.A. 
 
 
 .*<?* 
 
 c v ♦ 
 
 
 % ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 °o 
 
 
 L°V. 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 • ■ 
 
 lV«* 
 
 .0 ^ *? f%* «jK q. 
 
 
 o 
 
 °o 
 
 
 ^ .♦^»". ^** /^tei\ v,^ •k&r^-. ^ 
 
 
 ,* ^0^ -, 
 
 • < CX • , 
 
 W* ♦* X J -l a*" -^^- °< 
 
 
 t • o 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 6 
 
 
 
*■■*— p 
 
 A NORTHERN PLEA 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 EIGHT OF SECESSION. 
 
 OF OTTAWA, ILL. 
 
 OTTAWA : 
 
 Printed at the Office of* the BYee Trader 
 
 1861. 
 
 J 
 
A NORTHERN PLEA 
 
 J OR THE 
 
 IIGHT OF SECESSION 
 
 BY GEO. "W. BASSETT. 
 
 The great event of the day and of the world, is the formal dissolution 
 of the American Union. 
 
 But secession, the exciting phenomenon, is only the fatal issue of a 
 chronic disease, as old as the nation. The seeds of dissolution were 
 planted in the American Government at its formation. 
 
 Long before the South Carolina ordinance of secession, was this Union 
 of States destroyed in spirit and practice. The laws which obligate the 
 States and their citizens to each other, have been practically nullified 
 for years. While a citizen of Massachusetts, or of any other Northern 
 State, can traverse the whole wide extent of the British Empire, and, 
 whatever his color, creed or condition at home, his natural rights be as 
 firmly protected as those of the Queen on her throne ; the moment he 
 crosses the line which divides the slave from the non-slave States, he is 
 subject to indignities and lawless outrage, unsurpassed by the selfish 
 cruelty of the most wild and inhospitable barbarians. 
 
 It is a humiliating thought, that there is no power in the civilized 
 world that could protect the life of the President elect, though uncharged 
 with civil crime, were he now to attempt to pass through the Slave 
 States of this Kepublic. 
 
 The mere ordinance of a misguided State, therefore, is not the cause 
 of the dissolution of the American Union. A more potent agency has 
 long since wrought the fatal work, beyond t the remedy of civil or military 
 power. 
 
 But the formal separation of the States, so long increasingly probable, 
 has at length become a matter of history. The spirited State of South 
 Carolina has led the way, and. by the highest act of popular sovereignty, 
 
[2] 
 
 formally repealed the ordinance of 1788, whereby the Constitution of the 
 United States of America was ratified, and has thus dissolved her Union 
 with the other States of this Confederacy. 
 
 One star, followed by another and another and others still, have fled 
 from the American galaxy. 
 
 Whether there is any legitimate or illegitimate power able to sieze and 
 replace them again, and bind them in their former and formal courses of 
 reluctant submission, is the question of the times. 
 
 It is to the candid and deliberate consideration of this question, that 
 I now ask attention. 
 
 An exigency has occurred in the history of our country, which requires 
 the guidance of fundamental principles and the promptings of a mag- 
 nanimous spirit. Without original and profound views of the principles 
 of government, we shall find ourselves bewildered at every point. Nay ! 
 we may fancy that we are incidentally advancing the cause of freedom, 
 when, in fact, by obeying the dictates of prejudice and following the pre- 
 cedents of the past, we may be forging chains for ourselves, and strength- 
 ening those which have so long bound the Negro slave. 
 
 It may be thought strange that, with my well-known hostility to 
 American Slavery, together with the almost unanimous anti-secession 
 feeling of the North, I should, in this specific controversy, take the side 
 of the South. 
 
 But it is not in the enslavement of her poor, that I side with her; but 
 in her inalienable right of national sovereignty. 
 
 The greater question of the existence of slavery is a distinct matter, 
 and, if involved at all, very differently, in my apprehension, from that of 
 the popular mind generally at the North. Nor have I failed to give duo 
 consideration to that greatest of political problems. 
 
 THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 The specific question is, "Has any one of the United States a right to secede 
 from the Union at her own option V 
 
 This should not be confounded with other collateral or incidental 
 questions, such as, whether there is sufficient cause for secession ? or 
 whether it is expedient for the seceding States ? or best for the other 
 States ? 
 
 I propose to discuss the absolute and -unqualified right of the people of any 
 State to dissolve their political connection with the General Government whenever 
 they choose. 
 
