the writings-5-第46节

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