With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, I was asked in this cover story for the Civil War Magazine to explore the rivaling constitutional claims that were made at the start of that bloody conflict. As a military history buff, I have occasionally written for these history magazines but I found this assignment particularly intriguing.
Over the centuries, various excuses have been employed for starting wars. Wars have been fought over land or honor. Wars have been fought over soccer (in the case of the conflict between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969) or even the shooting of a pig (in the case of the fighting between the United States and Britain in the San Juan Islands in 1859).
But the Civil War was largely fought over equally compelling interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Which side was the Constitution on? That’s difficult to say.
The interpretative debate—and ultimately the war—turned on the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the meaning of a single word: sovereignty—which does not actually appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
Southern leaders like John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis argued that the Constitution was essentially a contract between sovereign states—with the contracting parties retaining the inherent authority to withdraw from the agreement. Northern leaders like Abraham Lincoln insisted the Constitution was neither a contract nor an agreement between sovereign states. It was an agreement with the people, and once a state enters the Union, it cannot leave the Union.
It is a touchstone of American constitutional law that this is a nation based on federalism—the union of states, which retain all rights not expressly given to the federal government. After the Declaration of Independence, when most people still identified themselves not as Americans but as Virginians, New Yorkers or Rhode Islanders, this union of “Free and Independent States” was defined as a “confederation.” Some framers of the Constitution, like Maryland’s Luther Martin, argued the new states were “separate sovereignties.” Others, like Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, took the opposite view that the states “were independent, not Individually but Unitedly.”
Supporting the individual sovereignty claims is the fierce independence that was asserted by states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which actually established the name “The United States of America.” The charter, however, was careful to maintain the inherent sovereignty of its composite state elements, mandating that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.” It affirmed the sovereignty of the respective states by declaring, “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence [sic].” There would seem little question that the states agreed to the Confederation on the express recognition of their sovereignty and relative independence. Supporting the later view of Lincoln, the perpetuality of the Union was referenced during the Confederation period. For example, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated that “the said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this confederacy of the United States of America.”
The Confederation produced endless conflicts as various states issued their own money, resisted national obligations and favored their own citizens in disputes. James Madison criticized the Articles of Confederation as reinforcing the view of the Union as “a league of sovereign powers, not as a political Constitution by virtue of which they are become one sovereign power.” Madison warned that such a view could lead to the “dissolving of the United States altogether.” If the matter had ended there with the Articles of Confederation, Lincoln would have had a much weaker case for the court of law in taking up arms to preserve the Union. His legal case was saved by an 18th-century bait-and-switch.
A convention was called in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation, but several delegates eventually concluded that a new political structure—a federation—was needed. As they debated what would become the Constitution, the status of the states was a primary concern. George Washington, who presided over the convention, noted, “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.” Of course, Washington was more concerned with a working federal government—and national army—than resolving the question of a state’s inherent right to withdraw from such a union. The new government forged in Philadelphia would have clear lines of authority for the federal system. The premise of the Constitution, however, was that states would still hold all rights not expressly given to the federal government.
The final version of the Constitution never actually refers to the states as “sovereign,” which for many at the time was the ultimate legal game-changer. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall espoused the view later embraced by Lincoln: “The government of the Union…is emphatically and truly, a government of the people.” Those with differing views resolved to leave the matter unresolved—and thereby planted the seed that would grow into a full civil war. But did Lincoln win by force of arms or force of argument?
On January 21, 1861, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi went to the well of the U.S. Senate one last time to announce that he had “satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States.” Before resigning his Senate seat, Davis laid out the basis for Mississippi’s legal claim, coming down squarely on the fact that in the Declaration of Independence “the communities were declaring their independence”—not “the people.” He added, “I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the Union.”
Davis’ position reaffirmed that of John C. Calhoun, the powerful South Carolina senator who had long viewed the states as independent sovereign entities. In an 1833 speech upholding the right of his home state to nullify federal tariffs it believed were unfair, Calhoun insisted, “I go on the ground that [the] constitution was made by the States; that it is a federal union of the States, in which the several States still retain their sovereignty.” Calhoun allowed that a state could be barred from secession by a vote of two-thirds of the states under Article V, which lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4, 1861, was one of the least auspicious beginnings for any president in history. His election was used as a rallying cry for secession, and he became the head of a country that was falling apart even as he raised his hand to take the oath of office. His first inaugural address left no doubt about his legal position: “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.”