 The right of secession implies, of course, the right of the people to be 
 their own exclusive judges in the matter. By the very act of asking 
 the consent or permission of the other States to secede, they relinquish 
 the right to do so. So by granting them that permission, you would 
 deny them the right. Says Furguson, " Liberty is a right which every 
 individual must be ready to vindicate for himself, and which he who 
 pretends to bestow as a favor, has by that very act in reality denied." 
 
[3 ] 
 
 POPULAR SUPREMACY. 
 
 Before entering upon the direct argument for the right of State se- 
 cession, and as preparatory to it, 1 will invite attention briefly to the 
 great fundamental principle of all free government, viz: The poetical 
 supremacy of the people of any given territory over all other human authority, 
 subject only to natural justice. A due consideration of the nature and le- 
 gitimate object of government will make this principle obvious to reason. 
 The true nature of government is the will of the people governed, volun- 
 tarily expressed and enforced by themselves. Its object is protection 
 from injustice. The true idea of government is, that of a mutual league 
 of such persons as may voluntarily unite to protect each other against 
 lawless and vicious men. One man is not naturally more a ruler than 
 another. The people of any community as a whole are endowed with 
 natural sovereignty. They alone are interested, and of course they alone 
 are the proper authors of laws, and the creators of magistrates. Hence 
 they are politically superior to all constitutions, compacts, laws or 
 magistrates. Magistrates are only the hired servants of the sovereign 
 people, which they may discharge at will. Laws and constitutions are 
 only the decrees of the people, which the makers are competent to 
 annul or change at will. 
 
 This principle is clearly recognized in our own immortal Declaration 
 of Independence in these words : " Whenever any form of government 
 " becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter 
 " or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its founda- 
 " tion on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to 
 " them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." — 
 And this declaration was made "in the name and by the authority of the 
 good people of these colonies," and our own glorious Eevolution was the 
 practical commentary upon this great principle of popular supremacy. 
 
 The same has been abundantly enunciated by the wisest of English 
 statesmen, and exemplified by the most exalted instances of patriotic 
 devotion and valor. 
 
 The profoundest of England's political philosophers, and the most 
 revered of her patriots, the great Algernon Sidney, says, " that they who 
 " place the power in a multitude, understand a multitude composed of 
 " freemen, who think it for their convenience to join together, and to 
 "establish such laws and rules as they oblige themselves to observe; 
 "which multitude, whether it be great or small, has the same right; be- 
 " cause ten men are as free as ten millions ; and though it may be more 
 " prudent in some cases to join with the greater than the smaller num- 
 "ber, because there is more strength, it is not so always; but however 
 " every man must therein be his own judge, since if he mistake, the hurt 
 " is only to himself; and the ten may as justly resolve to live together, 
 " form a civil society, and oblige themselves to laws, as the greatest 
 " number of men that ever met together in the world." 
 
 This clear, profound, and comprehensive proposition, expresses the 
 
[*] 
 
 great fundamental principle of civil liberty, and lies at the foundation 
 of all free governments, whatever their form. It was enunciated by one 
 of the world's greatest philosophers and truest heroes, and was endorsed 
 by his life and sealed with his blood upon the scaffold of tyranny, which 
 is indeed the scaffold of glory. But it is constantly being overlooked and 
 lost from the popular mind. The people are ever forgetting their natu- 
 ral sovereignty, with all its advantages and responsibilities, and pa3 r - 
 ing a blind devotion to some form of tyranny which they reverence un- 
 der the name of government, and most blindly and most devoutly those 
 plausible tyrannies which are exercised in their own name and au- 
 thority. 
 
 But on a point so vital and fundamental, I would refer to another of 
 the intellectual giants of the 17th century. It is John Milton, the mag- 
 nificence and profoundness of whose political writings are hardly sur- 
 passed by the unequalled grandeur of the Paradise Lost. He says, "that 
 "since the king or magistrate holds his authority of the people, both 
 " originally and naturally for their good, in the first place, and not his 
 11 own, then may the people as oft as they shall judge it for the best, either 
 " choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him, though no tyrant, 
 "merely by the liberty and right of free born men, to be governed as seems to 
 " them best." 
 
 These majestic truths have stood the test of ages of hostile power and 
 popular prejudice. They are truly immortal. They may be forgotten 
 in the selfish gratifications of a degenerate, mercenary, and servile age. 
 They may be eclipsed by the dazzling glitter of aristocratic wealth and 
 power, but they are imperishably enshrined with the richest jewels of 
 the world's literature. There will they ever remain, for the encourage- 
 ment of the patriot, and the guide and inspiration of the heroes of 
 Liberty. 
 
 Again, our own great Jefferson, as late as 1819, in arguing against the 
 supremacy and independence of any one department of government, 
 says, " that absolute independence can be trusted nowhere but with the 
 " people, en masse. They are independent of all but moral law." 
 
