Upon what ground does he justify this revolt against the plain terms of the Constitution? His own words tell in language that does not equivocate. His words are clear and to the point. They were meant to be understood. The ground is this: "By a fair and unquestionable majority we have secured that triumph,"that is elected-"have elected a candidate opposed to the extension of slavery." That "fair and unquestionable majority" was 1,866,853 votes for Lincoln against 3,010,501 votes against him; that is thirty-eight and three-tenths per cent. for him, and sixtyone and seven-tenths per cent. against him. It is therefore certain that a majority of the popular vote was not for him. It is also certain that the minority popular vote was exclusively sectional, according to Judge Chase's own words: "The election must be regarded as the triumph of the principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the free States." But even if Lincoln had received a majority of the popular votes of both sections it would not, have changed the Constitution, because this instrument recognizes no such method of change.

Nor did Lincoln receive three-fourths of the electoral votes, to say nothing of the votes of three-fourths of the States. But had three-fourths of the 33 States voted for him his election would not have amended the Constitution, because, in the first place, his party did not propose their platform as an amendment to the Constitution to be voted on in that election; and, in the second place, if they had proposed it as an amendment to be voted on in that election, their proposition would have been null and void, because in opposition to the expressed provisions of the Constitution. Hence Judge Chase was honest enough to sayhis party would disregard the Constitution as to the right of the Southern people's taking their slaves into the common territories. This is not only a clear violation of the Constitution; it is also a clear violation of that "higher law" to which, in their extremity they appealed. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Judge Chase makes another confession of his party having violated the Constitution. It is in these words: "Aside from the

Territorial question-the question of Slavery outside the Slave States-I know of but one serious difficulty. I refer to the question concerning fugitives from service. The clause in the Constitution concerning this class of persons is regarded by almost all men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender to their masters of slaves escaping into free States. The people of the free States, however, who believe that slavery is wrong can not, and will not aid in the reclamatoin and the stipulation becomes therefore a dead letter.... Why not then avoid all difficulties on all sides and show respectively good faith and good-will by providing and accepting compensation where masters reclaim escaping servants and prove their right of reclamation under the Constitution? Instead of a judgment for rendition, let there be a judgment for compensation, determined by the true value of the services, and let the same judgment for compensation be determined by the true value of the services, and let the same judg ment assure freedom to the fugitive. The cost to the National Treasury would be as nothing in comparison with the evils of discord and strife. All parties would be gainers."

The first trouble about this fascinating proposition is, it was never proposed by the party in power as an amendment to the Constitution. To become effective it was absolutely necessary that it be made an amendment to the Constitution. It is certain the States were never asked to vote upon such an amendment. It is believed that the Southern States would have voted for it. Mr. Stephens suggests another difficulty as to the proposition, viz:

"Whatever may be thought of this as a proposed compromise to induce the parties to remain in the Union, no one can doubt its unequivocal declaration that the non-slaveholding States would comply with their acknowledged obligations under the Constitution. It was a confession of one high in authority that that part of the Constitution was 'a dead letter,' and, of course if the Southern States would not agree to his offer, they were absolved from all further obligation to the compact. This is conclusive upon well settled principles of public law.

"The declaration that the Northern States would not comply with their Constitutional obligations, bear in mind, was made by

He spoke for

the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under Lincoln. the President and his party"-the party that charged the South with "the most causeless and wicked rebellion that the world has ever seen;" and all because the South was true to the Constitution and rejected their substitution of a Party Platform for the Constitution.

CHAPTER XVI.

SOVEREIGNTY AND SECESSION.

It is universally admitted that unless the States were mere Provinces they were Sovereigns. All admit they were not Provinces. Therefore they were Sovereigns. No one denies the right of a Sovereign State to both accede and to secede. Sovereignty then involves the right of secession.

This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when, on the 12th day of January, 1848, as reported in the Congressional Globe, he said in the House of Representatives:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and to form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable right, a sacred right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole of any existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Strong, clear and broad expressions are these. Not a signer of the Declaration of Independence, not a signer of the Philadelphia Constitution, not a Northerner who lived under that Constitution during its first four decades, not a Southerner who lived under its rule for the first seven decades could advocate secession in broader, stronger, clearer, more impressive terms than did Abraham Lincoln. If secession was rebellion never lived a greater rebel than Lincoln.

That we may bring out the views of Lincoln into their true light let us question him, and have him give answer in his own words.

Question:

Mr. Lincoln, do you mean to say that people of every clime and every condition of life have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government?

Answer: I mean "any people anywhere." "Any people" includes every condition of life; and "everywhere" includes every clime.

Question: You do not mean to say you include the Southern States of this American Union?

Answer: "Any people anwhere" includes all States of every It therefore includes the States description and of every locality.

in the Southern Section of this Republic.

Quesiton: Mr. Lincoln, what belongs to any people anywhere? Answer: "The right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form a new one that suits them better."

Question: Mr. Lincoln, what is your opinion of their political right?

Answer: "This is a most valuable and sacred right, and a right we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

Question: Mr. Lincoln, does this most valuable, this most sacred right" apply to a people as a whole only, or is it also applicable to a portion of the whole?

Answer: "Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit."

They were made by a man

These are sweeping declarations. who just 12 years, one month and 15 days later stood before a New York audience in the Cooper Institute, and denied to the Southern States this "most valuable and most sacred right." Yet these States were included in "any people anywhere," and besides they were included in a very special sense in that they had reNot only served this right in becoming members of the Union. did he deny them this right in the sixties but he waged war agaist them for exercising it. What verdict do these facts render? The calm judgment of the impassioned future must decide. Who doubts what that decision will be?

In

All must admit that a great change took place in Abraham Lincoln between 1848 and 1860. How shall we account for it? Will it be attributed to the hope of political preferment? 1848 he was just a plain, awkward, unassuming, unheralded member of Congress, low down in the marsh of politics. In 1860 he had a vision of the Presidency; he had been lifted to a high mountain top, and shown all the glory of the head of the great Ameri