E 
 
 440 
 
 Ta 
 
I860 Association. \ 
 Tract, No. 2. / 
 
 STATE SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 AND THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF COERCION, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 HON. WM. D. POKTEK; 
 
 TOGETHER WITH A 
 
 LETTER 
 
 FROM 
 
 HON. J. K. PAULDING, 
 
 FORMER, SEC. OF NAVY. 
 
 THE RIGHT TO SECEDE, 
 
 BY 
 
 "STATES. 
 
 and send to your Neighbor. 
 
. 
 
STATE SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 AND THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF COERCION. 
 
 To THE MEN OF THE SOUTH: 
 
 The recent speech of Mr. Douglas at Norfolk, in which he 
 threatened the Southern States with military coercion in the 
 event of secession, ought to startle and arouse the people of those 
 States, like the blast of a hostile trumpet at midnight! The 
 time, the place, and the circumstances under which this threat 
 was uttered, give the last tinish to its audacity and sanguinary 
 significance ! 
 
 The election of Lincoln is now well nigh certain. Nothing 
 short of a miracle can prevent it. Lincoln is the chief and expo 
 nent of a party that is purely sectional a party that has no foot 
 hold or resting place south of a geographical line, precisely 
 separating the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. In 
 fifteen States of the Union it has no countenance or recognition. 
 The avowed object of this sectional party in seeking power, is to 
 inaugurate and establish a policy in the government hostile to the 
 peace and safety of the slave States, derogatory to their honor, 
 and ultimately subversive of their whole social polity; in a word, 
 to proscribe them and put them under the ban of the govern 
 ment, with a view to their demoralization and ultimate ruin. 
 This is their great, if not their sole, bond of union. Of course, 
 some are animated by fanaticism, some by the hope of spoils, 
 some by the lust of power, some by one motive, and some by 
 another; but the principle of union, the cement, the thing that 
 bands the party together and keeps it together, is hatred of sla 
 very and slaveholders a bitter, malignant, calculating hatred; 
 and a settled determination to use all the powers and agencies of 
 government to dishonor, cripple and destroy them. The powers 
 and agencies of government ! Consider it for a moment in this 
 point of view. If there be any virtue in government, it consists 
 in justice, equality and the duty of protection. Its proper func- 
 
tions, in reference to i ts own citizens or subjects, are those of 
 peace and security. It is intended as a shield, not as a sword; as 
 a dispenser of blessings, not as a scatlerer of curses. What do 
 you, what can you, think of that government which, forgetting its 
 own nature, abandoning its proper duty, and perverting to the 
 purposes of annoyance and destruction what was intended for the 
 most kindly and beneficent action, shall deliberately and avow 
 edly employ its resources and its powers to promote discord, to 
 stir up sedition, to rend the country asunder, and array one part 
 of it in mortal hatred against another to proclaim and inaugur 
 ate between the institutions of one section and those of the other 
 an irrepressible conflict, which must inevitably lead to issues of 
 life and death, and can terminate only in subjugation on one 
 hand or disruption on the other! And what are those powers and 
 resources? The purse and the sword the revenue, the mail, the 
 army and the navy! Money which is called the sinews of war 
 and the army and navy, which have been aptly styled the talons 
 of national power! These resources, drawn from the bosom of 
 tiie country, to be turned against it for the purpose of rending, 
 subduing and crushing it ! Have you pondered well what it is to 
 have the whole power of a great government like ours, civil as 
 well as military, in the cabinet as well as the field, legislative, 
 executive and perhaps judicial, systematically directed to your 
 injury and oppression? The appeal is to you, men of the South! 
 I know you have thought of it, but I fear you have not measured 
 it in all its length and breadth and depth. You have thought of 
 it speculatively ; but you ha\e not yet been called to feel, by 
 experience, the iron hand of a hostile government laid upon you in 
 deadly earnest. When you shall have felt it, your day of safety 
 will have been well nigh spent. Ireland could tell you a tale ! 
 and Poland and Italy! and from Italy you may yet learn another 
 and a nobler lesson ! 
 
 Are not the designs of the Republican Party aggressive, hos 
 tile, and deadly? I say of the Party, for as long as these designs 
 were confined to individuals, although insulting and mischievous, 
 they could not aspire to any great dignity or consequence. But 
 since they have been adopted and proclaimed by a great sectional 
 party embracing a majority of the States of the Union, and that 
 party is about to be called, by the popular voice, to assume the 
 responsibilities and wield the entire power of the national gov 
 ernment, it is abundant time, (if indeed it be not too late,) for the 
 weaker and the menaced section, to anticipate the coming blow, 
 to repudiate the degrading domination, and taking counsel of its 
 courage and its hopes, rather than of its fears, to resume into its 
 own hands, the means of safety, and the control of its destinies 
 for the future. And because the people of some of the Southern 
 Stales, in view of an exigency of so great peril, have dared to- 
 discuss their grievances and their remedy, and have announced 
 their determination not to be made the subjects and slaves of a 
 
consolidated despotism, Mr. Dougfas has thought proper to put 
 foward his veto and his threat! Not a Black Republican ! from 
 such it would have been in perfect keeping, and although it 
 might have excited indignation, would not have occasioned sur 
 prise. But Mr. Douglas, a Democrat, the professed friend of the 
 South and Southern rights, standing on the soil of Virginia 
 consecrated by the birth and triumph of the true State Rights 
 doctrines, has proclaimed in the face of a portion of her people, 
 his hope that " the President, whoever he may be, would treat 
 all attempts to break up the Union, by resistance to its laws, as 
 Old Hickory treated the nullifiers in 1832," and his determina 
 tion to sustain " with all his energy," the President in so doing. 
 If the genius of the proud Old Dominion looked down upon the 
 scene in which this insulting bravado was greeted by some of her 
 own sons with "applause" and l " cheers," how must she ha^e 
 bowed her head in sorrow and shame at the degeneracy of her 
 children ! tf Mr. Douglas was bold, defiant, and menacing, how 
 supple and submissive were his hearers! He threatened a sover 
 eign State with coercion ; they, the citizens of a sovereign State 
 that was the nursing mother of the right of secession, and has 
 maintained it without question for over sixty years, received the 
 threat of chastisement, not only without a murmur, but with man 
 ifestations of delight. Shades of Henry, of Mason, and of Jeffer 
 son ! where has your spirit fled how have your teachings been 
 despised ? Thjs is, indeed, to kiss the hand and the rod that are 
 uplifted to smite ! 
 
 But is it legally and constitutionally true, that a State cannot 
 withdraw from the Union, (however urgent the causes,) without 
 incurring the penalty of being coerced into submission? If her 
 honor and safety demand a separation from the federal govern 
 ment, has she so parted with the control over her own internal life 
 and destiny, as to be powerless in her own behalf, nerveless for 
 her own defence? Has she stripped herself so bare, and bound 
 herself so fast, that no attribute of sovereignty remains to her for 
 the protection of the property, liberties and lives of her citizens 
 within her own limits, against the avowed hostility of a federal 
 Union, which has assumed its worst and most dangerous form 
 that of a sectional domination, animated by fanaticism and the 
 lust of spoils and power? These are grave questions,. and upon 
 their solution the very existence of the Southern States may be 
 said to depend. 
 
 At Norfolk, Mr. Douglas had no hesitation in saying that he 
 would advise and vindicate resistance to "the Southern States," if 
 they undertook to secede from the Union upon the inauguration 
 of Abraham Lincoln. At Jones Wood, near New York, he 
 attempted to explain or qualify, by drawing a distinction between 
 a State, and the citizens of a State. The distinction between cit 
 izens acting .vithout the authority of their State, and citizens acting 
 not only with the authority but under the mandate of their Staiu 
 
is just and well founded ; but this is not the one recognized by Mr. 
 Douglas. He says that a State cannot commit treason against 
 the Federal Government, but that her citizens may. What a 
 pitiful evasion ! This is his concession to State Rights ! Who 
 ever supposed that the State, as an abstraction, could commit 
 treason; could be tried, condemned, and executed! The whole 
 S question is whether or not the State can release her citizens from 
 their obligations to the federal authority, and protect them under 
 the sufficient shield of her own sovereign authority ! This is the 
 right which Mr. Douglas absolutely denies, except in the way of 
 revolution ; but which Herschel V. Johnson, his colleague on the 
 presidential ticket, has said, is " the last an d only hope of the 
 South." If there be such a right, then the States are sovereign 
 and independent; if there be not, then they are amalgamated and 
 fused down, hopelessly and helplessly, into one government and 
 one people. In the one case the government is a union of States 
 founded upon good will, confidence and affection ; in the other it 
 is a consolidated despotism, to be held together by the sword and 
 the bayonet. In the one case, the States have in their own hands 
 the right and the power of peaceable redress for intolerable 
 wrongs; in the other, they must wade to it through blood and 
 slaughter. It behooves the South, as the weaker section, (when 
 the government is about to become purely sectional,) to see that 
 she does not surrender or compromise a right which will be her 
 only hope of salvation, unless she rises in her might and rends 
 the Union into fragments. The people that cannot or will not 
 protect themselves that are not sufficient to their own protection, 
 are already no better than slaves. They have their masters; 
 and their property, their liberties and their lives are no longer in 
 their own keeping. Their doom is sealed, and it is a doom of 
 infamy ! And what is worst of all, they will have invited and 
 deserved it ! 
 
 Our doctrine is that the States, before the adoption of the Con 
 stitution, were sovereign and independent; that the Federal Union 
 is a union of States, and that the Constitution is a covenant or 
 compact between them and the fundamental law of their Union; 
 and that inasmuch as the covenant or compact was between sover 
 eigns, and there is no umpire or common interpreter between 
 them, each has the right to judge for itself of infractions of the 
 contract, and to determine for itself the mode and measure of 
 redress. 
 
 If these premises be true, it results from the sovereign charac 
 ter of the States and from the nature of the compact of union, that 
 any State, which conceives herself aggrieved beyond endurance, 
 may, at her sovereign will and pleasure, shake off the bonds of a 
 broken covenant and seek her safety in a separate nationality ; 
 and that the true and only check on the capricious or unwise exer 
 cise of this great sovereign right, is to be found in the condition 
 of isolation and comparative weakness to which she will expose 
 
herself in so doing. Of the prudence and expediency of this last 
 resort, her people must judge for themselves and their posterity, 
 under the gravest and most solemn responsibilities that can be 
 devolved upon them. But they will so judge, feeling and knowing 
 that there can be no greater calamity^than a voluntary submission 
 to tyranny. 
 
