SECESSION": 
 
 CONSIDERED AS 
 
 A RIGHT IN THE STATES 
 
 COMPOSING 
 
 I 
 
 'it 
 
 AND AS TO THE GROUNDS OF 
 
 JUSTIFICATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES 
 
 
 EXERCISING THE RIGHT. 
 
 ■ 
 
 BY A GENTLEMAN OF MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 JACKSON, MISS. 
 
 SOUTH-WESTERN CONFEDERATE PRINTING HOUSE, 
 1863. 
 
K 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
 
 http://archive.org/details/secessionconsideOOgent 
 
SECESSIO 
 
 To the patriot, who maintains the justice of the separation of 
 the Confederate States from the United States, it is ot vital 
 importance to feel assured that the right of a State to secede from 
 the Union with the United States, whenever she thought fit to 
 exercise it, '"was perfect and absolute, beyond the power ol denial 
 or molestation from any source. 
 
 Upon this, mainly depends, the questions, what political relations 
 subsist between the seceded States and the remaining United 
 States ; and whether the citizens of such States, in defending 
 themselves by arms against the invasion of the United States, set 
 on foot to enforce the laws of the United States over such States, 
 after secession, are to be regarded as traitors and rebels, on the 
 one hand, or as absolved from all political connection with the 
 United States, and acting in the defense of their legitimate rights, 
 on the other. 
 
 If the secession be without right, the position of the people of 
 a State resisting the authority of the United States, is that of 
 rebellion against legitimate power, and the armed resistants are 
 traitors and felons ; but if it be rightful and in the exercise of the 
 legitimate powers of the State, then, the attempt at coercion by 
 invasion and making war against the State, is a usurpation and an 
 outrage which the State is bound to repel, as an attempt to destroy 
 her rights and liberties by mere brute force. Lt is, therefore, a 
 question which must most seriously impress every true patriot and 
 every elevated mind in the South — had the State the right to secede 
 in her sovereign capacity, for reasons which she- judged sufficient 
 to demand and justify her secession ? 
 
 If this enquiry be resolved in the affirmative, it becomes import- 
 ant^*) . consider, whether the circumstances, under which the State 
 thought fit to exercise the right, are such as to justify her, in the 
 estimation of mankind, in the exercise of it. 
 
 These two questions will, therefore, form the subject for consid- 
 eration in these remarks ; first, whether one of 'the States consti- 
 tuting the United States, had the right to secede from the Union ; 
 and, secondly, whether the circumstances under which the right 
 
was exercised by the Southern States, justify its exercise and acquit 
 those Southern States of any bad faith to the obligations of the 
 Union. 
 
 First — As to the abstract eight op secession. 
 
 This right is claimed as resulting, from the rights and powers 
 which the several States had when they formed the Constitution ; 
 and from the nature and purposes of the Union created by the 
 Constitution, as shown by its face and by the history of its forma- 
 tion and adoption. 
 
 1. In the first place, each State was, at the time of the adoption 
 of the Constitution, a sovereign and independent State, and acted 
 as such in adopting the Constitution. This is manifest — from the 
 Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the several States 
 to be " free and independent States " — from the second of the 
 Articles o£ Confederation of 1778, which declares that "each State 
 retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, 
 jurisdiction and right, which is not thereby expressly delegated to 
 the United States " — from the treaty of peace with Great Britain, 
 after the close. of the war of the revolution, recognising each 
 State by name as a " free, sovereign and independent State " — and 
 finally, by the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 in the early history of the Union, in the case of Ware vs. Hylton, 
 3d Dallas' Rep., 199, in which it is held by Judge Chase, that the 
 effect of the Declaration of Independence was " not that the united 
 colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but 
 that each State of them was a sovereign and independent State " — a 
 doctrine recognised by numerous subsequent decisions of that 
 Court. 
 
 It is also incontrovertibly true, that each State for herself, in her 
 sovereign political capacity, by her Legislature, and not by immedi- 
 ate election of the people, appointed delegates to the Convention 
 which formed the Constitution — that the votes given in the Con- 
 vention, in its formation, were given by States and not per capita ; 
 each State being entitled to but one vote upon every question, 
 regardless of the relative number of delegates — and finally, each #• 
 State, for herself, and in her sovereign capacity, accepted, ratified <*• 
 and acceded to the Constitution ; and it was of no force or effect fc 
 upon her, until so ratified and acceded to by her, she remaining, •, 
 meanwhile, a separate sovereign State, to all intents and purposes. 
 
 Notwithstanding these conclusive facts, incontestibly establishing 
 that each State was a separate sovereign State, before the adoption 
 of the Constitution, President Lincoln, in his message of July, 
 1861, boldly declares that "no one of them was ever a State out 
 of the Union," that " the word sovereignty is not in the national 
 Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State Constitu- 
 tions" — that " the Union is older than any of the States, and, in 
 
 m 
 
 Mr** 
 
 *\ 
 
 flA 
 
fact, it created them as States." This last is said with reference to 
 the Union under the Articles of Confederation ; which he considers 
 in some Avay, blended with the Union under the present Constitu- 
 tion. But the Union, under the Articles of Confederation, was 
 entirety abrogated upon the adoption of the Constitution by the 
 States ; each State acceded to the Constitution in her sovereign 
 political capacity, as is above shown, and thereby established a 
 new and distinct union ; the States refusing to adopt it, remaining 
 free and independent States, absolved from the old union and totally 
 disconnected with tha*! formed under the present Constitution, 
 until they acceded to the latter. Of course, the rights and powers 
 of the States, as members of the Union, can only be affected by the 
 Union created by the present Constitution. 
 
 Reckless and unfounded as are these asseverations, the position 
 assumed by them will be found, after a careful examination of the 
 subject, to be the only theory upon which the right of the States 
 to interpose their sovereign power against the usurpations of the 
 Federal Government, can be successfully denied ; and it must be 
 considered, from the imposing authority and the solemn circum- 
 stances under which it is put forth, as having been taken advisedly, 
 as the ground on which the government of the United States rests 
 its right to wage a war of subjugation and extermination against 
 the people of the Confederate States, for attempting to resume 
 their original status of separate, sovereign States, in all respects. 
 Yet, it is so utterly unfounded in truth and * in history, that no 
 further answer to it is required than the reference to the historical 
 facts above stated. 
 
 Each State, then, being sovereign when she ratified the Constitu- 
 tion, must have continued such after her ratification, except so far 
 as she restricted herself of her sovereign powers by the Constitu- 
 tion; unless she absolutely surrendered her sovereignty. And here 
 the vital question arises, did the States, in ratifying the Constitu- 
 tion, part with the sovereign right of judging, each for herself, 
 whether the powers conferred on the Government by the Consti- 
 tution, or the rights and powers retained by the^tates had been 
 violated ; and did the States bind themselves to an indissoluble 
 Union ? 
 
 2. If we consider the purpose? for which the Constitution was 
 formed, we find nothing that binds the States to a Union, irrevocable 
 under any circumstances. 
 
 These purposes are stated in the letter of the Convention — ■ 
 signed by Gen. Washington, accompanying the Constitution, and 
 which was submitted to the Convention of the several States with 
 the Constitution— - to be, " that' the power of making war, peace and 
 treaties ; that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the 
 correspondent executive and judicial authorities shall be fully and 
 
6 
 
 effectually vested in the General Government of the Union." The 
 object was merely to supply the defects existing under the Articles 
 of Confederation, in these respects; to entrust the necessary powers, 
 in these particulars, to a general head ; because from their nature 
 they could not be exercised either by the States separately, nor by 
 the Union under the Articles of Confederation. This was done in 
 the Constitution, by creating a government to execute these powers, 
 delegating them fully to it, prohibiting to the States all counteract- 
 ing powers, and clothing the Government with all the power, legis- 
 lative, executive and judicial, necessary to fhe complete exercise of 
 the powers entrusted to it. 
 
 But these powers are all " delegated," in express terms ; which 
 shows that the Federal Government was intended to be but tlie 
 agent and representative of the States ; and as stated by Mr. Madi- 
 son, in Federalist, No. 45, " the powers delegated to the Federal 
 Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain to the 
 State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be 
 exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotia- 
 tion and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation 
 will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the 
 several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course 
 of affairs, concern the lives, liberty and properties of the people, and the 
 internal order, improvement and prosperity of the Stated It was 
 admitted freely by the advocates of the Constitution, that the great 
 elements of strength" and power remained in the States ; insomuch 
 that they feared that the States would prove to be too strong for 
 the effective operation of the Federal Government, rather than 
 that the latter would interfere with the powers of the States. — See 
 Federalist, Nos. 27, 31, 45 ; whilst the most wise and sagacious ot 
 its friends, considered that its true theory and glory were, strong 
 States and a weak Federal head, whose strength consisted in its 
 members and not of itself, and was only such as was necessary to' 
 execute the few powers plainly delegated to it. 
 
 3. In its nature and character, the Constitution was a compact 
 between the States, and the Union formed under it, was Federal. 
 This is clear, from the following considerations : 
 
 1. It was formed by the States acting in fheir political capacities, 
 and not by the aggregate mass of the people of all the States ; and 
 it was ratified and acceded to in the same manner by each State 
 for herself ; those not acceding to it being wholly free from its 
 operation and remaining independent sovereign States. 2. It 
 declares, in the 7th article, that the ratifications of the Conventions 
 of nine States should be sufficient to establish it " between the States" 
 so ratifying 1 it — which clearly shows that the States as such were the 
 parties to it, and that it was a compact between them as such. 3. 
 Amendments to it are to be acted on by each State in her political 
 
7 
 
 capacity, by her Legislature, or by a convention appointed by her 
 and under her own laws, each acting separately. 4. The powers 
 not delegated are reserved to the States or to the people, by the 
 10th amendment— that is, to the States, so far as their exercise may 
 be matter of political power ; and to the people of each State, so 
 far as the same may be matter of individual right, under the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the State. 5. It was denominated a Federal 
 Constitution by its advocates in recommending its ratification — 
 (see Federalist passim) — the Union formed by it was called a Con- 
 federate Republic — -(Federalist, No. 9) — and it was characterized, in 
 the more essential and controlling points of the foundation and the- 
 extent of its powers, as Federal ; while in the minor matter of the 
 execution of its granted powers only, it was said to be national. — 
 Federalist, No. 39. It was received in popular acceptation and 
 called a Federal Constitution — an idea so universally received and 
 so popular that it was assumed as the name of the great party which 
 came into power upon the organization of the government, and 
 held it until that party proved to entertain principles and views 
 subversive of the. true spirit of the Constitution, and in the mean- 
 time laid the foundation of doctrines which have led to its prostra- 
 tion. 6. It was received and adopted by the States as a compact 
 between each other. While this is manifest from the history of 
 the ratifications of all the States in their conventions, it is expressly 
 stated in the ratifications of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 
 and was, in a few years thereafter, also expressly declared by 
 Yirginia, Kentucky, and several other States, in the memorable 
 contest which 'arose upon the alien and sedition laws in '1798. 
 
 It was a compact between sovereign States for a union between 
 them, for certain specified purposes, to promote the common 
 defense and general welfare of its members. Its basis was that 
 great principle of American institutions — the consent of the parties 
 to it ; and when that is withdrawn, and the parties refuse to 
 "comply with the terms necessary to continue its operation, its 
 existence must cease, since there is no provision — and from the 
 nature of the Union there could not be— for its continuance by 
 coercion ; but of this hereafter. 
 
 The doctrine is well established, that " several sovereign and 
 independent States may unite themselves together by a perpetual 
 confederacy, without each, in particular, ceasing to be an inde- 
 pendent State. They will form together a Federal Republic : the 
 deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of 
 each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some 
 constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements." 
 Yattel, Law of Nations, book 1, chap. 1, sec. 10. And this is 
 clearly the nature of the Union of the States, under the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, whether it be called a Govern- 
 
ment, a confederacy, or a compact. " The proposed Con- 
 stitution," says Mr. Hamilton, " so far from implying an aboli- 
 tion of the State Governments, makes them constituent parts of the 
 ■national sovereignty." — Fed., No* 9. •' The State Governments 
 may be regarded" says Mr. Madison, " as constituent and 
 essential parts of the Federal Government. — Ibid, No. 45. 
 