 Here is an admirable expression of both the exte?ittmd limit of popular 
 supremacy. The people are competent to any political act that is not 
 morally unjust. But they possess no sovereign right to do wrong. 
 They are independent of all but moral law. No antiquity of authority — 
 no extent of numbers — no solemnity of legal forms, nor majesty of judi- 
 cial decisions, nor sanctity of religious oaths, can authorize the perpetra- 
 tion of a moral W T rong — can justify a Shylock in taking the covenanted 
 pound of flesh. 
 
 It is claimed that a numerical majority have a right to rule and to 
 enforce their decrees. But nothing is more erroneous. The Southern 
 statesmen are right in principle in denying the absolute supremacy of 
 the majority. Majorities possess no legitimate authority to do wrong. 
 There can be no legitimate authority to do a moral wrong, because right 
 
[5 J 
 
 is immutable, and eternally and unconditionally obligatory. Right is the 
 unchanging decree of the Supreme Being. 
 
 If a majority enacts and enforces a moral wrong, it is nothing less nor 
 more than tyranny ; and no tyrannies are so irresponsible and uncon- 
 trollable as those of a majority; and no political thraldom is so degrading 
 as that which is self-imposed. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that sovereignty ceases with the transgression of 
 natural justice. Then the sovereign, whether a monarch or a tyrannical 
 majority, becomes himself the culprit, and justly subject to any righteous 
 power that may restrain him. "Justice," says Milton, " is the sword of 
 God, superior to all mortal things, in whose hand soever, by apparent signs, his tes- 
 tified will is to put it." 
 
 But this popular supremacy, of course, involves also popular responsi- 
 bility. Government is not a mere selfish interest, but a high and sacred 
 trust. The legitimate end of government is to prevent injustice. The 
 sovereign people are therefore the responsible guardians of civil justice 
 and human rights. This responsibility, in any given case, is measured 
 by physical power. Human enactments being the mere creatures or acts 
 of the people, are not, of course, the true measure of their responsibility. 
 The sovereign people have no more right to suffer injustice, than to do 
 it. It is a betrayal or neglect of their trust. They are the divinely con- 
 stituted and legitimately authorized guardians of human rights over such 
 territory as they may actually occupy; and for the faithful discharge of 
 the functions of political supremacy, God and humanity will hold them 
 responsible. 
 
 Of no principle of political philosophy is history more replete with 
 beautiful and glorious examples, than this of popular supremacy. The 
 gloomy annals of human thraldom are relieved and gladdened by in- 
 numerable instanes of its heroic exercise. 
 
 It was the presiding genius of Roman destiny in all the brilliant pro- 
 gress of that wonderful people from an iron monarchy to the achieve- 
 ment of a system of republican freedom, which has been the pride, 
 stimulant, and model of the race ever since. The same principle, also, 
 has ever presided over the development of that palladium of human 
 freedom, the British Constitution. And to-day, in both hemispheres, it 
 is tne mighty angel of Liberty, commissioned of God, and moving about 
 among the nations, demolishing thrones, changing dynasties, crushing 
 despotisms, and everywhere demanding the inauguration of the reign of 
 justice and equal right. 
 
 Thus it appears that supreme political power inheres in the people 
 of any given territory, that they have the right to do politically what- 
 ever is not in its nature unjust. They may form, modify, .or abolish their 
 government as shall seem best to their own judgment, restricted of course 
 by u justice," which, as Milton says, "is the only true sovereign and supreme 
 majesty vjwn earth" 
 
 It is, simply, the great natural right of self-government. 
 
[ 6 J 
 
 From this fundamental truth of political philosophy, I infer the right 
 of South Carolina, or any other State of the American Confederacy, to 
 secede from the Union, at their own option. 
 
 This corollary from the principle of popular supremacy, I propose 
 further to illustrate, sanction, and enforce, by such considerations as are 
 suggested by the present national exigency. 
 
 TEE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED ESSENTIAL. 
 
 Our government, as is well known, owes its origin to the declaration 
 that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
 governed." If, therefore, South Carolina withdraws her consent from 
 the United States Government, where is your just power to govern her ? 
 I wish I had a logical answer to that question before I advance another 
 step in my argument. It seems indisputably evident to my mind, that 
 all your just power or authority to govern her is nullified by such with- 
 holding of consent. Not only the American Union, but any and all other 
 legitimate governments are destroyed by the withdrawal of the popular 
 consent. This, according to the Declaration of Independence, is all that 
 is necessary to effect the proper dissolution of any government. 
 
