trine of secession was regarded, by the reigning majority, as simply equivalent to the destruction of "the best Government the world had ever seen," or was ever likely to see. Hence, before the dread tribunal of the sovereign majority, the touch of secession was political death. The public men of the country, and all aspirants after office, shrank from it as from plague, pestilence, and famine. As to whether secession was a Constitutional right or otherwise, the multitude knew nothing, and cared less; but still, in their passionate zeal, they denounced it as rebellion, treason, and every other crime in the dark catalogue of political offences. Their leaders, having studied the subject as little as themselves, were no less ignorant respecting the merits of the question, and even more fierce in denouncing secession as the sum of all villainies, treasons, and rebellions. Thus, what the logic of Mr. Madison failed to accomplish, was achieved by the rhetoric of angry politicians and the passions of an infuriated majority; that is, the right of secession was veiled. The object of this little book is simply to appeal from the mad forum of passion to the calm tribunal of reason. But why, it may be asked, appeal to reason? Has not the war of secession been waged, and the South subjugated? Can reason, however victorious, bind up the broken heart, or call the dead to life? Can reason cause the desolate, dark, waste places of the South to smile again, or the hearts of her downcast and dejected people to rejoice? Can reason strike the fetters from the limbs of the downtrodden white population of the South? True, alas! reason can do none of these things; but still she has a high office and duty to perform. For, however sore her calamities, all is not yet lost to our bleeding and beloved South. She still retains that which, to every true man, is infinitely dearer than property or life. She still retains her moral wealth, the glory of her Jacksons, her Sidney Johnsons, her Lees, her Davises, and of all who have nobly died or suffered in her cause. These are her imperishable jewels; and, since little else is left to her, these shall be cherished with the greater love, with the more enthusiastic and undying devotion. Let no one ask, then, except a dead soul, why argue the question of secession? For, it is precisely as this question is decided, that the Jacksons, the Johnsons, the Lees, and the Davises of the South, will be pronounced rebels and traitors, or heroes and martyrs; that the South itself will be disgraced, or honored, in the estimation of mankind. History is, at this moment, busy in making up her verdict on this momentous question; which is to determine so much that is most dear to every true son of the South. Shall we, then, remain idle spectators, mere passive lookers-on, while the North is flooding the world with volumes against the justice of our cause? Shall we stand, like the dumb brutes around us, having no word to utter in the great cause of truth, justice and humanity, which is now pending at the bar of History? Or shall we, on the contrary, contribute our mite toward the just decision of that glorious cause? The radicals themselves might, perhaps, derive some little benefit from our humble labors. For, if duly weighed and considered by them, these labors might serve to mitigate their wrath, and turn their thoughts from schemes of vengeance to the administration of justice, from persecution and ruin to peace and prosperity. Be this as it may, however, I shall proceed to argue the right of secession; because this is the great issue on which the whole Southern people, the dead as well as the living, is about to be tried in the person of their illustrious chief, Jefferson Davis. CHAPTER II. The Issue; or Point in Controversy. It is conceded, both by Webster and Story, that if the Constitution is a compact to which the States are the parties, then the States have a right to secede from the Union at pleasure. Thus, says Webster, in stating the consequences of Mr. Calhoun's doctrine-"if a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say he will no longer fulfil its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual." In like manner Mr. Justice Story says-"The obvious deductions which may be, and, indeed, have been, drawn from considering the Constitution a compact between States, are that it operates as a mere treaty or convention between them, and has an obligatory force no longer than suits its pleasure or its consent continues,"* &c. Thus the great controversy is narrowed down to the single question-Is the Constitution a compact between the States? If so, then the right of secession is conceded, even by its most powerful and determined opponents; by "Commentaries on the Constitution," vol. iii, p. 287, first published in 1833. the great jurist, as well as by "the great expounder" of the North. The denial that the Constitution was a compact, is pre- sented in every possible form, or variety of expression. We are told, that it was not made by the States, nor by the people of the States, but "by the people of the whole United States in the aggregate."* The States, we are assured, did not accede to the Constitution; it was ordained by the sovereign people of America as one nation. Echoing the bold assertion of Webster, Mr. Motley says, that "The States never acceded to the Constitution, and have no power to secede from it. It was ordained and established' over the States by a power superior to the States, by the people of the whole land in their aggregate capacityt." It was not made by the States, and it was not ratified by the States. It was, on the contrary, made and ordained by the people of America as one nation, and is, therefore, the constitution of a national government. Such is the doctrine which, in every mode of expression, is inculcated by the Storys, the Websters, and the Motleys of the North. When we consider, in the simple light of history, the manner in which the Constitution of the United States was made, or framed, and afterwards ratified, such assertions seem exceedingly wonderful, not to say inexplicable on the supposition that their authors were honest men. But who can measure the mysterious depths of party spirit, or the force of political passions in a democracy? I know something of that force; for, during the greater part of my life, I followed, with implicit confidence, those blind leaders of the blind, Mr. Justice Story and Daniel Webster. History will yet open the eyes of the world to the strange audacity of their assertions. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, there have been two great political parties in the United States; the † Rebellion Record, vol. 1, p. 211. * Webster. one, regarding the American people as one nation, has labored to consolidate the Federal Union, while the other, attaching itself to the reserved rights of the States, has zealously resisted this tendency to consolidation in the central power. Even under the old Articles of Confederation, or before the new Constitution was formed, these political opinions and parties existed. For, however strange it may seem, there were those who, even under those Articles, considered "the States as Districts of people composing one political society;"* or the "American people as forming one nation." Nay, in the great Convention of 1787, by which the Constitution was formed, it was boldly asserted by a leading member, "that we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be, even on the principles of the Confederation. The States, and the advocates of them, were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty." Now, if any aberration of the mind under the influence of political passions could seem strange to the student of history, it would be truly wonderful, that such an assertion could have been put forth under the Articles of Confederation which expressly declared that "each State" of the Union formed by them "retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence." The author of that assertion did not interpret, he flatly contradicted, the fundamental law of the government under which he lived and acted. The above opinion or view of the old Articles of Confederation passed away with the passions to what it owed its birth. No one, at the present day, supposes that the old Articles moulded the States into "one political society," or "nation," leaving them merely "districts of people." For since those Articles have passed away, and the struggle for power under them has ceased, all can clearly *The Madison Papers, p. 987. Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. v, chap. 1. |