 No fact in our political history is more certain than that the 
 thirteen colonies began the contest with Great Britain as distinct 
 communities, and came out of it severally sovereign and indepen 
 dent States. Even the articles of confederation, which was a 
 mere league, offensive and defensive, was not ratified by any ot 
 the States until three years after the beginning of the war, and two 
 years after the Declaration of Independence ; and it was three 
 years more before it was ratified by all of them. Any colony 
 might have declined to enter upon the revolution. Upon the 
 Declaration of Independence, each became de jure an independent 
 and sovereign State, and upon the acknowledgment thereof each 
 became sovereign and independent de facto as well as de jure. 
 Whether small or great, they were severally States or nations, 
 and had their separate local governments in full and efficient 
 operation. And each or any of them might have continued in a 
 condition of separate nationality to this day, according to its own 
 will and pleasure, subject only to the hazards and vicissitudes to 
 which all nations are subject. 
 
 A second fact is, that each State adopted the Constitution ot 
 1787 for herself, and would not and could not have been bound 
 by it, except through the action of a Convention of her own people. 
 The seventh Article says, " the ratification of the Conventions of 
 nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Consti 
 tution between the States so ratifying the same. 1 In point of fact, 
 two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify, until 
 some time after the other eleven ; and it was in their option, as it 
 was in the option of each and every State, .to have refrained from 
 so doing altogether. 
 
 A third fact to be noted is, that the Union created by the Con 
 stitution, was between States or nations, co-equal in all the essen 
 tial attributes of Sovereignty. Thirteen distinctive States, (each 
 a nation, however small or weak,) loosely held together by a league 
 offensive and defensive, agreed to form between themselves u a 
 more perfect Union ;" and to that end ordained a Constitution for 
 the "United States, of America." This phraseology is in utter 
 contradistinction to what would be employed for the purpose of 
 describing the fusion or consolidation of one collective people. A 
 Union of independent and sovereign bodies implies ex vi termini, 
 a league, an alliance, a partnership : and the Constitution adopted 
 by them for that purpose, is the compact or fundamental law ofj 
 the league or partnership. 
 
 After all, whatever shape this controversy may assume, it comes ] 
 back at last to the old question between centralism and State 
 
8 
 
 Rights ; between a consolidated nation, and a confederated Repub 
 lic of Republics. The political facts above stated furnish the 
 key to the whole controversy; and it is only by losing sight of 
 them, that any real question can be raised. All States are sover 
 eign, and when they deal with each other, they deal only as 
 sovereigns. There is no such thing as Sovereignty in any political 
 machinery. Government is simply an agency or instrumentality, 
 and it is the people of States that make and unmake governments. 
 When States or peoples make a government, they delegate the 
 necessary powers and authorities: but delegated power is never 
 sovereign, for sovereign power is inherent, original, and self- 
 existent. The people that govern themselves in their affairs, 
 domestic and foreign, either separately or in common with others, 
 through chosen agents, and by delegated authorities, have not 
 parted with their sovereignty, and are still in fact and in truth a 
 nation. The powers of the State governments, as well as the 
 powers of the Federal government, are derived from the peoples 
 of the States respectively. These peoples are the creators and 
 the governments are the tilings created: the former are the prin 
 cipals, the latter are the agents or functionaries. Is it not passing 
 strange that ideas should be so confounded, and the order of 
 things so perverted as that the inferior should be placed above 
 the superior ; the changeable and fluctuating above the permanent 
 and fixed ; the thing made above the power which made and can 
 unmake ? 
 
 It is a common error to suppose that the delegation of what is 
 recognized as a part of sovereign power, makes the recipient a 
 sovereign, and derogates in the same degree from the sovereignty 
 of the bestower. Towns and cities exercise sovereign powers, as, 
 for example, that of taxation ; but is the town or city the sover 
 eign, or the State rather that gives them their charters and can. 
 revoke them at will ? And, on the other hand, is any State or 
 nation the less sovereign because, for a time, and for its own pur 
 poses, it has conferred these high faculties upon local govern 
 ment agencies? So long as these faculties or powers are exer 
 cised by delegation, in its behalf and for its convenience and 
 benefit, the State or nation is self-governing, because it acts 
 through its chosen agents; and is unimpaired in its essential 
 attributes of sovereignty, because so soon as shorn of these, it 
 ceases to be a State. Nor does the principle vary at all whether 
 the delegation has been made to a municipal government, a State 
 government or a federal government; whether it has been made 
 in a separate or in a confederated form of polity, or in both com 
 bined. The United Slates Government derived its being and its 
 powers from precisely the same source that the local governments 
 xlid, to wit : from the peoples of the States respectively. There is 
 no mysticism about its origin. It can claim no higher birth no 
 more dignified ancestry. Nor Has it any divine right wherewith 
 to hedge itself about, except so far as the voice of many peoples is 
 
the voice of God. It is of limited powers and for specified pur 
 poses; its range is circumscribed; there are many things which 
 it cannot do, and what it can do, it does in the name and by the 
 authority of the States that called it into existence. Whatever of 
 power it has, is derived from others, and is he^d in trust for 
 others; and it is, therefore, in no proper sense of the word, 
 sovereign. 
 
 We may safely assume, then, that the States were sovereign, 
 and independent before they adopted the Constitution and entered 
 into the Union. Have they ceased to be so, by their participa 
 tion in the formation of the federal government ? 
 
 The people of the United States live under two systems of 
 government : a system of local government for internal purposes, 
 and of general government for external purposes. And in form 
 ing the one as well as the other, they establish Constitutions; 
 and out of these constitutions sprung the governments, which are 
 nothing more than public trusts or agencies. What then is a Con 
 stitution? According to the American understanding, it is a 
 written instrument duly authenticated, specifying the powers and 
 functions delegated for the purposes of government, and defining 
 the extent and limitations of the same. By whom was the 
 Constitution of the United States prepared ? By the States 
 through their delegates in convention, at Philadelphia. To whom 
 was it submitted ? To the States, separately and respectively, to be 
 approved or rejected by them in their respective conventions, each 
 acting for itself. Upon or between whom was it to be obligatory? 
 We answer, in the very words of the 7th Article of the instru 
 ment itself, already quoted : " JBetween the States so ratifying the 
 same." By whom was it actually ratified? By the peoples of the 
 several States assembled in their respective conventions. It is 
 clear, then, that the parties to this instrument call it covenant, 
 compact, treaty, constitution, or what we will were States, sov 
 ereign and co-equal; and that it must be subject to the same tests 
 and governed by the same rules which apply to all other com 
 pacts or engagements between sovereigns. 
 
 From the imperfection of language and the ingenuity of the 
 human mind, such an instrument as the Federal Constitution 
 must be liable, in the nature of things, and in good faith, to a 
 diversity of interpretations, as to the extent and limitations of 
 the powers granted or reserved. Who, then, is to be the final ~\ 
 judge the common arbiter? The Constitution itself does not 
 name any, so far as relates to political questions the partition 
 lines of power between the Slates and the General Government. 
 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends only to " cases in 
 law and equity," and to parties who are amenable to the process 
 of the court; it embraces judicial, not political questions for 
 there are modes of oppression and usurped power which, under 
 our forms of^Jaw, could never be drawn within the cognizance of \ 
 that department. But the conclusive answer is, that although 
 
10 
 
 the proposition was frequently and distinctly submitted in the 
 Convention, to make the Supreme Court "the tribunal to decide 
 in doubtful cases," it did not prevail in any form, and never 
 became a part of the Constitution. Attention was expressly 
 directed to the matter, and some leading members manifested 
 great anxiety because no tribunal had been provided to determine 
 finally in controverted cases between the two Governments. 
 
 The question then recurs who, in the absence of any express 
 constitutional provision, is to judge, in the last resort, between 
 the contracting parties? The only true and sufficient answer is 
 to be found in the rule applicable to Sovereigns. Each must 
 Judge for himself. Sovereigns have no superiors : each is equal 
 to the other. Honor and good faith are their only bonds. An 
 engagement between them broken in part, is broken in whole ; 
 and the party injured is released from ail obligations. No Sov 
 ereign who believes and declares that a covenant has been vio 
 lated can rightfully be required to observe it longer. Even Mr. 
 Webster, who will hardly be suspected of too strong a leaning 
 towards State Rights, used the following language in his Capon 
 Spring s speech, in 1851 : 
 
 u I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern 
 States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part 
 of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, 
 the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. Jl 
 bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all sides." 
 
 Let it not be supposed for a moment that the States are less 
 than sovereign in consequence of the adoption of the Constitution 
 and the formation of the government. A voluntary delegation of 
 power in trust does not derogate from sovereignty; nor does any 
 compact, treaty or alliance. States frequently enter into engage 
 ments with each other of the most solemn character and under 
 the gravest sanctions, whereby they impose upon themselves 
 restrictions and prohibitions; but no person at all conversant 
 with such matters, ever supposed that they became thereby a 
 whit the less independent or sovereign nations. A striking illus 
 tration is to be found in the articles of confederation. Each 
 State expressly reserved therein "its sovereignty, freedom and 
 independence," and at the same time, all pledged themselves that 
 the articles should be inviolably observed by every State, and 
 that the Union should be perpetual. It is clear that they did not 
 consider the preservation of their sovereignty and independence 
 at all inconsistent with the obligations of even a perpetual union; 
 and we do not suppose a doubt was ever anywhere entertained 
 but that it was competent for any one of them, upon cause deemed 
 sufficient by itself, to withdraw from the Confederation and 
 determine the Union. Nor is there anything in the present Con 
 stitution to prevent the exercise of the same high and sovereign 
 right on the part of any aggrieved Slate, whenever her grievan 
 ces shall become, in her deliberate judgment, no longer tolerable. 
 
11 
 
 There is a theory that we are one nation one consolidated 
 people ; and hence the ideas of the indissolubility of the Union, 
 and of the right to coerce a refractory member. If this be so, is 
 it not singular that we have no distinctive name of identity as a 
 nation. We call ourselves in common parlance Americans ; and 
 yet we are no more Americans than any and all of the other peo 
 ples of the continent, North and South. The Canadians are Ameri 
 cans as well as ourselves, but still they have their distinctive 
 national title; and so of the Mexicans, the Columbians, the 
 Peruvians, and every other State or Nation on the continent. We 
 were certainly not so poor, but that we could afford ourselves a 
 "baptismal name. It would have cost nothing, and would certain 
 ly have nationalized us, if there had been any such design. It is 
 believed that Dr. Franklin did suggest the name of Fredonia, but 
 it is certain that the suggestion was not accepted. The constitu 
 tion calls us the "United States of America," or by inversion 
 the " States United of Jlmtrica" the very title by which we were 
 called under the old confederation, when nobody has ever pre 
 tended that we were one nation, and certainly the most descrip 
 tive and appropriate title that could be applied to a confederacy 
 of sovereign States in contradistinction to a consolidated nation, 
 of which individuals are the constituent members, and States 
 only the districts or provinces. Kossuth, whose political insight 
 is the flash of genius, and whose mastery over language is almost 
 a miracle, displayed a more intimate and profound knowledge of 
 our system than half of our native-born politicians and statesmen., 
 when he characterized us, not as a nation, but as a " Confederate 
 Republic of Republics." 
 
