
ry people" But more Of this after while.
| pass over your expressions OF love and
devotion to your country, and proceed to your
wish to see the constitution preserved inci-
olate, and the rights it guarantees perpetual
cd" You say you ,cish" this, but you say
YOU do not believe the course pursued by
the government for that purpose the proper
one Now if the government is wrong, as
you believe then you are right, and the plan
you may have to propose instead of that OF
the government may also be right. And,
pray, what plan do y0u propose to preserve
inviollte the constitution and to "perpetu-
ate the rights it guarantees Unfortunately
for the country you do not give us your plan !;
you only reject that of the government as be-
ing improper. Nevertheless, although you
do not tell us how to preserve inviolate the
constitution" &c, you do not tell us that it
cannot be done by coercion" Now my
opinion is that it only can be done by I" coer-
cion." What is the meaning of the words
coerce. coercion, &C. 1t is to "check," to
restrain by force Now, if We find that
any man, or any number of men, are violating
and resisting the constitution, and if We find
them determined to break up and destroy the
Union for aohich the constitution was made
to "perpetunte,' then it seems the only plan
is to " check" and restrain by force" these
men who have raised the bloody hand of re-
bellion against the constitution and the rights
which it guarantees" Is it right to enforce
anv iaao? IF it it is not, why are laws en-
acted Are laws enacted merely for idle Gu
rosity, to be broken and disregarded with i'm
punity? If so, what security have we for life,
liberty or property? What is the object of
constitution Is it to be the supreme law
over all who live under it, ana in conformity
to which all laws must be enacted? If this
is not the object of constitution, what is its
object and of W hat use can it be ? But ii such
i, the object, how shall that object be attained
unless the provisions Of such constitution be
enforced? If | understand the object of a
constitution it is to be the supreme lcW, to
which all must render implicit obedience
And here let me say, that do not "concede
the right of revolution" against constitu-
ton: especially against that of the United
States. | do " concede" that right to the peo-
lie of South Carolina, and other Southern
States, who are kept in absolute subection to
an aristocratic despotism. The constitution of
South Carolina is not even republican in any
lea! IL always DSSil} ttiiNt I'D iO"t o.'i
absolute monarcy, and | hope that the Con-
gress of the United States, in conformity with
our national constitution, will guarantee here
after to the people of South Carolina fepub-
lican form of government. But there Is no
right and no excuse for revolution against
the constitution Of the United States. And
why? Because it provides for every defect,
for every error, for every emergency, IN It's
own legitimate way. No possible contingen-
cv can arise that is not provided for by that
constitution, and no difficulty can occur but
what can be settled by the people under the
constitution. 1t even provides for its own al
teration; but not by violence. 1t can be al
tered or amended by the people ofme United
States, whose law it is A.; but it cannot be sub
verted by the people, Or any fraction thereof,
of any separate State; and for this reason 1t
is not the property of a fraction Of the peo-
pie, but the whole. A majority of-the whole
people of the United States, even, cannot have
the right to reyolutionize or subvert the con-
stitution, unless they do it by acclamation !;
because the minority have their rights under
it, which it would be wrong (and therefore
not right,) to disregard And if this is a
correct view of the case, how can contempt
ible fraction of aristocrats and monarchists Of
a single State have the right to revolutionize
and subvert the constitution Sir, l might
as well try to clear up this fright Of revolu-
ton" which you "concede to every people,
before proceed farther. [ have always I'M
derstood it to be the right of the majority to
rule, subject to the provisions Of the constitu-
ton. Am right? If so, it is aorong for the
minority to attempt to rule by revolution, in
violation of the constitution. Therefore, if
such revolution by violence is aorong, it is not
riqht, and as long as 1t is t1rong it cannot be
claimed as right, because what is ,0rong IN
every particular cannot be right IN any par
ticular. Therefore the fright of revolution
cannot be conceded to every people" 10
grant such right would be to sunder the
Strong chords of every constitutional and le-
gal restraint, and to tear away the very foun-
dations Of civil government If it is right for
the majority to rule, it cannot be right for the
minority to rule; because to grant the right
to each. would be a contradiction and an alb
sur,!ty. And let it be remembered that it
will never do to give the minority the right to
put down the majority, by overturning the
constitution which is the supreme law. and at
the same time deny the majority the right to
put down the minority by compelling obedi-
| cICc W tllt SuPIShiC ioS' '''i' Wv AiOiAe "
revolution to "eoery people" is humbug,
(excuse me, if you please,) and cannot be sus-
tained in any case, except where the advanta-
ges to be gained arc Of far more magnitude
than the evils to be incurred by revolution.
No people have the right to imbrue their
hands in the blood of their fellow-men by
revolution, unless they can really complain Of
intolerable oppression Can such COM
plant be sustained against the Federal gov
ernment by any State in the Union? Sir,
you know it cannot. Where, then, is your
fright of revolution to every people e And
do you honestly believe, as you say, that the
government is waging war of conquest on
tthe South? Do you not believe that if the
rebels in the South would lay down their
arms of rebellion and return to their loyal y
that the government would at once Withdraw
and disband our troops, and leave the people
of those States to settle and transact then