FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258  
259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   >>   >|  
lative, or judicial--can have any just powers except those which it derives through and exercises under the organic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, but it shields every human being who comes or is brought under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in one place more than in another that which the Constitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern States were in truth out of the Union, we could not treat their people in a way which the fundamental law forbids. Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the Federal laws reduced those States and all their people--the innocent as well as the guilty--to the condition of vassalage and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects, he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he must still govern according to law. If an insurrection should take place in one of our States against the authority of the State government and end in the overthrow of those who planned it, would that take away the rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part or a majority of the population? Could they for such a reason be wholly outlawed and deprived of their representation in the legislature? I have always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws, like the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to individuals, and that it could put down insurrection with the same effect as a State and no other. The opposite 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 were anticipated when the Government was framed, and the means
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258  
259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

States

 

insurrection

 
Constitution
 

people

 

Government

 
citizens
 

heresy

 

authority

 

sovereign

 

subjects


majority

 

pleasure

 
counties
 

rights

 
rebellious
 
favored
 
planned
 

monarch

 

government

 

limited


overthrow

 

govern

 
contended
 

opposite

 

doctrine

 

advocated

 
effect
 

secession

 

agreed

 

violence


anticipated

 

framed

 

domestic

 

rebellion

 

admitting

 

Invasion

 

individuals

 
directly
 

wholly

 

outlawed


deprived

 

representation

 
reason
 
legislature
 

applying

 

coercive

 

executed

 
sphere
 

United

 

constitutional