FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499  
500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   >>   >|  
es, nor state legislation, but _by the terms of the clause themselves_. Southern members of Congress, in the recent discussions, have conceded the power of a contingent abolition in the District, by suspending it upon the consent of the people. Such a doctrine from _declaimers_ like Messrs. Alford, of Georgia, and Walker, of Mississippi, would excite no surprise; but that it should be honored with the endorsement of such men as Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun, is quite unaccountable. Are attributes of _sovereignty_ mere creatures of _contingency_? Is delegated _authority_ mere conditional _permission_? Is a _constitutional power_ to be exercised by those who hold it, only by popular _sufferance_? Must it lie helpless at the pool of public sentiment, waiting the gracious troubling of its waters? Is it a lifeless corpse, save only when popular "consent" deigns to put breath into its nostrils? Besides, if the consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of the _whole_ people must be had--not that of a majority, however large. Majorities, to be authoritative, must be _legal_--and a legal majority without legislative power, right of representation, or even the electoral franchise, would be an anomaly. In the District of Columbia, such a thing as a majority in a legal sense is unknown to law. To talk of the power of a majority, or the will of a majority there, is mere mouthing. A majority? Then it has an authoritative will--and an organ to make it known--and an executive to carry it into effect--Where are they? We repeat it--if the consent of the people of the District be necessary, the consent of _every one_ is necessary--and _universal_ consent will come only with the Greek Kalends and a "perpetual motion." A single individual might thus perpetuate slavery in defiance of the expressed will of a whole people. The most common form of this fallacy is given by Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in his speech, February 16, 1835, in which he denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, unless the inhabitants owning slaves petitioned for it!! Southern members of Congress at the present session ring changes almost daily upon the same fallacy. What! pray Congress _to use_ a power which it _has not_? "It is required of a man according to what he _hath_," saith the Scripture. I commend Mr. Wise to Paul for his ethics. Would that he had got his _logic_ of him! If Congress does not possess the power, why taunt it w
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499  
500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

consent

 

majority

 

District

 

people

 

Congress

 

fallacy

 
slavery
 
popular
 

Southern

 

members


authoritative

 
perpetuate
 

executive

 

defiance

 
mouthing
 

expressed

 

effect

 
repeat
 

universal

 

motion


single

 

individual

 

perpetual

 
Kalends
 

denied

 
Scripture
 

commend

 

required

 

ethics

 

possess


abolish

 

February

 

speech

 

Virginia

 

inhabitants

 

owning

 

slaves

 

petitioned

 

present

 

session


common
 

honored

 

endorsement

 

surprise

 

Walker

 

Mississippi

 

excite

 

Calhoun

 

contingency

 

delegated