 What is the object of a government ? Simply the protection of the 
 people. But if the people do not consent to receive such protection as 
 any power affords, what reason is there in enforcing it upon them? If 
 political authority is exercised over a people, by taxation, direct or indi- 
 rect, either by a revenue officer or a common publican, or in any other 
 wajr, without their consent, it is only usurpation, and not legitimate 
 authority. Your administration may not be tyrannical or oppressive — it 
 may even be fatally lax and indulgent to crime; but without the con- 
 sent of the governed, it is usurpation, and unwarrantable either on the 
 principles of our own government, or any sound principles of political 
 philosophy, — even though it be beneficent in its aims. But on this point 
 let ms quote again from an authority of whom an appreciative world 
 will never tire. Milton says : "They that shall boast, as we do, to be a 
 " free nation, and not have in themselves the power to remove or to 
 "abolish any governor, supreme or subordinate, with the government itself 
 " upon urgent causes, may please their fancy with a ridiculous and 
 " painted freedom, fit to cozen babies, but are indeed under tyranny and 
 "servitude, as wanting that power, which is the root and source of all 
 " liberty, to dispose and economise in the land which God hath given 
 " them, as masters of family, in their own house and free inheritance, 
 " without which natural and essential power of a free nation, though 
 " bearing high their heads, they can in due esteem be thought no better 
 " than slaves and vassals born, in the tenure and occupation of another 
 " inheriting lord, whose government, though not illegal or intolerable, hangs 
 " over them as a lordly scourge, not as a free government, and therefore to be 
 " abrogated." 
 
 Now I ask, are these words of might and grandeur the senseless ra- 
 vings of a revolutionary fanatic, or the philosophical apprehensions of a 
 
[7] 
 
 profound and world-renowned statesman ? Have they not, like angelic 
 powers, stood sentinel at the gates of Freedom, and defied the combined 
 attacks of despotism and servility for more than two hundred years? 
 And it is against this principle of popular supremacy, before whose im- 
 perial wand hundreds of usurping dynasties have laid down their 
 scepters, that our infatuated government proposes to rush, in coercing a 
 seceding State. We propose to govern a State without her consent ! 
 What is this but the re-enactment of the identical tragedy of Lord 
 North's attempt to subdue the American Colonies ? Why ! even the 
 British Government, in the more enlightened parts of her domain, has 
 nearly or quite abandoned that principle. Why else does the premier 
 always feel constrained to resign his office, when his measures are de- 
 feated in the popular branch of the Legislature ? It is nothing less than 
 a most significant acknowledgment of the practical triumph of popular 
 supremacy. The very throne of free England is supposed to reflect the 
 sentiment of the English people. How long could it endure the light 
 of this age if it did not ? So dominant is this sentiment in the English 
 mind, that if Canada or British Columbia should to-day vote to become 
 an independent Republic, a war to re-conquer her would doubtless se- 
 riously endanger the British throne. It is too late in the day to carry 
 out that principle. In coercing South Carolina, or any of her seceding 
 compeers, you would violate the most approved sentiments of modern 
 Europe, and go back for your precedents to the grand despotisms of 
 Louis XIV. of France, and the tyrannical usurpations of James II. of 
 England. Even Louis Napoleon owes his imperial sceptre directly or 
 indirectly to twenty millions of popular votes; and almost every breeze 
 from the classic land of Italy brings to our gladdened ears the crash of 
 some hoary dynasty, that has fallen before the imperial march of popu- 
 lar sovereignty. 
 
 Coerce South Carolina to submit to a foreign government, and you 
 tear the well-earned laurels from the brow of the brave and uncon- 
 querable Garibaldi. You re-inforce the tyrannical garrisons of Rome 
 and forge new manacles for her bleeding patriots, You pour contempt 
 and insult upon your nation's late eloquent and distinguished guest, and 
 give the right hand of fellowship to Austria, in her subjugation of Hun- 
 gary and her other dissatisfied provinces. The doctrine of the coercion 
 of an unwilling people, is an antiquated dogma of tyranny, and is noth- 
 ing less than the old scourge of men, "the divine right of Kings." I will 
 even invoke Imperial Russia, hardly out of her childhood of civilization, 
 to rebuke the recreancy of the American Republic to the great object of 
 all revolutionary struggles and sacrifices— the real political supremacy of 
 the people. 
 