 It is perfectly manifest that the Constitution did -not merge 
 the States in this Federal Union, and annihilate their political 
 existence and powers. Unlike the articles of Union of the United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain, the Union was Federate in its 
 character, the States retaining their sovereign character and most 
 essential powers ; whereas, in that of England and Scotland, in 
 the language of the learned commentator on the laws of England, 
 " the two contracting States are totally annihilated, without any 
 power of revival, and a third arises from the conjunction, in 
 which all the rights of sovereignty, and particularly that of legis- 
 lation, must reside." This author states the. difference between 
 the character of the former and the latter kind of Government — 
 that in a union of the latter description, an infringement of its 
 conditions would not justify a dissolution.; while in the case of a 
 union of the former character, an infringement would certainly 
 rescind the compact. — 1 Blackstone's Comm., 98, in note. 
 
 In such a case, the sovereign character is preserved; and it 
 must, of necessity, be capable of vindicating its rights, by a 
 resumption of the delegated powers ; for otherwise, its sovereignty 
 would be nugatory — indeed it would be virtually annihilated ; and 
 it is perfectly evident, from the entire history of the formation 
 and ratifications of the Constitution, that it was the especial care 
 of the States to preserve their sovereignty. 
 
 There is, therefore, nothing in the purposes for which the Con- 
 stitution was formed, nor in its nature and character, to bind the 
 States to a perpetual union under it, under all circumstances ; or 
 to debar each of them of the high sovereign power of vindicating 
 her rights, by resuming her original powers entirely, whenever 
 she considered that the fundamental conditions of the Union had 
 been broken by the government, or were about to be perverted, to 
 her oppression. 
 
 It was this right which justified the States in abrogating the 
 Union made by the Articles of Confederation in disregard of a 
 positive stipulation that it should be perpetual ; and in establish- 
 ing the present Constitution of the United States, in a different 
 mode from that prescribed in the Articles, and therein positively 
 declared to be the only mode in which they should be altered. 
 This course could only be justified .on the principle of the right 
 of secession ; and it was so justified. When it Was objected by 
 
9 
 
 some of the States that the Constitution was adopted in violation 
 of these solemn stipulations and prohibitions, against the consent 
 of several of the States, the course was defended by its advocates 
 on the ground of "the great principle of self-preservation," and 
 of " the transcendant law of nature and of nature's God, which 
 declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects 
 at which all political institutions aim, and to ivhich all such insti- 
 tutions, must be sacrificed." — Federalist, No. 43. There was no 
 question as to the right of the majority to take this step, and it 
 could not be justified on that ground ; because the rights of the 
 minority were positively placed beyond the control or power of 
 the majority, by the prohibitions of the Articles of Confederation. 
 The power to abolish that form of government was placed solely 
 on the great right of • American liberty, to alter or abolish any 
 form, of government whenever the safety and happiness of society 
 required it — a right never parted with and incapable of alienation — 
 a principle as fully applicable to the Constitution of the United 
 States, as to the Union under the Articles of Confederation ; and 
 even more so — since in • the former, the mode of alteration is 
 merely authorized ; whereas in the latt&r, it is prescribed and 
 all other modes of alteration are positively prohibited : a principle 
 which as fully justifies secession as practised by the Confederate 
 States, as it did the abrogation of the Articles of Confederation in 
 violation of the solemnly plighted faith of the States made in the 
 adoption of that form of Union, and against the consent of several 
 of them. The right then exercised was secession — the resumption 
 by the States of their inherent sovereign powers, in their own 
 discretion and for their happiness. 
 
 4. But this right does not s<;and alone upon the nature and 
 character of the Union, nor upon the general reservation of 
 rights and powers in the Constitution — clear and unquestionable 
 as it is on these grounds. It was matter of Express and positive 
 reservation by several of the States in the ratifications of the Con- 
 stitution, and was plainly intended to be reserved by all. 
 
 New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared — 
 
 "■ That the powers of government may be resumed.by the people, 
 whensoever it shall become necessary to their hapjyiness : that every 
 power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by said Constitution, 
 clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the 
 departments of the . government thereof, remains to the peopAe of 
 the several States, or to their respective State Governments." — 1 
 Elliott's Debates, 361. 
 
 Rhode Island, in her ratification, declares — 
 
 ■" That the powers of government may be resumed by the people 
 
 9 
 
10 
 
 whensoever it shall hecome necessary to their happiness." — Ibid, 
 369. 
 
 Virginia declares, in her ratification — 
 
 " That the powers granted under the Constitution, being de- 
 rived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by 
 them whensoever the same shall he perverted to their injury and, 
 oppression. " — Ibid. 
 
 That the language, " may be resumed by the people." .was in- 
 tended to mean the people of the /States, as /States, is most manifest. 
 
 In the first place, the powers were delegated by the States as 
 such, and could not be said to be "resumed" except by the same 
 political body ' which granted them. They never resided in the 
 people of the United States ; and hence, upon the failure of the 
 Union, the people of the United States could not be said to "re- 
 sume" them; but resumption imports retaking by the authority 
 which originally possessed them — that is, the States in their political 
 capacity. In the second place, the ratifications of several other 
 of the States, in stating the reservation of powers not delegated to 
 the United States, reserve them to the States, omitting the addi- 
 tion, "or to the people " — which shows that these latter words con- 
 tained in the Tenth Amendment, and the equivalent words, 
 " resumed by the people," meant the people of the States severally ; 
 and that the true intent of this amendment and of the reserva- 
 tions in the ratifications of the States, was to retain the undele- 
 gated powers to the people of the several States, as sovereign 
 communities, to be exercised by them under their Constitutions and 
 laws ; that is to say, in their sovereign capacities. This clearly 
 appears from the ratifications of Massachussetts, New Hampshire, 
 New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina. 
 
 Massachusetts — &*' That it be explicitly declared that all powers 
 not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved 
 to the several States, to be by them exercised." 
 
 New Hampshire — " That it be explicitly declared that all powers 
 not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Consti- 
 tution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised." 
 
 Pennsylvania — "All the rights of sovereignty, which are not 
 by the said Constitution expressly and plainly vested in the Con- 
 gress, shall be deemed, to remain with, and shall be exercised by, 
 the several States in the Union, according to their respective Con- 
 stitutions." 
 
 New York has been quoted above. 
 
 South Carolina — " That no section or paragraph of the said 
 Constitution warrants a construction *that the States do not retain 
 every power not expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the 
 General Government of the Union." 
 
11 
 
 It was these declarations which caused the engrafting of the 
 ninth and tenth amendments into the Constitution ; and furnish 
 the true and proper exposition to the words, "the people," in 
 these amendments ; showing them to mean the people of the States 
 respectively in their sovereign, capacity. And this is equally true 
 of the same words used contemporaneously in the ratifications 
 above mentioned. 
 
 And now, — when challenged to adduce positive authority for 
 the right of secession, and for the doctrine that.the States did not 
 intend to bind themselves by the Constitution, to an indissoluble 
 union, under all circumstances, — we point to these solemn decla- 
 rations of the States in their ratifications of the Constitution, 
 and to the ninth and tenth, amendments which were produced by 
 these declarations, as clear and positive proof that the Union zvas 
 established upon the express condition that the States respectively 
 had the right to resume their powers of sovereignty delegated by 
 the Constitution, whensoever they considered that their happiness 
 and safety demanded it. 
 
 The right of judging of this matter must necessarily reside in 
 each State ; because the reservation of power is to the States 
 respectively; and from its very nature, each State must decide for 
 herself. It could not apply to the States in the aggregate, or to a 
 majority of them; both because of its nature, and because it is 
 not so reserved. Hence the right, to be of any value, and especi- 
 ally to be consistent with the principles on which the Union was 
 founded, must appertain to each State respectively. 
 
 It is not necessary that this. right should be specified in the Con- 
 stitution. It was not the office of that instrument to enumerate 
 the reserved rights of the States, and no Government makes 
 provision for its own dissolution. . It is sufficient if the right ex- 
 isted when the constitution was acceded to by the States, and was 
 not clearly parted with in that instrument. And how does the 
 question thus stand ? 
 
 When the Union was formed, the principle set forth in the Dec- 
 laration of Independence, was recognised as a fundamental doc- 
 trine, in all its force and extent, by all the States, and cherished 
 as the palladium of our liberty — "that whenever any form of 
 government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was estab- 
 lished, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, 
 and TO institute a new government, laying its foundations 
 on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to 
 them shall be most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ' ' 
 It was upon this high principle, that the States were declared 
 "free and independent States," and came into being as sovereign 
 States. And the basis principle on .which all republican govern- 
 
•12 
 
 ments rest,, and especially those of these States, is, "that govern- 
 ments derive tlieir just powers from the consent of the governed." 
 Assuredly this inestimable right was never intended to be impaired 
 in the formation and adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States. Nay, it is positively shown that it was upon this very 
 principle, that the formation and adoption of this Constitution — 
 which were in palpable violation of the Articles of Confederation 
 — were justified by its advocates, as is above shown. 
 
 It was regarded as a high and sacred right, appertaining to the 
 people of the States, when the Constitution was formed ; and not 
 only was not parted with, in that instrument, but it was positively 
 reserved. 
 
 The ninth amendment declares, that " the enumeration in the 
 Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or 
 disparage others retained by the people." This is a positive res- 
 ervation of all individual rights appertaining to the people of the 
 States, under their respective State Governments, whether enume- 
 rated or not ; and it was introduced from abundant caution, to 
 exclude the possibility of the legal implication, that other rights, 
 not enumerated were denied to the citizen or delegated to the 
 Government. 
 
 Of the same character is the tenth amendment, "that the 
 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
 prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- 
 tively or to the people;" that is to say, to the States, or to the 
 -people of the Strifes, respectively, in their sovereign political ca- 
 pacity as States, to be exercised and enjoyed according to the 
 Constitution and laws of each State; because it was in that ca- 
 pacity alone that the several States acted in forming and adopting 
 the Constitution, and became parties to the compact. And it is 
 manifest from the history of these amendments, that their scope 
 and object were, to place beyond question and beyond the possi- 
 bility of interference by the Federal Government, the rights and 
 powers of the people of the States, held and enjoyed under their 
 respective State governments, and not delegated nor prohibited in 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Thus all the rights and powers of each State and of her people 
 under their respective State Governments, not enumerated and 
 not delegated nor prohibited, are expressly retained. The pur- 
 pose of the Constitution was not to specify the rights retained, 
 but to enumerate those delegated to the United States. Hence, 
 if a right existed in a State at the formation cf the Constitution, 
 and be not enumerated among the " delegated powers," or "pro- 
 hibited rights," in the Constitution, it remains to the States. It 
 is thus- that all the numerous rights and powers of civil adminis- 
 
 • 
 
13 
 
 tration in the Several States, and the individual rights of the 
 citizen under their respective State Governments, not reserved by 
 enumeration, nor prohibited in the Constitution, are retained by 
 the respective States. 
 
 Now it is incumbent on those who. claim that this high power, 
 this invaluable right, this distinguishing principle of American 
 liberty, was given up by the sovereign States in the Constitution, 
 to show clearly where and how, that was done. It will not 
 do to rest its surrender upon plausible refinements and doubtful 
 theories ; for it must be presumed, that if this right, which was 
 considered so sacred by the framers of the Constitution, and so 
 inestimable by the States, had been intended to be parted with or 
 impaired, it would have been done in language not to be mistaken. 
 And, therefore, if the question be merely left in doubt, whether 
 the right is surrendered, it is the part of wisdom and safetv*to 
 resolve it in favor of the retention of the right; since in cases' of . 
 doubt, it is always safest, according to principles of American gov- 
 ernment, to entrust high powers, with the. people, the source of 
 political power. 
 
 And this brings us to consider the grounds on which it is com 
 tended that the Constitution establishes an indissoluble Union 
 between the States. 
 
 1. It is said that the Constitution creates direct relations between 
 the Government established by it and the individuals composing 
 the United States — giving to the Government power, to punish in- 
 dividuals for crimes committed against it ; to impose taxes upon 
 them and to collect the same ; to require military service of them ; 
 and creating many other direct relations of duty and responsibility 
 between the Government and the masses of the people, involving 
 protection by the Government, and obedience and allegiance to its 
 authority, on the part' of individuals ; and that the Constitution 
 was made and established, not as a compact between the States, but 
 by the people of the Ukited States as one people. It is hence contended 
 that the Constitution created a Government, to which all the people 
 composing the States are parties, as an aggregate mass, irrespective 
 of the States ; and that as to the authority and power of the Gov- 
 ernment, the people of all the States became one) people, and the 
 character of the States, as sovereign States, became extinguished 
 or merged in the Union formed by the Constitution, winch thereby 
 became indissoluble by the acts, of the several States. 
 
