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！
engage； and the sum is less than a twenty…third part of the money
value owned by the men who seem ready to devote the whole。 A debt of
6oo；ooo；ooo now is a less sum per head than was the debt of our
Revolution when we came out of that struggle； and the money value in
the country now bears even a greater proportion to what it was then
than does the population。 Surely each man has as strong a motive now
to preserve our liberties as each had then to establish them。
A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten
times the men and ten times the money。 The evidence reaching us from
the country leaves no doubt that the material for the work is
abundant； and that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it
legal sanction； and the hand of the executive to give it practical
shape and efficiency。 One of the greatest perplexities of the
government is to avoid receiving troops faster than it can provide
for them。 In a word； the people will save their government if the
government itself will do its part only indifferently well。
It might seem； at first thought； to be of little difference whether
the present movement at the South be called 〃secession〃 or
〃rebellion。〃 The movers； however； well understand the difference。 At
the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any
respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law。
They knew their people possessed as much of moral sense； as much of
devotion to law and order； and as much pride in and reverence for the
history and government of their common country as any other civilized
and patriotic people。 They knew they could make no advancement
directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments。
Accordingly； they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public
mind。 They invented an ingenious sophism which； if conceded； was
followed by perfectly logical steps； through all the incidents； to
the complete destruction of the Union。 The sophism itself is that
any State of the Union may consistently with the national
Constitution； and therefore lawfully and peacefully； withdraw from
the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State。
The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only
for just cause； themselves to be the sole judges of its justice； is
too thin to merit any notice。
With rebellion thus sugar…coated they have been drugging the public
mind of their section for more than thirty years； and until at length
they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms
against the government the day after some assemblage of men have
enacted the farcical pretense of taking their State out of the Union；
who could have been brought to no such thing the day before。
This sophism derives much； perhaps the whole； of its currency from
the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy
pertaining to a Stateto each State of our Federal Union。 Our
States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in
the Union by the Constitutionno one of them ever having been a
State out of the Union。 The original ones passed into the Union even
before they cast off their British colonial dependence； and the new
ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of
dependence； excepting Texas。 And even Texas in its temporary
independence was never designated a State。 The new ones only took
the designation of States on coming into the Union； while that name
was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence。 Therein the 〃United Colonies〃 were declared to be
〃free and independent States〃； but even then the object plainly was
not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union； but
directly the contrary； as their mutual pledge and their mutual action
before； at the time； and afterward； abundantly show。 The express
plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the
Articles of Confederation； two years later； that the Union shall be
perpetual； is most conclusive。 Having never been States either in
substance or in name outside of the Union； whence this magical
omnipotence of 〃 State rights；〃 asserting a claim of power to
lawfully destroy the Union itself？ Much is said about the
〃sovereignty〃 of the States； but the word even is not in the national
Constitution； nor； as is believed； in any of the State constitutions。
What is 〃sovereignty〃 in the political sense of the term？ Would it be
far wrong to define it as 〃a political community without a political
superior〃？ Tested by this； no one of our States except Texas ever was
a sovereignty。 And even Texas gave up the character on coming into
the Union； by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the
United States； and the laws and treaties of the United States made in
pursuance of the Constitution； to be for her the supreme law of the
land。 The States have their status in the Union； and they have no
other legal status。 If they break from this； they can only do so
against law and by revolution。 The Union； and not themselves
separately； procured their independence and their liberty。 By
conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of
independence or liberty it has。 The Union is older than any of the
States； and； in fact； it created them as States。 Originally some
dependent colonies made the Union； and； in turn； the Union threw off
their old dependence for them； and made them States； such as they
are。 Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of
the Union。 Of course； it is not forgotten that all the new States
framed their constitutions before they entered the Union
nevertheless； dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the
Union。
Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them
in and by the national Constitution； but among these surely are not
included all conceivable powers； however mischievous or destructive；
but； at most； such only as were known in the world at the time as
governmental powers； and certainly a power to destroy the government
itself had never been known as a governmental； as a merely
administrative power。 This relative matter of national power and
State rights； as a principle； is no other than the principle of
generality and locality。 Whatever concerns the whole should be
confided to the wholeto the General Government； while whatever
concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State。
This is all there is of original principle about it。 Whether the
national Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has
applied the principle with exact accuracy； is not to be questioned。
We are all bound by that defining； without question。
What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent
with the Constitutionis lawful and peaceful。 It is not contended
that there is any express law for it； and nothing should ever be
implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences。 The
nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of
these States were formed。 Is it just that they shall go off without
leave and without refunding？ The nation paid very large sums （in the
aggregate； I believe； nearly a hundred millions） to relieve Florida
of the aboriginal tribes。 Is it just that she shall now be off
without consent or without making any return？ The nation is now in
debt for money applied to the benefit of these so…called seceding
States in common with the rest。 Is it just either that creditors
shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole？ A part of the
present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas。
Is it just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself？
Again； if one State may secede； so may another； and when all shall
have seceded； none is left to pay the debts。 Is this quite just for
creditors？ Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we
borrowed their money？ If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing
the seceders to go in peace； it is difficult to see what we can do if
others choose to go or to extort terms upon which they will promise
to remain。
The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession。 They
have assumed to make a national constitution of their own； in which
of necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of
secession as they insist it exists in ours。 If they have discarded
it； they thereby admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours。
If they have retained it； by their own construction of ours； they
show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever
they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts； or
effecting any other selfish or unjust object。 The principle itself
is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly
endure。
If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that