statesmen with whom that important document originated. It is hardly to be supposed that he did not thoroughly understand its character, and the authority and powers with. which it invested the Government in its relations toward the States. And yet no man could be more emphatic in his denunciation of the mere idea that the Federal Government had a right to coerce a State by military force. Let all who have insisted on the invasion and subjugation of the South, and the vigorous prosecution of the war, read what Madison said at the Convention which gave the present Constitution to the States for adoption :

"THE MORE I REFLECT ON THE USE OF FORCE, THE MORE I DOUBT THE PRACTICABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF IT WHEN APPLIED TO A PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY. THE USE OF AN ARMED FORCE AGAINST A DISOBEDIENT STATE, OR STATES, WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE A DECLARATION OF WAR THAN AN INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT, AND WOULD BE RIGHTLY CONSIDERED A DISSOLUTION OF THE PREVIOUS COMPACTS BY WHICH IT MIGHT BE BOUND. THE MOST JARRING ELEMENTS, FIRE AND WATER, ARE NOT MORE INCOMPATIBLE THAN SUCH A STRANGE MIXTURE OF CIVIL LIBERTY AND MILITARY EXECUTION. WILL THE MILITIA MARCH FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCION ? IF THEY DO, WILL NOT THE CITIZENS OF INVADED STATES ASSIST ONE ANOTHER UNTIL THEY RISE AS ONE MAN, AND SHAKE OFF WHAT THEY WILL DENOUNCE AS THE HATED UNION ALTOGETHER? IF YOU SUBJUGATE THEM, HOW ARE YOU TO HOLD THEM UNDER A CONSTITUTION THAT IS TO BE IMPOSED TO INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY AND PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE ?”

When we reflect on the character and the high position held by Madison in the confidence of the people, and his great ability as a statesman, we can hardly suppose that he gave utterance to these opinions on the subject of coercion without serious reflection and consideration. Then it must be borne in mind that he was, so to speak, a member of the Government himself, and, in his official capacity, pledged to its support and maintenance. Such being the case, it will not do to treat his statements lightly, or as of little moment. But let us analyze his language and see if there can be any misconception in regard to the meaning which he intended to convey.

In the first place, then, he speaks of the use of force, as applied to a people in their collective capacity, that is, in

the organized form of a State or States. Upon that point we think there can be no doubt whatever. Next, it is essential to understand the circumstances under which he doubts the practicability and efficiency of this force. But there can be no conjecture on this point either; it is of a DISOBEDIENT STATE OR STATES he speaks. And then he goes on to say that the employment of an armed force in this case would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment;" and WHAT FOLLOWS-mark this emphatic declaration from one of the authors of the Constitution-" WOULD BE RIGHTLY CONSIDERED A DISSOLUTION OF THE PREVIOUS COMPACTS BY WHICH IT MIGHT BE BOUND.”

Here, then, is James Madison insisting, as Stephen A. Douglas in his last speech in the United States Senate asserted, that civil war is disunion-nay, not only insisting that it is disunion, but that the employment of armed force against a disobedient State "would be rightly considered a dissolution of the previous compacts by which it might be bound.". After this declaration, he puts the case still stronger by this remarkably expressive illustration: "The most jarring elements, fire and water, are not more incompatible than such a strange mixture of civil liberty and military execution." Is the English language capable of stronger expression than this? Could the subject be put more clearly or more forcibly? We should like to hear what construction the Loyal Leaguers, and those who are in favor of a vigorous prosecution of the war, would put upon the language of James Madison. If it is capable of another interpretation, then we should like to see it. After giving his views on the right of coercion, Madison then proceeds to set forth the result of such a policy; and it is really remarkable to see how far his predictions have been fulfilled by the present war. He asks: "Will the militia march from one State to another for the purpose of coercion ?" and then adds, "if they do, WILL NOT THE CITIZENS OF INVADED STATES ASSIST ONE ANOTHER, UNTIL

THEY RISE AS ONE MAN AND SHAKE OFF WHAT THEY WILL DENOUNCE AS THE HATED UNION ALTOGETHER.