While Lincoln expressly called for a peaceful resolution, this was the final straw for many in the South who saw the speech as a veiled threat. Clearly when Lincoln took the oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, he considered himself bound to preserve the Union as the physical creation of the Declaration of Independence and a central subject of the Constitution. This was made plain in his next major legal argument—an address where Lincoln rejected the notion of sovereignty for states as an “ingenious sophism” that would lead “to the complete destruction of the Union.” In a Fourth of July message to a special session of Congress in 1861, Lincoln declared, “Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution—no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State.”
It is a brilliant framing of the issue, which Lincoln proceeds to characterize as nothing less than an attack on the very notion of democracy:
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled—the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains—its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion—that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war—teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war.
Lincoln implicitly rejected the view of his predecessor, James Buchanan. Buchanan agreed that secession was not allowed under the Constitution, but he also believed the national government could not use force to keep a state in the Union. Notably, however, it was Buchanan who sent troops to protect Fort Sumter six days after South Carolina seceded. The subsequent seizure of Fort Sumter by rebels would push Lincoln on April 14, 1861, to call for 75,000 volunteers to restore the Southern states to the Union—a decisive move to war.
Lincoln showed his gift as a litigator in the July 4th address, though it should be noted that his scruples did not stop him from clearly violating the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus in 1861 and 1862. His argument also rejects the suggestion of people like Calhoun that, if states can change the Constitution under Article V by democratic vote, they can agree to a state leaving the Union. Lincoln’s view is absolute and treats secession as nothing more than rebellion. Ironically, as Lincoln himself acknowledged, that places the states in the same position as the Constitution’s framers (and presumably himself as King George).
But he did note one telling difference: “Our adversaries have adopted some Declarations of Independence; in which, unlike the good old one, penned by Jefferson, they omit the words ‘all men are created equal.'”
Lincoln’s argument was more convincing, but only up to a point. The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Moreover, the critical passage of the Constitution may be more important than the status of the states when independence was declared. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was more compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created.
After the Constitution was ratified, a new government was formed by the consent of the states that clearly established a single national government. While, as Lincoln noted, the states possessed powers not expressly given to the federal government, the federal government had sole power over the defense of its territory and maintenance of the Union. Citizens under the Constitution were guaranteed free travel and interstate commerce. Therefore it is in conflict to suggest that citizens could find themselves separated from the country as a whole by a seceding state.
Moreover, while neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede, they also do not guarantee states such a right nor refer to the states as sovereign entities. While Calhoun’s argument that Article V allows for changing the Constitution is attractive on some levels, Article V is designed to amend the Constitution, not the Union. A clearly better argument could be made for a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend.
Neither side, in my view, had an overwhelming argument. Lincoln’s position was the one most likely to be upheld by an objective court of law. Faced with ambiguous founding and constitutional documents, the spirit of the language clearly supported the view that the original states formed a union and did not retain the sovereign authority to secede from that union.
Of course, a rebellion is ultimately a contest of arms rather than arguments, and to the victor goes the argument. This legal dispute would be resolved not by lawyers but by more practical men such as William Tecumseh Sherman and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
Ultimately, the War Between the States resolved the Constitution’s meaning for any states that entered the Union after 1865, with no delusions about the contractual understanding of the parties. Thus, 15 states from Alaska to Colorado to Washington entered in the full understanding that this was the view of the Union. Moreover, the enactment of the 14th Amendment strengthened the view that the Constitution is a compact between “the people” and the federal government. The amendment affirms the power of the states to make their own laws, but those laws cannot “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
There remains a separate guarantee that runs from the federal government directly to each American citizen. Indeed, it was after the Civil War that the notion of being “American” became widely accepted. People now identified themselves as Americans and Virginians. While the South had a plausible legal claim in the 19th century, there is no plausible argument in the 21st century. That argument was answered by Lincoln on July 4, 1861, and more decisively at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.
Jonathan Turley is one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars and legal commentators. He teaches at George Washington University.
Article originally published in the November 2010 issue of America’s Civil War.
There was a big difference between the revolution in 1776 and the attempted, so-called secession in 1861.
In 1776, one slogan was No Taxation Without Representation. The colonists had absolutely no voice in the selection of the government that imposed taxes on them. The King was hereditary. The House of Lords consisted of hereditary nobles, all in Britain. Commons was elected from a small percentage of the people, based on property and income.
