All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained.  Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied?  I think not.  Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this.  Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied.  If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—­certainly would if such right were a vital one.  But such is not our case.  All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them.  But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration.  No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions.  Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by National or State authority?  The Constitution does not expressly say.  May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories?  The Constitution does not expressly say.  Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories?  The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities.  If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease.  There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.  If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority.  For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it?  All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.  A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.  Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism.  Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all that is left. * * *