the Constitution. There is no longer a citizen of the United States; he has become an American. Intense jealousy of centralized power has changed into admiration of administrative unity, and has even ripened into a craving for "strong government." The words nation and nationality appear almost in every sentence of every argument on this subject, although it is on record that the term "National Government," which appeared in the first draft of the Constitution, was struck out in the Convention, on the ground of its being inapplicable to the facts, and opposed to the intentions of the parties. It is remarkable, too, that this motion was carried unanimously.

Here is at once a remarkable discrepancy between the views of those who framed the Constitution, and the doctrines prevailing at the present day. We shall soon arrive, as in all such cases, at questions of interpretation. Whom are we to take as our guides-the framers of the instrument whose evidence is on record, or those who read it, influenced by the altered feelings of the present day? Mr. Lincoln lately observed that the intention of the lawgiver is the law. If so, we shall be more likely to find what the law really is by studying the intentions of its framers, as expressed in their own words, than through the eloquence, however graceful, of partial advocates of the present period.

It will be necessary to discard from our view all consideration of the prosperity of the United

States, from whatever cause arising. Were the inquiry into the wisdom or expediency of secession, this would have great weight, but with an examination of legal right it has no concern. The descriptions put forward are offered as proof of possession, and presumptive evidence against the right asserted. But a person may be in possession of a magnificent estate, enjoying the reputation of owner, endowed by it with wealth and surrounded with authority; yet when there is occasion to examine the title deeds, it may be found that another, remote, unheard of, has just and legal rights in the property. That distant man, be he never so poor, must have a hearing. Questions of right may not be debarred because they are inconvenient to discuss, or by holding it absurd to question the title, with him who derives such wealth and advantages from possession of the estate.

Secession is by no means a novel doctrine. In the first session of Congress under the new Constitution, it was threatened in the first serious contest that arose; and this in the presence of several of the framers of the Constitution. Again, when Washington expressed reluctance to be elected as President for a second term, Jefferson wrote to urge his assent; and the weightiest reason he assigned, in proof that the country required experience at the head of affairs, was this, that the coming election would involve great danger of a "secession from the Union" of those who should

be defeated. It can hardly be supposed that this right would have been openly declared by members of Congress, or that the probability of the event would have been thus urged on Washington, had it been regarded by public opinion as an illegal or treasonable act. It seems rather to be inferred that there existed in the minds of those, who with the facts so recent were most competent to judge, a conviction that the right existed and might be exercised-that able and just government would avoid it but still that it was there.

The doctrine, indeed, has been maintained and loudly declared, both in the North and South, at frequent periods in the history of the Union. Jefferson, in his Ana, refers to that occasion of its being first raised in Congress, and observes that it was the Eastern, that is, the Northern States, who especially threatened to secede. He describes a walk with Hamilton, in which the latter painted pathetically the danger of the secession of their members, and the separation of the States. And the Northern States were the first to raise it practically. The war of 1813 was highly unpopular in that district, and when called upon by the President to supply their quotas of militia, they absolutely declined. In the words of Jefferson to Lafayette: "During that war four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like so many inanimate bodies to living men." But they went far beyond inaction. They called a Convention at Hartford, of which the proceedings

were suppressed, but the object is well known; a flag appeared with five stripes, secession was threatened in the loudest terms, nor can there be a doubt in the mind of any one who studies the events of that period, that the New England States would have seceded from the Union had the war continued.

The State of Massachusetts has threatened, indeed, on four separate occasions to secede from the Union. First, in the debates referred to on the adjustment of the State debts; secondly, on the purchase of Louisiana and its admission into the Union; thirdly, during the war of 1813; and fourthly, on the annexation of Texas, when, we believe, one chamber of her legislature actually passed a vote of secession. On these occasions it was no mere act of excited individuals, but the general voice of the community. Yet this State is now the loudest in denouncing it, when inconvenient to herself; and a bastile is now said to be preparing in the vicinity of Boston, for the incarceration of those as political prisoners, who simply utter the opinions which, when it suited, this very State has so often and so vehemently expressed.

It has been a popular illustration with the advocates of the Union, that if a State may secede, so may a county from a State, or a town from a county, until society break up into chaos. The fallacy of this is very obvious. A State claims to secede in virtue of her right as a sovereignty.

P

When a county becomes a sovereignty it may prefer an equal claim, but then it cannot be a county. The comparison fails in other respects. The secession of a State from others is the case of men who separate; the secession of a county would be that of a limb torn from the body. There is also no such practical danger as that which has been described. The secession of a single State would be suicidal; it would be surrounded with customhouses, cramped with restrictions, and crushed under the expenses involved. North Carolina and Rhode Island, after refusing to join the Union, and holding out for more than two years, were at last constrained to accede, by the same causes which will always prevent any State from attempting to stand alone. Practically the right could not be exercised, even if conceded, except by a number of States together, sufficient in resources to enable them to maintain their position, and to endure the heavy cost of a separate government. Indeed, if justly governed, it is by no means clear why there should be any desire to secede.

A much more subtle argument was used by Jefferson, since often repeated. He observed that if one State claimed the right to secede from the rest, the others would have equal right to secede from one State, which would amount to turning it out of the Union. The argument is based on the assumption that a State, claiming the one, and objecting to the other, would exhibit a conflict of principles. But a State would protest against