What was different in 1861? The slave states were fully represented in the national government, even over-represented. They had two Senators for every state, even though northern population was growing. They had an extra 3/5th vote in the House for every person held to service, even though those persons could not vote.
Most of the Presidents had been from the south, or were doughface northerners like Pierce and Buchanan who favored the slave owners.
The Supreme Court was led by the arch-racist Taney, and many justices favored the slave states in the Dred Scott decision.
The north did nothing to provoke the south, except to lawfully elect a President on a free soil platform. The north said it would not, because it could not, interfere with slavery where it existed.
Larry:
I could get into a rather complicated discussion of jurisprudence with you about how perspectives matter and from the point of view of the British, the American colonists were treasonous. Or how from the American perspective, it was simply a matter of declaring independence from tyranny. Law is, in large measure, enforced from the perspective of the society in which it exists. In this society, efforts at secession are acts of treason as the Civil War made evident, and as even the defeated Confederates acknowledged when they swore a loyalty oath to the Union as a a condition of restoration of rights.
In all candor, Larry you need to get to an objective source of information (not just DeLorenzo, who represents a distinctly minority point of view) and learn before you wade into these waters. Whether you realize it or not, there are some very accomplished and thoughful political scientists, lawyers, miltary personnel, educators, medical professionals, historians, and public servants around here. Their depth of knowledge is impressive and you can learn quite a bit (as I do here every day) without launching into categorical statements or untenable positions based on cursory readings of disparate documents and authors.
No condescension intended, just a thought.
“….no one in his right mind would reach the conclusion YOU did”
Except the militias who fought the revolutionary war to SECEDE from England!!! Tell me—why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that we seceded from England? No one here has yet to explain why the founders would call secession treason when we fought a war of secession to break away from England to form this country!! Will anyone answer this???
Larry:
Norm Crosby has nothing on you. Perhaps when you master the language you will find that I said precisely that Jefferson did change the language from the draft wording I cited to the final language YOU quoted. I said this, Grasshopper, because Jefferson didn’t change his mind; Jefferson simply added more emphasis to his clearly stated sentiment that no one in his right mind would reach the conclusion you did.
I commend that post-WW2 classic,”Fun With Dick & Jane,” to get you off on the right foot. A little literary preview for you: That Spot sure can run!!
Larry wrote that Lincoln “suspended Habeas Corpus during his ENTIRE presidency and the President alone cant suspend HC—Congress has the authority on that!”
This posting was answered before Larry even wrote it:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/24/uncivil-action-was-lincoln-wrong-on-secession/#comment-161384
“Larry’s snubbing by bumblers such as I may need redressing. Personally, I promise to re-double my efforts to reach out to Larry’s family members, Moe, Curley Joe, and the oft-forgotten Shemp, in an attempt to make amends.”(mespo)
From the Shotgun Formation an unexpected Draw Play that resulted in a Goal … (“Well played,” said the Fan).
Ahhhh yes Mespo, I love when people IGNORE my posts only to fight back with ad hominem attacks—-you must be proud! You didnt debunk a goddamned thing I said. So I will re-post what you IGNORED.
“Mespo—-you are simply WRONG when you said this:
“That States are sovereign in some areas like education, and control of their militias, but subservient to the national government in other areas like national defense and trade policy.”
Who came first? The individual, sovereign states or the “federal” government?? Remember, the government is SUPPOSED to be run by the PEOPLE [“we the people”—–remember that?] The “national government” was not even in ANY of the founders’ vocabulary. They did NOT form a NATION or a “national” government, they formed a confederation of states in a VOLUNTARY union. When will you morons understand this??? Lincoln VIOLATED the Constitution by invading the South and murdering a quarter million soldiers and thousands more innocent civilians [which was also in violation of international laws of war—there was no Geneva Conventions then—-but there WAS moral laws of war—and Lincoln violated them].”
“Wrong again Mespo–when you said:
“I think the founders did envision a state center approach rather than an individual centered approach for the union.”
Only Alexander Hamilton envisioned a centralized government—all the rest envisioned a government run by the people. And by the way, you stating that you “think” is the problem. Reading and investigating would give you certainty and not force you to just “think” things are true.”
