guage is adopted by the people of each separate colony now a State, having a form of government over it of which it is to judge, and which, whenever so disposed, it may abolish.

Again, governments are unjust unless their powers are based on the consent of the governed." Here the same question arises, Who are the governed who are to consent? Are the people of the State of Georgia to refrain from dissenting until they agree with the people of Oregon, more remote than England from Arabia? But this principle also was enunciated, like the last, for the guidance of each separate, distinct community. Upon these principles we can arrive at no other conclusions than these that according to the Constitutional doctrines of America, whenever a State decides by the vote of a majority of its people, that the government over it has become destructive to the ends of its welfare and happiness, and no longer exists in its consent, such State has a right to abolish that government, so far as it concerns itself, or, in other words, has a right to secede from the Union.

If this be so, the Union has never been a system of government, stable and permanent in its nature, but has always been exposed to be overthrown, whenever circumstances called into action, with sufficient force, the principles inherent in it. In weighing its value with a view to its restoration, this becomes of the first importance. The people of the United States are no longer infant commu

nities. A single State is now far more populous and powerful than were together the thirteen for which the Constitution was framed. Would it not be wise to adopt an entirely new system-in harmony, not with the past, but the present-not with the childhood of the people, but the vigorous manhood of the present day? No one will deny the value of experience either to men or nations. Of what value can it be, unless it produce fruit in decision, or in action? The United States have now had eighty years of experience; and in view of the dangers they have encountered, of the disastrous events occurring now, and of the altered condition of all the facts, to return, of their own act, to the old starting-point, would be no decision of mature wisdom and experience; but would rather resemble that return to second childhood which we sometimes behold with regret as the result of fourscore years.

If, however, a Union must exist, then it would appear an unwise, although it might be a convenient course, to slur over and evade this doctrine of secession. There are two ways in which to deal with it. One, to form, what has never hitherto existed-a consolidated State. This it may be in the power, either of the North or the South, to do separately; conjoined, it would be idle to attempt it. Whenever it can be accomplished, the doctrine of secession dies at once.

If, however, it be impracticable to form consolidated States, and a Union or confederation

must still continue, then whatever its boundaries, there will exist within them this principle, inherent in the Federal system. It would appear the true policy of such a confederation to remove all doubt, and carry out clearly the principles of its origin, by openly declaring the right of secession. Had this been done from the first, there would probably have been no secession this day. The surest way to end the desire for any object, is to give unlimited command of it. Secession has mainly occurred because it was denied. How beneficial the consequence, had it been an admitted right for the last forty years! In place of the despotic use of political power, in contempt of the feelings or interests of other portions of the country, whether at the hands of slave-owners or monopolists-there would have been all along a tempering, moderating influence. Abolitionism, in all its extremes of virulence, has been permitted by the North because the South was considered to be fast. It might writhe under it, but it must abide. But for this unfortunate belief, the intelligence of the North would have said, "If to gratify your passionate opinions, you indulge in such language as this, addressed to your fellow-citizens, they will separate from us; we will not have the Union destroyed at your bidding and pleasure." In like manner, when the manufacturers desired to increase ample protection to outrageous monopoly, that intelligence of the North would have said to them, "Our sister States shall not be driven from

The

this Union in order to increase your profits." The same rule will apply to external affairs. Texas would not have been annexed and be-slaved, no Mexican spoliations-no war of 1813-no Ostend manifestoes need have defaced the history of the country. Throughout the range of political affairs there would have been present that influence-so constantly absent-consideration for others. sovereignty of the people is a despotism untempered by division or check. The denial of secession has invited it to act despotically-to do simply as it listed, regardless of those supposed to have no escape from endurance. The more the subject is examined, the more plainly it will appear that under an admitted right of secession there would never have grown up to dangerous magnitude those causes which now produce—and that in so terrible a form-the disruption of the Union. Without those causes, had the feelings and interests of others been fairly and temperately considered, the Union might have existed as firmly this day as at any former period of its history.

Thus we arrive at the same conclusions as the authorities first quoted-that secession is a just and clear constitutional right of the States, and no violation of any enactment of the Federal compact. Admitting, therefore, that the people of the South had a perfect right to exercise this power, it remains to consider whether the circumstances in which they were placed enabled them to act upon it with prudence.

CHAPTER VII.

THE STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN THE UNION.

WHATEVER be the conclusion formed by the reader of the preceding chapter, whether in accordance with our own, that secession is a clear right based on the constitutional principles of the United States, that the present movement must be regarded simply as a revolution, in either case a requirement existed of the first importance that power to maintain independence, without which its declaration might be futile. It is true that the leaders of the movement had little cause to anticipate civil war as a result. When carrying out the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, and the teaching of the New England States, they could not expect that an act so thoroughly in accordance with principles the triumph of which was the glory of American history, and the inexhaustible theme of her oratory-would bring down such a consequence. To the people of the South, acquainted with the enormous extent of the country and its well-proved obstacles to invasion, nothing could appear more incredible than a serious attempt to invade and subdue them.