It appears evident from the debates in the United States Senate, Feb. 8, 1831, and from other facts, that General JACKSON endorsed the opinions of Mr. HAYNE, on the subject of State rights, and not those of Mr. WEBSTER. The tone and language of Mr. WEBSTER's speeches, on that well-known occasion, were extremely well adapted to popular effect, and were greatly and deservedly admired even by many who felt that he leaned towards a construction of the Constitution which would make the General Government consolidated rather than Federal.

What the opinions of General JACKSON were, in respect to nullification, in the case of South Carolina are well known from his proclamation, written by EDWARD LIVINGSTON, then Secre tary of State. On that occasion he was in favor of carrying the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other. South Carolina was in the Union, and, of course, subject to the laws of the Union. These laws General JACKSON was determined to execute, but he and other wise men on that occasion, pursued a conciliatory course that rendered the forcible execution of the laws unnecessary.

"If it be supposed that, among the States which are united by the Federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of Union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of that Union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the Central Government in enforcing the obedience of others. But the Government would then be. exciting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal Government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the States.

"If one (or more) of the Confederate States have acquired a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other States as subject provinces, and it will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the Sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal Government, but in reality that Government will have ceased to exist. In both of these cases, the power which acts

in the name of the Confederation becomes stronger, the more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of Confederation."-DE TOCQUEVILLE, p. 419.

“I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. HALE, to proclaim not the gospel of peace between brethren, but a circumspect waiting to ascertain whether Mr. BUCHANAN Would or would not send a Federal army to coerce South Carolina. I trust, sir, if Mr. BUCHANAN should do so high-handed and fatal an act of violence as that, his term is not too brief, as President of the United States, for him to be arraigned at our bar by an impeachment. What would South Carolina be worth to herself or to us if she were dragged captive in chains? I wish no State of this Union subjugated by her sisters. If she cannot be retained by the bonds of affection, by acts of kindness, why then, in God's name, horrible as I esteem such an alternative-let her depart in sorrowful silence."-Senator PUGH, Dec. 10, 1860.

Mr. CLAY, in deprecating a civil war, used the following language: "But if they were to conquer, whom would they conquer? A foreign foe, one who had insulted our flag, invaded our shores, and laid our country waste? No, sir, no. It would be a conquest without laurels, without glory, a self-suicidal conquest, a conquest of brothers over brothers, obtained by one over another portion of the descendants of common ancestors, who, nobly pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,' had fought and bled side by side in many a hard battle on land and ocean, severed our country from the British crown, and established our national independence."

It was provided in the Constitution that legal coercion should be exerted against individuals who violate the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. This, it was supposed, would supersede the necessity of making any provision for the coercion of a State by military force.

The Constitution recognizes treason against a State as a crime, and requires a traitor who has fled into another State to be delivered up. It thus acknowledges the Sovereignty of the States: Treason is a crime against sovereignty. "The Constitution does not," in the language of Chief-Justice ELLSWORTH, "attempt to coerce sovereign bodies." Such an attempt is

equivalent to an act of war of a government of delegated sovereignty, against a government of original and inherent sovereignty.

CONCILIATION AND COMPROMISE.-In 1794, when combinations were formed in Pennsylvania to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, commissioners were appointed by the Federal Government to persuade the actors to return to their duty. Thus WASHINGTON pursued a conciliatory course, even in case of an insurrection which received no encouragement from a State, in its organized capacity.

"Now, for one, I am not ready yet to take the responsibility of absolutely closing the door of reconciliation. I cannot persuade myself to forget the warnings that have descended to us from many of the wisest and best statesmen of all time against this rigid and haughty mode of treating great discontents. I cannot overlook the fact that, in the days of our fathers, the imperious spirit of CHATHAM did not feel itself as sacrificing any of his proud dignity by proposing to listen to their grievances, and even to concede every reasonable demand, long after they had placed themselves in armed resistance to all the power of Great Britain. Had George the Third listened to his words of wisdom, he might have saved the brightest jewel of his crown. He took the opposite course. He denied the existence of grievances. He rejected the olive branch. History records its verdict in favor of CHATHAM and against the king."-C. F. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, in the House of Representatives, Jan. 31, 1861.

