ON THE CONSTITUTION. War goes beyond Constitutional Restrictions. Down with the Rebellion at Whatever Cost to the Constitution. "The Body is more than Raiment!" The Country is more than the Constitution. Time now for nothing but to Crush the Rebellion. To MY NEIGHBORS : "DAMN the Constitution!" said one in the hearing of myself and several others. I had always disliked profanity: and I had always honored the Constitution-welcoming every part of it. Nevertheless this exclamation was music in my ears. Why was it? It was because of the connection and spirit in which it burst from the speaker. He was arguing with rapid and fervid eloquence that the Government should ply every possible means for the speediest crushing of the rebellion-when a listening Conservative threw in the qualification: "But all according to the Constitution!" No wonder that the speaker could not brook this interruption. No wonder that an oath should leap forth to attest the indignation of his patriotic soul. It was not contempt for the Constitution, but displeasure at the thrusting of it in his way, which prompted the profanity. Had it been the Bible itself, that was thus impertinently cited, an oath might still have been the consequence. In a past century a New-England Puritan, in order to reconcile his black boy to the periodical whippings he gave him, said: "I whip you for the good of your soul." To which the sufferer very naturally replied: "I wish I had n't a soul!" Often during this War has the excessively tender and untimely care for the Constitution tempted me to wish that we had n't a Constitution. Thus was I tempted when, July 22, 1861, the House of Representatives, instead of manfully resolving that the War was for putting down the Rebellion and for nothing else, meanly resolved that it was for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus was I tempted when Congress, a year or two ago, was ridiculously employed in looking into the Constitution to learn how far it might confiscate the possessions of the millions who were striking at the life of the nation. I notice that, now again, Congress is, in this same connection, twattling about the Constitution. Thus was WOR 20JUN 3 4 I tempted when the President left it to the Judges, or, in other words, to the Constitution, to say whether Proclamations, which he had issued as Head of the Army, should be allowed to stand. Unhappiest and most contemptible of all nations are we, if whilst every other nation can carry on war with all the latitude of the law of war-of the law of necessity and of self-preservation, we are to be "cabined, cribbed, confined" by a mere paper. Infinitely better that we had no Constitution than that we should have one, which is allowed to fetter our freedom and restrict our choice of means in time of war. 7 By the way, the most cheering instance of resistance to this practice of supplanting the law of war with the Constitution is the recent disclaimer of the Supreme Court, in Vallandigham's case, of authority to review the proceedings of a military commission. Never yet have we carried on an unconditional and square fight with the rebels: and never can we until we shall have the political and moral courage to resent and rise above the endeavors of demagogues and sympathizers with the rebels to embarrass our conduct of the war by these impertinent constitutional questions. But these questions are not the only hinderance in the way of the only proper mode of warfare. Another and not less serious hinderance has sprung up in the untimely agitation of the question: "Who shall be the next President?" It is fearful to think how mighty are the electioneering influences, which will now be set at work by office-holders, office-seekers, army contractors, and many other classes. It is fearful to think how wide-spread and deep a concern there will be to conduct the War, not so as to end the rebellion and save the country, but so as to promote party and individual interests. It is fearful to think of the possible extent and character of the divisions that may now be wrought amongst ourselves -divisions that may do more than the enemy can do to destroy our beloved country. Who shall be the next President, should not have been spoken of before midsummer. The New-York Independent says it should only have been thought of. But it should not even have been thought of before that time. In the judgment of this journal, to be thinking from this early day of the Presidential Election-"to be prudently considering it"-to "ponder" itwould be the people's best preparation for acting wisely in it. But their unspeakably better preparation would be to forget the whole subject for the coming four or five months, and to be during all that time united as one man in wiping out the last remains of the accursed Rebellion. Such a perfect union for such a righteous end would be their best possible education for selecting none but a fit man for the Presidency. Quite a natural fruit of this premature agitation of the Presidential question is it, that there are already on the one hand Union men who are slandering and vilifying Abraham Lincoln, and on the other hand Union men who will not tolerate even the most generous and friendly criticism on any of his views and measures. And still another hinderance has been thrown in our way. The proposition to amend the Constitution tends to produce divisions amongst ourselves, and to divert us from that one work which should absorb us-the work of crushing the Rebellion. It is said that for the safety of posterity and to prevent the recurrence of the Rebellion we must have a constitutional prohibition of Slavery. I reply that we can not afford to attend to posterity nowthat our own case needs all our present attention. It will be time enough to amend the Constitution after we shall have ended the Rebellion. The leisure which peace affords, is necessary to devise and adopt amendments of that precious paper. I do not object to the abolishing of Slavery. No sooner had slavery fired at Sumter, than emancipation should have fired at slavery. And this, too, Constitution or no Constitution for it. It was our right, because our necessity, to kill that which aimed to kill the nation. At no time since the War began should Congress have delayed to abolish by force of its war power every remnant of slavery:dealing generously at the same time with loyal slaveholders. Moreover, as to guarding posterity from slavery, and therefore from a war for slavery, I would say, that the land once cleared of it, slavery will never again be set up in it. Slavery is an abomination which the people, who have once got rid of it, are never disposed to recall. It is a disease, which no people take a second time. The French learned this lesson in their mad attempt to reenslave the Haytiens. When, a few years ago, Spain grasped San Domingo, she promised the Dominicans not to introduce slavery. The promise was superfluous. The Dominicans will take care to protect themselves from slavery and from Spain also. Constitutional provisions against slavery will not avail to keep out slavery from the Southern States: but the freedom and the arms we are giving to their slaves will. Where a people want slavery, they will have it, whatever the Constitution. Our Constitution is against slavery. But the people wanted slavery. To say the least, they felt interested in consenting to it. Hence they fell in with the pro-slavery interpretation of the Constitution. Good men fell in with it because it was the prevailing interpretation. I said that our Constitution is against slavery. Certainly it is:for it says, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" and "No State shall pass any bill of attainder." But slavery is the most emphatic and abominable attainder. And it says too: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of government." Has South-Carolina, where a handful of tyrants own. three fifths of all the people, a Republican form of government? Surely we can not admit it without being ashamed that our nation has a Republican name. I close with the remark, that now is not the time either to improve the Constitution or to be solicitous to save it; that now is not the time, much as they are needed, to be building roads to the Pacific, or indeed to be making any expenditures or embarking in |