governs the belligerent rights of States en-
gaged in hostility. That this war is 80
waged, may be seen from 2 Bl. U. S., 636
already quoted.
In this view unless those engaged in revo-
lution lay down their arms, the Government
wages nothing less than a war for the sub-
jugation of the individuals in arms, when
resistance or revolution is suppressed, and
when the national authority is re-estab-
lished— the States are again entitled to be
"resurrected" or "rehabilitated" with all
their rights, and to resume all the functions
of free and independent States, unless the
whole theory of our Government is to be
overthrown and destroyed.
in other words, belligerent rights and powers
only exist "so long as the regular course of
justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or
insurrection, so that the courts cannot be
kept open." As soon as the Federal Govern-
ment reasserts its authority, it ceases, in re-
ference to any State so reclaimed, to occupy
a belligerent position. Belligerent rights can-
not continue after the suppression of the bel-
ligerent opposition. The Constitution, ex
proprio vigore, extends the shield of its
protection over the State, and all institu-
tions and rights which belong to a State.
If secession is a nullity, then it must be re-
cognized as such, after the Federal authority
is reasserted, by extending to the States their
constitutional rights, as well as at the outset,
when the nullity of secession or fact that secession
is a void act, is made the basis of the
exercise of the military power of the Federal
Government, Secession cannot be treated, in
dealing with the States at one stage of the con-
troversy as void, and at another stage as valid.
Its nullity cannot be invoked to render the
exercise of military power proper at first, and
when the military power succeeds, then the
act of secession cannot be treated as valid in
order to palliate acts of oppression and sub-
jugation. The State action is either wholly
null and void, or entirely valid. And the
Government must adopt one or the other
theory, and predicate a consistent policy upon
it.
But woe to the ruler, as well as the nation
he governs, who at such a crisis cannot dis-
cern, in applying the remedy, between a
mere insurrection or resistance to lawful au-
thority, which should be suppressed by
force, and that great pulsating discontent of
the popular heart which a trifle may arouse,
and which should only be treated with for-
bearance, causing in States great revolutions,
which devastate the land—waste away the
true and manly spirits who embark in it, and
produce national exhaustion and national in-
debtedness. If the Federal Government sup-
presses this revolution on the theory of subju-
gation, or the denial of the rights of the
States, it will, in the end, erect a consolidated
government or a despotism. When we look at |
this broad land, its different classes of men,
its different institutions, it will be evident
that if we attempt to maintain the govern-
ment by force, it can only result in a military
despotism. Established by the consent of
States, no consent can ever be had under
which our present practical administration of
the government could take the place of that
which existed prior to the breaking out of
the war But I will not enlarge upon this
topic. I insist that this right of revolution
in States is just as indestructible as the right
of revolution in the individual. It is as un-
dying and immortal as the human soul, and
will never be surrendered so long as the as-
pirations of men all tend to freedom and the
maintenance of guaranteed rights.
To confirm this doctrine, I will refer to
what Mr. Lincoln said, speaking of the Mex-
ican boundary and the territory claimed by
Mexico. He says—Cong, Globe, 1st Sess. 30th
Congress, page 155—"if she gets it in any
way, she gets it by revolution"—one of the
most sacred of rights, the right which he be-
lieved was yet to emancipate the world. The
right of a people, if they have a government
they do not like, to rise and shake it off. In
the exercise of that right, the Texans shook
off the Mexican yoke. But how far? Did
the nation—did the people revolutionize by
lines? Certainly not. They revolutionized
exactly to the extent they took part in it.
When they rose and shook off the old govern-
ment, so much of the country was theirs.
And where were the people that did not rise?
Tiler remained with the old government. It
was this right of revolution, and it could
not be a perfect right if it could not be ex-
ercised until every individual inhabitant was
in favor of it. It would be no right. And
that neither Madison nor Jackson contemplated
the use of force in cases similar to the present
civil war I refer to the Federalist, No. 43,
page 203, where Madison says—" should it be
asked what is to be the redress for an insur-
rection pervading all the States, and compris-
ing a superiority of the entire force, though
not a constitutional right? the answer must
be that such a case as it would be without
the compass of human remedies, so it is for-
tunately not within the compass of human
probability; and that it is a sufficient re-
commendation or the Federal constitution,
that it diminishes the risk of calamity,
for which no possible Constitution can pro-
vide;" and to General Jackson's farewell ad-
dress wherein he thus warns his country-
men—"but the Constitution cannot be main-
tained, nor the Union preserved in opposition
to public feelings, by the mere exertion of
the coercive powers confided to the General
Government; the foundation must be laid in
the affections of the people, in the security it
gives to life, liberty, character and property
in every quarter of the country; and in the
fraternal attachment which the citizens of |
