The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1866-08-28


ties and obligations be discarded or laid
aside. The enjoyment of rights may be
for time suspended by the failure to
claim them, and duties may be evaded by
the refusal to perform them. The with
drawal of their members from Congress
by the States which resisted the general
government was among their acts of in.
surrection-was one of the means and
agencies by which they sought to impair
the authority and defeat the action of the
government; and that act was annulled
and rendered void when the insurrection
itself vas suppressed. Neither theright
of representation nor the duty to be rep
resented was the least impaired by the
fact Of instruction; 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 usurp-
ed and unlawful authority in the territory
under its control, had prohibited that al
legiance to the Constitution and the laws
of the United States which is made by
that fundamental law the essential con-
dition of representation in its govern
ment. No man within the insurgent
States was allowed to take the oath to
support the Constitution of the United
States, and, as a necessary consequence,
no man could lawfully represent those
States in the councils Of the Union. But
this was only an obstacle to the enjoy
Iment of the right and to the discharge of
a duty--it did not annul the one nor ab-
|rogate the other, and it ceased to exist
when the usurpation by which it was Gre
ated had been overthrow, and the States
had again resumed their allegiance to the
Constitution 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 it flows
directly from the laws of war; that it is
among the rights which victorious war al
ways confers upon tho conquerors, and
which the coHqueror 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
insurrectien of its own people, upon its
own soil, against its authority. If we
had carried on successful var against any
foreign nation We might thereby have ac-
quired possession and jurisdiction of
their soil, with the right to enforce cur
laws upon their people and to impose up
on them such laws and such obligations
as we might choose But we had before
the war complete jurisdiction over the
soil of the Southern States, limited only
by our own Constitution. Our laws we're
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 rela-
tions with foreign nations, and its flag was
the only aag by which they were recog-
nized or known anywhere on the face Of
the earth. In all these respects, and in
all other respects involving national in
terests and rights, our possession was
perfect and complete. It did not need
to be acquired, but only to be maintained;
and victorious war against the rebellion
could do nothing more than maintain it.
It could only yindicate and re-establish
the disputed supremacy Of the Constitu-
Itien. It could neither enlarge nor d.
minish the authority which that Consti-
tuition confers upon the government by
which it was achieved. Such an enlarg.
ment or abridgement of constitutional
power can be effected only by amendment
of the Constitution itself: and such amend
ment of the Constitution itself; and such
amendment can be made only in the
modes which the Consultation itself pre-.
scribes. The claim that the suppression oi
an insurrection against the government
lgiyes additional authority and power tc
Ithat governFent, especially that it eBlar.
i ges the jurisdiction of Congress and gives
THAT body the right to exclude States frou
representation ia the national councils
without which the nation itself can have
mo authority and no existence, seems tc
us at variance alike with the principles o.
the Constitution and with the public safe
'lty.
j Third. But it is alledged that in GER
tain particulars the Constitution Of tn,
J United States fails to secure the absolute
Justice impartial equality which the prin
ciples of our government require: that j
: was in these respects the result of com
/ promises and concessions to which, hew
ever necessary when the Constitution wa
formed, We are no longer compelled h
submit, and that now, having the powe
through successful war and just warran
for its exercise in the hostile conduct o
5 the insurgent section the actual govern
g mcnt of the United States may impos
: its own conditions, and make the Consti
: tuition conform in all its provisions to it
own ideas of equality and the rights Q
{ man. Congress at its last session propo
2 sed amendments to the Constitution en-
a larging in some very important particular
y the authority of the general governmer
f over that of the several States and redu
Q cling, by indirect disfranchisemcnt, tn
5 representative power of the States
n which slavery formerly existed; and it
!, claimed that these amendments may b
d made valid and part of the original Cor
II stitution without the concurrence of tt
J. States to be most seriously effected b
1t them, or may be imposed upon thos
It States by three fourths of the renainir