Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-07-22
From The New York Journal Of Commerce J
The Consent of the Governed

from The New York Journal of Commerce
The Consent of the Governed.
Arguing In favor of universal suffrage
The Tribune thus cites Jefferson:
sIn fixing the political status of different
lasses we hold that the chief authority
4 hould be the fundamental law of the repnb-
ic. Weprefer the opinion Of Thomas JEFF
.rson 10 that of the District Of Columbia
| Club. He declared tito be self-evident that
,t5oyernments derive their just powers from
he consent of the governed He published
The sacred and eternal assertion, although
he knew and with grief often admitted that
the practice of his own beloved virginia
was very far behind its abstract professions.
He trusted that time and the public sense OF
Justice would soon reconcile yawning alb
surdities and abolish practical denials OF his
benevolent theory. He would not beileve
that the American people could long insult
the God OF Justice by legalizing cruel and
shameful crime. He gave in his mighty
doctrine as precious legacy, and deemed
the day not far distant when all difficulties
b would be overcome and all discrepancies
abated. He uttered no such ridiculous prop1
osition as that Governments derive their
just powers from the consent OF White
Men, He knew that such Limitation would
be a substantial concession of the whole
question, and virtual surrender OF the
whole Democratic theory. He little thought
how grossly his professed disciples would
take his name in vain." 9si-Ho.a'
How strange it is that men can write such
/, arguments as the above and not see their
simple fallacy. Did Jefferson say Gov
ernments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed Of the male sex?"
No; he uttered "no such ridiculous propo-
r sition." Did he say Governments derive
their Just powers from the consent of the
governed who are not aliens" No; he ut
tered no such ridiculous proposition. Did
he say Governments derive their just
powers from the consent of males over 2l
years of age?" No; he uttered no such
ridiculous proposition. What followsp
Why, according to the argument of The
Tribune, jefferson meant that women and
aliens and minors oughtnot to be governed
without their consent. If he did not mean
this, then, says the argument, he made "a
virtual surrender of the whole Democratic
theory" Did he say Governments derive
their just powers from the consent OF the
majority OF the governed?" No. what
then? Are not minorities sometimes gov
erned without their consent to the pow
ers which are exercised over them? When
new Constitutions are adopted by major
ity vote, the min0rities are governed in spite
of their open opposition. And is that con-
trary to the JeffersOnian doctrine?
When men take the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, or other papers of that kind, ex-
tract sentences from them, and seek to base
political theories on them, they very fire.
quently make a muddle of it. Look at the
Indians in this State. Has not the Govern
ment just right and power over them with
out their voice or consent? But what be-
comes of the doctrine in the sentence then!
Simply this, that the expression is gener-.
alization of truth which has its exceptions
in numerous cases. The prisoner who is
hanged for murder is hanged rightfully,
though he refuses his consent, though he be
en- alien or minor, or an Indian who new
er gave consent of any kind to any power
of the Government. 1t is, plainly not true
that Government derives its power over
such individual from the consent of thatin-
dividual. This would be as bad doctrine
as secession, since it would leave every man
at liberty to withdraw his allegiance and
subsection, and defy Government whenever
he pleased. The perfection Of human
system of Government doubtless is one in
which all the subjects cheerfully consent to
the Government, and submit without muir
muir to its requirements. But this perfec-
tion will not be realized during the lives of
the present generation of men, and unless
we improve more rapidly, will not be real
lied during many generations to come. In
the very best of Governments, so long as
human nature is just what it is, there must
be large classes of men who are governed
without their consent. III
1t is curious to observe that while the ar
gtiment we have quoted above is adduced to
show the propriety of giving all negroes the
right to vote, the same men argue that thou
sands and hundreds of thousands of white
men at the South should be governed with
out their consent. They do not see the con-
tradictlonin their own arguments. For ex-
ample, The Tribune has been for weeks past
arguing that the Maryland Convention had
a right to make Constitution, and then
forbid large part of the population from
ever voting for or against the new Govern
ment. The Tribune says it was the duty of
the Convention to exclude the disloyal
MaryIanders from any voice in reference
to it. =. In other words, it is maintained that
a majority of the people, or a Convention
accidentally in session, has right to create
a government Qor that is what new Con-
stitution means) over thousands of people,
without their consent, to establish law
forbidding them even to express assent or
dissent. There is no reason to doubt that
such a state Of things must often occur.
The honest must sometimes govern the dis
honest, the educated must sometimes gov
ern the ignorant, the loyal must sometimes
govern the disloyal. But what becomes of
the argument about the consent of the gov
erned when The Tribune maintains that the
Maryland Convention not only had right,
but was bound to exclude rebels and rebel
sympathizers from voting on the proposed
new Government? Consistency Is a jewel,
and we respectfully recommend 1t to all
gentlemen who are arguing In favor of ne
gro suffrage on Democratic principles, and
quoting Jefferson to help their cause.