ereign people. They are, therefore, the only bodies that can truly claim to be the sovereign people assembled. It is such a people assembled in such Conventions that adopt the Constitutions for Sovereign States. These Constitutions are of necessity the fundamental laws of the States. They prescribe the limits of legislation. They specify the duties and obligations of Legislatures. It, therefore, follows that all Legislatures are dominated by a supreme law, and are not, and cannot be, sovereign bodies, Congress is a Legislative body, working under a supreme law, the Constitution of the States United, and, therefore, Congress is not and cannot be a Sovereign Body. Its limitations are fixed, and its duties are prescribed by a Supreme Law established by a Supreme People assembled in the name of the Supreme States in a Convention, called at the option of 13 free and independent Sovereignties.

To deliberately violate the Constitution in the name of the "Worng of Slavery," or in any other name, is rebellion against the Constitution, and rebellion against the Constitution is rebellion against the Government established at Philadelphia in 1787 and 1788. This the Republican Party did, and finally induced the North to share in their rebellion. The North, therefore, are the real rebels.

A REPLY TO CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS.

Charles Francis Adams says: "We have all heard of a much quoted remark of Mr. Gladstone to the effect that the Constitution of the United States was 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' This may or may not be so. I propose neither to affirm nor controvert it, here and now, but however wonderful it may actually have been, it would have been more than wonderful, it would have been distinctly miraculous, had it on the instant so wrought with men as at once to transfer the allegiance and affection of these thirteen distinct Communities from their old traditional governments to one newly improvised. This hardly admits of discussion."

This is a remarkable confession. It admits all that the South claims. It is perhaps from the highest historical authority in all New England, "the center of knowledge and light." It is from the honored and capable head of the Massachusetts Historical Society. As we shall see, he is a better and truer historian than logician. The declaration of this high authority is that "it would have been more than wonderful," yea, that "it would have been a distinct miracle" had the sovereign States of the Union, actually transferred their allegiance and their affection from their respective State Governments to the newly formed Federal Government. This is the main question at issue between the North and South, viz: The clear cut opinion of the framers of the Constitution and of the people of the States at the time of its adoption, as to the nature and meaning of that instrument. This confession of Mr. Adams is in line with the testimony of all history, viz: That the people of the respective States in the early days of this Republic did not transfer their allegiance and affection from their States to an untried experiment; and therefore did not exalt the Federal Government above their own State Governments. Upon what ground then

can it be claimed that the Federal Government absorbed the sovereignty of the States? Also upon what other ground can we determine the question of right and justice between the two great sections of our common country than that of the Constitution-the Constitution as construed by its framers and its early expounders in the days of its adoption? Impartial history will decide that there can be, and that there will be no other basis of determining this all-important question. Justice, like "truth, though crushed to earth, will rise again."

From the very nature of things there can be no other basis than that of the Constitution on which to settle the question of right between the two sections. Was not the Constitution the one basis on which the Union was formed? This being true, every obligation of the States is bound up in the Constitution. These obligations are found nowhere else. How then is it possible to determine the questions of right or wrong between the States on any other basis? It cannot be done. There is no evading this conclusion.

But the Constitution is with the South. Therefore, Mr. Adams, like all other defenders of the great war, must seek another basis. He approaches it by degrees and with the cunning of the serpent that beguiled Eve. Witness these next words of his: "The change (made by the Constitution) was political and far-reaching; but it produced no immediate effect on the feelings of the people." As well say that the Union of the crowns of Scotland and England immediately broke up the Scotch clanship. It did break it up, but the process was continued through one hundred and fifty years. The Union became an organic fact in 1707; but as the events of forty years later showed, the consequences of the Union no Campbell or Cameron foresaw. So with us in 1788, allegiance to the States had only a few years before proved stronger than allegiance to the Crown or to the Confederation, and no one then was foolish enough to suppose that the executive of the Union "would dare to enforce a law against the wishes of a sovereign and independent State! the very idea was 'preposterous.'' May his allies forgive him for this admission!

He had just read these words of Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania written in his journal on the 22d of March, 1790, “Is it to be expected that a federal law passed directly against the sense of a whole State will ever be executed in that State?" He had also just read these other words, giving as his reference, "Gordy's Political Parties in the U. S., Vol. 1, pp. 203-341:" "That this new Government, this upstart of yesterday, had the power to interpose its edict on unwilling States was a political solecism to which they could in no wise assent." These are facts that stand out on the plain of history like mountains. It is impossible for them to escape the eye of the historian. They must, they will be recognized through all time.

May we not now ask what analogy is there between the Union of Scotland and England in 1707, and the Union of the States in 1788? Was not the former the result of royal intrigue and marriage? Did the submissive people have any voice in it at all? On the other hand, was not the Union of the American States the result of the decision of the free, independent, sovereign people of "sovereign independent States?" (Adams). In the former case the sovereigns were exclusively royal and despotic; in the latter the sovereigns were exclusively the free and sovereign people of the States.

But doubtless Mr. Adams is not greatly concerned about the analogy between the two Unions. It may not appear on the surface, but he places emphasis distinctly on the time required for the Scotch clanship to die. Does he not say in positive terms: "It did break it up; but the process was continuous through one hundred and fifty years?" If true, what significance have these words in this connection? Do they not clearly signify a search for a base, other than the Constitution, on which to determine the question of right and justice between the two sections? What means this strange claim that just as the Scotch clanship died out in a century and a half so State allegiance died out in less than three-fourths of a century Has he sustained his assertions as to State-allegiance by a single fact? Do not all know that State allegiance had not been transferred to the Federal Government in 1860? Do not all know that the stronger

the allegiance to the State the stronger is the allegiance to the Federal Government? Do not all know it was the South's strong allegiance to her State Governments with a devotion, judged by her heroism and sacrifices in the Sixties, unparalleled in the history of the world? It is the want of allegiance to the States that set aside the Constitution and supplanted it with a mere fiction. Stripped of its verbiage and elegant phrases how does his argument appear? Here it is: The Union of Scotland and England broke up the Scotch Clanship in less than a century and a half. Therefore, the Union of the American States broke up the allegiance to these States in less time than three-quarters of a century. Was anything ever more absurd?

After quoting Senator Maclay's declaration, "That this new Government, this Upstart of yesterday, had the power to impose its edicts on unwilling States was a political solecism to which they could, in no wise, assent," the very next words of Mr. Adams are strong endorsement of these utterances. They are these:

"I am sure all this was so in 1788. I am very confident it remained so until 1815. I fully believe it was so, though in less degree, until at least 1830. A generation of men born in the Union had then grown up, supplanting the generations born and brought up in the States. Steam and electricity had not yet begun their cementing influence, but time, sentiment, tradition— more and most of all, the intense feeling excited North and South by our naval successes under the National flag in the War of 1812—had in 1815 in large part done their work. The sense of ultimate allegiance was surely though slowly as insensibly shifting from the particular and gravitating to the general-from the State to the Union. It was not a question of law, or of the intent of the fathers, or of the true construction of a written instrument; for on that vital point the Constitution was silent." Hear! Hear!! Hear!!!

We have the admission of Mr. Adams that from 1788 to 1830 the people had not transferred their allegiance and affection from their respective State Governments to the Federal Government. This is followed by the very strange declaration that during a