 Look through the Constitution, and you will not find from begin 
 ning to end, from the preamble to the clause of execution, one sin 
 gle national phrase, idea, or epithet. The States are the dramatis 
 personae, the actors in the scene, the figures that stand out in dis 
 tinguished, nay, in almost exclusive prominence. The govern 
 ment, the Congress, the Treasury, the President and the Vice- 
 President, are all of the u United States." The citizens of each 
 State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
 in the several States. The United States guaranty to each State 
 a republican form of government. Fugitives from crime or from 
 service in any one State are to be delivered up. And the whole 
 was "done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States 
 present." Instances might be multiplied ; but these will suffice, 
 in the absence of any one of an opposite character, to show that 
 the whole scheme was federal, and not national ; and that the 
 States were recognized as being "not the fractions of a unit, but 
 the integers of a multiple." 
 
 But the Union is indissoluble ! This is the catchword of poli 
 ticians, and the standing theme of declamation for Hail Columbia 
 and Star Spangled Banner travelling orators ! And it is received 
 with immense enthusiasm by those who find the Union a good 
 
12 
 
 thing, and are naturally reluctant to Jose its benefits. People 
 who wish to believe, never require much reason for their belief. 
 If this idea of the indissolubility of the Union means anything, 
 it means that a dissolution of the Union cannot be brought about 
 in any other way than through the action of the people collect 
 ively, with or without arms in their hands; that there is no prac 
 ticable way in which the States, as sovereign members of the 
 Union, can quietly and peacefully accomplish that result. If ours 
 were a consolidated, popular government, such would undoubtedly 
 be the case. Let us bring it, then, to the test, and see whether 
 there is any mode or process whereby the States or some of them, 
 in their corporate capacity, and irrespective of the people collec- 
 ively, can arrest the action of the government, and so dissolve 
 the Union. By the Constitution, the Senate of the United States 
 is composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legis 
 lature thereof; and each Senator has one vote. This provision 
 was intended to illustrate the equality of the States as indepen 
 dent communities ; for in the Senate, Rhode Island is as potent 
 as New York. Now suppose that a majority of the States, the 
 least populous, if you please, and representing but a small 
 minority of the aggregate popular vote, should refuse through 
 their legislatures or their conventions to choose Senators to Con 
 gress ; and that the executives of such States should in obedience 
 to the will of their people respectively, decline to make temporary 
 appointments. What would be the result? There would be no 
 Senate and consequently, no Congress, because "the Congress 
 of the United States shall consist of a Senate and House of Rep 
 resentatives," and "a majority of each House shall be a quorum 
 to do business. " These are not mere rules of procedure, but 
 constitutional provisions. In the case supposed, the legislative 
 powers of the Union would cease to have an abiding place ; and 
 the government be reduced to a state of utter prostration. Here 
 is no levying of war or shedding of blood; and no regard what 
 soever to the people of the United States in their aggregated or 
 consolidated character. All is done by States, and done quietly 
 and effectively. Does not this amount to moral demonstration 
 that the States in their separate capacities, and without any 
 regard to popular numbers, can refuse to participate in the gov 
 ernment, by withholding their representation, and so, by a single 
 stroke of peaceful, sovereign action, reduce it, at once, to a caput 
 mortuum! What sort of coercion would be applicable to such a 
 case of treason to the Union ? Would the Sergeant at Arms 
 summon the States to the bar of the Senate? And by what 
 process could he compel the attendance of members who had 
 not been appointed ? Who would coerce, and whence would 
 come the sinews of war, without a Congress? It is too plain for 
 argument, that the government would be at a stand, and in the 
 event of the persistence of the States, at an end. What a delusion 
 is this idea that the Union is indissoluble, or that it cannot be dis- 
 
13 
 
 solved, except by a revolution of the people in mass, or what is 
 the same thing, by force of arms ! 
 
 Mr. Webster, in his controversy with Gen. Hayne, and Presi 
 dent Jackson in his famous proclamation against South Carolina, 
 laid great stress upon the allegations that the Constitution created 
 a government proper, and that it established direct relations 
 between this government and the individual citizens of the States. 
 There is a class of statesmen in this cpuntry who, although they 
 do not acknowledge it, believe implicitly in the divine right of the 
 government, just as prerogative men in the old world believe in 
 the right divine of Kings. And whenever an opportunity occurs, 
 as in 1832, 1851, or 1860, the cloven foot shows itself. They 
 clamor for State rights; but they are the advocates of force and 
 the champions of the inviolability of the Union. There can be no 
 doubt that government is an institution of divine origin ; but this 
 is very far Irom implying that any particular government or form 
 of government is either sacred or necessary.. Government consists 
 of functions, and functionaries of law making, law expound 
 ing and law executing departments; but far above these, the 
 author and parent of all these, is the Constitution-making power 
 the power of the people or peoples that ordained both the Consti 
 tution and the government. How hard it is to make such persons 
 realize the idea that government is only a trust an agency; 
 not an end, but a means to an end. Its pomp and ceremonial, its 
 imposing exhibitions of power dazzle and betray them. They 
 look upon it as self-existing and self-sustaining. They cannot or 
 will not take it home to their understandings, and keep it there, as 
 an elementary eternal truth, that however it may be elsewhere, 
 here, at least, in these United States, government is servant, not 
 sovereign ; that its symbols and insignia are a borrowed plumage; 
 and that its faculties and functions, its armies and navies, and 
 treasuries and tribunals, all belong, not to its administrators or 
 functionaries, or any ideal entity or entities, but to those who 
 fashioned and delegated them, in order to establish justice, insure 
 domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and secure^ 
 to themselves and their posterity the blessings of liberty forever. 
 Whatever may have been the source or origin of other govern 
 ments, we know that the peoples of these States, each for them 
 selves, made the government of the United States ; and it is impos 
 sible to escape the logical inference and conclusion that the same 
 sovereign parties who delegated the powers and established the 
 relations, may, each for themselves, and not for others, recall and 
 annul them whenever they become destructive of the ends for 
 which they were instituted. 
 
 It may be said that if one party has a right to judge of infrac 
 tions, all the other parties have the same right. This is con 
 ceded, but the concession does not carry with it the right of the 
 government to compel obedience to its authority by force of arms. 
 Who are the other parties ? The government of the United States 
 
14 
 
 did not make itself, nor did it have any hand in making itself; it 
 had nothing to do with the formation or ratification of the Consti 
 tution ; it is only a result of the Constitution. As the States, by 
 their peoples, severally and not collectively, adopted the Consti 
 tution ; so must they each individually and upon their own respon 
 sibility, judge of infractions. One State for some alleged breach 
 may declare the compact at an end, so far as relates to herself, 
 and choose secession as her mode and measure of redress ; another 
 State or States, denying the alleged breach, may declare war to 
 enforce the observance of the compact. But the State that secedes 
 becomes ipso facto a separate power, and, therefore the war that is 
 declared against her by her former co-States becomes like any 
 other war between sovereigns. It is an international war ; nothing 
 more, nothing less. States and nations have the right of making 
 war with each other, and are responsible only to the tribunal of 
 public opinion. But this is a different thing from the right of a 
 King or an Emperor to reduce to subjection an insurgent prov 
 ince, or an integral part of his dominions in insurrection. The 
 government of the United States has no such kingly or imperial 
 prerogative. Even in the case of the American revolution, 
 which was that of revolting colonies against the authority of the 
 mother country, those taken in arms, were treated not as traitors 
 or rebels, but as prisoners of war. 
 
 From what part of the Constitution is derived the right and 
 authority to coerce a State that may, through a convention of her 
 people, withdraw herself from the Union as her only means of 
 safety, and her refuge from intolerable oppression ? It is said 
 that it is the duty of the President to " take care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed/ These words, it is true, are in the Consti 
 tution ; and upon these words the great power in question is 
 founded. But this is to beg the question to assume the whole 
 matter in controversy. I have already spoken of the distinction 
 between the action of a sovereign State and the action of unau 
 thorized combinations of individuals. So long as a State recogni 
 zes the authority of the Union, her citizens have no choice but to 
 obey the laws of the United States ; but, if according to our view, 
 she may rightfully secede, then, upon the exercise of that right, 
 her relations with the Union are terminated, her delegated author 
 ities are resumed, and the laws of the United States are, within 
 her territorial limits, of no more virtue or binding efficacy, than 
 the laws of any other foreign nation whatsoever. 
 
 But have we no historical proofs or evidences on this point of 
 the power to dragoon a State? It could hardly be supposed that 
 a matter of such magnitude would altogether escape the attention 
 of the convention of 1787 ; and in point of fact it did not escape 
 attention. The journals sjiow that the 6th resolution of Edmund 
 Randolph s propositions, provided that the federal executive 
 should have power "to call fortfi the force of the Union against 
 any member of the Union, failing to fulfil his duties under the arti- 
 
15 
 
 cles thereof." And Mr. Patterson, also, in the 7th Resolution of 
 his propositions, after making acts and treaties the supreme law, 
 provided as follows : "And if any State, or body of men in any 
 State, shall oppose or prevent the carrying mto execution such 
 acts or treaties, the federal executives shall be authorized to call 
 forth the powers of the Confederated States, or so much thereof.as 
 may be necessary, to compel obedience to such acts, or an observ 
 ance of such treaties." In both of these instances, the convention 
 was distinctly invited to authorize the employment of the force 
 or powers of the Union against any State or member of the Union, 
 that should fail to fulfil its duty, or oppose or prevent the execu 
 tion of acts or treaties; but no such provision was inserted in 
 the Constitution. And whatever force bills or bloody bills, Con 
 gress, in the folly or madness of the time and in the fancied 
 plenitude of its powers, has thought proper to enact into laws, it 
 has not yet proceeded to such a pitch of infatuation, as to dis 
 figure the federal statute book with any act or acts designed 
 to coerce the submission, or compel the return of any sovereign 
 State, that might solemnly determine, in full view of all the con 
 sequences and responsibilities, to sever forever her connection 
 with the Union, and to place the lives, property and liberty of 
 her citizens under the protection of her own separate sovereignty. 
 