 Let it be understood, and ever remembered, and rung through the 
 world, to the rebuke of all tyranny, that government is a duty and not an 
 interest There is no divine right of Kings. There is a divine duty. Nor 
 any more is there a divine right of Presidents as such. Strictly speak- 
 
[ s] 
 
 ing, government lias no rights. H lias duties to perform .simply. Its 
 wlioleobject is to protect men in thdr rights. "Security against wrong/' 
 says Mackintosh, "is the object of all government.'' There is, therefore, 
 a divine right of the people, but not of magistrates as such. Says Mil- 
 ton, "to say, as is usual, the king hath as good a right to hjs crown and 
 dignity as any man to his inheritance, is to make the subject no better 
 than the kings slave, his chattel or his possession, that may be bought 
 and sold ;" and he adds that, to affirm this doctrine, "is a kind of treason 
 against the dignity of mankind." And surely it is equally absurd and 
 improper for the people of one section of the country to advance a 
 claim of right to the political allegiance of those of another section. 
 The most arrogant pretensions of ancient royalty, are not more pre- 
 posterous. 
 
 FREEMEN NOT SCTJJECTS BUT SOVEREIGNS. 
 
 Again, the word subject itself expresses a rank political heresy, and is 
 utterly unworthy to be applied to an American citizen. 
 
 According to the true theory of our government, and of all free or 
 popular governments, the people are not subjects, but sovereigns. They 
 are themselves the government — the supreme political tribunal. Go- 
 vernment is ourselves, freely acting in a political capacity, for the sole 
 purpose of protecting ourselves against lawless violence and fraud. Our 
 object is not to subject ourselves to political authority, but to protect our- 
 selves by our own inherent and inalienable political authority. The 
 American people have become so 4egcmerate under the influence of their 
 long and aggravated violations of the principles of liberty, that they 
 seem quite incapable of forming a conception of the true theory of go- 
 vernment and the rights of man. But the sentiment of a true political 
 philosophy is, "that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the 
 lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and 
 profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man- 
 slayers. For whoremongers, for them that defde themselves with man- 
 kind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any 
 other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," i. c., any other form of 
 vice. It is a humiliating thought, unworthy of the true dignity of hu- 
 man nature, that an immortal man, created in the image of his Maker, 
 should require to be subjected to the authority of some earthly potentate, 
 to prevent his committing crime against society ! I hope, therefore, that 
 the ignoble word subject will be forever discarded from the vocabu- 
 lary of these who maintain the slightest element of self-respect, or con- 
 scious virtue. Real virtue will be subject to no human authority. It nobly 
 scorns the idea. It is subject only to the supreme authority of right. It 
 acquiesces in human authority, nay, exercises it against the vicious— but is 
 subject only to right. Is it true that men pay their debts because they are 
 obliged to by human authority? Then I rank them with whoremon- 
 gers and men-stcalcrs. whether in the church or cut. Is it true that 
 
[9 ] 
 
 men are deterred from murder, theft and other crimes by human go- 
 vernments? It simply proves them morally worthless. 
 
 COERCION IS USURPATION. 
 
 But let us return to the point. What right has the United States 
 Government to impose its authority upon the unwilling people of South 
 Carolina, or any of her Southern compeers? or rather, what right have 
 we, the combined people of the other States, to govern the unwilling 
 people of those States ? Is our motive protection — the only legitimate 
 object of government? None will pretend it. If we duly analyze the 
 matter, we shall see that it is only the old, long-exploded, and detestable 
 doctrine of the cjivine right of kings in a new form. It is true that we 
 are not one king or sovereign, but we are a nation of them. We are not 
 one usurper, but a people of usurpers. For it is nothing less than usurpa- 
 tion to exercise political authority over an unwilling people. It is the 
 essence of usurpation — exercising authority which legitimately belongs 
 to another. Nor does the republican form and name of the authority 
 diminish the enormity of the crime against human nature. 
 
 OF THE COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE. 
 
 Suppose we simply collect the revenue of South Carolina, as the Go- 
 vernment proposes to do, and as the people generally demand and claim 
 the right to do, what is she any longer, I ask, but a conquered pro- 
 vince ? and what is your revenue but a forced tribute ? What else did 
 Rome, whose example we seem to be following, ever do to vanquished 
 and humbled Carthage, or to any of her conquered provinces? What 
 more did Alexander, or the great Napoleon, but to collect an involun- 
 tary tribute from unwilling victims of their victorious arms ? I hear it 
 every day gravely maintained and with apparent sincerity, by many of 
 the Northern citizens, and they catch it from our members of Congress 
 that we do not intend to conquer South Carolina, but only to collect her 
 revenue, and probably blockade her ports and keep possession of the 
 military posts ! But does any intelligent person fail to see that that is 
 the full extent of political subjugation ? Taxation, direct or indirect, is 
 one of the highest functions cf sovereignty, and to blockade a port, is 
 one of the most belligerent of acts. It is truly ridiculous for grave 
 members of Congress to disclaim any purpose of conquest or war, when 
 they advocate the extreme measures of military hostility. 
 
