212 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



by that rule and no other. This is the answer 

 made to my argument on this special amend- 

 ment. It avoids the objections I took to it, 

 and asserts in reply the unlimited power. I 

 shall not repeat those objections. I beg gentle- 

 men to remember that this is not a question of 

 revolution or of physical force ; it is not a ques- 

 tion of abstract right or of natural justice, but 

 of power delegated by the written text of the 

 Constitution itself. From the times of the 

 ancient prophets lie was an honorable and up- 

 right man who stood by his word, though it led 

 to his own injury. 



" Now I desire to ask gentlemen whether it 

 is true 'that the power of change in that Con- 

 stitution is limited only by its written lan- 

 guage ? There are but three points in which 

 that Constitution, by its letter, could not be 

 changed. The first was the right of importa- 

 tion of slaves before 1808 ; the second was the 

 rule of taxation, and the third was the equality 

 of representation in the Senate. The prohibi- 

 tion of change in one article was necessarily 

 limited by the article itself to the year 1808. 

 My colleague from the Toledo district, in the 

 speech which he made the other day, told us 

 witli reference to this point : 



If I read the Constitution aright, and understand 

 the force of language, the section which I have just 

 quoted is to-day free from all limitations and condi- 

 tions save two, one of which provides that the suf- 

 frage of the several States in the Senate shall be 

 equal, and that no State shall lose this equality by 

 any amendment of the Constitution without its con- 

 sent ; the other relates to taxation. These are the 

 only conditions and limitations. 



"I deny it. I assert that there is another 

 limitation stronger even than the letter of the 

 Constitution ; and that is to be found in its in- 

 tent and its spirit and its foundation idea. I 

 pnt the question which has been put before in 

 this debate, Can three-fourths of the States 

 constitutionally change this Government, and 

 make it an autocracy ? It is not prohibited by 

 the letter of the Constitution. It is not for- 

 bidden. It does not come within the two classes 

 of limitations and conditions asserted by my 

 colleague. "Why is it that this change cannot 

 be made ? I will tell you why. It is because 

 republicanism lies at the very foundation of 

 our system of government, and to overthrow 

 that idea is not to amend but to subvert the 

 Constitution of the United States ; and I say 

 that if three-fourths of the States should under- 

 take to pass an amendment of that kind, and 

 Rhode Island alone dissented, she would have 

 the right to resist by force. It would be her 

 duty to resist by force ; and her cause would 

 be sacred in the eyes of just men, and sancti- 

 fied in the eyes of a just God. Let me go a 

 little further. Can three-fourths of the States 

 make an amendment to the Constitution of the 

 United States which shall prohibit the State of 

 Ohio from having two houses in its Legislative 

 Assembly ? My colleague would not agree to 

 that. Why not ? It is not prohibited in the 

 Constitution. The letter of-the Constitution is 



not against it It is an amendment which may 

 be republican in form ; it contravenes no tenet 

 of republicanism that a Legislature shall be of 

 one house only. "Why could it not be done ? 

 Because the equality of the States lies at the 

 very foundation of our system, and also because 

 the control of the States over their internal 

 affairs is equally at its foundation. And I 

 know my colleague too well to suppose that he 

 would not join with me in saying that such a 

 usurpation of power on the part of three-fourths 

 of the States would justify our own State in 

 drawing the sword. 



"Sir, can three-fourths of the States provide 

 an amendment to the Constitution by which 

 one-fourth should bear all the taxes of this Gov- 

 ernment? It is not prohibited. To be sure 

 there is a rule in the Constitution that taxation 

 shall be uniform, but that provision, according 

 to the theory of my friend from Ohio, is revok- 

 able and changeable as the rest. The gentle- 

 man knows that that amendment would not be 

 within the scope of the power granted to three- 

 fourths of the States, and that it would justify 

 resistance. 



" Can three-fourths of the States, by an 

 amendment to this Constitution, subvert the 

 State governments of one-fourth and divide 

 their territory amongst the rest? It is not for- 

 bidden ; I read no prohibition in the language 

 of the Constitution, and yet my colleague would 

 not contend that could be done. He would 

 justify resistance. 



"Can three-fourths of the States so amend 

 the Constitution of the States as to make the 

 Northern States of this Union slaveholding 

 States? I know that the majority of this 

 House would repudiate that doctrine. I would 

 repudiate it myself. Believing, as I do, that 

 the Federal Government can no more make a 

 slave than it can make a king, I, for one, would 

 be ready to resist it to the last extremity. 



" I have been endeavoring to show that the 

 limitations in the letter of the Constitution were 

 not the only limitations upon the power of 

 amendment. And I have done it for the pur- 

 pose of leading gentlemen of this House to a 

 conclusion I am prepared to take. I have 

 shown that you cannot, under the power of 

 amendment, contravene the letter and spirit of 

 the Constitution ; that you cannot subvert re- 

 publicanism ; that you cannot destroy the liber- 

 ties of the States ; that you cannot decide the 

 status of the citizens of the States. I would 

 lead them to the conclusion that there is no 

 power on the part of the Federal Government 

 on the part of three-quarters of the States, I in- 

 tended to say to adopt the amendment that is 

 now proposed fand that if you do it, if you at- 

 tempt to impose that amendment upon the dis- 

 senting States by force, it will be their right to 

 resist yon by force, and to call to their aid all 

 the powers which God and Nature have given 

 them to make that force effective." 



Mr. Stevens, of Pensylvania, said: "If the 

 amendment should be adopted by three-fourths 



