按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
unless current events and experience shall show a modification or
change to be proper； and in every case and exigency my best
discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually
existing； and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the
national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and
affections。
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy
the Union at all events； and are glad of any pretext to do it； I will
neither affirm nor deny； but if there be such； I need address no word
to them。 To those； however； who really love the Union may I not
speak？
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our
national fabric； with all its benefits； its memories； and its hopes；
would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it？ Will you
hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any
portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence？ Will you；
while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones
you fly fromwill you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake？
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights
can be maintained。 Is it true； then； that any right； plainly written
in the Constitution； has been denied？ I think 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 revolutioncertainly would if such a 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 sovereign of a free people。
Whoever rejects it does； of necessity； fly to anarchy or to
despotism。 Unanimity is impossible； the rule of a minority； as a
permanent arrangement； is wholly inadmissible； so that； rejecting the
majority principle； anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is
left。
I do not forget the position assumed by some； that constitutional
questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court； nor do I deny that
such decisions must be binding； in any case； upon the parties to a
suit； as to the object of that suit； while they are also entitled to
very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all
other departments of the government。 And； while it is obviously
possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case； still
the evil effect following it； being limited to that particular case；
with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent
for other cases； can better be borne than could the evils of a
different practice。 At the same time； the candid citizen must
confess that if the policy of the government； upon vital questions
affecting the whole people； is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions
of the Supreme Court； the instant they are made； in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions； the people will have
ceased to be their own rulers； having to that extent practically
resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal。 Nor
is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges。 It
is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly
brought before them； and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to
turn their decisions to political purposes。
One section of our country believes slavery is right； and ought to be
extended； while the other believes it is wrong； and ought not to be
extended。 This is the only substantial dispute。 The fugitive slave
clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the
foreign slave trade are each as well enforced； perhaps； as any law
can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
imperfectly supports the law itself。 The great body of the people
abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases； and a few break over
in each。 This； I think； cannot be perfectly cured； and it would be
worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before。
The foreign slave trade； now imperfectly suppressed； would be
ultimately revived； without restriction； in one section； while
fugitive slaves； now only partially surrendered； would not be
surrendered at all by the other。
Physically speaking； we cannot separate。 We cannot remove our
respective sections from each other； nor build an impassable wall
between them。 A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the
presence and beyond the reach of each other； but the different parts
of our country cannot do this。 They cannot but remain face to face；
and intercourse； either amicable or hostile； must continue between
them。 Is it possible； then； to make that intercourse more
advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before？ Can
aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws？ Can treaties
be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among
friends？ Suppose you go to war； you cannot fight always； and when；
after much loss on both sides； and no gain on either； you cease
fighting； the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are
again upon you。
This country； with its institutions； belongs to the people who
inhabit it。 Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government； they can exercise their constitutional right of amending
it； or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it。 I
cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic
citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended。
While I make no recommendation of amendments； I fully recognize the
rightful authority of the people over the whole subject； to be
exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself；
and I should； under existing circumstances； favor rather than oppose
a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it。 I will
venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable； in
that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves；
instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions
originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose； and which
might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or
refuse。 I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which
amendment； however； I have not seenhas passed Congress； to the
effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the
domestic institutions of the States； including that of persons held
to service。 To avoid misconstruction of what I have said； I depart
from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to
say that； holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional
law； I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable。
The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the pe