Year: 1861

|
lost the vital element of pcrpetuity.


! It follows, from these views, that no State
| upon it's own mere motion, can lawfully get
out of the Union, that passes resolves and or
dinances to that effect, which are legally void
and that acts of violance within any State or
States. against the authority of the United
States are insurrectionary or revolutionary
according to circumstances.


therefore consider that in view of the Con-
stituton and the laws the Union is unbroken,
and to the best ofmy ability I shall take care
as tile Constitutioa itself expressly enjoans up-
on me, that the lasos Of the Union be faithfully
erecuted in all-the States. Doing this, deem
to be only simple duty on my part, and
shall perform 1T, so far as practicable, unless
my rightful master, the American people,
shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some
authoritative manner, direct the contrary. /
1 trust that this will not be regarded as a me-
mace, but only as the declared purpose of the
| Union that it will constitutionally defend and
maintain ITSELF In doing this there needs to
be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall
be none unless it be forced upon the National
| authority. The poooer con1ided to me aoiU be
used to hold, occupy and possess the property
and places belonging to the Government, and
| to collect The duties on Imports: but beyond
what may be necessary for these objects, there
will be no invasion, no using of force against
or among the people anywhere. Where hos
tility to the United States, in any interior To-
cality, shall be so great and so universal as to
prevent competent resident citizens from hold
ing the Federal Offices, there will be no at
tempt to force obnoxious strangers among the
people for that object.


While the strict legal right may exist in the
Government to enforce the exercise of these
offices, the attempt to do so would be so irri-
tatng and SO nearly impractlcable withal, that
deem it better to forego for the time the uses
of such Offices The mails, unless repelled,
will continue to be furnished to all parts of
the Union as far as possible. The people every
where shall have that sense of perfect security
which is most favorable to calm thought and
reflection. The course here indicated will be
followed unless current events and experience
shall show a modification change to be pro-
per, and in every case and exigency my best
discretion will be exercised according to cir
cumstances actually existing and with the
view and the hope of peaceful solution of the
national troubles and the restoration of frater-
nal sympathies and affections.


That there are persons in one section or an
other who seek to destroy the Union at all
events, and are glad of any pretext, will neth-
er affirm nor deny but if there be such, need
address no word to them. To those, however,
who really love the Union, before entering on
so grave matter as the destruction of our ma
tional fabric, with it's benefits, its memories,





precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so
desperate step while there is any possibility
that any portions of the ills you fly from have
no real existence? Will you, while the certain
ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones
you fly from, will you risk the commission
of so fearful mistake? All profess to be con-
tent in the Union if all constitutional rights can
be maintaincd.' Is it true, then, that any right
plainly written on the Constitution has been
denied? I think not. Happily the human
mind is so constituted that no party can reach
to the audacity Of doing this thing. Think, if
you can, of single instance in which plainly
written provision of the Constitution has ever
been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers,
a majority should deprive minority of any
clearly written constitutional right, it might,
in a moral point of view, justify revolution.-
1t certainly would if such right were vi
tai one. But such is not our case All
the vital rights of minorities, and of in
tlividuals are so plainly assured to them by
afirmations and negations, guarantees and
prohibitions in the Constitut ion, that con-
troverses can never arise concerning ITEM
but organic law can never be framed with pro-
vision specifically applicable to every ques
ton which may occur in practical administra-
ton. No foresight can anticipate, nor any
document of reasonable length contain, ex-
press provisions for all possible questions.


Shall fugtives from justice be surrendered
bv national or by State authority? The Con-
stitution does not expressly say. May Con-
gress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in the Territories p
The Constitution does not expressly say
From questions of this class spring all OUR con-
stitutional constroversies, and we divide upon
them into majorities and minorities. If the
minority will not acquiesce, the majority
must or the Government must cease
There is no other alternative for continuing
the Government but acquiescence on one side
or the other If minority in such a case
will secede rather than acquiesce they make
precedent which in turn, will divide and ruin
them for minority of their own will secede
from them whenever a majority refuses
to be controlled by such a minority
For instauce, why may not any portion OF the
new Confederacy, year or two hence, arbltra-
rily secede again precisely as portions of
| the present Union now claim to seCede from
| it? All who cherish disunion sentiments
now being educated to the exact temper of do


ing this. Is there such perfect identity Of


interests among the States to compose new
| Union, as to produce harmony only and pre-
vent renewed secession? Plainly the central
idea of secession is the essence of anarchy
A majority held in restraint by constitutional
checks and limitations, and always changing
easily with deliberate changes OF popular opin-
ions and sentiments; is the only true sovereign
of free people. Whoever rejects it, does, Of
necessity, fly to anarchy to despotism--


Unaninity is impossible. The will of minor
ity as permanent arrangement, is wholly in
admissible, so that rejecting the majority prin-
ciple, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all
that is left.


do not forget the position assumed by some
that constitutional questions are to be decided
by the Supreme Court, nor do 1 deny that
such decisions may be binding in any case on
the parties to a suit as to the object of that
suit, while they are also entitled to very high
respect and consideration in all parallel cases.
by all other departments OF the Government
Aud while it is obviously possible that such de
cisions may be erroneous in any given case, still
the evil effect following it being limited to that par
tcular case, with the chance that it may be over
ruled and never become precedent for Other
cases, it be better borne than could the evils
of deficient practice. At the same time
the candid citizen must confess that IF tn
policy of the Government. mpon Uital ques
tons affecting the ,ohole people, is to be ir
rerocaJiy fired by decisions of the Supreme Court
the instant they made in Ordindr1