 COERCION ITSELF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 When you successfully collect an involuntary and resisted revenue 
 from the port of Charleston, or any other port within the geographical 
 limits of South Carolina, her sovereignty is destroyed, as really as that 
 of Carthage after the sad termination of the third PuniG war. 
 
 But remember, that when South Carolina falls, she falls not alone. 
 The suicidal hand which strikes down the sovereignty of the people of 
 South Carolina, demolishes that of Massachusetts with it, and the whole 
 
[ 10] 
 
 fabric of American Liberty falls by tlie same stroke. Then not one 
 star escapes from the galaxy of free sovereignties, but all are blotted out 
 by this sweeping stroke of despotic usurpation. "We are no longer a 
 voluntary confederation of sovereign States, but each and all of us con- 
 quered provinces of a centralized and consolidated despotism. We of 
 the Jyorth may be voluntary in this subjection, like the more degraded 
 of slaves — yea, we may be the unnatural agents of it; but it is subjection 
 still 
 
 Truly has it been said, that a people may lose their liberties a century 
 before they become aware of the fact. And it is to be feared that we 
 shall be subjugated to despotism in the very name of liberty. I am im- 
 pressed with the conviction that the American people are not aware of 
 the drift of passing and prospective events. All history is one great 
 warning and remonstrance against our proposed course. What if it is 
 South Carolina that is conquered now ? It may be Massachusetts next. 
 I know that slavery complains the most to-day, but liberty may be the 
 next victim, if, indeed, it is not even now to be the real victim. 
 
 It seems evident to my mind that, instead of the acknowledgment 
 of the right of secession being the destruction of the government, the 
 practical application of the doctrine of coercion is, itself, both the de- 
 struction of the government and the efficient cause of secession. 
 
 It is the destruction of the government, because it is a political revolu- 
 tion. It is a change of the whole spirit of the government, from a con- 
 federacy of sovereign States, held together by mutual interest and com- 
 mon attachment, to a consolidated empire, bound together by military 
 force. 
 
 It is also, to some extent, an efficient cause of the present dissolution of 
 the Union. It is the belligerent doctrines and attitude of the dominant 
 politicians of the North, which have precipitated this movement of se- 
 cession. If the right of secession had been conceded at the first, the 
 movement would have been deprived of its essential vigor and intense- 
 ness. The people, feeling that they had a conceded right to secede at 
 will, would naturally have delayed an act so fearfully pregnant with 
 possible evils. They would have given themselves time to fully consider 
 the subject in all its bearings and possible consequences. Nor could 
 so many States have been induced to follow the momentous experiment 
 in such hasty succession. It is very doubtful if the movement could 
 have been effected at all, if the right to make it had not been denied. 
 But the right was denied with threats of coercion, and the people of the 
 slave States saw impending over them a political domination which, if 
 its doctrines were carried out, would destroy their legitimate sovereignty, 
 and reduce them to the condition of conquered provinces of political 
 slaves. They were, therefore, driven to the fearful experiment of seces- 
 sion by the necessities of their contested and endangered rights. 
 
[ 11 ] 
 
 TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 
 
 This very result was distinctly predicted by our political fathers, as 
 the necessary consequence of this doctrine of force as applied to sove- 
 reign States. Mr. Madison said, "The use of force against a State would 
 " look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, 
 " and would be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all 
 "previous compacts by which it might be bound." Mr. Hamilton, the 
 well known and able advocate of a strong government, asks, "How can 
 "this force be exerted on the States collectively? It is impossible. It 
 " amounts to a war between the parties]'" adding also this prophetic declara- 
 tion, that u a dissolution of the Union will ensue." 
 
 Col. Mason said, "The most jarring elements of nature, fire and water 
 "themselves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil 
 " liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State 
 " into another in order to collect the taxes from the delinquent mem- 
 "bers of the Eepublic ? Will they maintain an army for this purpose? 
 " Will not the citizens of the invaded States assist one another, till they 
 " rise as one man and shake off the Union altogether?" 
 
 What delusive spell is upon our dominant politicians, that they shut 
 their eyes to the clear light of other days, and attempt to manage the 
 affairs of a mighty but distracted nation, with their own minds embar- 
 rassed with ignorance, and enveloped in the clouds of party passion and 
 prejudice? Where, under the lead of such political quackery and utter 
 selfishness, is the nation drifting? 
 
