Page images
PDF
EPUB

sive only. It could not bar the rights of the sovereign people; even if those rights were, as we have shown they are not, capable of alienation.

Such is our answer, in the best form in which we are able to give it, to the first question.

The second question it is not difficult to answer. There is another right, a right above all human law-a right of resistance to law-a right of revolution. When does it exist, and on what is it founded? It is founded on the natural rights of the individual, and is to be exercised only when government transcends the limits of its just authority. There are rights of every human being, which are not submitted to government, and which it cannot rightfully interfere with. If it ever pass those limits, be it a government of the people or any other, resistance is justifiable. A majority may abuse their power and become tyrants; when they do so, they may be treated as other tyrants may be treated. Resistance to tyranny is a right-nay, a duty-inscribed upon our hearts by Providence.

There are occasions, therefore, when a minority of the people-an individual, even, may resist the majority. This right is not incompatible with the right of the majority to change the government at will. The principles of both may be stated in few words. The right of the people to frame and to change their government is unquestionable and unalienable; but government itself, as all political society, has limits to its power. If it steps beyond those limits, it may be resisted, by virtue of a law higher than human society. This is the great lesson of political and personal freedom.

This right of resistance is the right also of revolution. It is the right to resist law, when the law becomes the instrument of intolerable oppression the right to overturn a tyrannical government even though it were supported by a majority of the political society. It must never be confounded with the right we first considered. That was a legal right, a right of a majority to change their government in their own way and at their own time. This is a right against law and above law; a right of minorities and individuals.

The third question with which we set out, is this: how far the federal government can constitutionally interfere

VOL. XI.-NO. XLIX.

11

with the exercise of their sovereignty by the people of the States? Can the Union constitutionally repress a movement of a majority of the people of a State to change their government?

It was one object of the framers of the Constitution, we will admit at the outset, to maintain the internal tranquillity of the States. This motive is apparent upon the face of the state papers of that period. Did they intend to effect this object at the expense of the great principles for which they themselves had been engaged in a long war? Did they assume that there never would be another occasion for the exercise of the same principles, or if there were, that it would only occur upon the theatre of the Union, and not confine itself to a single State? This was at least very unlikely. It should seem little less than a condemnation of their own acts and doctrines, to insert in the constitution of the country a provision for such an end. Is there any reason to suppose they did so?

The only portion of the constitution which gives any ground whatever for the claim of interference, is the 4th section of the 4th article "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence." One other provision has been sometimes mentioned as giving authority,the 15th subdivision of the 8th section of the 1st article. Congress shall have power "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion;" but it will be apparent, on a slight reflection, that the insurrections here referred to are insurrections against the Union, not against the individual States. If it were not so, the latter clause of the section in the 4th article would have been unnecessary, for Congress had already all the power they wanted under the first article; and the condition on which alone the United States are authorized to interfere by the 4th article is no limitation at all, if they are also authorized to do the same thing by the first article; for that, if it applied to the case, could give them full authority over the subject so far as to use all the militia of the country. It

cannot therefore be deemed applicable to an insurrection against a State.

Let us then take up the 4th article. What authority does that confer upon the United States? Simply this, to protect the States against domestic violence, and then only when applied to by the legislature or executive. The question then divides itself into these three: Who is to be protected? against what? and when? It is the STATE that is to be protected. What constitutes the State?

"What constitutes a state?

Not high-raised battlement or labored mound,

Thick wall or moated gate; Not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned;

Not bays and broad-armed ports, Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride;

Not starred and spangled courts, Where low-browed baseness wafts perfume to pride.

No: Men, high-minded Men,

right in the State. The United States are to protect the majority of the social body, on the application of its lawful legislature or executive, against unlawful violence. The question then falls back on the one we first considered, whether the majority of the people have a right at all times to change their government. If they have, then it follows that the new government is the one to be protected, on the application of the new legislature, against the violence of the old legislature or the old electors.

This conclusion must necessarily follow from the course of argument we have pursued. Not only have the people given no power to the general government to oppose the majority of a State, but they could give no such power. The power of self-government is unalienable and indefeasible. It is a power of which the people cannot divest themselves. In the emphatic language of Franklin-" the people cannot in any sense divest themselves of the su

With powers as far above dull brutes en- preme authority." The people of a state

dued,

In forest, brake, or den,

could, doubtless, incorporate themselves in a larger community, and thus divest

As beasts excel cold rocks and brambles themselves, in their separate capacity,

rude;

Men who their duties know,

of the sovereignty, but then the same Sovereignty would be instantly vested

But know their rights, and knowing dare in the whole community into which

maintain,

[blocks in formation]

The people-the community-the majority of the members of the body politic, these constitute the state. Against domestic violence. What is domestic violence? Is the execution of the laws domestic violence? Is the enforcement of a constitution domestic violence? Is the use of force for any of these purposes, to overcome resistance, domestic violence? When? When application is made by the legislature or the executive. What legislature?-a spurious, a usurping legislature? After a legislature is abrogated by a change of government, can it still call upon the United States for aid? It is clear, then, that the question comes back to the question of

they had become incorporated. Either, mains in the people of a State, or it is then, the power of self-government revested in the people of the Union, and we have a consolidated govern

ment.

