Mr. STIRLING. Perhaps there may not be
much difference upon that point. I under
stood the gentleman to assert it as a duty, and
do not recollect his using the term ' 'flagrant;"
but I suppose my memory is in fault upon
that subject. This right to resist, I suppose,
is a legal right, as much in England as here
Men have the same right here, subject to the
arbitrament of the Supreme Court, if they
take their lives in their hands, if they choose
to resist and be tried. What do yon mean
then by the doctrine of revolution?
I am very free to say that I do not intend
to he responsible for what Mr. Lincoln may
have said when he used the language that has
been alluded to. I do not mean to be re-
sponsible for what any of the people who
have gone before us have said with regard to
the question except so far as I agree with
them; I mean upon the right of revolution,
or the duty of the people to separate when
they cannot get along together. I am per-
fectly willing to take the opinion of anybody
upon a matter of which he knows as much as
I do; that is when he has the same facts and
the same circumstances to reason, upon and
stand upon. The men that framed this gov-
ernment came out of the Revolution as friends
and brothers; and they came But under cir-
cumstances very different from the circum-
stances that surround us. They had a gen-
eral idea that this government would be
broken up if any considerable portion of the
people attempted resolutely and firmly to re-
sist it. Mr. Lincoln had the same idea. Mr.
Everett had the same idea. When the war
first broke out there was scarcely a prominent
public man in the North who believed that
this government was able ever to make a se-
rious attempt to resist the States if they at-
tempted to secede. So much for the author-
ity on that subject.
I admit the right of revolution as firmly as
anybody else admits it, except so far as this,
that under our democratic system where we
have provided universal suffrage, where we
have taken all these methods of developing
the popular power, which the old governments
of the world seem to be afraid of, the estab-
lishment erf these rights in the democratic
form of government is to that extent an
abridgment of the right of revolution. Under
a monarchy you can have no other remedy
than a revolution; but under an elective government, every
two years or four years, there is
provided an opportunity to change the gov-
ernment which restricts the right of revolu-
tion just so far as it affords a peaceable rem-
edy, Hence there is a greater responsibility
under such a government in making a revo-
lution.
Otherwise there is no use in a democratic
form of government. It is not right for us to
run all the risks of absolute popular sovereignty,
together with all the dangers which many
feared from trusting universal suffrage with |
the great mass of the people. It is unwise to
continue our democratic system if we are to
inn all the risks of convulsion that are to be
found in the old world, and the risks of our
own system too. I say that our system of
government restrains the right of revolution
in that sense; and it is qualified also in
another sense.
I do not deny the abstract right of any por-
tion of the people to rise under oppression ;
but if they trample on my toes when they
rise, I have a right to use my foot. I say that
the citizens of the United States, if any por-
tion of the people of the United States at-
tempt to rise, have a right to take into con-
sideration how far that affects their rights
and liberties. They have a right to say in
the first place, " Your revolution is on prin-
ciples which imperil us; your revolution, if
successful, destroys us. We have the same
right to self-preservation that yon have; and
if your right of self-preservation justifies yon
in rising against the government, the same
right justifies us in putting you down."
That is all apart from the legal question of
coercion; and that is just the reason why
Everett, Lincoln and all those men were mis-
taken with regard to what was going on. It
was a fact that there existed in the minds of
the people a consciousness that everything to
them depended upon the existence of this
government. When the guns were fired upon
Fort Sumter, Mr. Lincoln was impelled to do
what I am convinced that up to that moment
he had no idea of doing. He had no idea that
he ever would have an army in Tennessee and
North Carolina. But the people ruled. The
great tide of the people's power, the energy
and the will of the people, carried the gov-
ernment at Washington along with the pub-
lic mind of the country, in the same direc-
tion in which their irresistible impulse drove
them. It was the truth flashing from the
lightning of the people's power; it was truth
expressed in those instincts of the people, and
expressed in a manner excelled only by the
revelations of Omnipotence. There is no
such truth as truth flashed out from the con-
victions of the people, growing out from their
instincts and the traditions of their lives.
The great truths of the world are truths of
that character. It was the truth that the
people of the United States had down deep
in their hearts, that came out. It was the
consciousness that this war involved a prin-
ciple that was dear to them, which made
them determine that they would not allow
any right of revolution or anything else
which would imperil them.
Gentlemen talk about the Constitution of
the United States. What is the Constitution
of the United States, grand as it is in its prin-
ciples and in its origin? It is paper, and pen,
and ink? Take away the territory of the
United States, the people of the United
States, and what is the Constitution of the |
