the writings-5-第41部分

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！



rules。　　And；　while　I　do　not　choose　now　to　specify　particular　acts　of

Congress　as　proper　to　be　enforced；　I　do　suggest　that　it　will　be　much

safer　for　all；　both　in　official　and　private　stations；　to　conform　to

and　abide　by　all　those　acts　which　stand　unrepealed；　than　to　violate

any　of　them；　trusting　to　find　impunity　in　having　them　held　to　be

unconstitutional。



It　is　seventy…two　years　since　the　first　inauguration　of　a　President

under　our　national　Constitution。　　During　that　period　fifteen

different　and　greatly　distinguished　citizens　have；　in　succession；

administered　the　executive　branch　of　the　Government。　　They　have

conducted　it　through　many　perils；　and　generally　with　great　success。

Yet；　with　all　this　scope　of　precedent；　I　now　enter　upon　the　same　task

for　the　brief　constitutional　term　of　four　years　under　great　and

peculiar　difficulty。　　A　disruption　of　the　Federal　Union；　heretofore

only　menaced；　is　now　formidably　attempted。



I　hold　that；　in　contemplation　of　universal　law　and　of　the

Constitution；　the　Union　of　these　States　is　perpetual。　　Perpetuity　is

implied；　if　not　expressed；　in　the　fundamental　law　of　all　national

governments。　　It　is　safe　to　assert　that　no　government　proper　ever　had

a　provision　in　its　organic　law　for　its　own　termination。　　Continue　to

execute　all　the　express　provisions　of　our　national　Constitution；　and

the　Union　will　endure　foreverit　being　impossible　to　destroy　it

except　by　some　action　not　provided　for　in　the　instrument　itself。



Again；　if　the　United　States　be　not　a　government　proper；　but　an

association　of　States　in　the　nature　of　contract　merely；　can　it　as　a

contract　be　peaceably　unmade　by　less　than　all　the　parties　who　made

it？　One　party　to　a　contract　may　violate　itbreak　it；　so　to　speak；

but　does　it　not　require　all　to　lawfully　rescind　it？



Descending　from　these　general　principles；　we　find　the　proposition

that　in　legal　contemplation　the　Union　is　perpetual　confirmed　by　the

history　of　the　Union　itself。　　The　Union　is　much　older　than　the

Constitution。　　It　was　formed；　in　fact；　by　the　Articles　of　Association

in　1774。　　It　was　matured　and　continued　by　the　Declaration　of

Independence　in　1776。　　It　was　further　matured；　and　the　faith　of　all

the　then　thirteen　States　expressly　plighted　and　engaged　that　it

should　be　perpetual；　by　the　Articles　of　Confederation　in　1778。　　And；

finally；　in　1787　one　of　the　declared　objects　for　ordaining　and

establishing　the　Constitution　was　〃to　form　a　more　perfect　Union。〃



But　if　the　destruction　of　the　Union　by　one　or　by　a　part　only　of　the

States　be　lawfully　possible；　the　Union　is　less　perfect　than　before

the　Constitution；　having　lost　the　vital　element　of　perpetuity。



It　follows　from　these　views　that　no　State　upon　its　own　mere　motion

can　lawfully　get　out　of　the　Union；　that　resolves　and　ordinances　to

that　effect　are　legally　void；　and　that　acts　of　violence；　within　any

State　or　States；　against　the　authority　of　the　United　States；　are

insurrectionary　or　revolutionary；　according　to　circumstances。



I　therefore　consider　that；　in　view　of　the　Constitution　and　the　laws；

the　Union　is　unbroken；　and　to　the　extent　of　my　ability　I　shall　take

care；　as　the　Constitution　itself　expressly　enjoins　upon　me；　that　the

laws　of　the　Union　be　faithfully　executed　in　all　the　States。　　Doing

this　I　deem　to　be　only　a　simple　duty　on　my　part；　and　I　shall　perform

it　so　far　as　practicable；　unless　my　rightful　masters；　the　American

people；　shall　withhold　the　requisite　means；　or　in　some　authoritative

manner　direct　the　contrary。　　I　trust　this　will　not　be　regarded　as　a

menace；　but　only　as　the　declared　purpose　of　the　Union　that　it　will

constitutionally　defend　and　maintain　itself。



In　doing　this　there　needs　to　be　no　bloodshed　or　violence；　and　there

shall　be　none；　unless　it　be　forced　upon　the　national　authority。　　The

power　confided　to　me　will　be　used　to　hold；　occupy；　and　possess　the

property　and　places　belonging　to　the　Government；　and　to　collect　the

duties　and　imposts；　but　beyond　what　may　be　necessary　for　these

objects；　there　will　be　no　invasion；　no　using　of　force　against　or

among　the　people　anywhere。　　Where　hostility　to　the　United　States；　in

any　interior　locality；　shall　be　so　great　and　universal　as　to　prevent

competent　resident　citizens　from　holding　the　Federal　offices；　there

will　be　no　attempt　to　force　obnoxious　strangers　among　the　people　for

that　object。　　While　the　strict　legal　right　may　exist　in　the

government　to　enforce　the　exercise　of　these　offices；　the　attempt　to

do　so　would　be　so　irritating；　and　so　nearly　impracticable　withal；

that　I　deem　it　better　to　forego　for　the　time　the　uses　of　such

offices。



The　mails；　unless　repelled；　will　continue　to　be　furnished　in　all

parts　of　the　Union。　　So　far　as　possible；　the　people　everywhere　shall

have　that　sense　of　perfect　security　which　is　most　favorable　to　calm

thought　and　reflection。　　The　course　here　indicated　will　be　followed

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