 Let us consider the arguments relied on to support these views. 
 
 In the first place, as to the parties which established the Con- 
 stitution . Great reliance is placed upon the words of the preamble : 
 " We, the people of the United States" &c, as showing that it was the 
 act of the people of the United States, as one people. But to this, 
 
14 
 
 there are several conclusive answers. 1st. The language is ambig- 
 uous, and, upon its face, may as well mean the people of the United 
 States, acting in their capacity as States, as the people of the United 
 States as an aggregate mass ; for the language leaves it perfectly 
 uncertain in what capacity " the people " were acting. It is evi- 
 dent that the words of themselves do not clearly sustain the 
 argument founded on them ; and at best they present a case of latent 
 ambiguity. In such a case, we must resort to the history of the 
 proceeding to ascertain the character in which " the people " acted, 
 and the true import of thelanguage used. ' And we learn from the 
 entire history of the event — from the appointment of delegates to 
 the General Convention — from the votes and proceedings of that 
 Convention — from the proceedings of the several State Conven- 
 tions of ratification — that every act in the formation and ratifica- 
 tion of the Constitution, was done by A the States severally and in 
 their political capacity. 
 
 It is sufficient, on this point, to refer to the declarations of Mr. 
 Madison, in the Federalist, No. 39. Speaking of the ratifications 
 by the States, he says : " This assent and ratification is to be given 
 by the people, not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as 
 composing the distinct and independent States to which they respec- 
 tively belong. * * * Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is 
 considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to 
 be bound by its own voluntary act." 
 
 2d. The words of the preamble must be taken to refer to the 
 condition of the States or people, before, and jot the time of, the 
 ratification, so far as they tend to designate the character of the 
 parties to it ; and it is admitted that the States were then sovereign 
 States, united by a compact, and not one people called the United 
 States. See Mr. Webster's speech on Mr. Calhoun's resolutions 
 in February, 1833. So that there were then no people of the United 
 States, in the sense of an aggregate mass or nation. 
 
 When the Constitution was submitted for ratification, there were 
 no people of the United States, under that Constitution. The words 
 under consideration cannot refer to the condition of the States or 
 people, after the ratification ; for upon no principle of construc- 
 tion, can general words — relating to the character in which parties 
 to an instrument act — be referred to the status which they occupy 
 under the operation ef the instrument, but must be taken to desig- 
 nate the character in which they act at the time, and in the matter, 
 of the execution of the instrument. 3d. General words in a pre- 
 amble cannot control an instrument so as to give it an operation 
 contrary to its positive provisions, in opposition to the context and 
 to all the facts attending its execution, showing the intention of the 
 parties ; and it is impossible to give to these words the effect con- 
 tended for, without ignoring the plain intention of the framers of 
 
15 
 
 the Constitution and of the States in ratifying it, as shown by the 
 entire history of these events. 
 
 We must, therefore resolve these doubtful words, so as to make 
 them consistent with truth, and expound them by the well known 
 history of the events which .gave rise to them ; and to viewed, it 
 appears to be impossible to escape the conclusion, that they mean : 
 We, the people of the United States, acting in the capacity of 
 sovereign States, each for herself. 
 
 The provisions of the Constitution are irreconcilable with the 
 views insisted upon. They speak of "citizens of the. different 
 States." — Art 3. Sec. 2. — "the citizcs of each State.'^Art. 4. 
 Sec 2 ; but- no where of citizens of the United States, as would have 
 been the case, if the Constitution had been designed to establish a 
 government of one entire people. No citizen of one State has the 
 right to go into another State and there vote for any office, even for 
 Presidenfrof the United States, without becoming a citizen of th^t 
 State, according to her Constitution and laws. 
 • In the next place, it is said that the Constitution establishes a 
 Government, operating on all the individual citizens, and binding 
 them to its authority, with ample powers to carry it into eSect ; 
 and that this creates a Government, to which the people of the 
 United States are parties, and a Union, which the States have no 
 right to dissolve. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true that the Constitution empowers the Fed- 
 eral Government to exercise its legitimate jurisdiction directly over 
 individuals ; creating certain duties and obligations to be performed 
 by them to the Government, and corresponding duties, on the part 
 of the Government, to them. But it by no means follows that this 
 power was derived from the act of the people of the United States, 
 acting as independent individuals and irrespective of their condi- 
 tion as the people of the several States of which they were citizens. 
 For it is above shown that all the acts in relation to the formation 
 and ratification of the Constitution, were done by the rceople of 
 the States severally, in their sovereign capacity, as political bodies. 
 And the position here stated is but a repetition of that radical 
 error which lies at the bottom of all the views in opposition to 
 the true rights and powers of the States and the Federal Govern- 
 ment, and in favor of the transcendant powers of the Government 
 of the United States. ' 
 
 Nor does it follow from the fact that, in certain respects, the 
 Federal Government has power to act upon individuals, that the 
 States are thereby deprived of their sovereign powers. For, 1st, 
 the great mass of their powers are expressly retained ; and, as to 
 all such, there could be no pretense that their powers of sovereignty 
 were impaired by the delegation of the few powers in the Con- 
 stitution. 2d, It is perfectly competent fqr a sovereign, by compact 
 
16 
 
 to grant to another, or to delegate to an agent, power to act 
 directly upon his subject or citizen, in certain specified cases, with- 
 out surrendering his sovereign rights and powers in other, and 
 the most essential, attributes of sovereignty. And this may 
 especially be done, where there is a Confederate Union between 
 two or more sovereigns, such as is referred to by Tattel in the 
 citation above made ; and of this character was the Federal Union 
 under the Constitution of the United States. In such cases, the 
 granted powers do not affect those not granted ; the latter remain- 
 ing as though the compact had never been made ; and the deter- 
 mination of all questions in relation to the fact whether any par- 
 ticular power claimed, is granted or reserved, rests upon principles 
 of public law applicable to the rights of sovereigns, where there is 
 no common arbiter to judge between them; and each must judge 
 for himself. 
 
 , 2. It is said that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties, 
 made in pursuance of it, are expressly ordained by the Constitution 
 to be the supreme law of the land ; and that this deprives the States 
 of all right and power to resume the powers of government dele- 
 gated, under any circumstances, or to redress grievances under the 
 action of the Government of the United States, except in the 
 mode prescribed in the Constitution. 
 
 This position appears to be founded in a great misapprehension 
 of the scope and purpose of the clause of the Constitution relied 
 on to support it. 
 
 The Constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance 
 of it, are, beyond doubt, the supreme law of the land ; that is to 
 say, they are paramount to the Constitution and laws of the several 
 States, in all matters within the scope and limits of the powers 
 delegated in the Constitution. But the object of the provision 
 obviously was, to prevent conflicts between the Constitution and 
 laws of the Federal Government and those of the States, in 
 the ordinary administration of the delegated powers of the Govern- 
 ment. It established a rule of judicial and administrative action 
 iu such cases, without which the Government might have been 
 powerless to execute its clearly delegated powers. But it has no 
 reference whatever to questions of power between the States and 
 Federal Government, arising by reason of the reserved rights of 
 the States ; and was never intended to have any application to 
 those rights ; for the manifest reason, that all such rights and 
 powers were expressly retained, and were entirely beyond the 
 sphere of action of the Federal Government, as it was understood 
 when the Constitution was adopted. Hence the provision can 
 have no reference to the reserved rights and powers of the States. 
 
 That this is the true scope of this clause of the Constitution is 
 plain from the observations of Mr. Madison, in relation to it in the 
 
44th number of the Federalist. And Mr. Hamilton, says in No. 
 29, "that the laws of tne Confederacy, as to the enumerated and 
 legitimate objects of Us jurisdiction, will become the supreme law of 
 the land." 
 
 But the construction attempted to be given to it would make the 
 Constitution the supreme law in reference to matters not within 
 its scope, aud destroy rights and powers expressly reserved to the 
 States by its provisions ; or it begs the question, by, assuming that 
 the particular power in controversy, is granted in the Constitu- 
 tion. It is, therefore, clear that it is not the supreme law in 
 relation to the undelegated rights and powers of the*6tates. 
 
 And here the important question arises— who is to determine 
 controversies as to whether the acts of the Government are ' in 
 pursuance of" the Constitution — that is, whether they are in 
 derogation of the reserved rights of the States ? 
 
 It is insisted that the Supreme Court of the United States is 
 the tribunal appointed by the Constitution to settle such questions ; 
 and to its decisions, that the States are bound to submit in all 
 cases, since the Constitution confers upon that Court jurisdiction 
 in "all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, laws of 
 the United States, and treaties made under the authority thereof" 
 
 This, it is insisted, is the arbiter fixed for determining all ques- 
 tions of political power between the States and the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, except matters which cannot be resolved into the form 
 of a suit ; and in these, that the action of the Legislative depart- 
 ment is conclusive as to its power to pass the acts. 
 
 If this view of the subject be well founded, it is clear that the 
 Constitution Aakes a Government .with very different powers from 
 what was intended to be conferred. And does it not appear to be 
 passing strange, that the States should so positively reserve their 
 rights and powers not delegated, and yet leave to the Federal 
 Government the right of determining whether such and such rights 
 were reserved or not — thereby making the Federal Government at 
 once the judge, not only of its own powers, but of the rights and 
 powers of the sovereign States composing the Union ; in fact, 
 placing all their rights and powers under the power and discretion 
 of the Government, created for special and limited purposes ? 
 Jealous as were the States of their sovereign rights, and of the 
 retention of them beyond the power of the Government formed by 
 the Constitution — which is abundantly shown, both in the history 
 of the proceedings of the Convention which formed it, and of the 
 State Conventions in ratifying it— it is impossible to believe that 
 they could have intended to confer on the Government, through 
 one of its departments, a power which would enable it to enlarge 
 its powers at discretion, to the virtual destruction of their essential 
 rights and powers as sovereign States. And it may be safely 
 3 
 
18 
 
 asserted, upon the history referred to, that if any such power had 
 been claimed for Congress, or if any such construction had been 
 put upon the clause in relation to the Judicial Department, as is 
 contended for, the Constitution would have been promptly rejected 
 or the misconception prevented by amendment. The statesmen of 
 that day knew too well the history of judicial usurpations in Eng- 
 land, and everywhere else, to entrust the cherished rights of the 
 States, to a tribunal so prone to enlarge the just sphere of govern- 
 mental powers. 
 
 It may be remarked, with reference to the position, that Congress 
 is the judge of its own powers, that it would have b een useless to 
 give to the judiciary the power to determine such questions, if that 
 position be sound. And if the power be given to the judiciary, 
 that is sufficient to show that it was not intended to be given to 
 Congress. The argument in favor of the former, refutes that in 
 favor of the latter. It is also clear, that this doctrine would make 
 the discretion of Congress, and not the limitations of the Con- 
 stitution, the boundary of its power, and would virtually transform 
 the government into one of unlimited powers. 
 
 But the authority claimed for the Supreme Court is more relied 
 on, and is entitled to more consideration. 
 
 The reasons for the jurisdiction given to the judiciary by this pro- 
 vision are stated to be — < 
 
 1st. To supply the defect in the Articles of Confederation, and 
 provide a tribunal to give uniformity of construction to the laws 
 passed by .Congress and treaties made in relation to matters clearly 
 within the jurisdiction of the Government ; and to prevent the con- 
 fusion that would arise from divers constructions, in *such cases, by 
 the several State Courts. See Federalist, No. 22, page 102 and 
 No. 80, page 365. 
 
 2d . To restrain the States from the exercise of powers prohibited 
 to them by the Constitution. — Ibid, No. 80, page 365-367. 
 
 These are stated by the advocates of the Constitution — who 
 were participants in its formation and intimately acquainted with 
 the intention with which its provisions were framed — to be the 
 scope and object of the clause. Mr. Hamilton said — "It seems 
 scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judiciary authority of the 
 Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases — 1st, 
 To all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, 
 passed in pursuance of their just and Constitutional powers of legisla- 
 tion. 2d. To all those which concern the extension of the provis- 
 ions expressly contained in the Articles of Union. 3d. To all 
 those in which the United States are a party. 4th. To all those 
 which involve the power of the Confederacy, whether they 
 i-elate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign 
 aations, or to that between the States themselves. 5th. To all 
 
19 
 
 those which originate on the high seas and are of admiralty, or 
 maritime jurisdiction ; and, lastly, to all those in which the State 
 tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiassed." — Ibid,- 
 No. 80. 
 