 When the foregoing resolutions in relation to the employment 
 of force against a delinquent State were under consideration in 
 the Convention, the debates show that all such ideas were repu 
 diated and abandoned, as utterly inconsistent with the form of 
 government proposed to be established. No one single member 
 advocated force: all of them who spoke on the subject, even 
 Alexander Hamilton, the strong government man, par excellence, 
 rejected and denounced it. I propose to fortify these as sertions 
 by citations from Madison s reports of the debates in the Federal 
 Convention : 
 
 Mr. Madison observed, "that the more he reflected on the use of 
 force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the 
 efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not indivi 
 dually. An union of the States containing such an ingredient 
 seemed to provide for his own destruction. The use of force 
 against a State would look more like a declaration of war than 
 an infliction of punishment, and would be considered by the 
 party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which 
 it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be 
 framed as might render this resource unnecessary, and moved 
 that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. 
 con." I vol., 761. 
 
 Mr. Madison again said, "that any government for the United 
 States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force 
 against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would 
 prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress." 
 
 " Could the national resources, if exerted to the utmost, enforce 
 
16 
 
 a national decree against Massachusetts, abetted, perhaps, by 
 several of her neighbors? It would not be possible." 1 vol. ,822. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton, who had hitherto "remained silent," gave 
 his views at large on the 18th June. In discussing the subject 
 of force, he is reported as follows: 
 
 "Force, by which may be understood a coercion of laws, or a 
 coercion of ar?ns. Congress have not the former, except in few 
 cases. In particular States, this coercion is nearly sufficient; 
 though he held it in most cases not entirely so. A certain portion- 
 of military force was absolutely necessary in large communities. 
 Massachusetts was now feeling this necessity and making pro 
 vision for it. (The Shay s rebellion.) But how can this force be 
 exerted on the States collectively? It is impossible. It amounts 
 to a war between the parties. Foreign powers also will not be 
 idle spectators. They will interpose, the donfusion will increase, 
 and a dissolution of the Union will ensue! 1 1 vol., 881. 
 
 Col. Mason was opposed to any plan that could not be enforced 
 without military coercion. ^ He is reported as saying: 
 
 "The most jarring elements of nature, fire and water them 
 selves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil 
 liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one 
 State jnto another in order to collect the taxes from the delinquent 
 members of the Republic ? Will they maintain an army for this 
 purpose? Will not the citizens of the invaded State assist one 
 another till they rise as one man and shake off the Union alto 
 gether? Rebellion is the only case in which the military force 
 of the State can be properly exerted against its citizens. He was 
 struck with horror at the prospect of resorting to this expedient." 
 1 vol., 914. 
 
 Luther Martin said: u He was not against assisting States 
 against rebellious subjects thought the Federal p I an of Mr. Pat 
 terson did not require coercion more than the national one, as the 
 latter must depend for the deficiency of its revenues on requisi 
 tions and quotas." 1 vol., 916. 
 
 Can proof go further? Here is the evidence that the employ 
 ment of force against the States .was distinctly proposed; that 
 every member who participated in the discussion, repudiated it; 
 and that the proposition was postponed and finally abandoned. 
 The reasons against it, assigned in debate, were unanswered and 
 unanswerable; and well might the people of the States, with a 
 knowledge of the proceedings of the Convention, rest in security 
 that no coercion of arms, no declaration of war, as Mr. Madison 
 properly calls it, would or could be made against them in their 
 sovereign or collective capacity by the political machine which 
 they called into action ! 
 
 Upon examination of the ratifications of the Federal Constitu 
 tion by the respective State Conventions, it appears that several 
 of them asserted, in unequivocal language, the right of the people 
 to resume the powers granted, whenever the same should be per- 
 
17 
 
 verted 10 their injury or oppression. Nor does any exception 
 appear to have been taken to such declarations. It was with this 
 impression and upon this condition that the States ratified the 
 Constitution; and when some States affirmed the right expressly, 
 it was done only from abundant caution, and as declaratory of the 
 common understanding. No one State could "have, or reserve, a 
 right that was not common to all; any other construction would 
 be inconsistent with the idea that the States entered the Union 
 upon terms of equality. "The people," in whose behalf, the right 
 was claimed, were, of course, the people of the States respect 
 ively; for there is not the slightest foundation in fact or Jiistory 
 for the pretence that the people of the United States in the aggre 
 gate granted any powers a.t all, or that the powers of the Federal 
 Government were derived from any other source whatever than 
 the, peoples of the several States, who accepted and ratified the 
 same. In this point of view, the argument seems to lie in a very 
 small compass. Once admit the principle, which no one in the 
 country denies, that the people have the right to resume granted 
 powers when perverted or abused; and then admit the fact, which 
 is historical and cannot be denied, that the people of the States, 
 respectively, each for themselves, granted the powers now exer 
 cised by the Federal Government and the inference is logical 
 and irresistible, that the people of any State, acting for them 
 selves, may recall the authorities they delegated, whenever, in 
 their solemn judgment, their honor or their safety demands it. 
 This is not a question of arresting the operations of a Government 
 while you remain a member of it; but it is a question of resum 
 ing powers granted for beneficial purposes, but wrested to pur- - 
 poses of oppression, and of peaceably dissolving connection with 
 a Confederated Government, when that Government has ceased 
 to answer the ends of confederation. In other words, it is not a 
 question of nullification; it is a question of secession or resump 
 tion. The science of government has made but little advance in 
 America if a sovereign State cannot retire from a Confederacy of 
 States, in which she feels herself dishonored and oppressed, with 
 out the iron arm of power being employed to crush her to sub 
 mission. If this be so, it will show that here, as in Europe, 
 liberty can be had only at the price of blood. But this much is 
 certain : that here, at least, liberty will be had at whatever price ! 
 
 The delegates of New York, in their ratification, declare and 
 make known :" 
 
 " Tha\ all power is originally vested in, and consequently de 
 rived from the people, and that government is instituted by them 
 for their common interest, security and protection. 
 
 (l That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people 
 whenever it shall became necessary to their happiness ; that every 
 power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitu 
 tion clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the 
 departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the 
 p2 
 
18 
 
 several States, or to their respective State Governments, to whom they 
 may have granted the same," etc., etc. 
 
 The New York Convention certainly stated the case with great 
 precision and clearness. All power is derived from the people ; 
 Congress has no power except what is clearly delegated ; all 
 power nor. delegated remains to the people of the several States, or 
 their State Governments; and the people may reassume all granted 
 power whenever it shall be necessary for their Happiness. There 
 could not be a clearer epitome of the doctrine of secession or 
 resumption. And that there might be no mistake or misunder 
 standing in the matter, the delegates say, in conclusion : " Under 
 these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be 
 abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent 
 with the said Constitution, fyc. } we assent to and ratify the said 
 Constitution. 
 
 It must be observed that these are not proposed amendments of 
 the Constitution, but declarations of right and of the common un 
 derstanding in relation to the meaning of the Constitution. New 
 York proposes her amendments in a separate paper. 
 
 Virginia in her ratification declares and makes known : 
 
 "That the powers granted under the Constitution, being de 
 rived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by 
 them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or op 
 pression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with 
 them and at their will." * With these impressions, and with a 
 solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts," &c., she assents to and 
 ratifies the Constitution. She also proposes amendments in a 
 separate paper. ^ 
 
 Virginia speaks of "the people of the United Stales." There 
 is not the same precision of language as in the New York ratifi 
 cation. But the meaning is identical ; for, as the people of the 
 United States collectively granted no powers, they could resume 
 none. Only those who give can take back. The people of the 
 States were the grantors, and they alone had anything to resume. 
 The reference of Virginia was to these people whom the Constitu 
 tion was to unite. She spoke in the name of and in behalf of her 
 own people. 
 
 Rhode Island declares and makes known : 
 
 " That all power is naturally vested in and consequently derived 
 from the people that magistrates therefore are their trustees and 
 agents, and at all times amenable to them. 
 
 " That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, 
 whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. " 
 
 Has any one the hardihood to contend that these solemn decla 
 rations mean nothing, or mean only the right of revolution by 
 force and with arms? On the. contrary, do they not affirm and 
 illustrate the one great leading distinction between the American 
 and the European theory of government between a free confed 
 erated republic and a consolidated kingdom or empire ? Euro- 
 
pean government is the government of force ; American gov 
 ernment is the government of opinion. If such be not the case, 
 then did the men of the Revolution live and rebel and triumph in 
 vain ! 
 
 The question has been asked, whether Louisiana and other 
 States, whose territories were originally purchased by the United 
 States for a price, can possibly have the right to withdraw them 
 selves from the Union, and take their affairs into their own keep 
 ing? Undoubtedly they have ! When they were erected into 
 States, they became sovereign, and when received into the Union, 
 they came in upon precisely the same footing as the original 
 Thirteen. There can be no discrimination between an old and a 
 new State ; nor can the rights of the original members of the con 
 federacy, be in any way impaired or affected by the admission of 
 new ones. The question must be determined upon the terms and 
 meaning of the Constitution, or fundamental compact, and not 
 upon any supervening facts or developments. When a Territory 
 becomes a State, the pupil or infant attains the age, and assumes 
 the character and attributes of the full-grown man. When a new 
 comer is admitted into a copartnership, upon a footing of perfect 
 equality, it matters not whether he has brought into the concern 
 capital, or skill, or labor, or any other consideration. The United 
 States must weigh the consequences of the act, before they convert 
 a Territory into a State, and invest a dependency with the rights 
 and faculties of sovereignty. *flfter the act is done, it is too late 
 to consider. The new-born commonwealth is the counterpart and 
 peer of all the rest ! 
 
 The Union of these States is a voluntary union an association / 
 of equals, of their free will and by common afccord. A State / 
 coerced, would be a subjugated province; .no longer a voluntary 
 or an equal member, but the conquest and the captive of the rest! 
 With her freedom cloven down, and the emblems of her sover 
 eignty trampled under foot and trailing in the dust, her lifeless 
 body would be to the living members of the Union, like the dead 
 body of Hector, dragged in brutal triumph by the victorious 
 chariot of Achilles round the walls of Troy ! Better that the last 
 sparkles of her ashes were trodden out, and her name forever lost 
 to history and tradition, than that she should live to swell the 
 triumph of her conquerors! And this to preserve the Union ! A 
 union of the living and the dead^ bound fast together in loathsome 
 and indissoluble contact! Say rather a union of the dying and 
 the dead, for the life of all will have received a mortal thrust, 
 their independence but a name, their forms of liberty an insult 
 ing mockery, and their only privilege that of surviving until the 
 iron heel of one or many despots shaU be ready in turn to crush 
 out the miserable remainder of their existence ! 
 
