impeachable premises. All know there is no power above that of the Omnipotent God of this Universe, its Creator and Preserver. Therefore Fate is not what some think it is, but simply the result of a cause; this and nothing more.

But be fate whatever it may it is absolutely certain it is not a substitute for the Constitution. If, however, there could possibly be a question as to its being a rightful substitute for the Constitution the silence of that instrument would make the State and not the Federal Government the judge unless its silence is also subordinated to Fate's imperious rules. The same may be said of all the thirteen other so-called Substitutes grouped in this chapter for the particular purpose of calling special attention to their true nature, and hence to their self-evident unfitness for so high a purpose. We shall treat of other substitutes as the occasion demands.

A few Admitted Facts in this connection; Charles Francis Adams, in Lee's Centennial, states this universally admitted fact: "All attributes not specifically conceded were reserved to the States, and no attributes of moment were to be construed as conceded by implication. There is no attribute of sovereignty so important as allegiance the citizenship-Not only was allegiance the right to define and establish citizenship—not among the attributes specifically conceded by the several States to the central nationality, but, on the contrary it was explicitly reserved, the instrument declaring that 'the citizens of each State' should be entitled to 'all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' Ultimate allegiance was, therefore, due to the State which defined and created citizenship, and not to the central organization which accepted as citizens whomsoever the states pronounced to be such. Thus far I have never been able to see where room was left for doubt. Citizenship was an attribute recognized by the Constitution as originating with, and of course belonging to, the several States."

and 12).

(pp. 11

Mr. Thorpe, Editor of the Civil War from a Northern standpoint, admits as much. But just as soon as such admissions are made, apparently in good faith, the admitter flies off at a tangent in language somewhat like these words of Mr. Adams:

"The Anglo Saxon race and their hard common sense," "their established custom of recognizing as a binding rule of action are embodied in what they are proud to term Common Law," etc. They then unblushingly subordinated the Constitution to the Anglo Saxon "Common Sense" and "Common Law," etc. They also refer to the North as constituting "the conservative majority" and as "believers in National Sovereignty," and to the South as "those who passionately adhered to State sovereignty, treading in the footsteps of the fathers," and "those who have become eighteenth century reactionists."

Pause here for a moment's reflection. The Constitution was once revered alike in the North and in the South. Then came there a time when the North ranked substitutes above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land while the South for her unbroken devotion to the Constitution was given the sobriquet of "Eighteenth Century reactionists." By this fanciful epithet is meant the South in 1861 still construed the Constitution as it was construed during Washington's term of office as President. Was it a crime to place Washington's construction of the Constitution and that of his compeers upon this instrument? If not by what code of morals was the South condemned in 1861 as "rebels and traitors?"

CHAPTER XXI.

"COERCION UNDER THE SMOOTH PHRASES

OF EXECUTING THE LAWS AND PRO

TECTING PUBLIC PROPERTY."

(Senator Lane of Oregon.)

Among other things we have shown that in the early days of this Republic no man denied the right of secession. We have shown that the Federal Government taught this right to its own cadets in its own military school at West Point. We have shown that as late as 1844 when the annexation of Texas was. a burning issue the New England States asserted this right as a matter of fact. We have shown that four years later, in 1848, Abraham Lincoln, in the broadest of terms, declared the right of a State to secede. The unmistakable meaning of the fourteen substitutes for the Constitution, recited in the last chapter, teach the same lesson. In short we have shown from high Northern authority that in the dawn of this Republic, when the people were deeply concerned on the question of State rights and State Sovereignty that "nine men out of every ten in the North and ninety-nine out of every hundred in the South" believed the States had this right.

In the closing days of 1860 and early days of 1861, before Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, the public mind was being tested as to the right of the Federal Government "to enforce the law and collect revenues in the seceding States." Expressions of opinion, by the leading statesmen and leading papers in the North, developed the fact that in spite of "unwritten constitutions," "higher laws," "common laws," "nationalization," etc., the South was not alone by a great deal, even then, in asserting the right of secession. Few indeed were those who openly declared the right of the Government to coerce the seceding States. And even these few presented it under the "delusive and am

biguous guise of the 'the execution of the laws' and 'protection of public property."

Mr. Greely, the editor of the New York Tribune and author of "The American Conflict," on November the 9th, 1860, only a few days after the election of Lincoln, said: "We hold with Jefferson to the inalienable right of communities to alter or abolish forms of government that have become oppressive, or injurious; and if the Cotton States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be revolutionary but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has the right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof. And whenever a considerable section of our country shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercion measures designed to keep her in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets." (American Conflict ch. 23, p 359.)

Mr. Greely, as editor of the Tribune, did more perhaps than any other in securing the election of Lincoln. He was regarded as Lincoln's most influential champion. These words of his have the true Constitutional ring, and are kindred in sentiment to the utterances of Hamilton and Madison and Marshall and all the great statesmen who wrought so well in the early days of this American Republic.

The Albany Argus, only second in ability to that of Tribune said: "We sympathize with and justify the South as far as this: their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution and, beyond this limit their feelings have been insulted and their interest and honor assailed by almost every possible form of denunciation and invective; and, if we deemed it certain that the real animus of the Republican Party could be carried into the administration of the Federal Government, and become the permanent policy of the Nation, we should think that all the instincts of selfpreservation and of manhood rightfully impel them to a resort to revolution and to a separation from the Union, and we

would applaud them and wish them God-speed in the adoption of such a remedy.

"If South Carolina or any other State, through a convention of her people, shall formally separate herself from the Union, probably both the present and the next administration will simply let her alone, and quietly allow all the functions of the Federal Government within her limits to be suspended. Any other course would be madness; as it would at once enlist all the Southern States in the controversy and plunge the whole country into a civil war. . As a matter of policy and wisdom, therefore, independent of the question of right, we should deem resort to force most disastrous." (American Conflict).

The American Conflict is also authority that the New York Herald, about the same time, said, "Each State is organized as a complete Government, holding the purse and weilding the sword, possessing the right to break the tie of Confederation as a nation might break a treaty, and repell coercion as a Nation might repell invasion."

These great papers, centers of wide influence, went into the homes of Northern millions. Doubtless in a vast majority of those homes their views on the right of a State to secede were heartily endorsed. The question, therefore, is how were these wide-spread sentiments in favor of peace overcome and made to favor coercion. We shall see as we proceed.

On the 21st day of January, 1861, only a month and a few days before the inauguration of Lincoln, a vast meeting of prominent citizens assembled in the city of New York. Six States had now seceded, and the condition of the country was perilous. This alarming condition of the country had called together this great assembly. James S. Thayer was one of the principle speakers. His speech was received with great applause. Here are sentences from that speech: "We can at least, in an authoritative way and a practical manner, arrive at the basis of a peaceable separation. (Applause). We can at least by discussion enlighten, settle, and concentrate public sentiment in the State of New York upon this question, and save it from a fearful current, which circuitously but certainly sweeps