and all the respectable statesmen, except a few who are more partisans and advocates than statesmen, regarded the union as a federation of self-governing sovereignties.

These sovereignties ratified the constitutional compact separately, just as European sovereignties would ratify a treaty. They thereby created the federal government, and "delegated" to it the only power it ever held, or could hold.

All ideas of state subordination are alike false, mischievous, and absurd. If thirteen sovereignties of Europe, in order to join their strength in defence, to lessen the trouble and cost of government, and to lighten the people's taxes and other burdens, were to unite themselves, no one would contend that the common agency that is, the congress of commissioners and ambassadors charged with the duties of such general government could by any possibility become sovereign over the said sovereigns. Equally false and absurd it is to say that the government of our country can have sovereign or controlling authority over the states that created it. Governmental sovereignty in a republic is a solecism. That cannot be sovereign which is subject to control and abolition. The government provided for in, is necessarily under and controlled by, the constitution. And this instrument is necessarily subject to the commonwealths of people that made and ordained it as their law. It follows, of course, that the states are sovereign, and the government is their subject. This relation having been once established, only treasonable revolution can change it.

The United States taught Davis and Lee Secession. Andrew Johnson, Salmon P. Chase, Jefferson Davis, and Robert Lee were young men acquiring their political knowledge about the same time. They were taught that the states were (to use Hamilton's phrase) the "essential component parts" of the federal system; or, in other words, that there was no nation, but states; that they, as their parents had been, were citizens of states, and owed allegiance thereto; and that they were entirely subject to the will and coercive authority of their respective states. Moreover, they knew from history that the federal convention, at the instance of Madison and Hamilton, excluded the power to coerce states from the federal compact, as an absurdity. And furthermore, the federal system had been in operation for about forty years, and yet state sovereignty, and the included and essential right of secession, were taken for granted. The only books in which they could study constitutional law laid down these doctrines as unquestionable. Said ST. GEORGE TUCKER, in his Commentaries, 1802: "Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise

of its functions as such, in the most unlimited extent." Said WILLIAM RAWLE, in his Commentaries, 1829: "The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the union; but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. The secession of a state from the union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution." The above authors one from the North and the other from the South were among the ablest of the early American jurists, and their statement was taken as truth. It was an essential and indisputable truth, and not a mere opinion. And it will be shown fully hereafter that this right of secession was considered by the fathers unquestionable too much so, indeed, for discussion. The above works were text-books at West Point when Davis and Lee were cadets there. Was it not rather inconsistent for Uncle Samuel to think of hanging his pupils for practising the precepts he specially taught them?1

Thus it was that these four distinguished personages were educated and impressed; and it is probable that the views of all of them remained unchanged during thirty years of their manhood till 1860 the great epoch of change. Before that they would have deemed it a monstrous idea that the federal government could lawfully hang them because the state irresistibly carried them out of the union, and compelled them to defend her, while, at the same time, the state could have hung them if they had opposed her; and they could but believe that when the state repealed its ordinance of "ratification," it was no longer lawful for the citizens to obey the federal authorities, as ratification was the only cause of federal jurisdiction, and as the power of repeal was, by all law and common sense, exactly commensurate with that of enactment. Would it not have sounded like a horrible romance for two of these men, after passing to the evening of life, in ardent devotion to these principles, to have had the power, and to have exercised it, of hanging the other two - also become old, and among the most distinguished men in the world sistency to these same principles, and for obeying and defending their states, where were concentrated all the objects of a true heart's devotion those objects which noble and brave souls are wont to prefer to all the rest of earth, and to defend even to the last drop of blood neighbors, friends, kindred, birthplace, hearthstones and altars, and the "green graves of their sires"?

-

- for honorable con

1 They probably were at West Point in the administration of John Quincy Adams, who, as late as 1839, essayed to teach the whole American people that "the people of each state... have a right to secede from the confederated union." These are his very words!

T

CHAPTER VI.

REBELLION OR NOT? (CONTINUED.)

PATRIOTISM IS LOVE OF ONE'S STATE.

HE commonwealth, the cherishing mother, was belligerently attacked for exercising the same political will in withdrawing from, that she had done in adopting, the constitution, - attacked, too, by the subjects of herself and her sister sovereigns, who were temporarily entrusted with federal power, and who had perverted the government from its uses to do so. Then went forth her summons to all her sons to defend her with arms. "Breathes there a man with soul

so dead" that he will not, in such a crisis, stand by and defend his family, neighbors, fellow-citizens, and his state, against all or any part of the outside world? He who is not for his state is against her, and in such an emergency he must obey her call, unless, like a recreant, he fly abroad, or, like a traitor, go outside, and turn the weapons of war against her breast, against his own kindred, against even the mother that bore him! As for me, if there must be conflict, I would rather sink with the commonwealth containing these dearest treasures of earth, than swim with the concentrated excellence of a thousand unions! Let me, for them, rather be broken on the wheel, than live for one moment with the infamy of deserting them in the hour of their need. I merely mention, but do not dishonor myself by contending for, so sacred a sentiment. Of every good man and true statesman, it is the very soul of his heart! On questions of patriotism and honor, "reasoning is sometimes useless, and worse. It is too cold, and its processes are too slow. I feel the decision in my pulse. no light on the brain, it kindles a fire at the heart!" on the Jay Treaty, 1796.]

