can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think,
if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of
the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a
majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly
would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the
vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to
them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no
organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to
every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight
can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express
provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does
not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the
Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies,
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 is acquiescence on
one side or the other.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a
precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their
own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by
such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy
a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of
the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion
sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a
new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent 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 opinions and
sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects
it does, of nece