 The first class, he says, has reference to restrictions placed bv the 
 Constitution on the powers of the States, in matters prohibited to 
 them, and is justified on the ground of providing " a Constitutional 
 method of giving efficiency to Constitutional provisions," and of 
 exercising powers clearly granted to the Government. The second 
 class is justified on the ground of necessity in giving uniformity to 
 the laws of the Government passed in pursuance of their legitimate 
 powers. The third has reference to controversies between the na- 
 tion and its members or citizens — the fourth, to the determination 
 of causes between two States, between one State and the citizens of 
 another, and between the citizens of different States — the fifth, to the 
 special cases mentioned — and the sixth, to causes of a civil nature 
 between different States and their citizens in which the State Courts 
 may be supposed to be biased. 
 
 It is to the first two classes above enumerated, that the clauses 
 of the Constitution, in relation to cases in law and equity arising 
 under the Constitution and t/ie laws of the United States, is applicable, 
 as Mr. Hamilton distinctly states. He asks what is meant by 
 "cases arising under the Constitution ;" and answers, that it refers to 
 restrictions upon the authority of the State Legislatures, and to their 
 exercise of powers 'prohibited to them by the Constitution. Strong advo- 
 cate as he was, in his individual opinions, of a Government of large 
 powers, he gives no countenance to the idea — in stating the princi- 
 ples and objects of the Constitution — that the clause under consid- 
 eration had any reference to questions of political power arising 
 between the States and the Federal Government. Neither the words 
 of the clause — "cases in law or equity arising under the.Constitu- 
 tion " — nor the contemporaneous exposition given to it by its advo- 
 cates — justify the construction attempted to be given to them. 
 And it is perfectly clear from the history of the Constitution, and 
 from the well known jealousy of the States in regard to the danger 
 of an undue extension of the powers of the Government in its course 
 and progress, that it was never contemplated to confer upon the 
 Government created by them, the power to determine and circum- 
 scribe their reserved rights and powers, and through one of its de- 
 partments to enlarge its own powers according to judicial discre- 
 tion. That history affords the most ample evidence that the States 
 could never have intended to make the Federal Government the 
 judge of their reserved rights and powers ; and that the Constitu- 
 tion would never have been ratified if it had contained any such 
 doctrine, in regard to the powers of the Government and the juris- 
 diction of the Supreme Court, as that sanctioned by that Court in 
 
m 
 
 the case of McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland. No such power 
 was claimed for it until long after it had been in operation, nor 
 until its genius and spirit had been seriously perverted by ingeni- 
 ous constructions and false theories which have finally ended in its 
 subversion. 
 
 It is, therefore, evident that the power is not granted to the Fed- 
 eral Government to determine questions of this nature, and thereby 
 to preclude the rights of the States. 
 
 Bnt suppose the Federal Government usurps powers in a form 
 which cannot be brought before the judiciary ; or suppose the 
 judgment of the Supreme Court, in favor of the rights of a State. 
 be disregarded by the Executive and Legislative departments of 
 the Government, which persist in the unconstitutional acts, to the 
 oppression of the people of the States. Is there no remedy? 
 Every man must answer that there is ; or the sacred rights of self- 
 protection and of self-government are vain and illusory, and the 
 Constitution of the United States erects a despotism under the guise 
 of a Federal Republic. What, then, is the nature of the remedy? 
 Is it a matter of right, or does it depend upon the mere ability 
 of the State to maintain it to a successful issue if resisted by 
 force ? 
 
 It must be matter ef right ; because, by the violation of the 
 compact of Union, to her oppression, she had the right to consider 
 the compact as at an end, and was remitted to her original 
 sovereign rights, if she thought fit to resume them ; and this right 
 necessarily arose from the nature of the compact, which was a 
 Federal Union for specific purposes to a limited extent between the 
 States as sovereign parties to it. And this is the right of secession — 
 a right,] and therefore beyond the rightful molestation [or inter- 
 ference of any earthly power. 
 
 If this be not true, her rights are violated and the compact of 
 Union subverted, to her oppression, and yet she has no other remedy 
 than to resist the usurpation by force — the remedy of revolution, 
 which is only rightful, in the estimation of the world, when it be- 
 comes successful ; and, if unsuccessful, is rebellion and treason. 
 Under this view, she has no right to avoid or resist the usurpation 
 and oppression ; but her right depends upon whether she can suc- 
 cessfully maintain herself against the oppressor — and that is no 
 right at all — so that the strange case is presented of a clear wrong 
 and usurpation, by one party, to the oppression of the other, with- 
 out any absolute and adequate right of redress to the latter, except 
 that of brute force, Then she either has no right at all in such a 
 case, or she has the right to treat the compact as ended by the vio- 
 lation of its provisions, and to be restored to her position of an 
 absolutely sovereign State, which she enjoyed before the Union 
 was formed — which is the ri srht of secession. 
 
21 
 
 To illustrate further — suppose an act of the Federal Government, 
 in gross and palpable violation of the positive guaranties, or powers 
 prohibited to the Government in the Constitution — operating to 
 the oppression of a single Slate ; and suppose none of the other 
 States would co-operate with her in resisting it — -it is plain that if 
 the Federal Government thought fit to persist in enforcing it, the 
 State would be without remedy, unless she had the right to absolve 
 herself from the Union. . The remedy of revolution would only 
 lead to her destruction by overwhelming forces. Has she then no 
 higher right than that of mere force to resist the oppression ? Un- 
 questionably, from the nature of the compact between her and her 
 associate States in the Union, she has the right to withdraw from 
 the confederacy, and peaceably to resume her position as a sov- 
 ereign and independent State, because this was a right appertaining 
 to her as a sovereign State, and which she had never surrendered 
 in the Constitution. 
 
 The distinction between secession and revolution is not merely in 
 terms. It is wide and essential. The former is founded in right, 
 and does not depend oh force for its comp!ete> enjoyment. Being 
 rightful, no power on earth has a right to gainsay it, or to interfere 
 with its exercise ; for there canuot be conflicting rights upon one 
 and the same subject. Because the State entered into the Union as 
 a sovereignty, and retained all her sovereign powers which she did 
 not delegate to the Government, upon the violation of the funda- 
 mental conditions of the compact, she was absolved from its obliga- 
 tions, and restored all her to sovereign powers. 
 
 But revolution, as a means of redress, is a mere forcible resistance 
 to wrong and oppression under a constituted government, from 
 which it assumes there is no legal right to be absolved — to be met 
 by opposing force. It is not predicable of the right to resume the 
 former position of a sovereign State. If successful, the State is de- 
 livered from the oppression, but does not thereby necessarily become 
 restored to her status as a sovereign State. If her resistance 
 is unsuccessful, it is treason and rebellion. But secession — being 
 the act of the State in her sovereign capacity as a party to 
 the compact — is founded on her reserved right of sovereignty, 
 and results from the dissolution of the compact ; and whether 
 successful or not, it is, in law but the exercise of a political 
 right. Her people, in defending her position, are guilty of 
 no offence, but are in the performance of the highest duty 
 of patriotism ; and those who assail her by violence, in the 
 exercise of her right, are guilty of wrong before the nations 
 of the earth, unless her legal right be exercised in bad faith and 
 unjustifiably, to the injury of her associates in the Union. 
 
 Another objection to the right of secession is, that the remedy 
 for abuses and violations of the Constitution is prescribed in the 
 provision for amendments. 
 
22 
 
 But that does not impair the right to " alter or abolish " a Gov- 
 ernment, and "to institute a new Government," set forth in the Dec- 
 laration of Independence. It has reference to such amendments as 
 might be found necessary by time and experience, and which might 
 be agreed on, in the regular action of the Government. But it im 
 ports no obligation never to abolish or abandon it, and never to 
 form a now Government. The 13th Article of Confederation, ex- 
 pressly declared that the Union thereby created should be per- 
 petual, and prohibited any alteration of the Articles except in a 
 prescribed mode. That is stronger in its terms than the Article 
 relative to Amendments in the Constitution of the United States, 
 which simply provides a mode of making Amendments; whereas 
 the former emphatically prohibited any alteration except in the mode 
 prescribed. Yet this was disregarded and the Constitution of the 
 United States formed, establishing a totally different Government, 
 abolishing the old one ; and all this, in a mode entirely different 
 from that required in the Articles of Confederation, against the 
 consent of several of the*States. This was justified at the time, on 
 the ground of the high and sacred right of the States to alter or 
 abolish their Government, as we have above shown. 
 
 So the State Constitutions contain provisions prescribing the 
 mode of amending them ; but this has never been held to debar the 
 exercise of the sovereign right of the people of the State, to form 
 a new Constitution in a different mode from that prescribed ; and 
 many of the State Constitutions now existing, were formed in that 
 manner. 
 
 But it may be impracticable to amend the Constitution in the 
 mode prescribed, by reason of the circumstances, and the growth of 
 usurpations ; or it may have become perverted, to the destruction of 
 the rights intended to be secured when it was made, beyond remedy 
 by amendment in the mode prescribed — so that the remedy by 
 amendment would be impracticable or inadequate in such cases. 
 And that is the condition in which the Southern States were placed, 
 when they were compelled to secede. 
 
 It is a matter of history, that all efforts to obtain protection for 
 their clear Constitutional rights, were spurned and rejected by an 
 unscrupulous majority of Congress, with insult and menaces that 
 they would consummate the outrages which were sought to be pre- 
 vented by proposed amendments. 
 
 There was, therefore, no alternative left them, but to give up 
 their most sacred rights, or take their protection into their own 
 hands by withdrawing from a Union which was to be made the 
 instrument of their oppression and ruin. 
 
 Having thus considered the arguments mainly relied on in op- 
 position to the right of secession, let us bring the theory which 
 denies the right, to a practial test, by the cardinal principles of the 
 Constitution. 
 
23 
 
 If a State have not the right to withdraw from the Union under 
 any circumstances, she must be bound to submit to its power and 
 the United States must have the right to coerce her to submission ; 
 and if the United States have not that right, it must be because 
 the State has the right to withdraw ; for wherever there is a 
 light there is a remedy. If the withdrawal be without right, 
 the remedy would be to reduce her to submission by force. If she 
 persisted, it would produce war, and she could only be kept in the 
 Union by conquest, and only held in submission to the authority of 
 the United States by military lorco. She is then reduced to the 
 condition of a subjugated State, and ceases to be a member of the 
 Union composed of equal States. 
 
 Now the Union formed by the Constitution — and tlie only 
 Union that can subsist under it— was one of equal sovereign States. 
 It was established " in order to form a more perfect Union, establish 
 justice and ensure domestic tranquility," between its members. All 
 the provisions of the Constitution show that equality of rights and 
 of political condition is indispensable to its existence. But this 
 fundamental condition is utterly subverted by the necessary effect 
 of military coercion ; for instead of a co-equal member of the Union, 
 the State becomes a subjugated and degraded province; and, in- 
 stead of her people having a government of their own choice nnd 
 resting upon their own consent, they are held under the forcible 
 dominion of the Government of the United States. 
 
 This is the plain result of the denial of the right of secession, 
 and of the assertion "of the right to hold a State in the Union 
 against her will. It dissolves the Union so far as the subjugated 
 State is concerned as effectually as secession, and in a manner that 
 would utterly prostrate every principle of American liberty, and 
 with consequences shocking to every feeling of patriotism and even 
 of humanity. 
 
 It deposes the legitimate governmental authorities of the State, 
 and erects, in their place, a Government of force, deriving its au- 
 thority not from the people of the State, the only proper source of 
 political power, but from the arms of the conqueror. The State 
 Government is subverted, and the people are held in subjection to a 
 military despotism, as Mr. Hamilton said would be the result of 
 such a policy. The State ceases to be one of the free and sovereign 
 States, and as such to form a constituent part of the American 
 Union; and the Union is dissolved by the destruction of her 
 proper political condition as perfectly as it could have been by 
 secession, and in a mode and by means as much more abhorrent 
 to justice and to American principles, as a Government established 
 and sustained by force is worse than one established by the people 
 themselves ; which — though unwise, it may be, in its organization — 
 yet rests on the solid foundation of the consent of those for whose 
 
-i- 
 
 happinesss it is instituted and by whose consent alone it can 
 subsist. 
 
 But if there could be a reasonable doubt on this point, it is re- 
 moved by the history of the Constitution, and the declarations of 
 its advocates when it was submitted for ratification. 
 
