in the language of Grayson, that the new Union would be made "to exchange the poverty of the North for the riches of the South." In the words of Henry, "This Government subjects every thing to the Northern majority. Is there not, then, a settled purpose to check the Southern interest? We thus put unbounded power over our property in hands not having a common interest with us. How can the Southern members prevent the adoption of the most oppressive mode of taxation in the Southern States, as there is a majority in favor of the Northern States? Sir, this is a picture so horrid, so wretched, so dreadful, that I need no longer dwell upon it."* Did the Convention of Virginia, then, seek to quiet these dreadful apprehensions, by declaring, that the people of the United States "as one great society," might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be perverted to their oppression? By declaring, that this one great society, or rather the majority of this society, might resume the powers of the Federal Government whensoever they should be pleased to use them for the oppression of the minority? Could any possible interpretation render any legislation more absolutely ridiculous? It puts the remedy in the hands of those from whom the evil is expected to proceed! It gives the shield of defence to the very power which holds the terrible sword of destruction!

The Convention of Virginia spoke "in behalf of the people of Virginia;" and not in behalf of the overbearing majority, by whom it was feared these people might be crushed. They sought to protect, not the people of America, who needed no protection, but the people of Virginia. Hence, as the people of Virginia had delegated powers to the Federal Government, they reserved "in behalf of the people of Virginia," the right to resume those powers whensoever they should be perverted to their injury or oppression.

* Elliot's Debates, Vol. iii, p. 312.

Now this reservation enures to the benefit of all the parties to the Constitutional compact; for as all such compacts are mutual, so no one party can be under any greater obligation than another. Hence, a condition in favor of one is a condition in favor of all. This wellknown principle was asserted by Mr. Calhoun in the great debate of 1833, with the remark that he presumed it would not be denied by Mr. Webster; and it was not denied by him. Hence any State, as well as Virginia, had the express right to resume the powers delegated by her to the Federal Government, "in case they should be perverted to her injury or oppression.

But, it may be asked, were the powers of the Federal Government perverted to the injury or oppression of any Southern State? It might be easily shown, that they were indeed perverted to the injury and oppression of more States than one; but this is unnecessary, since the parties to the compact, the sovereign States by whom it was ratified, are the judges' of this question.*

*See Virginia Resolutions of '98; Kentucky Resolutions of '98 and '99; the Virginia Report of 1800, &c., &c.

CHAPTER XVII.

Arguments against the Right of Secession.

HAVING Considered the arguments in favor of the right of secession, it is, in the next place, proper to analyze and discuss those which have been most confidently urged against that right. Among these, none have been relied on with greater confidence, than those which are supposed to flow from the express language of the Constitution. This class of arguments shall, therefore, occupy the first place in the following examination and discussion.

Argument from "the very words" of the Constitution. Now this argument comes directly to the point. Let us see, then, these "very words and avowed design of the compact" of 1787, by which the right of secession is repudiated and rejected. "The contracting parties," we are told, stipulate that "the Union shall be perpetual."+ Again, the same writer says, "these States are pledged to a perpetual Union;" quoting, as he supposes, the very words of the Constitution. But, unfortunately for his confident argument, these words are not to be found in the Constitution at all. They are evidently taken from the old Articles of Confederation! Would it not be well, if learned doctors of divinity would only condescend to read the Constitution, before they undertake to interpretate it for the benefit of their confiding flocks? Especially,

*The Rev. Dr. Hodge on the State of the Country, p. 24. † Ibid. p. 25.

should they not take some little pains to ascertain "the very words of the compact" of 1787, before they erect on its very words the grave charge of treason against their "Southern brethren ?"

The Constitution, says an English writer, does "expressly prohibit the States from entering into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, such as the so-called Southern Confederacy."* This argument is relied on with great confidence. It may be found in all the books, pamphlets, and publications, with which the opponents of secession have flooded the English 'public on the "American Question." Yet, as it appears to me, it clearly admits of two perfectly satisfactory replies.

In the first place, the Constitution, or the new "Articles of Union," is obligatory only upon the members of the Union. No one supposes that the States could, while remaining in the Union, form any other "treaty, alliance, or confederation." But their duty while in the Union is one thing, and their right to withdraw from the Union is quite another. In the articles of any partnership, whether great or small, a clause may be inserted forbidding the parties to enter into any other partnership of the same kind, or for the same purpose. Indeed this is often done. But who, for a moment, ever imagined that such a clause would render the partnership perpetual, or forever prevent any of its members from withdrawing from the firm?

In the second place, the words in question were transferred from the old to the new "Articles of Union." Thus, say the old Articles, "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever between them."+ Now this clause was binding as long as the Confederation continued. But did it prohibit “any two or more States" from withdrawing from the Union, in order to establish "a more perfect" one? By no means. It is, on the contrary, perfectly notorious, that *Ludlow's History of the United States. † Art. VI.

some of the States did withdraw from that Union in order to form the Union of 1787. Hence, nothing but the blind force of passion can render this clause more obligatory in the new "Articles of Union," or in the Constitution, than it was in the old one.

Nay, if words could have made any union of States perpetual, the old Articles of Confederation would still form the supreme law of the American Union. For the thirteenth Article expressly declares, that "the articles of this confederation shall be observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alterations be agreed to by a Congress of the United States, and be afterward confirmed by the Legislatures of every State." Yet, in spite of these words, some of the States did withdraw from that "perpetual union," and formed a new one. The people of 1787 refused to be bound by the people of 1778. They deemed themselves no less sovereign than their predecessors. Hence, in the words of the English writer above-quoted, "the plan of course failed, like all similar attempts to fetter future legislation."*

No words, and no principle of law or justice, could render such Articles of Union forever binding on free, sovereign, and independent States. Nothing but passion, or brute force, could have compelled the millions of 1865 to bend their necks to the legislation of 1787 against their will. The Union of '87 owed its existence to secession from a voluntary association of States; and, being itself a voluntary association of States, it could not escape from the law of its creation. The right of secession was, indeed, the law both of its origin and its existence.

The English writer, who argues so confidently against the right of secession from the words of the Constitution, does not seem to have been at all aware that those words were borrowed from the old Articles of Confederation, *Ludlow's History of the United States, pp. 143-4.