 Such and so disastrous would be the effect of coercion, even if 
 successful. But it could not be successful, least of all in a case 
 of common feeling and common interest. The people of the States 
 
are too spirited and sagacious, not to feel and know that the mili 
 tary conquest of one, in such a case, would involve, sooner or later,, 
 the military conquest of the rest. The ties of a common cause 
 one hope, one fear, one destiny ; the promptings of generous 
 manhood, and perhaps, above all, the over-mastering instinct of 
 self-preservation, would drive them into irresistible sympathy 
 and association with those, whose only fault would be a disinter 
 ested, if an indiscreet, devotion to the common cause, and whose 
 prostration would consign it to hopeless and bloody ruin. And if 
 the grievance or the quarrel were strictly and purely sectional, 
 what human power, in the event of blood, could prevent the injured 
 section from uniting as one man, and accepting one fate, whether 
 for weal or for wo ! Is it not the excess of infatuation, and the 
 very extacy of madness for any one to imagine that the Union 
 could be preserved through a war of sections ? Blood is not the 
 cement by which confederacies are held together, nor are bayon 
 ets the instruments. Good will and confidence are their only 
 bond. The terrible passions evoked by war are death to them. 
 Naught but a despotism can come out of an armed conflict of 
 sections, in which one is conqueror and the other conquered. On 
 one side centralization and absorption, enforced by the sword; 
 on the other, utter subjugation, relieved only by the lurid and 
 desperate hope of revolt ! What a picture this of a free govern 
 ment ! and a happy and glorious Union ! 
 
 [Hapless would be the condition of these States if their only 
 alternative lay between submission to a government of self-con 
 strued, or, in other words, unlimited powers, and the certainty of 
 
 t coercion, in case of withdrawal, by force of arms. The way of 
 escape from borli extremes is in the acknowledged right of seces 
 sion a right the exercise of which draws after it such grave and 
 
 """momentous consequences to a State, in her relations to i>he resl of 
 theStates and to the world at large, that she cannot but regard it 
 as her ultima ratio her refuge from intolerable evils her last 
 and ultimate resource to be called into play, only when all other 
 hope of relief is utterly gone ! 
 
 But if the right of secession be essential in a general view of 
 our system, how truly indispensable is it to the Southern States, 
 in view of the particular circumstances by which they are now 
 surrounded. I here repeat the question already propounded, are 
 not the designs of the Republican party aggressive, hostile and 
 deadly to these States? To understand this question in its full 
 and fearful import, it is necessary to bear in mind that the coun 
 try is divided into two geographical sections, and that these sec 
 tions are characterized by separate and different systems of labor 
 and civilization. The system of the South, known as slavery, 
 existed at the time of the formation of the Union, and has a dis 
 tinct recognition in the Constitution, both as an element of repre 
 sentation, and as a lit subject of protection. For a considerable 
 eriod of time, the two sections of the country were, for all prac- 
 
21 
 
 tical purposes) in a state of equilibrium; but now the ascendancy 
 in the number of States and in the federal representation has 
 been acquired by the non-slaveholding section. If there were no 
 antagonism of feeling and interest on the subject of slavery, and 
 the constitutional guarantees in relation to it were observed in 
 good faith and with fidelity, this ascendancy would furnish no 
 good cause of apprehension or complaint. But the precise mis 
 chief and danger of the Republican party consists in this: that 
 IT IS A SECTIONAL, ANTI-SLAVERY ORGANIZATION, 
 BASED CHIEFLY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY, ON THE 
 PRINCIPLE OF HOSTILITY TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF 
 THE SOUTH, AND PLEDGED TO CARRY THAT PRIN 
 CIPLE INTO ACTION, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF 
 THE GOVERNMENT. Men of the South do you comprehend 
 this idea? Do you take it into your understandings, in the whole 
 extent of its significance and consequences. In the case of two 
 sections and two systems of labor and civilization, what would 
 any man of average honesty and average sense of justice, declare 
 to be the duty of the common federal government? Surely that 
 of equal favor and equal protection! But to wage an open war 
 fare upon system and by programme, in behalf of one and against 
 the other and to employ, for that purpose, the agencies and 
 resources of the common government, which owes to each a like 
 protection because it receives from each a like support if there 
 be a peril more imminent, or a perfidy more atrocious than this, 
 in the affairs of State, it is most difficult for the human imagina 
 tion to conceive it, or the human tongue to give it utterance ! 
 
 Will you submit to it? Will you suffer that yoke to be fast 
 ened upon your necks, and still claim to be men and freemen ? 
 You have Ions: borne and forborne but there is a time when 
 submission becomes a crime and resistance a duty. Abraham 
 Lincoln, our prospective President, proclaims the Republican 
 party to be "a progressive party. " Mark the words, for there 
 is more in them than meets the ear something of admonition 
 and menace ! How progressive has been this whole anti-slavery 
 agitation this whole warfare for it is nothing less against the 
 well being, the peace, nay, the very lives of millions of human 
 beings, white and black ! It began with individuals. Garrison, 
 Tappan and Gerrit Smith w^re of the school. At first, we were 
 told to despise their insane ravings; and we can well remember 
 the day when abolitionists were hooted and pelted, and driven 
 from pillar to post in the Northern cities. They persisted; and 
 by degrees their doctrines infected larger bodies of men. They 
 forced themselves upon popular assemblies, and soon invaded the 
 school room and the school book, the yulpit and the prayer. The 
 leaven spread itself. Women, and clergymen and politicians 
 took it in keeping, and nursed it, and kepi, it warm. With some 
 it was genuine fanaticism; with others a sanctimonious and 
 Pharisaical hypocrisy an outcropping of puriu**j s m; and with 
 
22 
 
 others still, the football of a political game. In process of time, 
 the spirit of abolitionism rose in power and in dignity. It lifted 
 itself into the halls of legislation. It has since taken possession 
 of the State governments at the North. Every Northern State, 
 east of the llocky mountains, has wilfully and deliberately refused to 
 carry into effect the provision of* the Constitution in relation to the 
 restoration of fugitive slaves ; some by prohibiting their officers 
 and citizens from aiding in their restitution ; some by denying 
 the use of the jails and public edifices for their safe keeping ; 
 some by providing means of defence for fugitives from labor; 
 some by declaring slaves absolutely free when brought into the 
 State; and some by visiting fine and imprisonment upon masters 
 seeking to reclaim their property : thus bringing into play every 
 device and variety of legislative action, in encouragement and 
 support of the inhospitable, lawless and piratical conduct of their 
 citizens and mobs. And now, that the last element of strength 
 and agency of mischief may not be wanting to this unnatural 
 warfare, waged by one section of the country against the vital 
 interests of the other, the common federal government, our own 
 government, which was designed to insure domestic quiet and 
 provide for the common defence, is to be seized and appropriated 
 by an exclusive, one-sided and fanatical despotism, whose only 
 idea and purpose it is, (apart from the spoils,) to wield the whole 
 of this vast and powerful machinery for the disturbance of our 
 peace, the subverting of our institutions, industrial and social, 
 and the subjection of ourselves and our children, in all time to 
 come, to the vexatious and degrading tyrannies of their vulgar 
 and unprincipled domination. No foreign government, however 
 hostile its intents, could be more malignant in spirit, or more 
 powerful for mischief! 
 
 . How can we judge of this Republican party otherwise or more 
 fairly than by their own acts and declarations ? What they have 
 done is but an earnest of what they will do. The persistent agi 
 tation of the slavery question in the most offensive and insidious 
 forms; the exclusion of the South from the whole of California 
 a territory for which the South had expended more of blood and 
 treasure than any other section of the Union; the dismemberment 
 of Texas, with the bayonet in one hand and a bribe in the other; 
 the rejection of Kansas because the Constitution of Lecompton 
 protected slavery; the raid into Virginia, the burnings and poi 
 sonings in Texas, and the movements, incendiary and insurrec 
 tionary, of Northern emissaries even now lurking in other parts 
 of the Southern country; the sympathy with John Brown, at first 
 hardly disguised, but now open and unmasked a sympathy 
 which is calculated, if not expressly designed, to incite other 
 deluded fanatics to an imitation of his treason and a- coveting of 
 his traitorous doom : the endorsement of the atrocious Helper 
 book by some sixtj members of their party in the present Con 
 gress, and the Broadcast circulation of it as one of their campaign 
 
28 
 
 documents, in the current canvass .all these things, and more y 
 many more, which it sickens rue to rehearse, demonstrate, 
 beyond all doubt or cavil, a hostility of purpose, an antagonism 
 of spirit and feeling, a deep and settled hate which, so far from 
 being 1 consistent with the duties and relations of brethren and 
 fellow countrymen, would be a shame and a disgrace to natural 
 and hereditary foes ! 
 
 William H. Seward is the spokesman of this party the author 
 and finisher of the Black Republican faith ! He is a statesman ot 
 clear and well-defined, but not large views, and his vision is as accu 
 rate and thorough, within his limited range, as that of any man ot 
 his day and country. Cold, sagacious and calculating; too conti 
 nent and self-possessed to be rash, and yet bold enough when 
 boldness is consistent with prudence. He is the author of the 
 phrase, if not of the idea, of " the irrepressible conflict between 
 opposing and enduring forces;" and also of the doctrine of the 
 "higher law" the invention of a vagrant political conscience 
 to override all fixed constitutional obligation, for the express pur 
 poses of putting under foot the rights of the South, and the duties 
 of the North on the subject of slavery. He sneers, in cold blood, 
 at Virginia and Texas, for being "convulsed with panics because 
 of slavery being brought into debate among a portion of their citi 
 zens I" The foundation principle of his theory is, that free labor 
 and slave labor cannot exist under the same government; and 
 that "the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become a 
 slave holding nation, or entirely a free labor nation." To the end 
 that the latter branch of this necessary alternative may be the final 
 consummation, he demands that every new State shall be a free 
 State; that the army and navy shall be abolished, because they 
 are of no service except to protect the slave States from servile 
 insurrection or foreign invasion ; that the Supreme Court shall be 
 destroyed or altogether reformed, and arrayed on the side of free 
 dom instead of the side of slavery; and that the perfect freedom 
 of all men, black as well as white, should go through the fifteen 
 slave States, as it has gone through the eighteen free States. 
 And he declares to his followers that " if they do not suffer differ 
 ences among themselves or any other cause to divide them, ONE 
 SINGLE ADMINISTRATION WILL SETTLE THIS QUES 
 TION FINALLY AND FOREVER." In anticipation of the 
 coming triumph, already has he proclaimed that the battle is ended, 
 and the victory won ! 
 
