by removing them further from the Federal standard. In the Constitution of Maine it is stated: "All power is inherent in the people; all governments are founded in their authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an inalienable right to alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and happiness require it." That of Tennessee affirms that, "Government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind." That of Oregon, one of the most recent, declares that, "All power is inherent in the people; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper." That of Mississippi asserts that the people "have at all times an inalienable, and indefeasible right to alter, or abolish, their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient." These sentiments, slightly varied in expression, are common to the whole of the State Constitutions, and are disputed by none.

There is another great constitutional authority, the fountain head of American politics-the Declaration of Independence of which the first clause bears directly on this question: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to

R

secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it.”

These are the constitutional principles for the guidance of every citizen. When the people of Georgia, left in doubt by the silence of the Federal compact on the subject of secession, refer to these to enlighten them, to what conclusion must they come-what hesitation can they feel? They are told that the "pursuit of happiness" is "an inalienable right of man;" they feel that the government over them has become "destructive of this end;" they read that thereupon "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” It will, indeed, be said that the people referred to, are the whole people of the whole country, but this is not the fact; the Constitutions quoted from, speak each of them for no other than the people of its own State. That, indeed, may promote the happiness of Georgia, which produces woe in California, at a distance of three thousand five hundred miles. By what arithmetic can the balance of happiness be adjusted between them? Further, the Declaration of Independence did not speak for all the people under the rule it denounced, but for a small portion of them only; nor did it speak for the people of the United States as a single people, but as separate colonies now claiming to be independent, the respective, original States. Clearly, then, this lan

guage is adopted by the people of each separate colony now a State, having a form of government over it of which it is to judge, and which, whenever so disposed, it may abolish.

Again, governments are unjust unless their powers are based on the "consent of the governed." Here the same question arises, Who are the governed who are to consent? Are the people of the State of Georgia to refrain from dissenting until they agree with the people of Oregon, more remote than England from Arabia? But this principle also was enunciated, like the last, for the guidance of each separate, distinct community. Upon these principles we can arrive at no other conclusions than these-that according to the Constitutional doctrines of America, whenever a State decides by the vote of a majority of its people, that the government over it has become destructive to the ends of its welfare and happiness, and no longer exists in its consent, such State has a right to abolish that government, so far as it concerns itself, or, in other words, has a right to secede from the Union.

If this be so, the Union has never been a system of government, stable and permanent in its nature, but has always been exposed to be overthrown, whenever circumstances called into action, with sufficient force, the principles inherent in it. In weighing its value with a view to its restoration, this becomes of the first importance. The people of the United States are no longer infant commu

nities. A single State is now far more populous and powerful than were together the thirteen for which the Constitution was framed. Would it not be wise to adopt an entirely new system-in harmony, not with the past, but the present—not with the childhood of the people, but the vigorous manhood of the present day? No one will deny the value of experience either to men or nations. Of what value can it be, unless it produce fruit in decision, or in action? The United States have now had eighty years of experience; and in view of the dangers they have encountered, of the disastrous events occurring now, and of the altered condition of all the facts, to return, of their own act, to the old starting-point, would be no decision of mature wisdom and experience; but would rather resemble that return to second childhood which we sometimes behold with regret as the result of fourscore years.

If, however, a Union must exist, then it would appear an unwise, although it might be a convenient course, to slur over and evade this doctrine of secession. There are two ways in which to deal with it. One, to form, what has never hitherto existed a consolidated State. This it may be in the power, either of the North or the South, to do separately; conjoined, it would be idle to attempt it. Whenever it can be accomplished, the doctrine of secession dies at once.

If, however, it be impracticable to form consolidated States, and a Union or confederation

must still continue, then whatever its boundaries, there will exist within them this principle, inherent in the Federal system. It would appear the true policy of such a confederation to remove all doubt, and carry out clearly the principles of its origin, by openly declaring the right of secession. Had this been done from the first, there would probably have been no secession this day. The surest way to end the desire for any object, is to give unlimited command of it. Secession has mainly occurred because it was denied. How beneficial the consequence, had it been an admitted right for the last forty years! In place of the despotic use of political power, in contempt of the feelings or interests of other portions of the country, whether at the hands of slave-owners or monopolists—there would have been all along a tempering, moderating influence. Abolitionism, in all its extremes of virulence, has been permitted by the North because the South was considered to be fast. It might writhe under it, but it must abide. But for this unfortunate belief, the intelligence of the North would have said, "If to gratify your passionate opinions, you indulge in such language as this, addressed to your fellow-citizens, they will separate from us; we will not have the Union destroyed at your bidding and pleasure." In like manner, when the manufacturers desired to increase ample protection to outrageous monopoly, that intelligence of the North would have said to them, "Our sister States shall not be driven from