 Milton says of the political managers of his day, "how to sod- 
 " cler, how to stop a leak, how to keep up the floating carcass of a 
 "crazy and diseased monarchy or State, betwixt wind and water, swim- 
 " ming still upon her own dead lees, that now is the deep design of a 
 "politician!" 
 
 It seems as if the prophetic philosopher, when he penned that de- 
 scription, had in his eye the very political tinkers of Washington in 
 eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
 
 It needs broader views, loftier aims, and holier purposes to guide the 
 statesman amidst the storm and darkness of political and civil convul- 
 sion, when the great pillars of the government reel under the strokes of 
 revolutionary violence, than merely to manage a political party in an 
 ordinary contest for the spoils of office. 
 
 These are times which require not merely political cunning, but profound 
 statesmanship. They demand the triumph and control of the great 
 principles of permanent and unchanging truth. 
 
 THE CASE REVERSED. 
 
 Suppose the case reversed, and, instead of South Carolina desiring to 
 secede from the Union, for the interests of slavery, Massachusetts should 
 wish to secede, for the interests of liberty. Suppose the people of the 
 latter should feel conscientiously bound to withdraw political fellowship 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 and complicity with slavery, and to exercise their natural sovereignty itj 
 a just, humane, and impartial system of government,— would it not be 
 oppression to coerce her to remain ? Would not the combined tyranny 
 of thirty-three coercing States be a more intolerable despotism than any 
 single tyrant? Would it not be oppression for the general government 
 to collect an. involuntary tribute from an unwilling State, to support a 
 government whose flag protects not only the crime of slavery but the 
 African slave trade itself? Nor is the case at all improbable, if even 
 Massachusetts is not wholl; corrupted by the progressive degeneracy of 
 the times. Even now the government of the United States is deemed 
 intolerably oppressive by the best citizens of Massachusetts and many 
 of the other Northern States. There is not a foot of soil within the 
 wide domain of our Republic, where persecution for righteousness' sake 
 is not the dominant principle. Fines and imprisonment follow with 
 fearful certainty the holiest act of Christian charity. The friends of 
 liberty and a free conscience should be careful how they sauction a prin- 
 ciple against South Carolina, which may have equal power against the 
 holiest intstinct of humanity in the people of the Northern States. 
 
 IS SECESSION CONSTITUTIONAL ? 
 
 I am asked if there is any provision in the Constitution of the United 
 States, for the secession of a State from the Union ? I reply, manifestly 
 and of course not. No government can contemplate its own dissolution. 
 Governments are formed for action and not cessation. We must not, 
 therefore, look for any positive warrant for dissolution in the Constitu- 
 tion itself. But I trace this warrant to a far higher, holier, and more 
 authoritative source than the Constitution of the United States. It is a 
 right inherent in the divine constitution of human nature, and anterior 
 to all human constitutions. As Senator Benjamin, in his last Senatorial 
 effort, well and truly said, " it is an inherent, inalienable right." It is noth- 
 ing less than the great natural right of self-government, which is only 
 self-protection. I read it in that divine image— that imperial superscrip- 
 tion, stamped upon the heart of man in his creation, by which he is born 
 a sovereign and not a subject. I recognize it in the constitutional political 
 supremacy of the people, which is fatal alike to confederated despotisms 
 and chattel slavery. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION. 
 
 But this, I am told, is the right of Revolution, and that is conceded. 
 Well, if this is conceded, all that is essential is conceded. If the people 
 of any territory have the natural right of revolution, it can not be the 
 right of any power to put that revolution down. The natural rights of 
 men can never conflict. The right of revolution, and the right of the 
 suppression of the same, cannot co-exist. Senator Wade, in sounding 
 the bugle-blast of that civil war which now threatens to convulse and 
 desolate the land, concedes the right of revolution, and says, if successful, 
 the revolutionists are heroes. But he maintains the co-existing right of 
 
[ 13 ] 
 
 the general government to put them down by force, and, if successful, to 
 constitute the revolutionists traitors instead of heroes; and a vast num- 
 ber of Northern politicians have followed his lead. But what is this 
 sentiment but that old atheistic monster, that "might makes right.' 1 The 
 sentiment is altogether unworthy of civilization and true philosophy. 
 
 This right of revolution, which hardly any American citizen can be so 
 inconsistent as to deny in theory, is only the natural and inherent right 
 of self-government. 
 
 Sir Thomas Smith, an eminent British statesman, in his Commonwealth 
 of England, says of revolution, or of rising against a tyrant, "that the vul- 
 gar judge of it according to the event, and the learned according to the purpose 
 of them that do it." There you leave it. If you are successful, as Wade- 
 says, you are heroes like Washington; but if overpowered by numbers 
 and crushed with brute force, you are hung as traitors like John Brown. 
 