 Abraham Lincoln is the standard-bearer of the party. He was 
 considered the more available as their candidate, because his 
 antecedents were not so conspicuous as those of his great master. 
 But he is the more dangerous of the t\vo, because he is probably 
 the more honest in his convictions. The one idea certainly has 
 complete possession of his brain. Some have advanced his claim 
 to the original authorship of the "irrepressible conflict;" without 
 using the phrase, he certainly promulgated the doctrine when he 
 
24 
 
 declared, in 1858, that "this government cannot endure perma 
 nently half slave and half free." Let it suffice for the present 
 that Mr. Douglas define the political position of Mr. Lincoln, 
 which he did in the following words, in the course of their great 
 senatorial contest : f 
 
 " In other words, Mr. Lincoln ADVOCATES BOLDLY AND CLEARLY, a 
 war of sections, a ivar of the North a gainst the South, of free States 
 against slave States a war of extermination to be continued 
 relentlessly, until the one or the- other shall be subdued, and all 
 the States shall either become free or slave." 
 
 j And this same Mr. Douglas proposes to put the South to fire 
 and sword, because it would retire peacefully from the field, rather 
 than become a party to this fratricidal strife ot sections, or a meek 
 
 ...And submissive victim to this relentless war of extermination ! 
 
 Men of the South ! you will soon be called to make choice ot 
 your destiny, to bow your proud necks to the yoke of the task 
 master, or to rise in your strength and rend the manacles that 
 would bind you. It is not a question of policy; but of honor, of 
 liberty, of peace, of existence ! Your whole civilization is at 
 stake ! It cannot be disguised that there is danger on Doth sides ; 
 but on one side is honor, on the other dishonor; on one side the 
 sure hope of freedom and prosperity; on the other, the certa n 
 doom of demoralization and ruin. In the folly and madness that 
 rule the hour, an attempt maybe made to coerce you; but it 
 cannot possibly succeed. You are millions in number; but your 
 hearts arid arms will be as one in defending the sanctity of your 
 hearths and homes ! To a people who have once been free, any 
 thing is better than the living death of conscious degradation, and 
 the withering contempt of those who have put the yoke upon 
 them. Oh! choose as becomes your lineage and your history! 
 Choose so that these proud commonwealths rrray receive no detri 
 ment; so that the liberties in which you were born may be kept 
 entire; so that the heritage of your children may be one of honor 
 and not of shame, of freedom and not or servitude ! 
 
LETTER 
 
 FROM 
 
 HON. J. K. PAULDING. 
 
 [The following letter from Hon. J. K. Paulding, former Secre 
 tary of the Navy, is worthy of attention, not only for the sound 
 views it contains, but also on account of the latitude from which 
 it comes.] 
 
 HYDE PARK, Duchess county, N. Y. ) 
 September 6th, 1851. j 
 
 GENTLEMEN : Your letter directed to me at New York, con 
 veying an invitation to address a meeting of the citizens of 
 Charleston district, to be held in Charleston, South Carolina, on 
 the 17th inst., has just reached me at this place, where I now 
 reside. 
 
 For the compliment thus tendered, and the language in which 
 it is conveyed, I beg you to accept my acknowledgments, accom 
 panied by regrets that I cannot comply with your wishes. Dis 
 tance and space, the burden of years I should bear with me, and 
 more than all, my incapacity for public speaking, compel me to 
 decline a task for which I am totally unfitted. What T have to 
 say, I therefore hope you will permit me to address to you, through 
 a medium to which I am more accustomed. 
 
 As it appears from the tenor ot your letter that you are 
 already sufficiently aware of the opinion I entertain with 
 regard to what is whimsically called the Compromise, I will 
 only trouble you with a brief recapitulation. In my view it 
 was a gross and palpable violation of that great fundamental prin 
 ciple of State equality, which pervades every provision of the Consti 
 tution, and forms the basis of this Confederation ; a most unjustifi 
 able attack on the rights, interests, safety, and happiness of one-half 
 the States composing it, accompanied by insult and obloquy ; a pre 
 tended concession, wrested by mere force of numbers from a minority; 
 and that, in its consequences, it will prove more fatal to the repose, 
 prosperity, and happiness, if not the very existence of the Union, 
 
than any measures that may be resorted to in attempting to obtain 
 redress for the past, or security for the future. 
 
 Such beinjr my views of the subject, I am and always have 
 been, of opinion, that the stand originally taken by South Caro 
 lina, and most of the Southern States, in opposition to the princi 
 ples embodied in that series of measures, was not only justifiable, 
 but demanded by a proper regard for their rights and their honor ; 
 and that an abandonment of the position they then assumed, and 
 an acquiescence in measures they repeatedly declared they 
 would resist, " at all hazards arid to the last extremity," unless 
 accompanied by a frank acknowledgment of having been wrong in 
 the first instance, would, in the language of the printed resolu 
 tions appended to your letter, be, "what they could not submit 
 to without dishonor/ If such an abandonment of all previous 
 pledges and declarations were the result of a subsequent convic 
 tion of having greatly erred in making them, it would be honor 
 able and, magnanimous. But such appears not to be the case j 
 since even the advocates of acquiescence still continue to assert 
 the principles on which these pledges and declarations were 
 based, as well as the wrongs which first called them forth. 
 
 The Association is, I believe, right in its second resolution 
 declaring its belief that the co-operation of any of the Southern 
 States with South Carolina, either in resistance or secession, is at 
 least improbable, so long as the influence and patronage of the 
 General Government are arrayed against State rights. Nor do I 
 see any reason for believing that any probable change of admin 
 istration will produce a change of measures; since, as you will 
 perceive, from their repeated declarations, all parties in the North 
 unite in denouncing slavery, and maintaining the constitutional 
 right of Congress, as well as its inflexible duty, to prohibit its 
 extension to any State that may hereafter be admitted into the 
 Union. From all present appearances, the principles embodied in 
 the compromise will continue to be the basis of the future policy of 
 the Government. It seems also probable, that the States which 
 have submitted to past, will be equally quiescent under future 
 wrongs. 
 
 Having thus briefly stated my views with regard to your first 
 and second, I will now revert to your last and most important 
 resolution, namely, "that, failing in a reasonable time to obtain 
 the co-operation of other Southern States, South Carolina should 
 alone withdraw from the Union/ 
 
 It seems rather late in the day to be called on to combat the 
 old exploded doctrine of passive obedience, and non-resistance y 
 the assertion of which cost one monarch his head, and sent 
 another into perpetual exile. Yet, as that doctrine has lately 
 been revived by some of the highest names of the Republic, it 
 calls for a passing notice in connection with the subject of this 
 letter. It seems strange, too, that this long-buried monster, 
 which received its death wounds in the two revolutions of Eng- 
 
27 
 
 land and America, should have been dug up and resuscitated by 
 distinguished Democratic Republican statesmen. From all but 
 the darkest regions of the civilized world, this portentous phan 
 tom has been banished, as it would appear, only to find refuse in 
 that which professes to be the most free and enlightened. There 
 is not a European writer, or statesman, or theologist, of any estab 
 lished reputation, that would now venture to proclaim the slavish 
 principles which have been asserted by Republican leaders in the 
 Halls of Congress of Republican States. 
 
 A thorough discussion of this doctrine of passive obedience 
 and non-resistance on the part of equal members of a Confedera 
 tion of States, would require more space than is proper for me to 
 occupy, and more time than you can spare on this occasion ; nor 
 do I deem it necessary. The right of resistance by force, as 
 respects States and communities, is only an extension of the 
 individual right of self-defence, which is a law of nature, ante 
 cedent and paramount to all laws and all constitutions, which 
 cannot be alienated or surrendered by the adoption of any system 
 of social organization. This doctrine is established beyond con 
 troversy, by the unanswered and unanswerable arguments of 
 Sidney and Locke ; by the assent of all the great ancient as well 
 as modern authorities on the law of nature and nations; and, if 
 such were not the case, it has always been, and always will be, 
 acted upon when the occasion arises, in opposition to all authori 
 ties. It is true that nope of the writers who assert or concede 
 the right of resistance, have attempted to define the precise line 
 where resistance becomes justifiable, because it is not susceptible 
 of definition. It is a matter of feeling, and can neither be analyzed 
 or defined. 
 
 An eminent American statesman, high in office, and a candi 
 date for still higher honors, whose opinions [ wish to treat with 
 all due respect, has lately attempted to establish a broad distinc 
 tion between revolution and secession ; in other words, the right 
 to resist, and the right of retiring out of the reach of the necessity 
 of resorting to resistance. His position, if I rightly comprehend 
 him, is, that though a people or State may have a right to resist 
 by force in certain contingencies, they have none to retire peace 
 ably beyond the reach of injury and oppression. It seems they 
 have no alternative; they must either peaceably submit, or for 
 cibly resist, for they cannot get out of the way. It follows that 
 all radical changes in the political relations of a State with a 
 Confederation of States, must necessarily be brought about by 
 violence and bloody contentions. Those who cannot live together 
 in peace, must not part in peace ; they must resort to the right of 
 the strongest, and fight it out. 
 
 Thus the extermination of a portion of our fellow-creatures, 
 perhaps our countrymen, is an indispensable preliminary to all 
 great political changes; and hecatombs must be offered up on 
 the altar of liberty, before she can become a legitimate goddess. 
 
28 
 
 The establishment of this principle, conceding the right of revo 
 lution, and denying that of secession, would, in its application to 
 the case now under consideration, leave no resource to any mem 
 ber of this confederation, under the most intolerable oppression, 
 but civil war, with all its aggravations. It leaves open no appeal 
 to the great, tribunal of reason, justice and humanity; the right 
 of the strongest is the right divine; and dissensions among aeon- 
 federation of Christian States, can only be adjusted, like those of 
 the wild beasts of the forest, by a death struggle. I am aware 
 that this has been the almost invariable practice of mankind in 
 every age and country; but never till now do I recollect seeing 
 it asserted that it was the only justifiable mode of settling con 
 troversies among States and nations; and it is with no little 
 regret I see this doctrine sanctioned by one whose opinions are of 
 such high authority among a large portion of the American peo 
 ple. I have dwelt more emphatically on this topic, because I 
 consider the right of secession as by far the most important of all the 
 guestions involved in the present controversy ; and the attack on it 
 as one of the most insidious, as well as dangerous blows, ever levelled 
 at the rights of the State, all of whom are deeply interested in the 
 issue; since those who are now the aggressors, may one day be 
 placed in a position where it will be their only refuge from the 
 uncontrolled despotism of a majority. 
 
