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

nounce such a fact treasonable; this would only prove that they must have been ignorant of the history of their country. But, whether from ignorance, or from malice, or from both, shall it ever be the lot of American citizens to live in a land in which truth shall be treason, and history rebellion? Shall it ever come to this-O ye blessed spirits of departed heroes and patriots!-shall it ever come to this, that a dungeon and a halter awaits the man who may have the most devoutly cherished thy sentiments, and the most implicitly trod in thy footsteps?

No! it will be admitted, that the doctrine of the fathers is not treason. Whether that doctrine be true or false, it will be admitted, that it is entitled to the respect of all who respect the founders of the Republic. Even if the fathers did not understand their own work, a thought which is itself almost akin to treason-it is certainly not an unpardonable heresy to agree with them, or to adopt their view of the Constitution of the United States.

Will it be said, then, that it is treasonable to assert, that a State may secede from a compact between States? If so, then Story and Webster were both traitors; for, as we have over and over again seen, these most admired expounders of the Constitution expressly concede, that a State may secede at pleasure from such a compact. But, here again, even if Story and Webster were mistaken in this principle of law; it is surely absurd to denounce such an error as treason or rebellion.

Nor is this all. Precisely the same inference is drawn by another great expounder of the Constitution, namely, by William Rawle, of Philadelphia. The legal opinion of Mr. Rawle is entitled to great respect. Mr. Buchanan, late President of the United States, speaks of him as follows: "The right of secession found advocates afterwards in men of distinguished abilities and unquestioned patriotism. In 1825 it was maintained by Mr. William Rawle, of Philadelphia, an eminent and universally respected lawyer, in

the 23d [32d] chapter of his 'View of the Constitution of the United States.' In speaking of him his biographer says that 'in 1791 he was appointed District Attorney of the United States;' and 'the situation of Attorney General was more than once tendered to him by Washington, but as often declined,' for domestic reasons."* Now Mr. Rawle wrote his "View," not as a partizan, but simply as a jurist in the calm and impartial investigation of truth; having no conceivable motive to reject the plain teachings of history and law. Indeed, as we have seen, he agreed with Story and Webster in regard to the principle of law, and differed from them only in regard to facts. Hence, if the had not denied that the Constitution was made by th States, they would have been compelled, like Mr. Rawle to admit the right of secession.

"The Union is an association of republics," says Mr. Rawle......Again, "we have associated as republics........ But the mere compact, without the means to enforce it, would be of little value."† Having annonnced the truth, that the Constitution is a compact between republics, he drew the inference from this which is admitted to follow by Story and Webster. That is, he inferred the right of secession; just as if there could be no question on so plain a point of law. "It depends on the State itself," said he, "to retain or abolish the principle of representation, BECAUSE IT DEPends on the STATE ITSELF WHETHER IT CONtinues a member OF THE UNION." Again, he says, “THE STATES MAY WITHDRAW FROM THE UNION, but while they continue, they must retain the character of republics," as well as comply with every stipulation of the constitutional compact...... "The secession of a State from the Union," he continues, "depends on the will of the people. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated with the Constitutions of the several States

*Buchanan's Administration, p. 88.

+ Rawle on the Constitution, Chap. xxxii.