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