 It was a material defect in the Articles of Confederation, that 
 there was no authority to enforce the acts of Congress against the 
 States. It was fully admitted, by the fathers of the Constitution, 
 that it would be an anomaly in a Government composed of sov- 
 ereign States, to attempt to compel obedience to the laws by force 
 employed against the States in their political capacity ; because 
 it would necessarily result in war againSt the power of the State, 
 which would dissolve the Union; Mr. Hamilton said — " the first 
 war of this kind would probably terminate in the dissolution of 
 the Union" — and further — "such a scheme, if practicable at all, 
 would instantly degenerate into a military despotism; but it will be 
 found in every light impracticable." — Federalist, No. 16, page 
 72, T3. 
 
 Mr. Madison says — "As it is a solecism in theory, so in prac- 
 tice, it is subversion of the order and end of civil polity, by sub- 
 stituting violence in the place of law, or the destructive coercion 
 of the sword in place of the mild and salutary coercion of the 
 magistracy" — Ibid, No. 20, page 92. 
 
 It being wholly inadmissible to coerce the' States by force of 
 arms, the plan proposed by the Constitution was to operate upon 
 the individual citizens of the State "through the medium of the 
 courts^ by giving the Federal Government the same advantage for 
 securing obedience to its authority, which is enjoyed by the Gov- 
 ernment of each State." — Ibid, Nos. 15 and 27. And this in the 
 whole extent of the power of coercion proposed to be given to 
 the Government — £he power to compel obedience from individ- 
 uals by process of law. 
 
 So long as the resistance to the acts of the Federal Govern- 
 ment was confined to mere individuals, the authority of the United 
 States might extend to them, to compel them to obedience, in the 
 modes reeognized by law. But when a State withdraws from the 
 Union and resumes her position as an independent sovereign 
 State, she is in the same condition, at least, as that she occupied 
 before the Constitution was ratified. Her citizens are bound to 
 support her government, under penalties for disloyalty to be en- 
 forced by the authority of the State ; which places them in the 
 position of refusing obedience to the authority of the United 
 States, not as individuals, but under the command and sanction of 
 the State, in whom the original and inherent sovereignty resides, 
 the State in her sovereign character, in virtue of her reserved 
 
25 
 • 
 right, has asserted her paramount authority over them, and their 
 action is in obedience to that authority. There arises then, a 
 conflict between the State in her sovereign capacity, and the 
 United States ; and to proceed against an individual acting under 
 such sactions, would be a manifest violation of the spirit of the 
 Constitution. But the controversy is between the State in her 
 political capacity and the Government of the United States. 
 This is clear ; because, if the United States attempt to enforce 
 her authority over the individual, it is met by the protection of the 
 State, and a conflict of forces must be the result. It is not, there- 
 fore, within the reason which conferred the power upon the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton pointedly refers to this contingency in No. 16, 
 Federalist, as follows — 
 
 " If opposition to the national government should arise from 
 the disorderly conduct of refractory or seditious individuals, it 
 could be overcome by the same means which are employed against 
 the same evil under the State Government." * * * "As to 
 those partial commotions and insurections, which sometimes dis- 
 quiet society, from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or 
 from sudden or occassional ill-humors, that do not infect the great 
 body of the community, the General Government could command 
 more extensive resources, for the suppression of disturbances of 
 that kind, than would be in the poAver of a single member. 
 And as to these mortal feuds which, in certain conjunctures, spread 
 a conflagration through the whole nation, or through a very large 
 proportion of it, proceeding, either from weighty causes of discon- 
 tent, given by the Government, or from the contagion of some 
 violent popular paroxysm, they do not fall within any ordinary 
 rules of calculation. When they happen, they commonly amount 
 to revolutions and dismemberments of empire." 
 
 It is abundantly clear that the right of coercion against one of 
 the States, was never asserted by the framers of the Constitution, 
 nor contemplated in its ratification 'by the States ; but was ex- 
 pressly disavowed by both. It is utterly repugnant to the genius 
 and spirit of the Constitution. Indeed the total inadmissibility ' 
 of employing force against States — the very essence of whose 
 Union was peace and concord, unity of feeling and of interest- — 
 was one of the reasons most strongly urged for the adoption of a 
 system to act upon individuals, as we have above seen ; and the 
 same reason applies, in all its force, to the Union under the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Mr. Hamilton, in the Convention of ratification of New York — ■ 
 speaking of the proposition to coerce the' States to comply with 
 the requisitions for revenue, under the Articles of Confederation — 
 4 
 
expressed his objections to it in the following language, which is 
 applicable, with equal force, to the coercion of States under the 
 present Constitution : 
 
 "It has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the maddest 
 projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never 
 be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we sup- 
 pose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or 
 any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to 
 compel them ; would they not have influence to procure assistance, 
 especially from those States who are in the same situation as 
 themselves ? What picture does this idea present to our view ? 
 A complying State at war with a non-complying State : Congress 
 marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another : this 
 State collecting auxiliaries and forming perhaps a majority against 
 its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any 
 reasonable man be well disposed tmvard a government luhich makes 
 war and carnage the only means of supporting itself? Every 
 such Avar must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single 
 consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen 
 against such a government." — 2. Elliott's Debates, 232. 
 
 In the Convention which formed the Constitution, he said — upon 
 the proposition of Mr. Randolph to give the power to the Federal 
 Government to use -force against a State — that " it would produce 
 a dissolution of the Union." — 2. Ma.dison papers, 881. 
 
 And these are the declarations, of the great master spirt of the 
 advocates of latitudinous powers in the Federal Government. 
 
 Mr. Madison said upon the same proposition — "that the more 
 he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practica- 
 bility, the justice and the efficiency of it, when applied to the peo- 
 ple collectively, and not individually. A Union of the States, con- 
 taining such an ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruc- 
 tion. The use of force against a State would look more like a 
 declaration of ivar, than an infliction of punishment, and would 
 probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution 
 of all previous compacts by whieh it might be bound." And, on 
 his motion, the proposition was unanimously postponed' — 2. Mad- 
 ison papers, 761. And it was not afterwards revived. 
 
 It is, therefore, impossible to maintain the right of coercion 
 against a State without turning a deaf ear to the history of the , 
 Constitution, and destroying the very foundation on which the 
 Union rests. And it must follow, that if there is no right to 
 compel a State to remain in the Union, there can be no right to 
 demand her continuance in it against her will ; and, hence, that in 
 point of political power, she has the right to secede from it. 
 
 Upon these considerations, it is confidently submitted to the 
 
27 
 
 dispassionate judgment of mankind, that the right of secession, as 
 exercised by the several Southern States of the late American 
 Union, was a clear and unquestionable sovereign right apper- 
 taining to those States. 
 
 We come now to examine the grounds of justification for the 
 secession of the Southern States. 
 
 In order to a just understanding of this question it is necessary 
 to take a cursory view of the state of political parties, as they 
 affected the condition of this country at the time of the dissolu- 
 tion of the Union. 
 
 It was not long after the Government of the United States went 
 into operation under the Constitution, before a strong party 
 sprang up, claiming for it, powers wholly inconsistent with its true 
 spirit and intent, and especially with the reserved rights of the 
 States. This party numbered many men of eminent talents, who 
 had borne a prominent part in the war of the Revolution, whose in- 
 fluence gave to their doctrines great force among the people, 
 and enabled -them to impress their views upon the character of 
 the Government by various legislative acts of doubtful constitu- 
 tionality. 
 
 From natural causes, and under the operation of these 
 measures from time to time enacted, it became apparent, that the 
 chief interests and pursuits of the States were different, and, for 
 the most part, sectional ; the one section being commercial and 
 manufacturing, and the other agricultural ; the former being com- 
 posed of the Eastern and Northern States, and latter of the 
 Southern and Western States. 
 
 These measures and the doctrines on which some of them were 
 founded, gave rise to the party above referred to, known as the 
 Federal party, which had its opponent in what was called the 
 Democratic or Republican party ; the former claiming large and 
 extensive powers for the Federal Government, and the latter 
 seeking to confine it within the strict limits of the terms of the 
 Constitution. The strength of the Federal party ' lay mainly in ' 
 the Eastern and. Northern section, while that of the other lay 
 mostly in the Southern and Western section. 
 
 In. the progress of the Government, the latter became the dom- 
 inant party ; and finally, and especially after the war of 1812 
 with Great Britain, the Federal party became so unpopular, that 
 its prospects of attaining the ascendant again were almost hope- 
 less. But the debt of that war gave rise to measures of finance 
 and revenue which, in a manner, gave countenance to their politi- 
 cal doctrines, while they contributed greatly to their pecuniary 
 benefit in promoting their commerce and manufactures, to the de- 
 triment of the other section. This revived the hopes of the 
 
28 . 
 
 Federal party. Their politicians "were encouraged in their hopes 
 to attain to the honors and power of the Government, and their 
 people rejoiced in the prospect of profit and emolument, hy the 
 action of the Government, giving advantages to their interests 
 and pursuits which could not he enjoyed by the other section, 
 hy reason of the nature of their pursuits. Having the. strong mo- 
 tives of the lust of power, and the lust of gain to stimulate them, 
 they entered upon deep-laid schemes to recover from their fall, 
 and to secure both" these ends. 
 
 But the advantage which they derived from the unequal action 
 of these measures in their favor, was not sufficient to assure the 
 success of their purposes. The South and the West were strongly 
 opposed to their political principles, and to the policy of the 
 measures which operated so unjustly to their own pecuniary ad- 
 vantage. It would be with ' difficulty that they could obtain suc- 
 cess for their party, even in the States then composing the Uuion ; 
 but this success was utterly hopeless, if new States were added to 
 the Union composed of the territories and public domain then be- 
 longing to the United States. It was from that quarter alone, 
 with the exception of Maine, that new States could be added to the 
 Union ; and it was perfectly evident that such States — having the 
 same interests and entertaining the same political principles as 
 their neighboring States, and all being agricultural and injurious- 
 ly affected by the policy which operated to the benefit of the 
 Eastern and Northern section — would, in all human probability, 
 be opposed to the politicians and policy of the Federal party. 
 
 They, therefore, conceived the design to prevent the admission 
 of any new States into the Union from that quarter. The same 
 motive had caused their opposition to the purchase of Louisiana, 
 and subsequently caused the fierce war which they waged against 
 the annexation of Texas. But it would never do to avow such a 
 purpose openly, since the admission of new States was expressly 
 contemplated in the Constitution; and this Western and Southern 
 territory was the section from which they were to come. It was, 
 therefore, necessary to disguise their design under some plausible 
 pretext; and, with characteristic Jesuitism, they seized upon 
 philanthropjfy for the purpose. 
 
 African slavery was then a part of the domestic policy of the 
 these South-Western and Southern States ; and it would, ' at that 
 time, have been absolutely ruinous to new States to be made of 
 the territory adjacent to them, to be deprived of slave labor in 
 their agricultural pursuits, and to be admitted only on condition 
 that it was excluded within their limits. Hence to require such a 
 condition was in fact to exclude the State from the Union ; and 
 that was the real design. It was believed, by the contrivers of 
 
29 
 
 this plot, that such was the prejudice men existing in the senti- 
 ment of most of the civilized nations of the earth, and even in 
 this country, against negro slavery, that their odious motive would 
 be concealed under the cloak of benevolence and philanthropKy, 
 whilst they secured the power and honors of the Government, 
 and employed them for their emolument. ^ 
 
 The first State which applied for admission after these purposes 
 were conceived, was the State of Missouri ; and this furnished 
 the first opportunity to the party, to put into practice the scheme 
 which they had planned. All their strength was accordingly put 
 forth to prevent the admission of the State, except upon the con- 
 dition of exclusion of slavery within her limits — a condition des- 
 structive to the rights of a large number of her people, ruinous 
 to her settled policy and interests, and of course wholly imprac- 
 ticable to be accepted; and a flagrant violation of the Constitu- 
 tion, as has since been adjudged by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. Yet they urged it with all their power and with 
 unyielding obstinacy; and the memorable struggle ensued which 
 brought the Union to the verge of destruction. They persisted 
 in their demand until the destruction of the Union or the rejection 
 of the condition, was the inevitable alternative; and, even under 
 these awful circumstances, they only agreed to recede from their 
 position in the particular case, by obtaining another condition, de- 
 claring as the settled policy of the Grovernment, in effect, that 
 slavery should never exist in any of the Western States to 
 be created out of the territory in that section — a principle which 
 they believed would exclude from the Union a large number of 
 agricultural States to be made out of the Western territory, 
 whose interests and political principles would be opposed to their 
 own. But for this unconscientious advantage, it is plain that these 
 wicked men would then have dissolved the Union. 
 