99

With the clear perception of a great statesman, Madison foresaw the results of the policy of coercion, and warned

his countrymen against employing it as a means of preserving the Union. His foresight in this case is so remarkable, that one would imagine he was writing subsequent to the events instead of prophesying in regard to them three quarters of a century before their occurrence. How comes it that we have gone so far astray from the landmarks of the Revolution ? How comes it that we have forgotten the teachings of the fathers of the Republic? What ignis fatuus has lured us from the straight path which they marked out? The country has been seduced from its political faith and principles by the foul spirit of discord in the form of Abolitionism. We have given up George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and their compatriots of the Revolution, for such men as Abraham Lincoln, John C. Fremont, Charles Sumner, and their fellow-Abolitionists, who have told us that the Union could not exist half slave half free. We have abandoned the traditionary policy of the country, which was that of compromise, for the law of force and coercion. We have made war upon State Governments, and the Administration, in doing so, HAS BEEN GUILTY OF

THE MOST FLAGRANT OUTRAGE UPON THAT VERY PRINCIPLE

OF AUTHORITY BY WHICH IT IS SUSTAINED. Its whole spirit in the present crisis has been in direct conflict with the interests of the country. Its policy in the prosecution of the war has been more calculated to widen the chasm that now divides the North and the South, than to heal the wounds of our bleeding country. Its policy is the policy of rapine, plunder, and devastation. Abundant proofs of this have been furnished by the reports of recent raids in Southern States, when private property was destroyed with the most ruthless vandalism; the homes of planters were burned to the ground; towns and villages were given over to the brand, and even sacred edifices were not exempted from the general destruction; and all this was done in sovereign and independent States, and by men who boasted their inheritance of the principles of civil and religious liberty. The work of confiscation and emancipation has only been stayed by the bravery of a people who firmly believed in the righteousness of their cause, and who now stand upon the same ground with re

gard to State rights that was occupied by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

There is no disguising the fact, that this is an Abolition war; that it is carried on by men who have worked all their lives for the dissolution of the Union. They may try to conceal their policy, but the facts are on record against them, and they can not escape the crushing evidence of their own words and deeds. They have a fearful account to answer for. They have sacrificed a nation to a sentiment; they have plunged the land in a sea of blood; they have brought desolation and mourning into tens of thousands of once happy homes; they have combined with the British Abolitionists for the overthrow of the Republic; hundreds of thousands of our people have been victimized to their fiendish designs, and they have struck a blow at popular liberty from which it may never recover. Must we plunge irretrievably in the abyss which has been opened by the fell spirit of Abolitionism? Must we continue this shedding of brothers' blood, this work of Cain in a more extended and fearful form? Are the votaries of Moloch not yet satisfied, and must they have more blood? Forbid it every sense of right, every sense of justice, every sense of humanity. Let us then have peace, that the wounds of the country may be healed. Let us have peace, that the tears of the widows and orphans may cease to flow Let us have peace, that an end may be put to the military despotism under which the people are now groaning. Let us have peace, that the country may not be overburdened with excessive taxation. Let us have peace, as the only means of averting the reign of anarchy which will surely attend the prolongation of this war. And let us have peace if we would not have American freedom crushed out by the heel of an armed despotism.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES.

(From the METROPOLITAN RECORD, May 16, 1863.)

THE desperate effort that is being made by the Administration to overthrow the sovereignty of the States and to establish a consolidated despotism on its ruins has been practically illustrated by the establishment of the bogus State of Kanawha. If the Administration had placed no other fact on record but this, it would have been sufficient to have consigned it to everlasting infamy. That act was not only an insult to the sovereignty of every State, but it was a deadly blow aimed at the liberty of the whole country. The miserable and mendacious tricksters at Washington, in all their despotic policy, have not committed a more despotic act than that by which a new State was carved out of Virginia without the consent of the only parties by whom it could be constitutionally accomplished

its people. It was, however, only a natural sequence of the policy of the Abolition party, whose hostility to the perpetuity of the Union has been so forcibly illustrated by "the powers that be.”

The division of the State of Virginia is only an example on a small scale of the dissolution of the Union. It was a violation of the very principle of unity, as well as a great outrage upon the independence of a sovereign State. Nothing is more clearly set forth in the Constitution, and the writings of the statesmen of the Revolution, than this great principle of the inviolability of a State. Yet the Administration, although relying upon the support which it has received from some of the States FOR THE SUBJUGATION OF THE OTHERS, have been steadily and persistently engaged in undermining the very foundation upon which they rest. They have carried their Abolition policy not only into Southern States, but into Northern States. They have imprisoned not only Southern citizens, but Northern citizens; and they have established military law not only in the South, but in the North. THE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, MAY PROPERLY BE SAID TO BE AT WAR WITH BOTH SECTIONS, for our fellow-citizens of this and