necessity of changing its location. This makes a difference in the exercise of the right, though not in the right itself. It is indeed quite impossible for a whole State, or people, to change its location, or abandon their homes. If the Southern States could have done so, the exodus would, no doubt, have been most gratifying to some of the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers of New England. This is evident from the eloquent address of Mr. Henry - Ward Beecher to the excited thousands of Exeter Hall in 1863. In reply to the question, "Why not let the South go?" he exclaimed, "O that the South would go! but then they must leave us their lands." If they had only left their lands and homes, and plunged into the gulf of Mexico; this great enemy of secession would have hailed the event as one most auspicious for the spread, the aggrandizement, and the glory of the race to which he belongs. It would have appeared to him, no doubt, like the herd of swine which, being possessed of devils, madly rushed into the sea, and disappeared from the world. But when they seceded, without proposing to leave their lands behind; this made all the difference imaginable; being an outrageous violation of one of the great fundamental articles of the Puritan creed, which, in early times, was expressly set forth by the Colony of Connecticut in solemn conclave assembled. It was then and there decided, that "the earth is the inheritance of the saints of the Lord;" the saints having, in their declaration, as is believed, an eye to the beautiful locations and lands of the Indians. It is certain, if we may judge from the speech of Mr. Beecher in Exeter Hall, that some of the most influential of the saints had a longing and passionate eye for the beautiful lands of the sunny South.

The truth is, that every constitutional compact, whether between the people of a single State, or between sovereign States themselves, forms a voluntary association; the one between individuals, and the other between sovereign

States. Hence, if the right of secession be denied in either case, and the denial enforced by the sword of coer‐ cion; the nature of the polity is changed, and freedom is at an end. It is no longer a government by consent, but a government of force. Conquest is substituted for compact, and the dream of liberty is over.

No man has contributed more to this dire result, than Mr. Justice Story, who not only exhausted all the stores of his own erudition, and exerted all the powers of his own mind, to prove that the Constitution was not a compact between the States, but also enlisted the great powers and eloquence of Mr. Webster in the advocacy of the same monstrous heresy. This concealed the great fundamental principle of the Constitution, and kept out of view the all-important truth laid down by Mr. Mill, that the very first condition necessary to a desirable federation of States, "is a sufficient amount of sympathy among its populations." Nor is this all. His theory of the Constitution fell in with the corrupt and the corrupting tendency of the age; the tendency, namely, to deny the sacred obligation of "THE COMPACT OF THE CONSTITUTION." For.how can any compact be held sacred, which is held not to be a compact at all, but only the emanation, or creature, of the sovereign will by which its restraints are abhorred? May not the creator do what he pleases with its own? May not the one great nation, the one sovereign people of America, take some little liberties with the work of its hands, instead of being scrupulously bound by it as a compact between the States? Nay, may it not take some little liberties with the rights of the States themselves; since the States, as well as the Constitution, were created by its own sovereign will and pleasure? May it not, in short, treat the States as counties?

It is possible, indeed, that no learning, or logic, or eloquence could have resisted this terrible tendency, or stemmed the mighty torrent of corruption it continually fed

and augmented. But this is no reason why learning, and logic, and eloquence should have favored its progress. That progress was slow, but sure. All power slowly gravitated toward the federal centre, and was there consolidated by false theories of the Constitution. In the towering audacity of that central power, assuming to itself all the glories of the one grand nation, it was gradually forgotten that honor, and justice in the observance of the original compact, (no longer regarded as a compact,) and mutual sympathy among the peoples, it was intended to unite, are the indispensable conditions of a free and happy Federation of States; and for these sacred ties of "the glorious Union," were substituted the sacrilegious bonds of fraud, force, and ferocity. It is no wonder, then, that secession should, in the end, have been regarded as the greatest of all crimes; since the Union was then held together, not by the mutual sympathy or the conciliated interests of its peoples, but by "the cohesive power of public plunder." Mr. Justice Story, be it said to his eternal shame, took the lead in constructing the theory of that tremendous scheme of despotic power, and the politicians of Massachusetts in reducing it to practice. John C. Calhoun, on the contrary, lived and died in opposing all the powers of his gigantic intellect to its overwhelming torrents, both in theory and in practice.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Was Secession Treason?

THE doctrine of secession consists of two propositions: the first asserts that the Constitution was a compact between the States; and the second that a State, or one of the parties, had a right to secede from such a compact. The second proposition is simply an inference from the first. Now, if secession is at all tainted with treason, the crime must lurk in the one or the other of these propositions.

Is it treasonable, then, to assert that the Constitution was a compact between the States, or the members of the Union? No one, it is presumed, will venture on so bold an assertion; for, as we have seen, this was the doctrine of the fathers of the Constitution themselves. It has been shown, by an articulate reference to their writings, that it was clearly and unequivocally the doctrine of Madison, and Morris, and Hamilton, as well as of other celebrated architects of the Constitution. Who, then, will pronounce it treason, or treasonable? The Federalist, in submitting the Constitution to the people and in pleading the cause of its adoption, did not hesitate to say, as a fact then perfectly well and universally known, that the Constitution was "the compact"* to which "the States as distinct and independent sovereigns "+ were the parties. Did The Federalist espouse treasonable sentiments? Both Hamilton and Madison, the two great architects of the Constitution, *No. xxix. † No. xl and No. lxxxv.

most earnestly and eloquently recommended it to the people in The Federalist and elsewhere as THE COMPACT BETWEEN THIRTEEN SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES. Is that doctrine treason, then? Is there the least sign, or symptom, or shadow of treason connected with that sentiment of the fathers? Are those "untrue to their country," who say, with all the most illustrious fathers of the Union, that the Constitution was a compact between the States? On the contrary, are not those untrue to themselves, to their country, and to their God, who, in the midst of so many unquestionably proofs on all sides around them, can assert that the Constitution is not a compact? Is it "the dialect of treason" to say that "the States acceded to the Constitution?" In other words, is the language of Wilson, and Morris, and Randolph, and Franklin, and Jefferson, and Washington, to be denounced as "the dialect of treason?" Is it treason to understand the Constitution as it was understood by the great patriots and statesmen from whose wisdom it proceeded? Is it treason to adhere to their views, sentiments, and language? Or is it loyalty to depart from their views, sentiments, and language; denouncing them as the inventions of modern rebels, and blood-thirsty traitors? No one can, or will, venture to answer this question in the affirmative. Ignorance and passion may have done so in times past. But who can read the history of his country, who can behold the great fact, that THE CONSTITUTION IS A COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES BLAZING ALL OVER ITS AMPLE PAGES; nay, written there by the fathers of the Republic themselves; and then deliberately pronounce it a treasonable sentiment? Can any man do so? Has any man sufficient strength of continence for such an achievement? If so, then indeed must his front of brass, and his heart of iron, forever remain an incomprehensible mystery to all reasonable men. Nay, if any party or majority, aided by the united strength of all their countenances, should pro