Year: 1862




ssDomestfc Tranquility"


The third object of the Constitution, specified
in the preamble. is to "ISsrnE DOMESTIC TRAN
GUILTY"


The sources of domestic disturbance in the
States being the insubordination of citizens to
State authority and the insurection of slaves
(then held in all the States) against their masters,
it seems reasonable to conclude that the suppress
sion of these by the united power of the States
was the thing alluded to in this language Of the
Constitution. For the purpose of securing this
with other objects, most of the fourth section of
the fourth article was inserted in that instrument
"The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union republican form of Government,
and shall protect each Of them, on
application of the Legislature, or of the Execu-
tive (when the Legislature can not be conyened,)
against domestic violence" Though the princi-
pal object OF the first clause might have been a
political one, yet the maintenance of domestic
tranquility was had prominently in view.


The legitimate suppression of nsurrection with
in a State against the authority of the Union,
though it be attended with the disturbance, viO-
lence and suffering incdent to military opera
tions, is not necessarily, on the whole, incon-
sistent with the maintenance of domestic tran
guilty. Unless the authority of the Union can
be sustained, it must be entirely unable to aid in
enforcing obedience to the laws and authority of
the States, or TO guarantee to the States re-
publican form of government. So, if in the
course Vt military operations carried on IN good
faith for the suppression of insurrection against
the Federal authority, state of restlessness
should unavoidably be produced among the SER
wants, anu their obedience and fidelity should un-
he (,ovQ ant and
pie of the United States would not be censurable
for this incidental result. The blame would
rather be at the door of those who melted and
carried on the revolt.


The present revolt seems to have demonstrated
that, for the purpose of repreSsing slave insurrec
tions, the South is not at all dependent upon the
North. But it has not been demonstrated that
many of the States are not dependent upon other
States for assistance in preventing such occur
rences. While the disparity between the free and
the -lave population of some OF the States con-
tinues, it would seem that they must in some
emergencies be dependent upon other States.


The practical fulhllment of the guaranty of
republican form of government to the individual
States, it will readily be seen may involve a tenn
porary disturbance of domestic tranquility If
an attempt is made by minority to establish
something else than republican Institutions, the
people may call upon the Federal Government to





ment would of course be justified in responding
to the call, though great domestic disturbance
might result. 1t may be useful to call attention
to the fact that ii minority should so call for
the aid of the Government, there would be great
difficulty in saying that the Government might
respond to the call-for the thing which the Gov
ernment guarantees to each State is not merely
the form of republican government-not merely
its machinery and semblance, but the thing itself;
and 'the vital principle of republics" is the
ascendancy of the constitutional majority, it
would not do TO undertake to guarantee a repub-
lcan form of government where the majority did
not want it. 1t would be undertaking to do an
absurd and contradictory thing. The United
States is to guaranty such government to
people who want it, and who claim the fulfllment
Of the guaranty.


1t is proposed, in the most respectable quar-
tiers, that the military force of the Union shall
encourage the friends of the Union in the revolt
ed States in efforts TO revoutionze their respect
i've States and restore them to the old fra
ternity.


Ii is important to consider how far and in what
way this can be done consistently with the con-
stitutional object of insuring domestic tranquli-
ty. 1t is evident that the Federal Government
should not undertake in any way to enable a
minority to obtain control OF the States. This
would not only produce domestic dissension, but
would be inconsistent with the guarantee given
by the Constitution to each State of a republican
form of government Again: In aiding Union
majority of the citizens in State, should they
be assisted in violent revolution of their State
government, not for the avowed purpose of re
storing republican government, but to restore
the State to the UniOni There can of course
be no objection to encouraging civil revolution
for the purpose; but may encourage a mill
tary revolutioni We could not do it for the
purpose of instituting minority in power, or of
assuming the State prerogatiyes ourselves; but
could we do it tor the purpose of restoring the
majority to their lost ascendancy? There are
two points of view in which this strikes favor
ably As incidental to the measures for restoring
the rightful authority of the Union, it appears to
be legitimate measure, if kept within proper
bounds; and as incidental to the restoration of
the rule of the majority, and thus to the restora-
ton in fact of republican Institutions, it appears
to be consistent with the spirit and the specific
provisions of the Constitution. Such means
should be used with great discretion; but, if so
used. it seems to be admissible.


Not n few of the people of the North are also
urging upon the President and upon Congress
the policy of emancpating and arming the
slaves, as necessity incident to the military sup
preston of the revolt, and as part of the for
feiture of State rights incurred by the States in
insurrection. All that needs here TO be said is
that, as the object of the people of the United
States in their military measures is to preserve
the Union and the Constitution, it is indis-
pensable that the provisions and the princi-
Piles of the great charter of Union, should
be closely adhered to; and that we cannot ask
States and citizens to fulfill their constitutional
obligations, unless We accord to them their con-
sttutional rights The people do not regard the
so called seeded States as having either seeded
or rebelled in their character States and there
fore the States as such have incurred no penalty.
We have seen, also, that one aspect of the do
mestic tranquility sought to be insured by the
Constitution, was the subordnation of the slaves
to the authority of their masters. For the Gov
erDment to emancpate and arm the slaves to fight
against their masters, would be against the form
OF this constitutional privilege. Is there anything
to relieve it from this appearance of bad faith?
To say that il is military necessity, is virtually
to confess that we are fighting. not with a minori
ty of the citizens of the respective States. (the
thing We constantly claim,) but with the majority
of them, and thus with the people themselves;
and to say that the States have forfeited their
State rights, is to say that they in their political
capacity are warning with ms, and that the war is
not with individual insurgents, but with allied
republics, acting their full political character
The measure OF emancpating and arming the
slaves is fraught with practical and theoretical
embarrassments.


In conclusion: the great fundamental principle
of the international policy of the Constitution
interference tcifh domestic cGdirs-is the grand
guaranty of domestic tranquility. Had that
principle and policy been adhered to, we should
not be where we are today Tie way to restore
domestic tranquility. is to return again without
delay to the practical observance of that salu
tary and indispensable pledge OF Union and pcacel


A. B. j..


New Haven, February 81, 1862.


Washington Correspondents Of the New Nork Evening