 They, therefore, agreed to admit Missouri, under the belief, that 
 the condition, which they had succeeded in obtaining, would ac- 
 complish their object of excluding all other Western agricultural 
 territories, which, in the course of a few years, would apply for 
 admission as States, and which would be, for the most part, in the 
 situation of Missouri in regard to slavery, and so deeply interested 
 'in slave labor that they would. not accept admission with its exclu- 
 sion ; and hence that they would not be admitted. 
 
 This was the effect which they thought would most probably be 
 produced by the arrangement. But if this failed, they expected to 
 obtain the end desired by them, by indirection and by the opera- 
 tion of this policy ; which was, that the Legislative declaration 
 excluding slavery, under the so called Missouri Compromise, from 
 these Western territories, would prevent the immigration there of 
 
30 
 
 * 
 people of the slave-holding State?, with their slaves, and that the 
 public domain would be open to the people of the Eastern and 
 Northern States for settlement — thereby enabling them to monopo- 
 lise the rich lands of that region to their pecuniary emolument, 
 and to people them with a population of their own political opin- 
 ions, who would coalesce with them and enable them to hold the 
 political power, and to control the policy, of the country, in favor 
 of their own doctrines and schemes. 
 
 Having gained these important advantages over the constitu- 
 tional rights of the South, they were willing to await their develop- 
 ment, confident of ultimately reaping the fruits of such well laid 
 plans. 
 
 John Q. Adams, a leading man of their section, was then Secre- 
 tary of State; and, being thus "in the line of safe precedents," 
 was expected to become President of the United States, in a 
 few years ; by which time all their schemes of power and emolument 
 would be ripe, and under whose administration they would receive 
 their full fruition. Meanwhile a political calm pervaded the coun- 
 try, which terminated in the election of Mr. Adams in 1825. 
 True to his section and to his party instincts, he did not disappoint 
 their expectation ; and during his administration, measures were 
 passed, giving benefits and advantages to the interests and pur- 
 suits of that section, to the utmost of their demands, and operating 
 most unjustly and oppressively to the interests and pursuits of the 
 South and West. These measures aroused a deep feeling of oppo- 
 sition in the latter section ; and this, in connection with the fraudu- 
 lent combination by which it was believed Mr. Adams was chosen 
 President, by the House of Representatives, and the strong-govern- 
 ment doctrines which characterized his administration, rendered 
 •him so odious, that he was overwhelmingly defeated in 1828. He 
 and his party were driven from power, and appeared to be prostra- 
 ted, to rise no more. 
 
 During this period of their realization of the power and emolu- 
 ments of the Government, there was no necessity to agitate ques- 
 tions to produce discord and confusion. But this was quickly 
 changed when they were expelled from the power and patronage 
 of the Government. With a perseverance known Only to a thirst 
 for political power, stimulated by the lust of gain, this party aroused 
 itself from its prostration, and armed itself for a new and terrific 
 conflict, a death struggle, to rule or ruin the country • and the 
 weapon chosen for this warfare was the same slavery question, 
 which had been so valuable to them in their previous efforts. It 
 had lain dormant while they were in power reaping the emoluments 
 of a Government perverted to their profit ; but now in their fallen 
 and degraded state — employing it always as a means to power and 
 gain, and never as an end — it became necessary to brandish it again 
 
31 
 
 in all its horrors, in order to rise again. Mr. Adams was sent to 
 Congress, the chosen man of the party ; and, reckless of decency 
 and of the dignity which his recent position would have suggested 
 to a man of juster sensibilities, he quickly began the agitation of 
 the slavery question, with all the violence which disappointed per- 
 sonal ambition and thirst for power, the prostration of his sectional 
 party and the defeat' of their schemes for ill gotten gain, could give 
 to^a man of untiring energy, of great abilities and of the deepest 
 malignity. His effort was to stab, in its vitals, that section which 
 had directed against him the blow that had. felled and degraded 
 him, and was about to deprive his section of its unconscientious 
 gains ; and he scrupled at nothing which he could use as a means 
 of wreaking his revenge. Incessantly did he exert himself, by ap- 
 peals to false sympathy and to hypocritical philanthrophy, and by 
 ingenious sophistries, to arouse the spirit of fanaticism in behalf of 
 the happy and contented slaves of the South. At first his efforts 
 met with no favor. This but incited him to greater exertions. 
 He found coadjutors in Congress. His spirit was communicated. ' 
 to leading men throughout his section, and to many in the West 
 who had emigrated from that section or who had. been corrupted 
 by his Jesuitism. It was then found that the Missouri Compro- 
 mise had worked its office, and would add to the Northern and 
 Eastern faction, the new States to be made of Western territory, by 
 preventing the immigration of Southern men with their slaves 
 there, and that those States would ultimately be added to their 
 party ; and hence it was no longer necessary to oppose the admis- 
 sion of new States from that region. The party increased in num- 
 bers from year to year, until all the Eastern and North-Eastern 
 States, and a large majority of the Western States — which were 
 peopled for the most part by men of Eastern and Northern birth 
 and by foreigners — were enlisted under its banner. They avowed 
 themselves prepared to trample under foot the principles of the 
 Constitution ; their Legislatures passed acts deliberately annulling 
 a positive provision of the Constitution for the rendition of fugi- 
 tive slaves, and setting at nought the act of Congress passed in 
 furtherance of that provision ; and these outrageous acts they per- 
 sisted in carrying out even by force ; and in the Presidential elec- 
 tion of 1S60, the votes of those States, constituting a large 
 majority of the States of the Union, were cast for Abraham 
 Lincoln, who was openTy pledged to use all the powers of 
 the Governmct to put an end to slave property in the States, and 
 to prevent its existence in the Territories — rights clearly recognised 
 in the Constitution ; adjudged by the Supreme Court to be guarantied 
 by the Constitution; considdred vital to the welfare and happiness of 
 fifteen States of the Union — rights, without the recognition of lohich 
 in the Constitution the Union could never have been formed. 
 
32 
 
 Throughout all the stages of these efforts, the Southern States 
 solemnly warned their authors, of their inevitable result, if pressed 
 by them ; and by all that was dear in private right, all that was 
 sacred under the solemn sanctions of the Constitution — by all that 
 was beloved and venerated in the glorious institutions which were 
 established by our ancestors and committed to us as a precious 
 boon to be kept in its virtue and purity, and transmitted to pos- 
 terity — in all the forms af reasoning, oi entreaty and of expostula- 
 tion, these men were implored to desist from thqjr efforts, and not 
 to force the South to the dread necessity of dissolving that Union 
 which was their pride and their glory. These solemn warnings 
 were only met by insult and defiance ; and steadily the enemies of 
 the Constitution and of the liberties of the South, advanced to the 
 consummation of their purposes, until in the language of Mr. Seward, 
 their chief leader, on the eve of Mr. Lincoln's election, they were 
 "in the last stage of the conflict, before the great triumphal 
 inauguration of this policy into tlie Government of the United 
 Statee." 
 
 In order to estimate the danger threatened to these States by 
 the accession of Abraham Lincoln to the power of the Federal 
 Government, and by their remaining under his dominion, it is 
 proper to set forth the principles and designs upon which he and 
 his party were to come into power, and the especial object of their 
 elevation. This is written in characters that it would have been 
 madness to disregard. 
 
 In the authorized publication of Mr. Lincoln's speeches, circula- 
 ted during his presidential canvass, the speeches from which the 
 the following extracts are made, will be found. 
 
 " I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and 
 half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not 
 expect the house to fall. I do expect it will cease to be divided. 
 It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of 
 slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the 
 public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of 
 ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till il shall 
 become alike lawful in all the States." 
 
 Commenting on this, he afterwards said — "I only said what 
 I expected would take place. I did not even say that I desired that 
 slavery shall be put in the course of ultimate extinction. I do 
 now, however ; so there need be no longer any difficulty about 
 that." 
 
 " If I were in Congress and a vote should come up on a question 
 whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of 
 the Bred Scott decison, I would vote that it should." 
 
 " What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern 
 
33 
 
 another man without the other man's consent. / say this is t/ie leading 
 principle, the sheet anchor of American Republicanism." 
 
 After quoting a passage from the Declaration of Independence* 
 he says — " I have quoted so much at this time merely to show, that 
 according to our ancient faith, the powers of government are derived 
 from the consent of the governed. Now, the relation of master 
 and slave is, pro tanto, a violation of this principle. The master 
 not only governs the slave, without his consent, but he governs 
 him by a set of rules altogether different from those which he pre- 
 cribes himself. Allow all the governed an equal voice in- the govern- 
 ment J and that , and that only, is self-government." 
 
 Mr. Seward declared the principles and purposes of the party, 
 as follows — speaking of the antagonism between free labor and 
 slave labor, he said — 
 
 " It is an irrepressible conflict, between the opposing and 
 enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, 
 sooner or later, become entirely a slave-holding nation, or entirely 
 a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South 
 Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be 
 tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become 
 marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye-fields and 
 wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be sur- 
 rendered by their farmers to slave culture, and to the production 
 of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more a market 
 for trade in the bodies and souls of men." 
 
 Again, he says — "What a commentary upon the history of man 
 is the fact, that eighteen years after the death of John Quincy 
 Adams, the people have for their standard-bearer, Abrahuu Lincoln, 
 confessing the obligations of THE HIGHER law, which the sage of 
 Quincy proclaimed, and contending for weal or woe, for life or death, 
 in the irrepressible conflict between freedom and slavery. I desire only 
 to say that we aee in the last stage of the conflict, before 
 
 THE GREAT TRIUMPHAL INAUGURATION OF THIS POLICY INTO THE GOV- 
 ERNMENT of the United States." 
 
 Speaking of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 
 Dred Scott, he says — 
 
 " The people of the United States never can, and they never 
 will, accept principles so unconstitutional and so abhorrent. 
 Never — never. Let the Court recede. Whether it recedes or not, 
 we shall reorganize the Court, and thus reform its political senti- 
 ments and practices." 
 
 "It is written in the Constitution of the United States, in violation 
 of the divine law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave. You 
 blush not at these things because they are familiar as household 
 words." 
 
H 
 
 Mr. Chase, a leading man of the party, andjaow Secretary of the 
 Treasury, proclaimed the same views — he said : 
 
 "We feel, therefore, that all legal distinction between individuals sft&e 
 same community, founded on any such circumstances as color, o?-igin and 
 the like, a e hostile to the genius of our institutions, and incompatible 
 with the true theory of American liberty. Slavery and oppression 
 must cease or American liberty must perish." 
 
 "I embrace, with pleasure, this opportunity of declaring my 
 disapprobation of that clause of the Constitution which denies to 
 a portion of the colored people the right of suffrage." 
 
 "For myself, I am ready to renew my pledge, and I will 
 venture to speak in behalf of my co-workers, that we will go straight on, 
 without faltering or wavering, until every vestige of oppression shall 
 be erased from the statute-books — untU the sun, in all its journey from 
 the utmost Eastern horizon though the mid-heaven, till he sinks behind 
 the Western bed, shall not behold the foot print of a single 
 
 SLAVE IN ALL OUR BROAD AND GLORIOUS LAND." 
 
 The seventh resolution of the Chicago Convention, which nomi- 
 nated Mr. Lincoln, sets forth the doctrines of the party in these 
 words — 
 
 " 7 . That the new dogma, that the Constitution of its own 
 force, carries slavery into the territories of the United States, is 
 a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions 
 of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and 
 with legislative and judicial precedent ; is revolutionary in its ten- 
 dency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country." 
 
 And this is said with reference to a solemn decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, which is treated as a mere 
 dogma, and denounced as a political heresy entitled to no force with 
 the authorities about to take upon themselves the administration of 
 the Government of the United States! And what makes it still 
 more flagrant is, that it comes from the leaders of a party which 
 had always so strenuously asserted the binding force of the deci- 
 sions of the Supreme Court upon questions relating to the powers of 
 the Government! 
 
 The advocates and party press throughout the country, which 
 supported Mr. Lincoln, proclaimed the same principles and pur- 
 poses, as the ground on which he was supported ; and after his 
 election, they, with one accord, rejoiced that the voice of the people 
 had crowned their efforts with success, and invested them with the 
 high duty of prostrating the guaranties of the Constitution. 
 
