the writings-5-第52章

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！



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　people；　and

they　have　conferred　none　upon　him　to　fix　terms　for　the　separation　of

the　States。　　The　people　themselves　can　do　this　also　if　they　choose；

but　the　executive；　as　such；　has　nothing　to　do　with　it。　　His　duty　is

to　administer　the　present　government；　as　it　came　to　his　hands；　and　to

transmit　it；　unimpaired　by　him；　to　his　successors。



Why　should　there　not　be　a　patient　confidence　in　the　ultimate　justice

of　the　people？　Is　there　any　better　or　equal　hope　in　the　world？　In　our

present　differences　is　either　party　without　faith　of　being　in　the

right？　If　the　Almighty　Ruler　of　nations；　with　his　eternal　truth　and

justice；　be　on　your　side　of　the　North；　or　on　yours　of　the　South；　that

truth　and　that　justice　will　surely　prevail　by　the　judgment　of　this

great　tribunal　of　the　American　people。



By　the　frame　of　the　government　under　which　we　live；　this　same　people

have　wisely　given　their　public　servants　but　little　power　for

mischief；　and　have；　with　equal　wisdom；　provided　for　the　return　of

that　little　to　their　own　hands　at　very　short　intervals。　　While　the

people　retain　their　virtue　and　vigilance；　no　administration；　by　any

extreme　of　wickedness　or　folly；　can　very　seriously　injure　the

government　in　the　short　space　of　four　years。



My　countrymen；　one　and　all；　think　calmly　and　well　upon　this　whole

subject。　　Nothing　valuable　can　be　lost　by　taking　time。　　If　there　be

an　object　to　hurry　any　of　you　in　hot　haste　to　a　step　which　you　would

never　take　deliberately；　that　object　will　be　frustrated　by　taking

time；　but　no　good　object　can　be　frustrated　by　it。　　Such　of　you　as　are

now　dissatisfied　still　have　the　old　Constitution　unimpaired；　and；　on

the　sensitive　point；　the　laws　of　your　own　framing　under　it；　while　the

new　administration　will　have　no　immediate　power；　if　it　would；　to

change　either。　　If　it　were　admitted　that　you　who　are　dissatisfied

hold　the　right　side　in　the　dispute；　there　still　is　no　single　good

reason　for　precipitate　action。　　Intelligence；