powers these were prerogatives merged in the Union by the individual States, and could not therefore be resumed except by general consent of the contracting parties. The second of the "Articles of Confederation" declares that every State retains its sovereignty, and every right which is not by this Confederation especially delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. Obviously therefore these delegated rights can no longer be claimed. Article V. says that no two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without consent of the United States in Congress assembled. But the southern States have done this. They have there rebelled. The constitution of 1787 (Art. III. Sec. 3.) declares that treason against the United States consists in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies. In levying war against the Federal Government, the southern States are therefore, according to the constitution, traitors and rebels.

But where there is no constitutional right of secession, there may be a rational right of rebellion. In case of glaring abuse of power by the executive, where gross injustice has been perpetrated, where tyranny is unendurable, then the ultimate right of rebellion must be conceded. Thus we rejoice in the recent revolutions in Italy thus we boast of our own Glorious Revolution" to which Queen Victoria owes her throne. Had the southern States such a plea? It is sometimes said, that

66

as the American colonies seceded from Great Britain, so the South may secede from the North. The colonies seceded because they were oppressed, and taxed without being represented. But the South were not oppressed, were not unrepresented. They formed a constituent part of the government. In fact they had a greater proportionate share in the representation than the North.

In the North, population alone determined the franchise, one member being allotted to every 120,000. Persons alone were represented, not property. But in the South, in addition to persons, property was allowed to send members to Congress. Slaves are by the law not persons but mere chattels. Of course they have no votes. Nevertheless, five slaves in the South are reckoned as equal to three free whites, in order to increase the number of representatives. Estimating the slaves at four millions, these would count for 2,400,000 of popu lation, entitling to twenty representatives. Estimating the free population of the South at 6,000,000, their quota of members is fifty. But by the addition of the property qualification they can send 70. Thus the value of a Southern vote exceeds that of a Northern in the proportion of 70 to 50; i. e., is equal to one vote and twofifths. So that five voters in the South have as much influence as seven voters in the North. They could not therefore, maintaining as they do that the slaves are not persons but mere chattels, complain of not being allowed a fair share in the representation.

Nor could they aver that they had been tyrannically overborne by the North. On the contrary, the North had habitually deferred to them, as we have seen in the admission of Missouri as a slave State contrary to the. act of limitation; in altering the tariff on the demand of South Carolina; in the admission of Texas, and in passing the Fugitive Slave Law. Moreover, the South had almost always, through alliance with their democrat sympathizers in the North, secured their own candidate for the presidential chair. As long as by securing a majority in Congress they ruled the country, they upheld the Union. As soon as they were in a decided minority and saw the sceptre transferred to their rivals, they seceded. How can any committee work, any society hold together, any government be carried on, unless the minority yield to the majority? If we submit to laws only so long as our own opinions prevail, what is such submission worth? Power had changed sides, not through violence, but simply by the operation of natural causes, and in accordance with the constitution. As soon as the Southerners found themselves outvoted, before the new ruler had performed one official act, before he was even inaugurated, while yet their own President retained office, without the plea that any law had been broken, without resorting to any legal method of redress, they threw off their allegiance, and in so doing violated the constitution to which they had sworn, on a plea subversive of the fundamental principles of national exis

tence. They are therefore rebels, rebels moreover destitute of the only plea by which rebellion can be justified.

II.

IS THE NORTH JUSTIFIED IN WAGING WAR TO RESTORE THE UNION?

The answer is already given. Putting aside abstract peace principles, if the South rebelled, the North was justified in resisting the rebellion. If the South attacked the government the government had a right of self-defence. If national existence is desirable, should not whatever threatens it be resisted? Is it not the right, is it not the duty of a government to guard the trust committed to it, and sustain its own authority? What is evident on general principles, is expressly provided for by the Constitution of the United States which, declares (Art. I. sec. 8) that Congress has power to call out the militia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrection and to repel invasion.

It is urged as a complaint against the North that they are fighting for empire. How much more should the South be condemned, "who having always before succeeded in domineering, break off from the Union at the first moment that they can domineer no longer!" The North fight for empire! Of course they do—but to conserve their own, not to extend by seizing another's. Self-preservation is the first of instincts. Of all nations

in the world Great Britain should be the last to condemn it. Let the battle-fields of India testify how many bloody wars we have waged, not simply for the preservation, but for the extension of empire. Would not our government engage in any war at once, however costly and sanguinary, rather than submit to its forcible dismemberment? The Americans have an empire of which they may well be proud, so vast in area, so varied in its productions, so inexhaustible in wealth, so unparalleled in progress. They have special motives for preserving it one and indivisible. If divided, there will be great difficulty in settling territorial limits. Commerce may be injured by varying and hostile tariffs. The principle of disintegration may develop until there are numberless rival republics. There would be frequent strife between themselves, and peril from foreign foes. Standing armies would be required, and heavy taxation to maintain them. We cannot be surprised that the Federal government should exercise its undoubted right, and fight to avoid these perils and preserve a Union under which their nation has become so great.

We may have our own opinion as regards the expedi ency of the war. We may think that the North and the South are so incompatible in character and interest, that a permanent union between them is impossible. We may think that the area embraced by the Secession is so vast that its subjugation is impossible. Looking on from the outside we may consider that although every Southern