Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-08-21

| surrection, but it may have been that by
reason Of the insurrectiOn, the conditions
! on which the enjoyment of that right and
| the performance of that duty for the time
depended could not be fulfilled. This was
in fact, the case. An insurgent power, in
! the exercise Of usuTped and unlawful author
ity in the territory under its CONTROL had
prohibited that allegiance TO the COnstitu-
ton and laws of the United States which is
made by that fundamental law the essential
condition Of representation in Government.
No man within the insurgent States was al
lowed to take the oath to support the Con-
stitutiOn Of the United States and as a ne
cessary consequence no man could lawfully
represent those States in the councils Of the
Union. But this was only an obstacle to
the enjoyment of the right and to the dis
charge Of duty; it did not annul the one
nor abrogate the other, and it ceased to exist
when the usurpation by which 1t was created
had been overthrown and the States had
again resumed their allegiance to the Con-
stitution and laws of the United States.
Second. But it is asserted in support of
the authority claimed by the Congress now
in possession of power, that 1t flows directly
from the laws of war; that 1t Is among the
rights which victorious war always cOnters
upon the conquerOrs, and which the con-
queror may exercise or waive, IN his own
discretion. To this we reply, that the laws
in question relate solely, so far as the rights
they confer are concerned, to wars waged
between alien and Independent nations, and
can have no place or force in this regard In
a war waged by government to suppress
an insurrection of its own people upon Its
own soil against its authority. If we had
aF1vvf fns sn1rrr
nation, we might thereby have acquired
possession and Jurisdiction of their soil, with
the right to enforce our laws upon their
people. and to impose upon them such laws
and such obligations as we might choose.
But we had, before the war, complete juris-
dtction over the soil of the Southern States,
limited only by our own Constitution. Our
laws were the only national laws in force
upon it. The Government of the United
States was the only Government through
which those States and their people had re-
lations with foreign nations, and its flag was
the only flag by which they were recognized
or known anywhere on the face of the earth.
In all these respects, and in all other respects
| involving national interests and rights our
possession was perfect and complete 1t did
not need to be acquired, but only to be
maintained and victorious war against the
! rebellion could do nothing more than main
| tain it. 1t could only vindicate and re-
! establish the disputed supremacy of the
! Constitution. 1t could neither enlarge nor
! diminish the authority which that Constitu-
ton confers upon the Government by which
! it was achieved. Such an enlargement or
! abridgement of constitutional power can be
effected only by the amendment Of the Con-
stitution itself, and such amendment can be
made only in the modes which the Constitu-
ton itself prescribes.
The claim that the suppression of an in
surrection against the Government gives ad-
/ diticnal authority and power to that Gov
ernment, especially that 1t enlarges the
! jurisdiction of Congress and gives that body
! the right to exclude States from representa-
| ton in the National Councils, without which
| the nation itself can have no authority and
no existence, seems to US at variance alike
! with the principles of the Constitution and
with the public safety.
Third. But it is alleged that in certain
| particulars the Constitution Of the United
! States fails to secure the absolute justice and
! impartial equality which the principles of
our Government require; that 1t was in these
respects the result of compromises and con-
cessions to which, however necessary when
the Constitution was formed, we are no
longer compelled to submit; and that now,
| having the power through successful war,
and lust warrant for its exercise in the hostile
conduct of the insurgent section, the actual
| Government of the United States may i'm
pose its own conditions and make the Con-
stitution conform in all its provisions to its
own ideas of equality and the rights of war.
! Congress, at its last session, proposed amend
ments to the Constitution, enlarging, in some
very important particulars, the authority OF
the General Government over that of the
several States, and reducing, by indirect dis
franchisement, the representative power OF
the States in which slavery formerly existed;
and it is claimed that these amendments
NAV be made valid as parts of the original
Constitution without the concurrence OF the
States to be most seriously affected by them,
or may be imposed upon those States by
three-fourths of the remaining States, as con-
ditions of their readmissiOn to representa-
ton in Congress and to the Electoral Col
lege.
1t is the unreasonable right of the peo-
ple of the United States to make such
changes in the Constitution as they upon
due deliberation may deem expedient. But
we insist that they shall be made in the
mode which the Constitution itself points
out, in conformity with the letter and spirit
of that instrument, and with the principles
ofselfgovernment and of equal rights which
lie at the basis of our republican instltu
; tions. We deny the right of Congress tC
, make these changes in the fundamental law
without the concurrence of three-tourths O
r all the States, including especially those Il
, be most seriously affected by them, or tC
impose them upon States or people as condI
p tions of representation or of admission tC
anv of the rights, duties, or obligation
; which belong, under the Constitution, to al
J | the States alike; and with still greater EN-
, phasis do we deny ;he right Of any portion
/ ! ofthe States, excluding the rest ofthe State
% from anv share in their councils, to prOpOs
e or sanction changes in the Constitution
- which are to effect permanently their polltl
. cal relations, andcOntrol or corerce the Ieglt
! innate action of the several members of tn
Y common Union. Such an exercise Of powe
+ Is simply a usurpatiOn, just as unwarranta
T bic when exercised by Northern States as
?. would be if exercised by Southern, and no
+ to be fortified or palliated by anything i
t the past history either of those by whom l
a is attempted or Of those upon whose right
q and liberties it is to take effect. 1t finds n
?, warrant in the Constitution. 1t Is at wa
n with the fundamental principles Of our forr
Z OF EONGIUltlhs II NpANA AANh III NAAS AAAN''
Is il becomes the precedent for future invasion
of liberty and constitutional right, depend
/. ent solely upon the will of the party in po
IS session Of power, and thus leads by dire'
= and necessary sequence to the most fatal an
4 intolcrable Of all tyrannies, the tyranny {
Of shifting and irresponsible political faction
D. il is against this, the most formidable OF a
= the dangers which menace the stability (
N free government, that the Constitution
,e the United States was intended most car
in fully to provide We demand a strict an
T. sleadfast adherence to its provisions. !
w this aud in this alone, can We find bas
tx Of permanent union and peace.
,e Fourth. But it is alleged in justihcauo
to of ;he usurpation which we condemn, tn
ir the condition Of theSouthern States and pc
IL ple is not such as renders safe their readml
IN sion to a share in the government of Il
m couHtry; and they are still disloyal in senl
=? ment and purpose, and that neither the no
st or, the credit, nor the interests of the matte
nd would be safe if they were admitted to
n share in its councils. We might reply
MT this
,ir First. That we have no right for SUI
reasons to deny to any portion Of the Stat
re- or people rights expressly conferred up
ng them by the Constitution Of the Unit
,ir States.