Either the people of a State may change their government at pleasure, (subject only to the condition of maintaining a republican form,) or the people of the Union may do it for them. That the latter is the case, the wildest advocate for consolidation never yet pretended. The power of the people in each State over their own form of government is intact.

No State is more strongly committed on this head than Rhode Island. In giving her consent to the Constitution of the United States, she declared, as we have seen, that "the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness;" that "the right aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated;" and that the federal constitution was consistent therewith.

We come now to, the fourth and last question. In a case of domestic

violence, within the constitution, in what manner can the United States interfere? There is at present an act of Congress empowering the President, in such cases, to interfere with the militia of the other States, or the forces of the Union. Was that act constitutional ? We doubt it extremely. If it be competent for Congress to delegate such a power to the President, it was competent to delegate that other power mentioned in the same sentence, the guarantee of a republican form of government. Is it competent for Congress to do this? Can they constitute the President a judge to decide when the government of a State is or is not republican, and empower him to change it by force? If they can do this, then can they arm him with a more than kingly power.

If it be urged that the power to interfere in a case of domestic violence ought to be given to the President, because it might become necessary to act immediately, when Congress was not in session, and before it could be called together; we answer that the argument from inconvenience is always a dangerous argument on a constitutional question. But here we think the balance of inconvenience is on the other side. The

President may do more mischief by interfering in the wrong case, as he has done in this instance of Rhode Island, than could possibly happen from delay in many cases of real insurrection or domestic violence. The States are to be presumed, in the first instance, able to put down violence within their own borders. Until their own force had proved insufficient, there could be no occasion for federal intervention.

One thing seems to be more than probable, that the framers of the constitution, themselves, contemplated only an intervention by Congress; for Mr. Madison, writing of this very article in the forty-third number of the Federalist, uses this language:-" In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms and tearing the state to pieces, than the representatives of confederate states, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be, if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed for all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind."

A LEGEND OF LIFE AND LOVE.

A VERY cheerless and fallacious doctrine is that which teaches to deny the yielding to natural feelings, righteously directed, because the consequences may be trouble and grief, as well as satisfaction and pleasure. The man who lives on from year to year, jealous of ever placing himself in a situation where the chances can possibly turn against him-ice, as it were, surrounding his heart, and his mind too scrupulously weighing in a balance the results of giving way to any of those propensities his Creator has planted in his heart-may be a philosopher, but can never be a happy man.

Upon the banks of a pleasant river stood a cottage, the residence of an ancient man whose limbs were feeble with the weight of years and of former sorrow. In his appetites easily gratified, like the simple race of people

among whom he lived, every want of existence was supplied by a few fertile acres.

Those acres were tilled and tended by two brothers, grandsons of the old man, and dwellers also in the cottage. The parents of the boys lay buried in a grave near by.

Nathan, the elder, had hardly seen his twentieth summer. He was a beautiful youth. Glossy hair clustered upon his head, and his cheeks were very brown from sunshine and open air. Though the eyes of Nathan were soft and liquid, like a girl's, and his cheeks curled with a voluptuous swell, exercise and labor had developed his limbs into noble and manly proportions. The bands of hunters, as they met sometimes to start off together after game upon the neighboring hills, could hardly show one among their number who in comeliness, strength,

or activity, might compete with the youthful Nathan.

Mark was but a year younger than his brother. He, too, had great beauty. In course of time the ancient sickened, and knew that he was to die. Before the approach of the fatal hour, he called before him the two youths, and addressed them thus:

"The world, my children, is full of deceit. Evil men swarm in every place; and sorrow and disappointment are the fruits of intercourse with them. So wisdom is wary.

"And as the things of life are only shadows, passing like the darkness of a cloud, twine no bands of love about your hearts. For love is the ficklest of the things of life. The object of our affection dies, and we thenceforth languish in agony; or perhaps the love we covet dies, and that is more painful yet.

"It is well never to confide in any man. It is well to keep aloof from the follies and impurities of earth. Let there be no links between you and others. Let not any being control you through your dependence upon him for a portion of your happiness. This, my sons, I have learned by bitter experience, is the teaching of truth."

Within a few days afterward, the old man was placed away in the marble tomb of his kindred, which was built on a hill by the shore.

Now the injunctions given to Nathan and his brother-injunctions frequently impressed upon them before by the same monitorial voice-were pondered over by each youth in his inmost heart. They had always habitually respected their grandsire: whatever came from his mouth, therefore, seemed as the words of an oracle not to be gainsayed.

Soon the path of Nathan chanced to be sundered from that of Mark.

And the trees leaved out, and then in autumn cast their foliage; and in due course leaved out again, and again, and many times again--and the brothers met not yet.

Two score years and ten! what change works over earth in such a space as two score years and ten!

As the sun, an hour ere his setting, cast long slanting shadows to the eastward, two men, withered, and with hair thin and snowy, came wearily up from opposite directions, and stood to

gether at a tomb built on a hill by the borders of a fair river. Why do they start, as each casts his dim eyes toward the face of the other? Why do tears drop down their cheeks, and their frames tremble even more than with the feebleness of age? They are the long separated brethren, and they enfold themselves in one another's arms.