Mespo—I LOVE how you insist that the quote you provide from Jefferson was his FINAL draft. It was NOT. YOUR quote as his FIRST DRAFT. This is what he FIRST wrote:
“Digging further in the Princeton collection we will find that Jefferson first wrote “I do not believe there is one native citizen of the US. who wishes to dissolve this union: I am confident there are few native citizens who wish to change it’s republican features”
THIS was what he CHANGED IT TO:
“if there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union, or to change it’s republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated while reason is left free to combat it.”
Guess where I got this from???? THE PRINCETON website that you just listed as where YOU got it from!!!
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/inrevdraft.html
Vince,
I am outta of here on this discussion…to be so smart yet so ignorant….stay in what ever area of law you specialize in…if you wanna teach history….pity the fool suffering…
“I don’t think Jefferson is supporting secession. It seems to me he is saying if you want to be a dumb ass and secede then we, the rational ones, can talk you out of it to make sure you don’t do something stupid.”
Didnt we secede from ENGLAND—–which BEGAN our country???
“Lincoln personally detested slavery, but as a constitutional lawyer recognized that the President had no legal power under the Constitution to affect it in the states where it existed.”
Slavery ALSO existed in the NORTH. So it existed everywhere, just more prominent in the SOUTH.
Funny how you defend Lincoln when it comes to slavery—saying he had no Constitutional power to do anything about slavery–but he IGNORED the Constitution on secession and Habeas Corpus! He suspended Habeas Corpus during his ENTIRE presidency and the President alone cant suspend HC—Congress has the authority on that!
Anon yours—youre exactly RIGHT about Lincoln not intending to do anything about slavery—he admitted it in a letter to NY tribune’s Horace Greeley in 1862 when he said:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is NOT either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing ANY slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do that also. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
In his first inaugural address 17 months earlier, he contradicted himself because he said in that address he had no constitutional authority to disturb slavery. Quite funny is the notion that Lincoln “saved the Union” when he in fact DESTROYED constitutional liberty during his entire presidency. How do you “save” the Union by destroying constitutional liberty? Explain that.
Vince:
“Larry has a lot more to learn from the scholarly Mespo than Mespo has to learn from Larry.”
****************
Shame on you Vince, Larry is teaching me reams about psychosis!! 🙂
It seems that you and I ignore Larry and his marvelous malaprops out of some respect for his bludgeoning 8th grade understanding of civics. We certainly stand in lesser stead to his vast knowledge of Jefferson.
That passage Larry quoted is from Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801) following the contentious Election of 1800 where, ironically, know-nothings like Larry were in huge supply. Even a cursory review of the wording leads one to Byron’s well-stated position that Jefferson, far from advocating dissolution and praising its advocates, was holding up those who would dissolve the union as “monuments” to error.
Digging further in the Princeton collection we will find that Jefferson first wrote “I do not believe there is one native citizen of the US. who wishes to dissolve this union: I am confident there are few native citizens who wish to change it’s republican features” before altering the sentence to its current form and thus placing even harsher light on the proponents of secession.
Larry’s snubbing by bumblers such as I may need redressing. Personally, I promise to re-double my efforts to reach out to Larry’s family members, Moe, Curley Joe, and the oft-forgotten Shemp, in an attempt to make amends.
“Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery…..NO INTENTION…..it was stated in his speeches that he had no intention”
Everybody, where did I say Lincoln had the intention of banning slavery?
I never said it.
I said clearly that Lincoln wanted to ban slavery in the territories, but had no intent to ban it in the slave states, since he and the Congress had no power to do so.
That is historical fact.
Keeping the territories free was the founding principle of the Republican party.
I cannot follow the rest of the stream of consciousness.
In 1776, the American colonies asserted a right, under natural law, to cut their political ties with Britain.
If such a right exists under natural law, then the states–the people of Virginia, the people of Kentucky, etc.–hold the same right today, no matter what the Constitution or the law may say.
If such a right does not exist under natural law, then the United States had no right to revolt against Britain, and the United States government was illegitimate from the start. No one owes allegiance to an illegitimate government.
Vince,
I normally do not get into disagreements with what you have had to say, because I did not wish to put the energy in to debating someone I consider well able to defend its position and you have more courage to put your real name out there….That takes guts…..But in this thread….I think either you have too much oxygen or not enough……You are clearly talking about something you have limited knowledge of….
Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery…..NO INTENTION…..it was stated in his speeches that he had no intention…..and he also said that a house divided falls….if the South had not withdrawn from the Union….there never would have been an Emancipation gets these words “PROCLAMATION” its an executive Order without teeth….It is not LAW…..it would probably still be legal….but that’s another debate for another thread.