If it throws [Fisher Ames

The states, as sove-
Each was

The Patriotism the Fathers felt and taught. reign political bodies, existed before the constitution did. made up of its members or citizens, these being bound in the social compact, as individuals, to obey the law of all. To protect themselves and preserve their blessings, was the object of the people in forming such state. Necessarily all the heart's treasures are there, and these

are the "blessings of liberty," of which the federal preamble speaks. It was solely to increase the security of the same people and their "blessings" that the federal system was formed. The state, then, is the sole object of patriotic devotion, of the heart's allegiance, while the general government is simply entitled to obedience, because the state commands it. And honor here concurs with patriotism; for, while the latter is devotion to one's country, and to the society that involves his membership and all his blessings, the former prompts him to comply with the social compact, and obey that society's commands, and to defend her. Moreover, self-protection and duty to neighbors and fellow-citizens are accomplished by such obedience and defence.

On this sacred subject listen to the voice of the fathers. SAMUEL ADAMS, of Massachusetts, called "the sovereign authority of the state," "the palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens." [III. Life of Samuel Adams, 273.] JOHN DICKINSON, of Delaware, spoke of "the independent sovereignty of the respective states" as "that justly darling object of American affections," to which the federal agents are responsible. [II. Political Writings of Dickinson, 99.] OLIVER ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, looked "for the preservation of his rights to the state governments." "His happiness depended on their existence, as much as did a new-born infant on its mother for nourishment." [I. Ell. Deb. 474, v. Ibid. 268.] Said ALEXANDER HAMILTON, of New York, who considered "the states " to be the "essential component parts of the new system : "We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they act. On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by the state governments." [II. Ell. Deb. 354.] Many kindred expressions of the fathers might be here given, but, I presume, these will suffice. Not an opposing line can be found in all our history. The letter containing the sentiment of Dickinson, met the express and emphatic approval of the great and good Washington. Indeed, none dissented in those earlier and better days. All felt the holy flame. But since then politicians, perverters of constitutions, corrupters of public sentiment, and violators alike of sacred faith and sound principle have compelled the patriots and statesmen of the country to retire, and have, for selfish and partisan purposes, introduced a sort of idolatry, a false worship, the poor pagans of which, in their fanaticism or moral obliquity, ignore the dear objects and institutions of home, and-like the pilgrims to Mecca or Lassawander off, and bow the knee, and submit the neck to their idol, which,

in this case, is a mere political arrangement, an agency or commission, that is only entitled to regard and devotion just so far as it affords the designed safety to the aforesaid commonwealth and its associates, and all the rights which they involve, and gives to citizens a sense of present justice, and a satisfactory prospect for their future safety and happiness.

Davis and Lee no Traitors.

Such was the teaching of the fathers as to patriotism and its object, and thus thought and acted Davis, Lee, and every other patriot who defended his state against federal attack. Each one knew of the old ordinance or law of his state, "ratifying" her federal compact, and commanding him to obey her federal government, and he had long obeyed it; but a later act repealed the former, and commanded him not to obey the said government; and he knew the power to repeal to be precisely commensurate with that to enact. Why should the citizen heed and obey the state's command, contained in her ordinance of ratification, and disobey her countermand? And how could there be rebellion and treason in obeying the authority which had habitually commanded him, and which he had habitually obeyed, the authority of the self-governing body he belonged to?

Again, it was not alleged that Davis, Lee, or any other confederate chief, induced the states to secede, or that any of them seceded individually, and of their own motion, or, indeed, that they acted in the premises at all before secession had become un fait accompli, and hostilities had been commenced. Hence, the will, the act, and the criminal intent, which must concur to make up the crime, could not be proved against them.

Moreover, the only semblance of individual responsibility for these things, must have been in the members of the convention, by virtue of whose act all citizens (including Davis and Lee) were alienated from the union, made belligerent, and forced as well as commissioned, to fight the federal government. No one hinted at prosecuting

them.

Absurd Views of Sovereignty. These conventions, endowed with plenary authority by the states, were unlimited in their power; had actual control of all citizens; made it treason to oppose secession; and were able, ready, and willing to hang too troublesome opponents. Delightful country to live in, where one authority can hang you for doing what another authority can hang you for not doing!

Such constitutional law is that of Bedlamites, and to enforce it would soon depopulate the country. Yet, it is a legitimate sequence of the doctrines of the Massachusetts school, which have produced all