 With regard to the expediency of the State of South Carolina 
 exercising this right of secession, either now or at any future 
 period, it would, I conceive, be presumptuous in one so far re 
 moved from the scene of action to offer his opinion, or intrude 
 his advice. In such a crisis, South Carolina must act for herself, 
 and rely on herself alone. I would only observe, that in taking a 
 step so decisive as that of withdrawing from the Union, unanim 
 ity among her citizens, or something nearly approaching it, seems 
 indispensable. It appears, however, that many distinguished 
 men among you, whose reputation is national, whose opinions are 
 entitled to great weight, and who have heretofore taken the lead 
 in opposing the Compromise, believe that the time for secession 
 is not yet come ; that the co-operation of at least a majority of 
 the Southern States is absolutely necessary to the successful 
 issue of such a measure; that it is best to wait for further injur 
 ies, or at least to &ee whether they will be attempted, and if so, 
 whether they will produce such co-operation. Those whose 
 views coincide with the resolutions adopted by your Association, 
 on the other hand, believe that immediate secession, or secession 
 after "waiting a reasonable time" for the co-operation of other 
 States, is indispensable to the safety and honor of the State of 
 South Carolina. Which of these parties will eventually pre 
 dominate, remains to be seen ; and until that is decided, I shall 
 content myself with asserting the right of secession, leaving the 
 expediency of its exercise to be decided by the result. Should 
 it be found that a very considerable minority is not only opposed, 
 
29 
 
 but will resist a resort to this remedy for their grievances, I con 
 ceive its immediate adoption would be hazardous in the extreme. 
 BUT WHEN GREAT INTERESTS ARE AT STAKE, 
 MUCH SHOULD BE RISKED IN THEIR PRESERVA 
 TION. For myself, I will only say, that were I a citizen of 
 South Carolina, or any other Southern State, I trust I should not 
 be found among those, who, after placing themselves in front of the 
 battle, and leading their followers inta a position whence they could 
 not retreat without dishonor, RETIRED PROM THE FIELD, ONLY, IT 
 
 WOULD SEEM, TO SEE IF THE ENEMY WOULD PURSUE THEM. 
 
 A few words more, Gentlemen, in order that I may not be 
 misunderstood or misrepresented, and I will no longer trespass 
 on your time and patience. 
 
 If I know myself, arid the innermost feeling of my heart, I am 
 a better friend to the Union than many of those who, while 
 loudly professing their devotion, are steadily pursuing a course 
 of policy that has already alienated a considerable portion of its 
 citizens, and will assuredly bring about its dissolution. It is 
 under the influence of this attachment, that I have lent my feeble 
 aid in opposition to that policy. Neither force nor coercion can 
 preserve a Union voluntarily formed on the basis of perfect equality ; 
 nor do I believe it possible to preserve or perpetuate this Con 
 federation by any attempts to extend the powers of the General 
 Government beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution, 
 strictly construed, agreeably to its letter and spirit. The first 
 attempt to coerce any one of its members WILL BE THE HANDWRITING 
 ON THE WALL, predicting the speedy and certain fate of the Union. 
 It is not to be presumed that great States, many of them equal 
 in extent to powerful kingdoms, and inhabited by increasing 
 millions of freemen, jealous of their rights, brave, high-spirited, 
 and energetic, can be held together except by a voluntary cohe 
 sion. This Confederation may be likened to the great system of 
 the universe, and it is, only, by the benign and gentle influence 
 of attraction, that the bright stars of our constellation can be 
 kept in their orbits. Those who attempt to bridle or spur them, 
 will, in the end, fare like the rash fool who aspired to direct the 
 chariot of the sun. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, your obd t serv t, 
 
 J. K. PAULDING. 
 
 To F. D. Richardson, H. H. Raymond, W. H. Peronneau Com 
 mittee, &c., &c. 
 Charleston, South Carolina. 
 
THE RIGHT TO SECEDE. 
 
 We are living in an age of "Construction," and where neither 
 the letter nor the spirit of the Charter, will suit the Construction- 
 ist, a higher-law-doctrine is referred to, and the " bed of Pro 
 crustes" is to settle the question. Let us search the history of 
 the world ; let us exhaust the records of every nation on the 
 globe ; let us go back to the days of Genesis, and let us examine 
 them, as we progress, to the. period which produced Washington, 
 and Hamilton, and Jefferson, and Marshall, and Madison, and 
 Jay; let us continue to our own time, the time of Webster, and 
 Clay, and Calhoun, and we shall find nothing more illustrative 
 of this proposition this wild and insane construction, than is 
 visible at the very moment we are writing; than the efforts now 
 making to subvert the Constitution of the United States, by quot 
 ing the Constitution itself as authority for the enormities which 
 its enemies are striving to perpetrate ! It is claimed that we are 
 "one people" but truth is fearlessly denied: falsehood is reck 
 lessly and knowingly affirmed: and the Bible is to be remodeled 
 to answer the purposes of fraud and violence : and the human 
 heart is to be changed, and embittered, that hatred to the Slave 
 holder may be freely indulged. Verily, it would seem that Mr. 
 Seward is right, and that the "conflict" between the North and 
 South is "irrepressible"! 
 
 As the Scriptures themselves were intended to inculcate a firm 
 belief in the attributes of a Supreme Being, and to encourage a 
 full reliance upon His mercy ; so was the Constitution of the 
 United Slates conceived, and executed by brave and pious men, to 
 establish a solemn and incontrovertible fact to assure mankind, 
 both at home and abroad, "That the People" of these States con 
 sented to be "united" for certain great and declared purposes ; 
 and those purposes being achieved, none other could emenate 
 from the instrument they, the States, had created, but with their 
 concurrence and for their benefit: and that the Sovereignty, by 
 virtue of which they agreed to be united, remains, and will for 
 ever remain, as perfect as though the Convention, which adopted 
 the Constitution, had never assembled, and the league had never 
 
31 
 
 been thought of. The spirit of mis-rule has simply mistaken the 
 exercise of Sovereignty for the abandonment of Sovereignty. 
 
 We quote the first words of the Preamble of the Constitu 
 tion, where it is written, " We, the People of the United States, 
 [why not we, the People of North America or we, the People 
 of the American Nation ?] " in order to form a more perfect 
 union; establish justice ; ensure domestic tranquility; provide 
 for the common defence; promote the general welfare; and 
 secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, 
 do establish this Constitution, for the United States of America." 
 Each State of the " Old Thirteen" had, and now has. its own 
 Constitution ; and each of these thirteen consented to the crea 
 tion of another Constitution the first for separate; and the second 
 for combined purposes, and for united action, to carry out those 
 purposes but on specified conditions: and those conditions are 
 plainly enumerated. 
 
 Now if it can be shown that these were enacted \>y Sovereign 
 States; and if it is made manifest that these purposes, are ctW 
 and severally, being daily violated and disregarded, by certain 
 parties to the Compact; we would ask, by what principle of inter 
 national law, the conclusion is obtained, that other parties to the 
 compact, in which all are Sovereigns and therefore all are equal, 
 have neither remedy nor redress ? Aye, none, save that which is 
 furnished by an abject or hopeless submission ! or by war and 
 revolution and by successful resistance to invasion and coercion! 
 When a compact is violated, it ceases to be a compact quaod those 
 who are injured by the violation, This is Mr. Webster s doc 
 trine; and it is the doctrine of common sense and of common 
 justice: else every bargain would be a fraud; and every league, 
 a fallacy; and every union a despotism. Let us turn now, even 
 at the risk of being tiresome, to the bond we have given and 
 see whether the conditions, without which its validity cannot be 
 sustained, have been faithfully performed. 
 
 1st. To our "more perfect Union." This has ended by a pub 
 lic declaration, that we, of the South, habitually earn our daily 
 bread by an institution which is hateful to the sensibilities of 
 our Northern brethren, at variance with every moral obligation, 
 and necessarily to be abolished. 
 
 2d. Our desire to "establish Justice" is made to mean, not 
 only that the labor of the South is to enrich the North, but that 
 it is to be directed and controlled by fanaticism and madness; or 
 that it is to be rendered by a causeless hostility to us and to our 
 institutions, the bitterest curse that ever humanity was afflicted 
 with. 
 
 3d. We bargained to "ensure domestic tranquility," and in fur 
 therance of this, Virginia, as a Slave State, is invaded and 
 assailed; her soil, desecrated ; her citizens, murdered; her laws, 
 ridiculed : and our co-obligors to the bond, so far from inter 
 posing, express no other regrets but that the incendiaries and 
 
32 
 
 assassins have been punished; and make no other demonstration, 
 but by expressing their utter horror and disgust, that the shedding 
 of innocent blood has not been considered as a sacred service to 
 God and as a solemn duty to His creatures. 
 
 4th. In order to " provide for the common defence," one section 
 of our country enthusiastically encourages rebellion in anoth 
 er; and in every Cotton State in the Confederacy, slaves are to 
 be provided with arms to be used against their masters. 
 
 5th. To "promote the general welfare," the particular interests 
 of fifteen States are to be sacrificed; the internal commerce of 
 thirty-three States, now estimated at four thousand millions of dol 
 lars, is to be abolished. And why? That four millions of negroes, 
 who have been accustomed to restraint, may be turned loose upon 
 the world, and that their legitimate owners may forthwith be in 
 bondage. 
 
 6th. In order to- u secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and 
 our posterity," vve, of the Sou^h, are to be deprived of our prop- 
 ertv; to ke branded as enemies of the human race; and, finally, 
 according to the diction and taste of a Senator from Massa 
 chusetts, (Mr. Sumner), to be "driven, like poisoned vermin, 
 to die in our holes;" and, as if to suit the action to the word, 
 already we are called on to see the inhabitants of a sister State* 
 selected as victims to that poison, which the philanthropy of 
 our Northern brethren has so generously and bountifully sup 
 plied. 
 