Read the Missouri Compromise…Mason-Dixon Line….have I rung any bells yet? These were applicable to any new state….territories are not states…..anything south of the MDL was legitimate…Can you focus of that issue…even if it is a territory….its still not a state….
I can’t believe how smart you are about somethings and blatantly ignorant about other things you profess to have knowledge of and too stupid to realize that you don’t know it all……
By the way…..which side of the Lincolns was John Wilkes Booth related to and if you can answer that correctly….then I’ll tell you some history about the relationship between the “Wilkes-Booth” family…..which would also help you understand a little more about history of the US…..
Can you tell us what profession Wilkes-Booth was in and why he was not in the service…..either for the north or south…..
I am gonna pull a bdaman on you….
Think in terms of Blackwater, the Bush Crime Family, Cheney, KBR, the CIA…..its all other there….How are they all related….You can take one piece and not have the whole story….
Can you tell
“The Emancipation Proclaimation was NOT ABOUT FREEING SLAVES—–it was a political stunt by Lincoln to gain the abolitionist vote.”
The Emancipation Proclamation did in fact free nearly 2 million slaves (the remainder were freed by the 13th Amendment).
It was not a political stunt, because it hurt Lincoln in the north by costing him votes for Congress in 1862, where the anti-war Democrats seized on the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 1862 to pander to racist voters.
Everyone, read the excellent book by Allen Guelzo, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Emancipation-Proclamation-Slavery-America/dp/0743221826/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Amazon has a good mix of review, including several that reflect Larry’s views.
Larry, so much wrong, so little time.
For example, “Do you HONESTLY think the Civil War was over SLAVERY?? Not ONLY was slavery Constitutional after the Dred Scott decision made it Constitutional in 1857, but Lincoln SUPPORTED slavery—he said in his first inaugural address that he had NO INTENTION of disrupting slavery.”
This is not history, it is lost cause, neo-confederate, southern partisan interpretation
Lincoln personally detested slavery, but as a constitutional lawyer recognized that the President had no legal power under the Constitution to affect it in the states where it existed.
He ran on a free-soil platform urging legislation to ban slavery in the territories under the express constitution power of Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the territories. In Scott, Taney ruled, in complete disregard for the literal terms of the Constitution, that Congress had no such power.
Lincoln set out his views in his 1860 Cooper Union address, available online.
The southern states wanted the right to expand slavery to all the federal territories under Taney’s ruling.
The only, repeat only, thing the United States did in 1860 that affected the slave states was to lawfully elect a President who opposed slavery in the territories.
So the Civil War did in fact break out over slavery, over the issue of the expansion of slavery to the territories.
So Larry’s views are inaccurate and the “history” is distorted, since Lincoln’s intention to refrain from disturbing slavery was limited to the existing slave states.
Larry:
““If there be any among us who would wish
to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,
let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety
with which error of opinion may be tolerated
where reason is left free to combat it.” ”
I don’t think Jefferson is supporting secession. It seems to me he is saying if you want to be a dumb ass and secede then we, the rational ones, can talk you out of it to make sure you don’t do something stupid.
Maybe one of the more educated folks could chime in and let me know if I have that right.
FYI,
If anybody cares….I am not Larry….my eyes may be dark blue….but my name is….ay…..
Vince, why did you IGNORE the rest of my posts and the other things I said? Impossible to debunk??
“Larry now writes: “Mespo—–what in THE HELL are you talking about??? The paragraph I cited was from TURLEY’S ARTICLE—–so it WAS from Turley! Are you saying that YOU are the author of Turley’s article???”
I think if Larry, or any other reader, goes to the following link, they will find the sentence in the final paragraph of Mespo’s posting.”
Who really cares WHO originally said this quote [but I AM glad it wasnt Turley]—-it’s 100% WRONG and contradictory. Notice how Mespo NEVER addressed the fact that he contradicted himself in that quote, but ONLY focused on WHO said it?? A complete FRAUD. How about addressing the contradiction Mespo??
Hmmmm.
While it is usually Mespo’s prerogative to give us quotations from Jefferson, it is useful to put his words in context, and note the time and occasion, the First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801:
“During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world’s best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”
Most readers would take this as a criticism of those who wish to dissolve the Union, describing them as monuments to the safety that we accord to “error of opinion.” Jefferson called the government “the strongest Government on earth.”
The words do not support Larry’s views.