In employing the word “vacated” Mr. Johnson hit upon the very term which, in the famous Resolution of 1688, was held most effective in dethroning King James. After declaring that he had abdicated the government, it was added, “that the throne is thereby _vacant_”; on which Macaulay happily remarks:-- “The word _abdication_ conciliated politicians of a more timid school.… To the real statesman the simple important clause was that _which declared the throne vacant_; and if that clause could be carried, he cared little by what preamble it might be introduced.”[202] The same simple principle is now in issue. It is enough that the Rebel States be declared _vacated_, as _in fact_ they are, by all local government which we are bound to recognize: so that the way is open to the exercise of a rightful jurisdiction. * * * * * Here the question occurs, How shall this rightful jurisdiction be established in the vacated State? Some there are, so impassioned for State Rights, and so anxious for forms, even at the expense of substance, that they insist upon the instant restoration of the old State governments in all their parts, through the agency of loyal citizens, who, meanwhile, must be protected in this work of restoration. But, assuming that all this is practicable, as it clearly is not, it attributes to the loyal citizens of a Rebel State, however few in numbers,--it may be an insignificant minority,--a power clearly inconsistent with the received principle of popular government, that the majority must rule. The thirteen voters of Old Sarum were allowed to return two members of Parliament, because this place,--once a Roman fort, and afterwards a sheep-walk,--many generations before, at the early constitution of the House of Commons, had been entitled to this representation; but the argument for State Rights assumes that all these rights may be lodged in voters as few in number as ever controlled a rotten borough of England. Pray, admitting that an insignificant minority is to organize the new government, how shall it be done, and by whom shall it be set in motion? In putting these questions, I open the difficulties. As the original government has ceased to exist, and there are none who can be its legal successors so as to administer the requisite oaths, it is not easy to see how the new government can be set in motion, without resort to some revolutionary proceeding, instituted either by the citizens or by the military power,--unless Congress, in the exercise of its plenary authority, should undertake to organize the new jurisdiction.