This language of conciliation was in harmony with the feelings of a great portion of the people in the States both North and South, at that time.

On the other hand, Mr. EGERTON, of Ohio, Jan. 31, 1861, said:

1. "I will not compromise, because I have no faith that any compromise we can make would stand any longer than it ministered to slavery.

2. "I will not compromise, because I would not further strengthen slavery.

3. "I will not compromise, finally, because slavery is a sin, an outrage against humanity, and an insult to God."

This language was probably in harmony with the feelings of a large portion of people in some of the Northern States.

"This is a mighty empire. Its existence spreads its influence through the civilized world. Its overthrow will be the greatest shock that civilization and free governments have ever received; more extensive in its consequences, more fatal to mankind, than the French Revolution, with all its blood, and with all its war and violence. And for what? Upon questions concerning this line of division between slavery and freedom? Why, Mr. President, suppose this day all the Southern States being refused their right, being refused this partition, being denied this privilege, were to separate from the Northern States, were to do it peaceably, and then were to come to you and say: 'Let there be no war between us; let us divide fairly this territory of the United States;' could the Northern section of the country refuse so just a demand? what would you then give them? what would be the fair proportion? If you allowed them their fair relative proportion, would you not give them as much as is now proposed to be assigned on the Southern side of that line, and would they not be at liberty to carry their slaves there if they pleased?"-Mr. CRITTENDEN, Dec. 28, 1860.

Mr. EVERETT, May 29, 1860, made the following declaration : "Our political controversies have substantially assumed an almost purely sectional character--that of a fearful struggle between the North and the South. It would not be difficult to show at length the perilous nature and tendency of this struggle, but I can only say, on this occasion, that, in my opinion, it cannot much longer be kept up without rending the Union. * * * A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into activity throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up."

Senator BROWN, of Mississippi, Dec. 12, 1860, said: “If the same spirit could prevail which now actuated the Senator who has just spoken, (Mr. DIXON, of Connecticut,) a different state of things might prevail in twenty days."

President BUCHANAN used the following language on this subject: "The proposition to compromise by letting the North

have the exclusive control of the territory above a certain line, and giving Southern institutions protection below that line, ought to receive universal approbation. In itself, it may not be entirely satisfactory, but when the alternative is between a reasonable concession on both sides, and the destruction of the Union, it is an imputation on the patriotism of Congress to assert that its members will hesitate for a moment."

Listen, also, to the following patriotic sentiments from Senator SEWARD: "Beyond a doubt, Union is vitally important to the Republican citizens of the United States; but it is just as important to the whole people. Republicanism and Union are not convertible terms. Republicanism is subordinate to Union as every thing else is; Republicanism, Democracy, every other political name and thing—all are subordinate, and they ought to disappear in the presence of the great question of Union. So far as I am concerned, it shall be so."

The plan of compromise proposed by Mr. CRITTENDEN, Jan. 12, 1861-and which was regarded with favor by a large portion of the Peace Congress assembled at Washington, and which was acceptable generally to the Border States-was not satisfactory to the extremists either North or South. The majority of the Senate was not in favor of it. Whether the greater share of the blame of the failure of this attempt at compromise was due to the North or to the South, it is not necessary here to inquire. The terrible consequences of the failure soon became alarmingly evident. "Blood-letting" was substituted for the counsels of peace and conciliation.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.-"It is evident that a Confederation so vast and so varied, both in numbers and in territorial extent, in habits and interests, could only be kept in national cohesion by the strictest fidelity to the principles of the Constitution, as understood by those who have adhered to the most restricted constructions of the powers given by the people and the States. Interpreted and applied according to those principles, the great compact adapts itself with healthy ease and freedom to an unlimited extension of that benign system of federative self-government, of which it is our glorious, and, I trust, immortal charter. Let us then, with redoubled vigilance,