Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1866-08-21

/
refusal to perform them.
The withdrawal Of their members from
I Congress by the States which resisted the
| general government was among their acts of
\ lnsurrection-was one of the means and
agencies by which they sought to impair the
| authority and defeat the action of the gov
| eminent. And that act was committed, and
rendered void when the insurrection itself
was suppressed. Neither the right of repre-
sentation nor the duty to be represented was
lin the least impaired by the fact of insurrec-
ton. But it may have been that by reason
/ of the insurrection, the conditions on which
the enjoyment of that right and the per-
tormauce of that duty for the time depended
could not be fulfilled.
This was in fact the case. An insurgent
| power, in the exercise of usurpation and un--
! lawful authority in the territory under its
control, had prohibited that allegiance to the
constitution and laws of the United States
which is made by that fundamental law the
essential condition of representation in its
| government. No man within the icsurgent
States was allowed to take the oath to support
the constitution of the United States, and, as
! necessary consequence, no. man could law
| fully represent those States in the councils of
! the Union.
But this was only an obstacle to the en-
joyment of the right and to the discharge of
a duty. 1t did not annul the one nor abro-
gate the other, and it ceased to exist when
the usurpation by which it was created had
been overthrown, 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 always confers upon the
conquerors, and which the conoueror NAV
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 iii this regard in war waged by a
| government to suppress an instruction of its
own people, upon its own soil, against its au
thority. If we had carried on successful war
against any foreign 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
| jurisdiction over the soil of the Southern
States, limited only by our own constitution.
| Our laws were the only national laws in force
! upon 1t ; the. government of the United States
| was the only government thu eugh which those
States and their people had relations 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 in
yolVlng national interest and rights our pos.
session was perfect and complete. 1t did not
need to be acquired, but only to be main
tanned, and victorious war against the rebel
lion could do nothing more than maintain it
| -rOUl1 On1V Vin6inota aD1 Al.
disputed supremacy of the constitution. 1t
could neither enlarge nor diminish the au-
thorlty which that constitution confers upon
the government by which it was achieved
Such an enlargement or abridgement of con-
stItutional power can be effected only by the
amendment of the constitution itself, and
such amendment can be made only in the
modes which the constitution itself prescrbes.
The claim that the suppression Of an insur-
rectlon against the government gives addi-
tlonal authority and power to that govern
ment, especially that it enlarges the iurisdic-
ton of Congress and gives that body the right
to exclude States from representation in the
national councils, without which the nation
itself can have no authority and no existence.
it seems to US is at variance alike with the
principles of the constitution and with the
public safety.
Third. But it is alleged that in certain par
tlculars the constitution of the U. States
fails to secure the absolute justice and Impair
tlal equality which the principles of our gov
eminent require. That it was in these re-
sPects the result of compromise and conces-
sions, 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
l of haI Al,
ment Of the United States may impose its
own conditions and make the constitutions con-
form, in all its provisions, to its own ideas of
equality and the rights of man.
Congress, ati its last session, proposed amend
ments to the constitution, enlaI ging in some
very important particulars the authority of
the general government over that of the seve-
raj States, and reducing by indirect distran-
chlsement 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 consti-
tuition without the concurrence Of the States
to be most seriously affected by them, or may
be imposed upon those States by three tourths
of the remaining States as conditions of their
readmissiOn to representation in Congress aud
in the electoral college.
1t is the unquestionable right of the people
of the United States to make such changes.in
the constitution as they, upon due delibera-
ton, may deem expedient. But we insist
that they shall be made in the mode which
the constitution itself points out, in conformi-
ty with the letter and the spirit of that in
strumeut, and with the principles of self gov
eminent and equal rights which lie at the
basis Of our republican institutions. We deny
the right of Congress to make these changes
in the fundamental law without the concur
renee of three-tourths of all the States, in
Guiding especially those to be most seriously