nk not. Happily, the human mind is
so constituted that no party 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 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 soverei