 While these principles and designs were proclaimed in the presi- 
 dential contest, the Southern States again solemnly warned the 
 advocates of them, that they could never submit to a Government 
 administered with such purposes, and that a dissolution of the 
 Union would be the neeessary result of the aeeession of Mr. Lin- 
 
35 
 
 coin, unless adequate guaranties were given for the protection of 
 their rights. Many of them thought the prospect of obtaining 
 such guaranties, hopeless ; and that the election of Mr. Lincoln, 
 upon the declaration of principles and purposes on which he was 
 elected, was the proclamation of a revolution in the Government ; 
 and that it was their duty to act promotly for their own protection, 
 and withdraw in their sovereign capacities, from the Union. 
 Others were reluctant to take that step until every effort to obtain 
 security had been exhausted, or until the administration of Mr. 
 Lincoln should show, bv some overt act, that the avowed designs 
 of his party were to be carried into execution. 
 
 Acting on the latter view, the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden were 
 introduced into the Senate in December, 1860. These resolutions 
 demanded nothing but the clear and unquestionable rights of the 
 Southern States under the Constitution, and conceded much of 
 principle and settled right on their part, which nothing but a deep 
 reverence for the Union and a fervent desire to prevent its dissolu- 
 tion — if that could be done consistently with their indispensable 
 rights — could have reconciled them to yield. Among these con- 
 cessions, was the constitutional right — which had been adjudged by 
 the Supreme Court and was therefore settled — of taking their 
 slaves to the Territories of the United States, north of 36 deg. 30 
 min. ; which was proposed to be surrendered without the surrender 
 of any settled right or constitutional privilege on the part of the 
 Northern States, and without any equivalent to the South. These 
 resolutions — which, all just minds must admit, evince, in a high 
 degree, the spirit of concession and self-sacrifice which animated 
 the Southern States, in order to save the Union — were referred to 
 a committee of thirteen, composed of members representing the 
 three parties in the country, Republicans, Conservatives and 
 Secessionists. The two last — among whom was the President of 
 the Confederate States — expressed their willingness to accept the 
 settlement proposed, if the first would accede to it ; for without 
 the support of them and of their party, it would be useless, since it 
 was obvious that the adjustment would be nugatory, without the 
 sanction of the party which they represented. But on the 22d 
 December, 1860, they declared that " these questions had been settled 
 by the people at the late Presidential election, and thai they had no con- 
 cessions to make or offer." 
 
 This declaration, made under the most solemn circumstances, 
 showed conclusively that the designs of the party of Mr. Lincoln, 
 as declared in the Presidential canvass, were to be carried out, and 
 that the rights of the Southern States, under the positive provi- 
 sions of tho Constitution, were to be trampled under foot, and that 
 that was considered as settled at the feallot box. 
 
This was soon followed by the vote on the resolutions in the 
 Senate — when every Senator of Mr. Lincoln's party voted against 
 them — and by the action of the Peace Conference, assembled at the 
 instance of the State of Virginia, with a view, if possible, to render 
 the constitutional rights of the South safe, and to restore harmony 
 to the country. 
 
 All these efforts, on the part of the Southern States, signally 
 failed to obtain from the party of Mr. Lincoln any assurances or 
 guaranties whatever that the power of the Government would not 
 be employed to consummate the schemes of violation of the rights 
 of the Southern States, proclaimed by his party during the Presi- 
 dential canvass. 
 
 Indeed, the tone and conduct of the entire party clearly mani- 
 ested that they considered that the fat had gone forth from the 
 fallot box at the recent election, and that the edict only 
 remained to be executed. They announced throughout the land 
 " t/ie great triumphal inauguration of this policy " of trampling 
 under foot the clearjand unquestioned rights of the people of the 
 slaveholding States, solemnly guarantied in the Constitution — 
 recognised by the whole action of the Legislative and Executive 
 departments of the Government from its organization ; and sanc- 
 tioned by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court— rights of 
 person and of property, indispensable to their welfare and happi- 
 ness. 
 
 It is perfectly plain that the attempt to carry out this policy 
 would have been a revolution of the Government, by the prostra- 
 tion of the Constitution ; and since all efforts on the part of the 
 Southern States to prevent this course, were spurned and positive- 
 ly ( rejected, it was too clear to admit of doubt, that the policy was 
 to be pressed to its most oppressive and degrading consumma- 
 tion. 
 
 It was, therefore, just and proper that the Southern States should 
 act upon the belief that Mr. Lincoln and his party would carry out 
 the threats and pledges which brought them into power, and which, 
 when called upon, they had solemnly refused to disavow ; and it 
 was wise that they should withdraw from the Union, before he 
 came into office, if they thought fit to do so. 
 
 How well iounded these anticipations were, was not long left in 
 doubt, after his installation. 
 
 Determined to employ all the power of the Government to 
 coerce the seceded States into submission to his authority, but yet 
 dreading to take the initiative in that crusade, the policy was con- 
 ceived of throwing the responsibility of striking the first blow 
 in the war, upon the South. This was to be done, by 
 keeping possession of certain forts held by the United States, 
 within the limits of the seceded States, so as to compel those States 
 
37 
 
 either to acquiesce in their occupation and thereby acknowledge 
 the authority of the United State?, or to take them by arras, and 
 incur the responsibility of commencing , hostilities. Well knowing 
 that the latter alternative would arise in case they continued to 
 claim and hold these forts, they resorted to this trick as a color 
 for saying, that the war had been forced upon them by the arms of 
 the seceded States, and to escape the odium of waging war upon 
 the States — -a transparent subterfuge, the fit sequel to the perfidy 
 which constrained the South to resort to force ; since the armed 
 occupation of the territory of a seceded State was itself an act of 
 war. It was after the old precedent of the wolf complaining of 
 the lamb, who was drinking at the. brook below him, for disturbing 
 the. water which the wolf was drinking in the stream above. But 
 it answered the purpose of Mr. Lincoln's Government, and served 
 as a pretext for clamor to enable him to inflame the public feeling 
 and to summon his troops to the field to commence the work of in- 
 vasion and subjugation against what he believed to be a weak and 
 powerless people. 
 
 In violation of solemn and repeated pledges that Fort Sumter 
 should be evacuated, he refused to comply with the pledge, and com- 
 pelled the Confederate Government to take it by force. Under the 
 pretext of this provocation, he issued his proclamation calling for 
 seventy-five thousand men, to invade the seceded States — a palpa- 
 ble usurpation of power, without color of authority under the Con- 
 stitution or laws of the United States, which aroused Virginia, 
 North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas from their lethargy, 
 and compelled them, for the protection of their rights and honor, 
 to follow the course of the seven preceding States, and to 
 secede. 
 
 This first act of the Government of Mr. Lincoln has been rapid- 
 ly followed up by the most startling usurpations of power. It is 
 not the purpose of these remarks to enuuierate these outrages, or 
 to dwell upon their enormity. Only the most solemn and delibe- 
 rately perpetrated of them will be referred to, as showing that the 
 fulfilment has far exceeded the wildest apprehensions of the friends 
 of American institutions, and that the renowned American Union 
 has been transformed into a despotism, the most abject and de- 
 graded. 
 
 1. The right of personal liberty, guarantied by the Constitution, 
 and placed by it beyond the touch of any or all of the departments of the 
 Government, is struck down — a private citizen of the State of 
 Maryland, without process and without notice of the the charge against 
 him, is seized by military authority, for an alleged civil offense, and 
 hurried to confinement in a fortress of the United States, in viola- 
 tion of the 5th and 6th amended Articles of the Constitution. 
 This case of Merryman has been followed by numberless others of 
 
the same character, where citizens of States not seceded, have been 
 immured in fortresses of the United States for more than a year, 
 deprived of the comforts of life, and to the great peril ©f their 
 health and even their lives, from disease and confinement — 
 without warrant — -without legal notice of the charges against them 
 — and all this time denied their constitutional right to be proceeded 
 against by indictment or presentment, to be confronted with the 
 witnesses against them, and to have a speedy trial — rights given to 
 them by amended Articles five and six of the Constitution. 
 
 2. Upon the writ of Habeas Corpus granted by the Chief 
 Justice of the United States, in the case of Merryman, the party 
 imprisoned was refused to be brought before that Judge, under 
 orders from Mr. Lincoln's Government, claiming and exercising the 
 right to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus ; thereby usurping the 
 power given to Congress alone by the Constitution. And this 
 usurpation was persisted in and practiced after the decision of the 
 Chief Justice, that the power assumed by the Government was 
 illegal and a violation of the Constitution. It may safely be said 
 that no King of England could have dared to commit these acts, 
 under any circumstances, without the loss of his head. 
 
 3. He struck down the right of freedom of speech and of per- 
 sonal liberty at one blow, in seizing and committing to his Bastiles 
 numerous private citizens of the State of Maryland, and of other 
 States, still members of the Union ; whose only offense was the ex- 
 ercise of the right of an American citizen — never questioned since 
 the date of the unconstitutional sedition law of 1798 — to declare 
 their opposition to the unconstitutional acts of Mr. Lincoln, and 
 in peaceably discussing them. He has suppressed many news- 
 paper presses in various parts of the States, still continuing in the 
 Union, and committed their editors to prison in distant forts 
 — and all this in flagrant violation of the prohibitions of the first 
 .Amendment to the Constitution, denying such powers even to 
 Congress. 
 
 4. By armed soldiery, he prevented the assemblage of the Legis- 
 lature of Maryland according to her Constitution and laws — seized 
 a large number of its members and committed them to close and 
 uncomfortable imprisonment in distant forts, and dispersed the 
 residue by force — thereby suppressing the regular Legislative 
 authority of the State, then fully in the Union j because he feared 
 that the Legislature would declare their opposition to his usurpa- 
 tions and take steps to protect the rights of the people of the 
 State against his oppressions • an outrage upon free government, 
 without a parallel in the history of governments claiming to be 
 free. 
 
 5. By his armed soldiers, he seized at the hour of midnight and 
 dragged from their beds and families, without process and without 
 
notice of any offense, the Mayor, Marshal and Commissioners of 
 Police of the city of Baltimore, quiet, unoffending citizens of high 
 character, upon no other ground than that they would not yield 
 obedience to his edicts in derogation of their rightful authority 
 under the Constitution and laws of the State, and because they 
 were suspected of being opposed to his unconstitutional acts — 
 thus deposing the regular municipal authority of the city. And 
 these officers have been imprisoned in a distant fortress, for about 
 eighteen months ; without legal notice of the nature and cause of accusa- 
 tion against them; without indictment or presentment; denied of 
 their right to have a speedy trial by a jury of the State where the 
 offense is pretended to have been committed — sacred rights, posi- 
 tively guarantied by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitu- 
 tion. These outrages find their parallel only in the vilest acts of 
 the Jacobins of 1793. 
 
 , 6. " The State Governments are constituent and essential parts 
 of the Federal Government," says Mr. Madison in Federalist, 
 No. 45. 
 
 But the armed forces of Mr. Lincoln, under his authority, have 
 driven the duly constituted State officers from the seats of Gov- 
 ernment of several of the Southern States, thereby deposing the 
 regular State Governments elected by the people, which, in legal 
 effect, is an abdication of the authority of the United States, since it 
 necessarily excludes such States from the Union. And not content 
 with this act of suicide to the Union, as to those States, he 
 has appointed Governors for them x and surrounded them with armed 
 forces to suppress the laws of the State, and to execute over the people 
 laws of his own dictation, at the will of his military commanders, 
 in utter violation of the rights of person and of property of the 
 citizens under the Constitution and laws of the State, recognised 
 and guarantied by the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 He has committed the same outrage upon all justice and right, in 
 deposing the municipal authorities of cities overrun by his forces, 
 setting aside the laws governing them, and superseding them by 
 officers elected under military duress by his own subjects, in viola- 
 tion of the Constitution and of their charters. 
 
 7. He has violated the liberty of conscience and desecrated the 
 sanctuaries of God, by disturbing worshipping assemblies' in 
 churches, seizing clergymen in the performance of their sacred func- 
 tions, imprisoning them in jails, penitentiaries and distant forts, 
 because they would not offer prayers to the Almighty for the 
 success and prosperity of the Government engaged in the work of 
 invading and plundering the Southern States, and murdering their 
 people— thus violating the first and fifth Amendments to the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 8. He has seized and - attempted to confiscate the property of 
 
40 • 
 
 private citizens in the Southern States, not bearing arms, nor 
 indicted or convicted of any crime against the United States, in 
 violation of the Constitution. Claiming that these States are still 
 members of the Union, he has yet waged a war of rapine and de- 
 struction against the property of their people indiscriminately, 
 whether belonging to those chargeable with acts of resistance to 
 his Government, or not. He has seduced slaves from their masters 
 and placed arms in their hands, enabling them to commit murder 
 and plunder, and has enlisted many of them as soldiers in his 
 armies. With fire and sword, he has laid waste whole sections of 
 country, regardless of age, sex or condition, in violation alike of 
 the feelings of humanity, and of the laws of civilized war ; and 
 now claims whenever • he has the power, to strip our people of 
 all their substance, and to deprive them of all their rights under 
 the Constitution — thus rendering it impossible to restore to the 
 Union those States, except their people are disfranchised, degraded 
 and stripped of all property ; the necessary effect of which would 
 be either to desolate these States, or to fill them with an imported 
 people, their proper citizens being degraded, stripped of every right 
 of person and of property, and under the ban of imported masters 
 or perhaps of their own slaves. His Government stands forth the 
 enemy alike of the Union, and of the human race. 
 