“And yet," said Mark, after a few moments, stepping back, and gazing earnestly upon his companion's form and features, "and yet it wonders me that thou art my brother. There should be a brave and beautiful youth, with black curls upon his head, and not those pale emblems of decay. And my brother should be straight and nimble-not bent and tottering as thou."

The speaker cast a second searching glance-a glance of discontent.

"And I," rejoined Nathan, "I might require from my brother, not such shrivelled limbs as I see,--and instead of that cracked voice, the full swelling music of a morning heart-but that half a century is a fearful melter of comeliness and of strength; for half a century it is, dear brother, since my hand touched thine, or my gaze rested upon thy face."

Mark sighed, and answered not.

Then, in a little while, they made inquiries about what had befallen either during the time past. Seated upon the marble by which they had met, Mark briefly told his story.

"I bethink me, brother, many, many years have indeed passed over since the sorrowful day when our grandsire, dying, left us to seek our fortunes amid a wicked and a seductive world.

"His last words, as thou, doubtless, dost remember, advised us against the snares that should beset our subsequent journeyings. He portrayed the dangers which lie in the path of love; he impressed upon our minds the folly of placing confidence in human honor; and warned us to keep aloof from too close communion with our kind. then died, but his instructions live, and have ever been present in my memory.

"

He

'Dear Nathan, why should I conceal from you that at that time I loved. My simple soul, ungifted with the wisdom of our aged relative, had yielded to the delicious folly, and the brown-eyed Eva was my young heart's

choice. O brother, even now, the feeble and withered thing I am,-dim recollections, pleasant passages, come forth around me, like the joy of old dreams. A boy again, and in the confiding heart of a boy, I walk with Eva by the river's banks. And the gentle creature blushes at my protestations of love, and leans her cheek upon my neck. The regal sun goes down in the west, and we gaze upon the glory of the clouds that attend his setting, and while we look at their fantastic changes, a laugh sounds out, clear like a flute, and merry as the jingling of silver bells. It is the laugh of Eva."

The eye of the old man glistened with unwonted brightness. He paused, sighed, the brightness faded away, and he went on with his narration.

"As I said, the dying lessons of him whom we reverenced were treasured in my soul. I could not but feel their truth. I feared that if I again stood beside the maiden of my love, and looked upon her face, and listened to her words, the wholesome axioms might be blotted from my thought, so I determined to act as became a man: from that hour I never have beheld the brown-eyed Eva.

"I went amid the world. Acting upon the wise principles which our aged friend taught us, I looked upon everything with suspicious eyes. Alas! I found it but too true that iniquity and deceit are the ruling spirits of

men.

"Some called me cold, calculating, and unamiable; but it was their own unworthiness that made me appear so to their eyes. I am not-you know, my brother-I am not, naturally, of proud and repulsive manner; but I was determined never to give my friendship merely to be blown off again, it might chance, as a feather by the wind; nor interweave my course of life with those that very likely would draw all the advantage of the connexion, and leave me no better than before.

"I engaged in traffic. Success attended me. Enemies said that my good fortune was the result of chance, -but I knew it the fruit of the judicious system of caution which governed me in matters of business, as well as of social intercourse.

My brother, thus have I lived my life. Your look asks me if I have

been happy. Dear brother, truth impels me to say no. Yet assuredly, if few glittering pleasures ministered to me on my journey, equally few were the disappointments, the hopes blighted, the trusts betrayed, the faintings of the soul, caused by the defection of those in whom I had laid up treasures. 'Ah, my brother, the world is full of misery!"

66

The disciple of a wretched faith ceased his story, and there was silence a while.

Then Nathan spake :

"In the early years," he said, "I too loved a beautiful woman. Whether my heart was more frail than thine, or affection had gained a mightier power over me, I could not part from her I loved without the satisfaction of a farewell kiss. We met,-I had resolved to stay but a moment,—for I had chalked out my future life after the fashion thou hast described thine.

"How it was I know not, but the moment rolled on to hours; and still we stood with our arms around each other.

[ocr errors]

My brother, a maiden's tears washed my stern resolves away. The lure of a voice rolling quietly from between two soft lips, enticed me from remembrance of my grandsire's wisdom. I forgot his teachings, and married the woman I loved.

Ah! how sweetly sped the seasons! We were blessed. True, there came crossings and evils; but we withstood them all, and holding each other by the hand, forgot that such a thing as sorrow remained in the world.

"Children were born to us-brave boys and fair girls. Oh, Mark, that, that is a pleasure-that swelling of tenderness for our offspring-which the rigorous doctrines of your course of life have withheld from you!

"Like you, I engaged in trade. Various fortune followed my path. I will not deny but that some in whom I thought virtue was strong, proved cunning hypocrites, and worthy no man's trust. Yet are there many I have known, spotless, as far as humanity may be spotless.

"Thus, to me, life has been alternately dark and fair. Have I lived happy?—No, not completely; it is never for mortals so to be. But I can lay my hand upon my heart, and thank the Great Master, that the sun

« PreviousContinue »