never has been so little to quarrel about. . . . It is the Union that is wounded and suffers with us from every blow struck at the Constitution, and those who counsel secession on the bare apprehension of injustice forget that to flee from wrongs committed against the Union is to flee from remedies provided by the Union."

In his speech delivered in the hall of the House of Representatives of Georgia on the 14th of November last, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, now Vice-President of the socalled Confederate States, declared, "frankly, candidly, and earnestly," that he did not think the people of the South ought to secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States.

"In my judgment," said he, "the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in the wrong. . . . If all our hopes are to be blasted, if the republic is to go down, let us be found to the last moment standing on the deck with the Constitution of the United States waving over our heads. . . . The President of the United States is no emperor, no dictator; he is clothed with no absolute power. He can do nothing unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in the majority against him. In the Senate he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. . . . My countrymen, I am not of those who believe this Union has been a curse up to this time. . . . But that this Government of our fathers, with all its defects, comes nearer the object of all good governments than any other on the face of the earth, is my settled conviction. . . . Have we not at the South as well as at the North grown great, prosperous, and happy under its op

eration? Has any part of the world ever shown such rapid progress in the development of wealth and all the material resources of national power and greatness as the Southern States have under the general Government, notwithstanding all its defects? . . . Some of our public men have failed in their aspirations: that is true, and from that comes a great part of our troubles."

This last observation was received with "prolonged applause," and the feeling in Georgia continued, in various ways, to manifest itself strongly in favor of the Union until, as in the other revolting States, silenced for the time being by violence.

But notwithstanding the undoubted attachment to the Union of the great majority of the people of the South, the conspirators, whose head-quarters were in this city, deter mined, reckless of consequences, that the work of separation should go on.

"State Sovereignty," "Peaceable Secession," "No Coercion," was their cry, while they threw out the bait of "Reconstruction" to draw in the doubting and to deceive the unwary. The greatest pains seem to have been taken to impress upon the minds of Southern men holding influential positions, especially officers of the army and navy, that the allegiance due from them to their respective States was paramount to that which they owed to the United States; and in this consists the fatal error of thousands of honest Southern men. How strange to us, who feel in every pulse and nerve, in our very souls, that we are citizens,not merely of this or that State, but American citizens! State sovereignty, as understood and proclaimed by Southern radicals, is a fallacy. Need we proof of this? It is abundant and conclusive; and, since I have set out by quoting freely from various sources, and as I wish to group these things, as well for my own as for your satisfaction, I will here cite a few authorities, either of which ought to put this question forever at rest. I commence with extracts

from the letter of George Washington to the President of Congress, 17th September, 1787, presenting officially to Congress the Constitution as passed by the Convention of which he was President. This letter, as a writer in the National Intelligencer remarks, was prepared and submitted by Washington for the approval of the Convention, and was approved by them unanimously, paragraph by paragraph: "It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interests and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. . . . It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those which must be reserved. . . . In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest to every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, and, perhaps, our national existence."

Chief Justice Marshall states his opinion clearly in the next two extracts: "The Government of the Union is emphatically and truly a Government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them and for them."

And again: "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

Judge Story is not less explicit and decided in the following: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the States in their sovereign capaci

ties, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by The People of the United States."

The second clause of the sixth article of the Constitution itself is in the following language: "This Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

With reference to the question whether a State, under any circumstances, could rightfully secede from the Union, Mr. Madison says: "My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the new Union, and consequently should not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever.”

In a letter to Mr. Hamilton on the subject, he further says: "The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection."

In the year 1850, Mr. Howell Cobb, quoting and endorsing these opinions of Mr. Madison against "the right of a State to secede and thus dissolve the Union," truthfully says: "The policy of our Government, during its whole existence, looks to the continuance and perpetuity of the Union. Its temporary and conditional existence is nowhere impressed either upon its domestic or foreign policy. . . . Now we are told that there is no obligation to observe that Union beyond the pleasure of the parties to it, and that the Constitution can be annulled by the act of any State in the Confederacy. I do not so understand our Government. I

feel that I owe my allegiance to a Government possessed of more vitality and strength than that which is drawn from a voluntary obedience to the laws.”

It is due to Mr. Cobb that I should state here a historical fact, which certainly ought not to be and will not be forgotten, namely, that while holding a seat in the Cabinet on a salary of $8000 a year, he prepared an elaborate and inflammatory address to the people of his State, in which he counselled an immediate resort to secession. Said he, “I entertain no doubt either of your right or your duty to secede from the Union."

I have stated that the conspirators had their headquarters in this city. I should add that many of them were under pay of the United States, and until late into the last winter, their leading newspaper organ, the Constitution, whose editor was a foreigner of the Hessian order, was sustained at the seat of the general Government. They were all "honorable gentlemen," and ardent advocates of "peace." Of course their request, to be "let alone," could not be disregarded without the danger of serious consequences. They retained their seats in the Cabinet and legislative halls during the day, opposing every measure intended to strengthen and protect the Government, and secretly plotted treason at night. They were keenly averse to the ordering of troops to Washington, and when, in spite of their opposition, several companies of regulars were brought here to secure the safety of the capital, some of them "gnashed their teeth in rage." Here their plans were concocted which were to carry all the slave States out of the Union and give them the city of Washington as their seat of government. They were "honorable gentlemen," and this was to be done "legally," under the authority of "State Sovereignty" and the "Sacred Right of Secession." The forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom-houses, government deposits, etc., were to be seized only just so fast as the States. in which they were located should pass their ordinances of