game, find themselves no longer captains over their own hosts, and scarcely know whether to rejoice or mourn over the suddenly increased importance of their sects. Mormonism and Millerism may yet be in the ascendant, and then their apostles must look well to their flocks; for our politicians are like "the fed horses in the morning," described in the Scriptures, "every one is neighing after his neighbor's" political capital.

With the people alone is the corrective of party morality -nothing needs correction more. Would they see public men consistent, they must make inconsistency unprofitable; -would they preserve the peace of the Union, they must make the promotion of disturbance unpopular. In the keeping of the people are also our national destinies,-not in the virtues of our assumed leaders; just as chastity is in the keeping of women,-not in the forbearance of doctors and sages. We cannot, apparently, so surfeit a man with popular honors and emoluments as to make him reliable. If an occasion offer, he will arise from even his political tomb with the unsavoriness of Lazarus, and advocate Union or Disunion, Slavery or Anti-Slavery, as either promises the means of further aggrandizement,--putting off an old character and assuming a new one with the facility of a stage actor, and with about his shamelessness, when he advertises "the character of Abolitionist, by particular request of friends, and for one time only, by Mr. V. B."

Finally, let the maxim be no longer true, that politics are the madness of the masses for the benefit of the few. The coming election affords the people a glorious opportunity of teaching politicians a lesson which shall make them wiser, if not better; and let us all aid in making the lesson so emphatic and so plain, that even he cannot mistake it who thinks the people in 1844 desired the elevation to the Presidency of Martin Van Buren.

RESERVED RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.*

As the organization of Nebraska and Kansas threatens a new agitation of the Wilmot proviso, an inquiry may not be inopportune in relation to the rights of American citizens who reside within the United States, but beyond the limits of any State. State rights have been often investigated, but people's rights remain uninvestigated. The Constitution has, however, not left the people without reserved rights. It declares that "the powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To ascertain, therefore, what powers are reserved to the people who reside beyond the limits of any State, we have only to extract the powers that are "delegated to the United States by the Constitution," and that are "prohibited by it to the States,"-and all other powers belong to such people. The position is so plain that it might be formed into an algebraic equation, and demonstrated mathematically. And here we may note incidentally, that men's notions are vague as to what constitutes a State. We usually speak as though a State consisted of a given portion of the earth rather than of the people inhabiting a given locality; and this prevents us from seeing that Congress possesses, in relation to slavery, no greater control over the people who reside in Nebraska or Kansas than over people who reside in New-York. Our exaltation of the soil of a State over the people thereof is analogous to the mistake that exalted the gold of the Temple over the Temple-a mistake which drew from our Saviour the sarcasm, "Ye fools and blind: for which is greater--the gold, or the Temple that sanctifieth the gold ?"

Published in 1854.

The only pretext for an interpretation differing from the foregoing exists in the constitutional provision, " that Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;" but to construe this as giving Congress power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting citizens living on their own lands in any part of the United States, constitutes a laxity of construction at war with common sense. Think

of "We, the people of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain " that all of them who shall choose to reside beyond the boundaries of any State shall possess such liberties only as Congress shall from time to time prescribe.

But if our citizens who remove to Nebraska or Kansas carry with them all powers, except those delegated to the United States and prohibited to the States, will they possess the right of sending representatives to Congress? No; the people of Nebraska or Kansas can claim none of the powers which belong to a State or territory till they are admitted as such into the Union. The right of Congress to admit a State, or reject an admission, is, however, essentially different from the right to dictate to a people whether they shall permit slavery or not; the right to admit or reject being placed expressly within the unlimited discretion of Congress, while the power to dictate in relation to slavery is nowhere granted. The distinction in the two cases is highly important to a correct understanding of the people's rights.

But though the admission of any new State is thus within the constitutional option of Congress, the decision is not exempt from resulting consequences, whether we choose to be influenced thereby or not. Our Confederacy is an off

spring of volition, and the volition which created the Confederacy is mainly the means which have thus far held it together; and as long as they continue operative, will be adequate to preserve the Union in all future time. Any decision, therefore, in relation to the admission of a State, that unnecessarily prejudices the interest of a portion of the States-more especially any decision that unnecessarily outrages any portion of the States-will weaken the volition towards union that constitutes our most reliable cement. Force, which alone has held together all preceding extensive nationalities, has never rendered such adhesions perpetual; and our States, whose origin is revolutionary, and who are individually organized as sovereigns, are not likely to deem oppression less bitter than their progenitors.

Such being the tenure by which our Confederacy is united, what means are most efficient to prevent aggression on the respective members? Tyranny is unfortunately not Russian, nor Turkish, nor Austrian, nor Roman Catholic, nor Protestant, but a concomitant of every majority. The predisposition towards tyranny is so strong in power whereever located, that it needs but an exciting cause to make it burst forth at any time; and wholly irrespective of the abstract qualities of the exciting cause. If a majority prefer to drink water, they will fine and imprison those who prefer wine and brandy. If a majority profess one creed in religion, they will punish all persons of a different creed. In Hayti, the majority being black, proscribe mulattoes; and in our country, a majority of the States having chosen to abolish slavery, proscribe other States who choose not to abolish it.

The inherent tyranny of human nature is, therefore, the evil with which our Confederacy will have continually to contend. It shows itself now in the matter of slavery-it

may

show itself hereafter in some other form; and the question most interesting to the perpetuity of our Confederacy is, how the minority can protect itself from aggression. Providence has implanted the remedy in every breast together with the tyranny, and as an antidote thereto--it is resistance. Oppressors may abhor resistance, and attempt to hoot it down; but power will ever crush its victim to the extent of his sufferance. To resistance alone we owe the admission into the Union, in 1821, of Missouri with a compromise; and to more resistance we should have had Missouri without any compromise. We may say the same of all that is nationally just in the Acts of 1850. Compromises, which surrender a part for the security of the remainder, can only make the weak weaker, and the strong stronger. Turkey tried the experiment with Russia years since, and is naturally called to try it again. Compromises for the sake of the Union can insure only a lingering death; for the time will come when the burdens accumulated by conciliation" will break the camel's back;" but resistance for the sake of the Union can preserve us enduringly, by preventing the accumulation of any such burden. How resistance is to be made, and what shall constitute the casus federis for its exhibition, I mean not to discuss; and long may any necessity therefor be distant. I exhibit only the principles of our perpetuity, that, by studying them, our citizens of every locality may enjoy their own domestic in stitutions in their own way, and be willing to give a like blessed freedom to the citizens of every other locality.