 Thus has the North performed the conditions of the bond. 
 What are the results to the South? Whole towns have been 
 laid in ashes. Farms have been desolated. Crops, which were 
 the result of industry and of labor judiciously applied, have 
 been laid waste and destroyed. Fathers and brothers were 
 to be butchered ; mothers and daughters, exposed to brutali 
 ties, the most atrocious and revolting ; children, exterminated ; 
 and the first act in the drama requires us to become the exe 
 cutioners of slaves, transmitted to us by our ancestors as per 
 sons we are bound to protect and defend. And let the South be 
 admonished that all this is to be done, because a domestic insti 
 tution is not abandoned an institution ordained by the Creator 
 and recognized by His law; that feeds and clothes the world ; 
 that gives to the barbarian a knowledge of God and the consola 
 tions of a benign religion; that confers on the savage the benefits 
 of civilized life; that protects the negro against the vicissitudes 
 of infancy and old age; that keeps him in the only position, where 
 he can be useful to society and harmless to himself; that is 
 expressly provided for in the Constitution : because it is not abol 
 ished even at the cost of endless suffering ; of anarchy and 
 chaos, where order now prevails; of servile conflict, where 
 allegiance now exists; of misery and anguish to black and 
 
 # Texas. 
 
33 
 
 white, where now the happiness of both is secure; of poverty 
 and want, where abundance and comfort are now. And, my 
 countrymen, let us now ask a single but an essential question : 
 Is this fiction or is it fact ! If we have spoken truthfully, as 
 we assuredly desire to do, is there a solitary condition on which 
 we signed the bond, that has not been openly, barbarously and 
 insultingly violated? Is there any injury so consuming as that 
 with which we are threatened ? Is there any epithet, the vilest 
 and the basest, that has not been applied to us? Is there any 
 fallacy so extreme as the idea that liberty can exist where these 
 atrocities have neither check nor remedy ? There is a remedy. 
 The sovereignty of^the States; and this sovereignty is record 
 ed in every article and ia almost every section of the Con 
 stitution ; on every page it is made manifest; and by every 
 reasonable construction, it is intended to be regarded as the 
 cardinal principle by which the government "lives and jias its 
 being." The difficulty is, not to perceive arguments to sustain 
 this doctrine, but to find time to express them. Take the 
 legislative branch of the Government. The House-of Represent 
 atives is the most democratic ; and in it population alone is 
 represented. Do the people of the United States elect ? or do 
 the several States choose? An ordinary freshman may answer 
 the question. The States of course. The States fix the time 
 and manner of holding elections; and the States count the 
 votes and declare the result. So much for the popular branch of 
 the Federal Legislature. As to the Senate, States and only 
 States are there recognized Delaware -taking rank with JNew 
 York : and in all appointments to the Supreme Court ; of Minis 
 ters to foreign countries ; of officers of every grade, at home and 
 abroad ; " Confirmation" must be obtained equally from Rhode 
 Island and Pennsylvania, or equally from the largest and the 
 smallest: because all are Sovereign. Again. In the event of 
 vacancy in either branch of the Federal Legislature, the Execu 
 tive of the States issues writs of election ; and the people of the 
 States vote or do not vote, just as they please. 
 
 If the President is to be elected, who appoints the electors? 
 The people in their aggregate capacity? or the States as individual 
 communities? The States, as the Legislatures of each shall 
 direct: and if no election is piade what then? Why the 
 Senate, where the people are not known and where States are 
 supreme, having ascertained this failure to elect, sends the case 
 to the House of Representatives, and there the vote is taken 
 how? by numbers? No. But by States: each State having 
 one vote, without reference to territory or .to population. And if 
 here again, no decision is obtained by a given time fourth day 
 of March the Senate, or States representing Sovereignty, re 
 sume all power, and from two names, (the highest on the list,) 
 declare, by a single ballot, who shall be President; and the per 
 son so chosen is President beyond the reach either of people or 
 numbers. Is there no sovereignty in all this? 
 c3 
 
34 
 
 Turn to Section 8th : " Congress shall have power to levy and 
 collect taxes," &c., &c. Mark, not right, but power. From 
 whom was this power derived ? I answer, from the Conventions 
 held in the States, and which, adopted the Constitution. And 
 how did those Conventions assemble ? I answer, again, by con 
 sent of each separate State. And where did they assemble? 
 Again, I answer, within the borders of each State, and under the 
 protection of each State. And what other authority existed at 
 the time for legislating or for deciding on the subject? None on 
 earth. What more is required ? But to make assurance doubly 
 sure, see 10th article of Amendments, where it is written that 
 powers not delegated, <&c., "are reserved to the States respectively, 
 or to the people." How and by whom reserved ? Why by those 
 who had the power to delegate, that is the States, which could 
 adopt or reject the Constitution as they pleased, and without con 
 sulting any human tribunal. 
 
 In sense, in letter, and m spirit, " people" meant, and now 
 mean people of the States, and not of the United States, in 
 their aggregate capacity ; and if the Constitution is now to be 
 amended, the States only can do so: they created, and they only 
 can amend. 
 
 The Government of the United States has a flag and does that 
 flag show its consolidated supremacy ? No. It declares to the 
 world that it is a Government made up of delegated powers; and 
 it shows by the number of its stars the number of sovereign 
 States, which have delegated to the Federal Government all the 
 power that it possesses. 
 
 Sovereignty clearly exists in the States, and is, in its nature 
 and essence, separate and distinct. And if it exists, it may 
 be exercised, and that exercise can depend only upon its own 
 will its own conception of what is due to policy or to character. 
 
 The Old Thirteen, assuredly, entered the Union as Sovereigns. 
 Their voluntary entrance was an act of sovereignty. They dele 
 gated, for the purposes named in the preamble to the Consti 
 tution, the powers enumerated in section 8; and subsequently by 
 the 10th article of Amendments, they expressly reserved to them 
 selves those which were never delegated : in a word, they parted 
 with no rights they simply conferred powers, that duties might 
 be performed. They had the right to retire from the Conven 
 tion. They never compromised that, or any other right : and 
 that of seceding from the Union is as perfect now, as was then 
 the right to enter into it. It is absurd to talk of this right to 
 secede not being conferred by the Constitution. The Constitu 
 tion can confer no right upon the States ; and the simple and only 
 inquiry is, where is the power to coerce a State delegated to the 
 Federal Government? If that power is not given, the argument 
 is at an end. 
 
 The injured party has a right to secede, quietly and in peace ; 
 and the denial of that right is just cause for war, Mr. Douglas to 
 
35 
 
 the contrary notwithstanding. No amount of oppression or of 
 violence, can destroy that right : because it is not derivative, but 
 inherent in the party possessing it and defending it. The States 
 earned and acquired that right by the Revolution of 1776, and 
 they hold it in fee. The Constitution acknowledges it; the Laws 
 of the United States acknowledge it; and the Mother Country 
 acknowledges it. Let the bonds of South Carolina, or of any other 
 State be placed in market in London or Liverpool, and we shall 
 see at once how far the States are known and trusted. 
 
 It is not our purpose to enter into any metaphysical discussion 
 as to the difference between right and power; but we will 
 briefly say, that while power is ofttimes exercised by robbers, 
 pirates and highwaymen; right is forever vested in the legitimate 
 owner. 
 
 One word more. We have said that any State that feels her 
 self aggrieved, may retire from the Confederacy and seek 
 safety within her own borders; or she may join other retiring 
 States, who having a common interest, may rest upon a common 
 remedy. Does any sane man doubt that Massachusetts could, 
 either alone or with other communities in New England, take the 
 ground that Slavery is repugnant to her sense of morality, and 
 therefore that her political association with Slaveholders is no 
 longer possible? Can it be doubted that such being her solemn 
 convictions, she could find her remedy in those reserved rights 
 alluded to in the 10th Amendment ? And what Southern man 
 would hesitate to stigmatize him as a ruffian, who would propose 
 to coerce Massachusetts into measures at variance with her hap 
 piness, destructive to her society, and fatal to her relations with 
 her fellow-men in every quarter of the globe ? And who is 
 there on our side of Mason and Dixon s line, that would excite 
 against her, the John Browns that can always be found when 
 murder is to be committed? Who is there that would subscribe 
 to send emissaries to invade her soil ; to burn her barns and her 
 dwellings ; to poison her wells and her water courses, or avail 
 themselves of temporary strength to put her beyond the pale of 
 civilization; to send armies or navies to shed the blood of her 
 people, or to trample her into submission ? If there be such a 
 man, he is no countryman of ours. No; we should say, " throw 
 the tea overboard" if you^ffeas 1 ; we shall neither help you nor 
 harm you. Yes ! we should say so, upon the ground that each 
 State has a right to secede from this Union, because this is the 
 principle upon which the Republic was formed; it is the princi 
 ple of all Constitutional Law, and it is for the injured parties 
 (who perceiving that ruin and desolation make the alternative) 
 to decide upon the application of the principle ; and if that 
 prerogative is denied, then are they living under a tyranny more 
 or less revolting or degrading, as a corrupt majority may decide 
 to inflict. The gravity of this measure of secession and the 
 
stupendous consequences connected with it, wiJl always furnish as 
 much restraint as is sufficient or wholesome. 
 
 The staples of the South have been necessary to the North. 
 We have continuously furnished those staples, and we have con 
 sented to see her enriched by our labour. We have warned her 
 that a separation would follow their continued and unholy 
 ;iilts. They have rejected these warnings and elected Mr. 
 Lincoln. They have dared us to resist; they have taunted 
 us with our weakness; they have menaced us with war and 
 invasion from without, and with sedition from within. We have 
 submitted, and are submitting, to their rapacity, their cruelty 
 and their hatred. But it is possible, we have greater evils yet 
 before us. When new States are admitted; when Abolition 
 becomes stronger and stronger; when the Supreme Court is re 
 modeled ; when the power to amend developes the power to 
 destroy how are we to stem the torrent or avoid the cataract? 
 In whal -place are we to seek for shelter, if the right to retreat 
 before our enemies, or to retire within our borders, is repudiated 
 and denied? When the two-fifths doctrine is expunged; the 
 rendition of fugitive slaves is looked upon as a remnant of bar 
 barism; when the eligibility to hold office is confined to those who 
 eschew slavery as a sin; when we are threatened with fire and 
 sword, even in our hiding-places at home ; and when poison is 
 openly prescribed and provided for the Cotton States of the Con 
 federacy where, then, shall we be? Who will be our masters? 
 Where will be the spirit of our ancestors? Who will teach us 
 the footpath to their graves ? What says the South ? 
 
 STATES. 
 
 Evans & Cogswell s Steam-Power Presses, 3 Broad Street, Charleston, S. C. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWE] 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due OQ the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 LD 2lA-50m-4, 60 
 (A9562slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 UoiTCrtiry of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 LIBRARY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWS 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 JJBj 
 
 MAY? I 
 
 LD 62A-20m-9, 63 
 (E709slO)9412A 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley