And earlier, on October 15th, 1858, at Alton, Illinois :

They (the Fathers) did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it must follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of every colour, everywhere. *** Irrespective of the moral aspect ** I am in favour of this (free territory) not merely for our own people who are born among us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over, in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men, from all parts of the world may find new homes, and better their condition in life."

But Lincoln could scarcely open his mouth, without, of the abundance of his heart, enlarging on these three things,-The universal equality of right, the universal welcome to men throughout the world, the banishing from America of that one exception, which was its blot and curse. In his pitched battle with Douglas, who pretended that Slavery should be left alone, he said:

*

"There never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. But does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into the Churches and rend them asunder? ** The great Methodist Church, * every Presbyterian General Assembly, ** the Unitarian Church,** the great American Tract Society. Is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power * in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is that irresistible power, which, for fifty years, has shaken the Government, and agitated the

people, to be subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and that we ought not to talk about it? Yet this is the policy that Douglas is advocating."

[We quote Lincoln's speeches throughout from Bartlett's authorised edition.]

And lastly, at Galesburgh, in 1858, he said:

"I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence, up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence."

STATE RIGHT.

This Principle, what it is not, and what it is, next requires our attention.

And the Fathers of the Constitution, were as clear as are the present rising leaders, on the questions between National and State Sovereignty. Washington's opinions are well known, and have been quoted. His farewell was the combined work of himself and Hamilton, and passed the critical legal inspection of Judge Jay. We add a few opinions to those already given :

"In every free and deliberating Society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties. ** But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no Federal Government can ever exist." -Thomas Jefferson.

“However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine has had respectable advocates. The possibility of such a question shows the necessity of laying the foundation of our national Government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the People."— Hamilton, in Federalist. "Have they said, 'we the States ?' Have they made a proposal of compact between States ? they had, this would be

If

a confederation; it is otherwise, most clearly, a consolidated Government."-Patrick Henry, Virginian Convention, 1788.

"The great and fundamental defect of the Confederation of 1781, was, that it carried the decrees of the Federal Council to the States in their sovereign capacity. The great and incurable defect of all former Governments, such as the Amphictyonic, Achæan, and Lycian Confederacies, and the Germanic, Helvetic, Hanseatic, and Dutch Republics, is, that they were sovereignties over sovereignties. The first effort to relieve the people of the country from the state of degradation and ruin came from Virginia. The General Convention afterwards met at Philadelphia, in May, 1787. The plan was submitted to a Convention of delegates, chosen by the people at large in each State for assent and ratification. Such a measure was laying the foundations of the fabric of our national polity,-where alone they ought to be laid,—on the broad consent of the People.”—Chancellor Kent. Commentaries, VI. p. 225.

66

In the most elaborate expositions of the Constitution by its friends, its character as a permanent form of Government, as a fundamental law, as a supreme rule, which no State was at liberty to disregard, to suspend, or to annul, was constantly admitted and insisted upon."-1. Story, 225. "There was no reservation of any right on the part of any State to dissolve the connection, or to abrogate its assent, or to suspend the operation of the Constitution as to itself."—Chief Justice Story.

In 1830, Maddison, when appealed to by Clay as the author of the idea of nullification, denied the truth of any such construction; and Mr. Everett says:

"It was repeatedly and emphatically declared by Mr. Maddison, that they (the resolutions of nullification) were intended to claim, not for an individual State, but for the United States, the right of remedying its abuses in constitutional ways," &c.

Mr. PINCKNEY declared, that "The separate independence and individual Sovereignty of the several

States were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed the Declaration of Independence."-Elliott's Debates.

"I hear," said WEBSTER (March 7th, 1850), "with distress and anguish, the word 'Secession.'!! And HENRY CLAY, in 1850, thus referred to Rhett, "If he pronounced a sentiment attributed to him, raising the standard of disunion and of resistance to the common Government, whatever he has been, if he follows up that declaration by corresponding overt acts, he will be a traitor, and I hope he will meet the fate of a traitor. If Kentucky to-morrow unfurls the banner of resistance unjustly, I never will fight under that banner. I owe a paramount allegiance to the whole Union--a subordinate one to my own State. * * I said that I thought there was no right on the part of one or more of the States to secede from this Union. ** Sir, we may search the pages of history, and none so furious, so bloody, so implacable, so exterminating ** as will be that war which shall follow that disastrous event, if that event ever happens, of dissolution."-Benton's ab. Deb. v. 16, p. 594.

The principles of National and State rights are not conflicting. They support one another. On this no man has spoken more ably or clearly than Mr. Lincoln.

His inaugural declared that:

"Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution,-no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas.

"Much has been said about the 'sovereignty' of the States; but the word even is not in the National Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any of the States Constitutions. What is a Sovereignty? Would it be far wrong to define it a political

community without a political superior?' Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty, and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union.

"This relative matter of National power and State rights is no other than the principle of GENERALITY and LOCALITY. Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole; whatever concerns only the State, should be left exclusively to the State."

FEDERATION.

Thus the American Constitution laid the foundation of a perpetual Federative system for the first time in the world. The rebellion, which assails the rights of Nation, State, and Individual, and outrages the new principle they have set up, has been crushed by them. All previous confederacies that have gone down, have gone down for the want of the principle introduced into the American system. It was the especial admiration of De Tocqueville. It avoided the fatal error of placing a Sovereignty under a Sovereignty. It laid its foundations on the People. It denied to States the right of dissolution or secession. Herein, Kent and Story both point out what it is, what it ought to be. As to its sphere, the principle of Locality binds State action, leaving the principle of Generality to be vindicated by the People, upon whom the national Constitution reposes, and who are members alike of State and Nation. There wants no reconstruction here, nothing but "to execute the laws," and to see that Slavery, the only element that disturbs National and State relations, is as the Fathers supposed it would be-extinguished.

The true, the special, the noble, and the indis