 9. His Government has admitted into the Senate of the United 
 States persons appointed as Senators by a usurped Government of 
 a part of the State of Virginia, formed in palpable violation of the 
 Constitution and laws of that State, against the right of the regu- 
 larly elected and constituted Governmental departments of that 
 State, then in office and confessedly the legitimate authorities of the 
 State, under her Constitution and laws — thereby not only sanction- 
 ing a flagrant rebellion and usurpation, but virtually "forming a 
 new State within the jurisdiction of another State, without the consent 
 of the Legislature " of that State — in violation of the prohibition 
 of the third section of the fourth Article of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 10. He has usurped the power to declare martial law, by his pro- 
 clamation of September. 1862. In violation of ti;e positive prohi- 
 bitions of the fifth Amended Article of the Constitution — " that no 
 person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous 
 crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ex- 
 cept in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia, 
 when in actual service in time of war or public danger " — he has 
 ordained, that all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, 
 resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording 
 aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United 
 States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and pun- 
 ishment by Court martial or military commission. 
 
41 
 
 Now the: Constitution expressly prohibits any person not be- 
 longing to " the land or naval forces or the militia," &c, to be 
 held to answer for any crime unless on a presentment or indictment 
 of f grdnd jury. AIL the .combined departments . of the Federal 
 Government, had no power to subject such persons to trial in any 
 other mode. And yet this sacred and venerated right is struck 
 down by the edict of Abraham* Lincoln; and the private citizen is 
 subjected to the extraordinary proceeding of a court martial or 
 "military commission," to be appointed by the powers which send 
 forth this edict — deprived of the right of trial by jury* — in the 
 State where the alleged offense was committed — of being confronted 
 by the witnesses against him — -of process to compel the attendance 
 of witnesses in his behalf — (rights also positively seeured to him 
 by the 6th Amendment of the Constitution)— -deprived of the pro- 
 cess of appeal or writ of error to the Court provided by the Con- 
 stitution to determine his rights and to settle whether the edict 
 under which he is impaled, is valid and constitutional. The 
 annals of usurpation and tyranny in modern times may be 
 sear clhed in. vain for 1^he parallel of this reckless and wicked out- 
 rage, upon a sacred and firmly guarantied right of the citizen, and 
 upon/ the prohibitions of the Constitution which he. had sworn to 
 support. Nothing could exceed it but the tortures of the Inqui- 
 sition* • • 
 
 ll; ■' ' The last act that will be here referred to, is the Proclama- 
 tion declaring! that after the first of January, 1863, all slaves, 
 within any State whose people shall be in rebellion against the 
 United. States, shall be forever free; and that the Executive Gov- 
 ernment of the <> United States, naval and military, will maintain 
 their freedom, and will tfo no act to repress them in any efforts 
 they may make for, tlyeir freedom,. 
 
 This edict, if effectual for the object intended, would at once an- 
 nihilate a large part of the property of the people composing the 
 Southern States, the right to which is expressly recognised by the 
 Constitution. It would annihilate with it the main business, pur- 
 suits, property, wealth and social institutions dependant on that 
 species, of property in those States anjl reduce their people to ruin 
 and, tjheir. country to desolation. It would raise a servile war of 
 ex^erminatjoij either of the white,, or. of the slave, population, 
 producing scenes, , which no mind, but that of a fiend in human 
 form, can .contemplate without the deepest horror. Yet this vile, 
 and flagitious . manifesto regards thes,e} scenes with encouragement, 
 and promises to "maintain the freedom of such slaves," by the 
 whole power of the Government, and to " do no act to repress 
 them in any efforts they may make for freedom." After inciting 
 
42 
 
 them to these horror?, their authors are to do no act to repress 
 them in their efforts for freedom, however revolting to humanity ! 
 Well may this atrocious act call forth, as it has done, the execra- 
 tions of the civilized world against the monster who has pro- 
 claimed it. 
 
 But its gross usurpation and hase purpose are not more striking 
 than its shameless violation of the declarations that Mr. Lincoln 
 has made from the date of his inauguration to the time of his 
 proclamation, in relation to interfering with slavery in the States. 
 
 In his inaugural address, he says — " I have no purpose directly 
 " or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the 
 " States. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no incli- 
 " nation to do so." 
 
 In the interview held by him with certain border State members 
 of Congress, on the 10th March, 1862, relative to his proposition 
 to emancipate the slaves on their receiving compensation from the 
 Federal Government, he says — 
 
 " That emancipation was a subject exclusively under the control 
 u of the States, and must be adopted or rejected by each for 
 " itself — that he did not claim, nor had this Government any right 
 " to coerce them for that purpose." — Mr. Menzies, of Kentucky, en- 
 " quired if the President thought there was any power, except in 
 " the States themselves, to carry out this scheme of emancipa- 
 tion. The President replied he thought there could not be." 
 
 In an interview with an embassy of clergymen from Chicago, 
 shortly before^the date of this proclamation, he declared that the 
 emancipation of slaves in the States, was impracticable, wild and 
 inexpedient, and expressed his determination not to attempt it. 
 
 In his veto to the Confiscation and Emancipation bill in July 
 1862, he says* "It is startling to say that Congress can free a 
 slave within a State." If the Legislative department of the Gov- 
 ernment could not do the act, how much more startling is it, that 
 the Executive should usurp so tremendous a power? Yet, not- 
 withstanding all this, this act is but the fulfilment of the pledges 
 and principles which caused his election. 
 
 Thus it appears that the Constitution of the United States has 
 been completely set at naught, and the most despotic powers 
 usurped by those holding the Government, not only without au- 
 thority granted, but in violation of positive prohibitions ; and in 
 most of these acts, the usurpation stands confessed by its authors. If 
 there was virtue enough in Congress to impeach him for usurpa- 
 tion, he could be convicted by his own recorded admissions, of 
 wilful violations bf his oath to support the Constitution, in re- 
 peated instances. 
 
4S 
 
 And now what is the justification or palliation for these high 
 crimes ? It is the old plea of tyrants — necessity — that the powers, 
 conferred upon the Government by the Constitution were insuf- 
 ficient to suppress the alleged rebellion ; consisting in the with- 
 drawal of eleven Sovereign States, in the most solemn form 
 known to political action, and with great and acknowledged una- 
 nimity, from a Union which was to be perverted to the destruc- 
 tion of all their rights under the Constitution, and in forming a 
 new and independent government of their own choice among them- 
 selves ; not, in any wise, interfering with the rights of the remain- 
 ing States — and, therefore, that it was necessary for the Govern- 
 ment of the remaining United States, to violate the Constitution 
 and assume the powers of a dictatorship, in order to preserve the 
 Constitution and to restore the dismembered Union ! 
 
 If such a necessity could exist, it would seem to furnish the 
 most unanswerable reason why the Government could not make 
 war upon the seceded States, without converting itself into a des- 
 potism. For it would be the height of absurdity and wickedness, 
 to attempt to restore the Union, by war against the seceded 
 States, when this plea of necessity confesses that, in order to 
 make the effort successful, it was necessary to destroy their State 
 and municipal governments ; to rob the people of all their proper- 
 ty ; to deprive them of all their rights under their State govern* 
 ments*; in fact, to annihiliate their political existence, as the peo- 
 ple of the States, and to render it impossible to restore the Union, 
 with the rights and privileges of the States preserved ; and to do 
 all this by the prostration of the most solemn guaranties of the 
 Constitution. . 
 
 But it is preposterous to say that the Union, which rests solely 
 on the Constitution, can be preserved by violating the fundamen- 
 tal principles of that Great Charter of the Union. The idea is 
 stupidly and insultingly absurd, that any necessity can justify the 
 violation of the law of its existence in order to maintain its exis- 
 tence. As well might we talk of undermining a foundation, for 
 the purpose of preserving its superstructure ; or of a man's stab- 
 bing himself to the heart, to preserve his constitution. The dis- 
 guise is too transparent to deceive any but those who wickedly 
 shut their eyes to the truth. 
 
 It is the will and not any proper necessity, that has produced 
 these acts. It is the death struggle for the consummation of the 
 long-foreshadowed and long-deferred hopes of power and plunder 
 to be visited upon the South, rendered desperate by the fear that 
 these sordid schemes were, at last, about to be disappointed and 
 blasted forever, when fruition seemed to' -be. within their very 
 
44 
 
 grasp ; it is the necessity for the perpetration of the unholy ends 
 of avarice and abolitionism against the South, which were 
 thwarted by her withdrawal beyond the power of her 'Oppressors : 
 these are the causes which have brought to light this profound 
 love for the Union, and this amazing devotion to 'the Constitution! 
 
 And now the astounding development stands forth from the 
 grand oriflamme of Abolitionism at Washington— that the South- 
 ern States were not to be allowed to enjoy their solemnly guarantied 
 rights in the Union, nor suffered to enjoy them by withdrawing 
 from the Union — , i 
 
 That it was settled that property in slaves was to be abolished, 
 if the Southern States had remained in the Union ; but since 
 they have been compelled to withdraw from the Union to protect 
 their rights, slavery is now to be abolished, because they seceded.' 
 and thus the necessity which the wrong of the oppressors forced 
 upon them, is made the justification for the outrage intended 
 against them from the first, and now boldly proclaimed-— 
 
 That the people of these States must either submit, in the'Union, 
 to be robbed of all their most sacred rights secured by the Consti- 
 tution, or be visited, if they withdraw from the Union* with fire and 
 sword, with plunder and murder, their own slaves armedfand in- 
 cited to the most horrid deeds of destruction and brutality against 
 all ages, sexes and conditions of the white race, because these 
 people were driven, for the necessary protection of their dearest 
 rights, to withdraw from the grasp of the usurper and tyrant— 
 
 That the people of these States are to be deprived of every 
 right, and despoiled of all their substance, reduced to penury and 
 degradation, with imported masters from the hordes of their 
 enemies to seize their property, with Vandal rapacity, under des- 
 potic edicts, and to control the public acts and destinies of these 
 States ; thereby at once annihilating all the rights of persons an4 
 of property in these States, destroying the State Governments,, and 
 reducing them to dependencies of the despotism, which grinds 
 them under its iron heel — and all this in the name of the^Union, 
 and for the sake of the Constitution ! 
 
 These designs, at first disguised, now stand out , in'^all itheir 
 horrors, openly avowed under the pretext of necessity ; and now 
 the contest waged by Abraham Lincoln against the Confederate 
 States, exhibits an open and undisguised struggle between Consti- 
 tutional government, civil and religious liberty, good faith and 
 justice, on the one side 5 and tyranny, fanaticism, robbery and Red 
 Republicanism, on the other. In such a Contest, surely the South 
 had ho course but resistance to the oppressions, by all the means 
 which G-od and nature have placed in her hands. 
 
 Nero set fire to the ancient edifices' of Rome, as unsuited to his 
 
4.5 
 
 times and taste, destroying those monuments of her antiquity and 
 grandeur, together with the memorials of her victories, in a com- 
 mon conflagration ; and Abraham Lincoln has laid his impious 
 hand upon the Constitution, the bulwark of our liberties and the 
 chief monument of our national glory, as unsuited to his political 
 ideas and unfit for the purposes of his myrmidons. It must over- 
 whelm the heart of every true American patriot, with unutterable 
 shame and sorrow, that such should be the end of the once glorious 
 Union erected by the patriots and sages of the Revolution — re- 
 duced to ruin by profligate men, incapable of good, yet potent for 
 evil, in tearing down the pillars which supported the noble struc- 
 ture ; and that all that now remains of it is, a miserable wreck — 
 the terror of its adherents, and the scorn of its enemies ; the 
 scourge of this country, and the contempt of the civilized world. 
 October, 1862. 
 
 ' 
 
 •^ 
 


 ■ ■