Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the
opposition which was made in some of the States to the execution of the
Federal laws reduced those States and all their people--the innocent as
well as the guilty--to the condition of vassalage and gave us a power
over them which the Constitution does not bestow or define or limit.
No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subjected
the insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary
despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebellious subjects,
he may deal with them according to his pleasure, because he had that
power before. But when a limited monarch puts down an insurrection, he
must still govern according to law. If an insurrection should take place
in one of our States against the authority of the State government and
end in the overthrow of those who planned it, would that take away the
rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored by a part
or a majority of the population? Could they for such a reason be wholly
outlawed and deprived of their representation in the legislature? I have
always contended that the Government of the United States was sovereign
within its constitutional sphere; that it executed its laws, like
the States themselves, by applying its coercive power directly to
individuals, and that it could put down insurrection with the same
effect as a State and no other.
Pages:
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478