The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1867-03-14

laws, reduced those States and all their
people--tbe innocent as we'll as the
guilty-to the condition Of vassalage,
and gave us power over them which the
Constitution does not bestow, or define,
or limit. No fallacy can be more trans.
parent than this. Our victories subject.
ed the insurgents to legal obedience,
not to the yoke Of an arbitrary despot-
ism. When an absolute sovereign re-
duces his rebellious subjects, he may
deal with them according to his pleas
ure, because he had that power before.
But when a limited monarch puts down
an ilsurrection, he must still govern &C.
cording to law. If an insurrection
should take place in one of our States
against the authority of the State Gov
ernment, and eEd in the overthrow Of
those who planned it, would that take
away the rights of all the people of the
countries where il was favored By
part Of a majority Of the population 2
Could they, for such reason, be Who'll.
ly outlawed and deprived Of their rep
resentatiou in the Legislature! have
always contended that the Government
OF the United States was sovereign with.
in its constitutional sphere that it ex-
ecuted its laws, like the; States them.
selves, by applying its coercive power
directly 10 individuals and that il could
put down insurrection with the same eff
feet as State, and no other. The ops
posite doctrine is the worst heresy Of
those who advocated secession, and can.
not be agreed TO without admitting that
heresy to be right.
Invasion, insurrection, rebellion and
domestic violence we're anticipated when
the Government was framed, and the
means of repellng and suppressing them
were wisely provided for in The Consti>
tuition but it WAS not thought necessa-
ry to declare that the States in which
they might occur should he expelled from
the Union. Rebellions, which were in
variably suppressed, occurred prior to
tha. out of which these questions grow
but the States continued to exist and
the Union remained unbroken. In Mas
sachuset's, in Pennsylvania, in Rhode
Island, and in New York, at different
periods in our history, violent and arm
ed opposition to the United States was
carried on ; but the relations Of those
States with the Federal Government
were not supposed to be interrupted or
changed thereby, after the rebellious
portions Of their population were defeat
ed and put down. 1t is true that in
these earlier cases there was no formal
expression Of determination to with
draw from the Union, but it is also true
that IN the Southern States the ordinan-
ces Of secession were treated by all the
friends of the Union as mere nulii,ies,
and are now acknowledged to be so by the
States themselves. If we admit that
they had any force or validity, or that
they did in fact take the States in which
they were passed out Of the Union, we
sweep from under our feet all the
grounds upon which we stand in justi,
Tying the use Of Federal force 10 main.
tain the integrity Of the Government.
This is Bill passed b. Congress in
time Of peace. There is not in any one
of the States brought under its operas
tion either war or insurrec,ion. The
laws Of the States and Of the Federal
Government are all in undis;urbed and
harmonious operation. The Courts,
State and Federal are open, and in the
full exercise Of their proper authority.
Over every State comprised in these FIVE
military districts, life, liberty and proper
ty are secured by State laws and Federal
laws, and the national Constitution is in
force and is everywhere obeyed. What,
then, is the ground on which this Bill pro
ceeds I The title of the Bill announces
that it 10 intended "for the more efficient
government" Of these ten States. 1t is re.
cited by way of preamble that no legal
State Governments, nor adequate pro-
lection for life or property" exist in
those States, and that peace and good
order should be thus enforced. The
first thing which arrests attention upon
these recitals, which prepare the way for
marital law, is this->that the only found.
alton upon which martial law can exist
under our form Of government is not
stated or SO much as pretended. Actual
war, foreign invasion, domestic insur-
rec:ion-none Of these appear; and
none Of these. liz fact, exist. 1t is not
even recited that any sort OF war or in.
surrection is threatened. Let us pause
here to consider, upon this question of
constitutional law and the power Of
Congress, a recent decision Of the Sa>
preme Court Of the United States in er
portc Milligan.
I will first quote from the opinion of
the majority Of the Court martial
law cannot arise from a threatened in
vasion. The necessity must be actual
and present, the invasion real, such as
effec:ually closes the courts and depose