r not.'

Our discussion naturally divides itself into two branches: first, as to
the right, or constitutional power, to adopt the proposed amendment; and
secondly, as to the expediency and necessity of it.

I. THE RIGHT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

No characteristic of the American people is more marked than their
regard for law; and in nothing is that characteristic more striking than
in their respect for the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Whatever seems to come in conflict with that supreme law must encounter
an irresistible odium. And herein appears the splendid fruit of the
teachings of our great legists and statesmen, enforced, as they are, by
the hereditary traditions of our Anglo-Saxon birthright. It is,
moreover, a standing proof that democracy is not necessarily radical and
destructive; and so furnishes us with a complete answer to the
assumptions of English Tories, as in Alison's 'History of Europe,' that
democracy is but the organized exponent of the self-willed passions of
the multitude. What thing, indeed, is more wonderful than the tenacity
with which conscientious men still cling to the doctrine (that had once
some reason for it) of constitutional guaranties in behalf of
slavery--an institution that has inspired the most monstrous treason of
all history! What people but the American would still be hesitating,
after the solemn experience of these three years, to strike down every
possible support to slavery!

Surely the lesson of the French Revolution, in its trumpet-toned warning
to the nations against a destructive radicalism, has not been lost upon
us. How ought we to adore the Providence, guided by whose inspiration
(as with becoming reverence we may believe) Washington and his
supporters directed our infant republic in the track of English
conservatism, fearful of the vagaries of the Red Republicanism of
France! This prudent policy justifies itself more and more in our
experience; and to-day the great heart of the people beats in unison
with those Providential leadings. Therefore it is that the question, in
reference to any measure, Is it constitutional? far from exciting
ridicule, as sometimes with superficial thinkers it has done, is to be
recognized as proof of our magnificent control over the wayward factions
of the hour, and of our abiding trust in the hardly less than inspired
wisdom of our fathers, to which we thus make our ultimate appeal. For
th