The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1861-03-07


these offices, the attempt to do SO would pe SO
Irritating. and so nearly impractlcable wlthal,
that deem it better to forego for time the
uses of such offices.
The mails unless repelled, will continue to
ba Furnished in all parts of the Union, and
80 far as possible the people every where
shall have that sense of perfect security which
is most favorable to calm thoughts and retiec
ton.
The course there indicated will be followed un-
less current events and experiences shall show
a modification or change to be proper; and in
every case and exigency my best discretion will
be exercised according to circumstances actually
existing, and with a view and hope of peace
full solution of the national troubles, and the
restoration Of the fraternal ympathies and at
fectons.
That there are persons in one section or an
other who seek to destroy the Union at o IL events
and are glad of any pretext to do it. Twill nelth-
er affirm or deny; but if there be such, l need
address no word To those, however, who real
ly love the Union, may not speak! Before
entering upon so grave matter as the destruc-
ton of our national fabric, with all its Dement'S,
| its memories and hopes, would it not be wise to
ascertain previously why we do? Will you
| hazaad q desperate step while there IS any pos
sibility that any portion of the ills you fly from
have no real existence? While the certain ills
you fly to are greater than all the real ones you
| fly from, will yourisk the commission of so fear
| full o mistaken
All profess to be content with the Union, if
| all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is
it true then, that any right, plainly written in
| the Constitution, has been denied? think not.
Happily the human mind is so constituted that
no party can reach to The audacity Of doing
| this. Think, if you can, of single instance In
| which plainly written provision of the constl-
tuition has ever been denied. If by the mere
force of numbers majority shall deprive a
minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might, in moral point of view, justify
o revolution. 1t certainly would if such a
right were vital one. But such is not our
course. AL the vital rights of minorities and
of individuals are so plainly assured to them
by affirmations and negotiations guaranteed by
prohibitions in the Constitution, that controver-
sizes never arise concerning them. But no or
ganic law can be framed with provision
specifically applicable to every question which
may occur in practical administration. No fore
sight can anticipate, nor any document of rea-
sonable length contain express provisions for all
possible questions. Shall fngitives from labor
be surrendered by national or State authority,
the Constitution does not expressly say. May
Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories
The Constitution does not expressly say. May
Congress protect slavery in the territories 2
The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class sprang all our
Constitutional controversies and we divide
them into majorities and minorities. If the
minority will not acquiesce the ma jority 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. Ifa minority in such case will secede
rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent
which in turn will divide and ruin them, for q
minority of their own will secede from them
whenever majority refuses to be controlled by
such minority. For instance, why may not
Ion of fo1o n,
two hence, arbitrarily secede again precisely as
portions Of the present Union now claim to Sc
cede from it?
being educated to the exact temper Of doing
this. Is there such perfect identity of interests
among the States to compose a new Union as tt
, produce harmony only, and prevent renewed Sc
cession? Plainly the central idea of secession
is the essence of anarchy.
majority held in restraint by constitutions
checks and limitations, and always changing
easily with the deliberate changes of popular
opinions and sentiment, is the only true SOW
ereignty of free people. Whoever rejects it
does of necessity fly to anarchy or despot-
ism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule O
minority, as permanent arrangement
is wholly inadmissable; so that rejecting
the majority principle, anarchy and despot-
lem, in some form, is all that il
left. 1 do not forget the position assumed by
1 some, that Constitutional questions are to b,
: decided by the Supreme Court; nor do
deny that such decisions must be binding
in any case upon the parties to a suit
as to the object of that suit; while the,
are also entitled to very high respect ant
consideration in all parallel cases by all othe
departments of the Government; and while
is obviously possible that such decision may b
erroneous in any given case; still the evil effec
following it being limited to that particu
lar case, with the chance that it may b
. overruled and never become a precedent fo
other cases, can better be borne thai
could the evils of different practice At tn
same time the candid citizen must con
4 fess that if the policy of the governmen
= upon a vital question affecting tn
l whole people, is to be irrevocably fxe,
!, by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instan
they are made, as in ordinary litigation be
tween parties in personal actions, the peopl
T will have ceased to be their own rulers, havln
:, ! to that extent, practically resigned their gov
u u ernment into the hands of that eminent tribu
. nal. Nor is there in this view any assault upo
:, the court or the judges. 1t is a duty from whic
Il they may not shrink to decide cases properl
: brought before them, and it is no fault of their
if others seek to fturn their decisions to politi
. cal purposes. One section of our country he
u lieves slavery is right and ought to be extended
:, while the other believes it is wrong and ough
not to be extended. This is the only sub
Il stantial dispute, for the fugitive slave claus
of the Constitution and the law for the suppres
: sion of the foreign slave trade are each as wei
. enforced perhaps as any law can ever be, in
" community where the moral sense of the peopl
5 imperfectly supports the law ITSELF The grea
y body of the people abide by the dry legal obi
~ CATION in both cases. After the separation Q
- the sections, the foreign slave trade now imper
. = fectly suppressed, would be ultimately revive
L L without restriction in one section, while fugi
y tive slaves now only partially SURRENDERED
, = would not be surrendered at all by the other
:, Physically speaking, we cannot separate. W
= = cannot remove our respective sections from eac
Il other, nor build an impossible wall betwee
= them. husband and wife may be divorced
s ard go out of the presence, and beyond the reac
of each other, but the different parts of our coun
n try cannot do this. They cannot but remain fac
to face and an intercourse either amicable or hos
/ tile ust continue between them. Is it possible
|. then, to make that intercourse more advanta
s geous or more satisfactory after separating tha
before? Can aliens make treaties easier tina
!, friends can make laws? can treaties be more fait
t fully enforced between aliens than laws anon
5 friends? Suppose you go to war,Fyou cannt
e fight always, and when after much loss on bot
Il ,;6 nd M na in on aifhar Won 400 co frbfipt