FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525  
526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   >>   >|  
s power to protect _either_ against the other. Suppose the blacks in the District should seize the whites, drive them into the fields and kitchens, force them to work without pay, flog them, imprison them, and sell them at their pleasure, where would Congress find power to restrain such acts? Answer; a _general_ power in the clause so often cited, and an _express_ one in that cited above--"Congress shall have power, to suppress insurrections." So much for a _supposed_ case. Here follows a _real_ one. The whites in the District are _perpetrating these identical acts_ upon seven thousand blacks daily. That Congress has power to restrain these acts in one case, all assert, and in so doing they assert the power "in _all_ cases whatsoever." For the grant of power to suppress insurrections, is an _unconditional_ grant, not hampered by provisos as to the color, shape, size, sex, language, creed, or condition of the insurgents. Congress derives its power to suppress this _actual_ insurrection, from the same source whence it derived its power to suppress the _same_ acts in the case _supposed_. If one case is an insurrection, the other is. The _acts_ in both are the same; the _actors_ only are different. In the one case, ignorant and degraded--goaded by the memory of the past, stung by the present, and driven to desperation by the fearful looking for of wrongs for ever to come. In the other, enlightened into the nature of _rights_, the principles of justice, and the dictates of the law of love, unprovoked by wrongs, with cool deliberation, and by system, they perpetrate these acts upon those to whom they owe unnumbered obligations for _whole lives_ of unrequited service. On which side may palliation be pleaded, and which party may most reasonably claim an abatement of the rigors of law? If Congress has power to suppress such acts _at all_, it has power to suppress them _in_ all. It has been shown already that _allegiance_ is exacted of the slave. Is the government of the United States unable to grant _protection_ where it exacts _allegiance_? It is an axiom of the civilized world, and a maxim even with savages, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal and correlative. Are principles powerless with us which exact homage of barbarians? _Protection is the_ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT _of every human being under the exclusive legislation of Congress who has not forfeited it by crime_. In conclusion, I argue the power of Congress to
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524   525  
526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Congress

 
suppress
 

allegiance

 

supposed

 

insurrections

 

protection

 
principles
 

wrongs

 

assert

 

insurrection


restrain

 

whites

 

blacks

 

District

 

Suppose

 

palliation

 

pleaded

 

abatement

 

rigors

 

obligations


deliberation
 

system

 

unprovoked

 

justice

 

dictates

 

perpetrate

 
unrequited
 

unnumbered

 

service

 

CONSTITUTIONAL


Protection

 
homage
 

barbarians

 

conclusion

 
forfeited
 

exclusive

 
legislation
 
powerless
 
States
 

unable


United

 

government

 

exacted

 
rights
 

exacts

 

reciprocal

 

correlative

 

savages

 

civilized

 

protect