 But this, we see, is the judgment of the vulgar, and not the learned. 
 Nor is it the judgment of history, in the undying record of Brutus and 
 Caesar. And your anti-slavery Senator from the "free" State of Ohio, 
 would have the general government act out this ignoble sentiment, and 
 put down by brute force the mother right of self-government ! Great 
 God! To what are we coming? The descendants of the heroes of 
 seventy-six advocating and enforcing the very doctrines against which 
 their fathers fought and bled ! Did our American revolutionists do right 
 to secede from the British Empire and set ud an independent govern- 
 ment? If so, did Great Britain do right to wage a seven years' war to 
 violate that right and suppress that heroic struggle? Could the blood 
 and sufferings of that memorable war result legitimately from any thing 
 but crime f And which was guilty of the crime, the revolutionists, or 
 the odious government which fought seven years to put them down ? 
 
 THE CRY OF TREASON. 
 
 The cry of treason, that old watchword of tyrants, which is becoming 
 so common of late in our government, and which is heard equally against 
 freedom in Kansas, humanity in Boston, and slavery in South Carolina, 
 is generally indicative of a declining despotism. You all remember the 
 frequency and severity of the prosecutions for this crime, in the expiring 
 days of the oppressive dynasty of James II. And an age which can 
 produce a James on the throne, will generally find a Jeffries for the 
 Bench. 
 
 When a government becomes so corrupt as to forfeit the respect and 
 support of the citizens in whose name it is exercised, and for whose pro- 
 tection and benefit it professes to act, it is very apt to resent disloyalty 
 with the charge of treason and rebellion. But a government which is 
 obliged to resort to the punishment of treason to maintain its authority, 
 is like a man who is always sueing for his character. 
 
 The secession of South Carolina has been called in Congress "a re- 
 volt," and "rebellion." But this charge could come only from a total 
 
[ 1*3 
 
 misapprehension of the nature and object of free government. Revolt 
 is resistance to the supreme authoritj'. But the true ideaof free govern- 
 ment is, that the people themselves are this supreme authority. How, 
 then, can a whole united people be chargeable with this crime? Can 
 they "revolt" against themselves? The idea is absurd. 
 
 Algernon Sidney says, "The whole body of a nation can not be tied to 
 " any other obedience than is consistent with the common good, accord- 
 " ing to their own judgment; and having never been subdued, or brought 
 " to terms of peace with their magistrates, they can not be said to rebel 
 " against them to whom they owe no more than seems good to themselves, 
 "and who are nothing of or by themselves, more than other men." 
 
 The sovereign people are competent to any political act whatever that 
 is not unjust. They are, therefore, incapable of the specific crime of 
 "revolt," They may be chargeable with tyranny and usurpation, but 
 of revolt, never. And here, again, re-appears that old dogma of semi-civi- 
 lized Europe, the divine right of kings. 
 
 It was the odious Lord Xorth who pronounced the brave Montgo- 
 mery, who fell at the storming of Quebec, a rebel. But it was the illus- 
 trious Charles Fox who retorted in these noble words : "The term rebel 
 " is no certain mark of disgrace. All the great asserters of liberty, the 
 " saviors of their country, the benefactors of mankind in all ages, have 
 " been called rebels. We owe the Constitution which enables us to sit 
 "in this house to a rebellion." And I may add, that we owe the very 
 nationality, the right of which Ave now repudiate and trample upon, to 
 a rebellion. Such is the deranged and distracted condition of the politi- 
 cal elements of our country at the present time, that, while the South 
 are bravely fighting the great battle of national liberty in the name of 
 slavery, the North are maintaining the principles of oriental despotism 
 in the name of Liberty ! 
 
 Mark ! I am not now considering the motive or object of the secession 
 of the Southern States. I am only defending the principle of self-go- 
 vernment, or the right of any people to make, alter, or abolish their own 
 government. 
 
 I will not say that the governing class of the slave States, by the sum- 
 mary repeal of all civil justice, in the enslavement of the poor, have not 
 justly forfeited their sovereignty; but not to a confederacy which is 
 equally guilty with themselves. I will not say that the civilized world 
 should not unite to wipe out chattel slavery, as too inhuman to be tole- 
 rated ; that they should not unitedly proscribe it, as they do the African 
 slave trade, and inaugurate true popular supremacy in its place. But 
 this is not the question between the United States and South Carolina. 
 With us it is not a question of philanthropy, but of aggrandizement. 
 And our motive is the identical passion that made Rome the " mistress 
 of the world," and the tyrant of herself. 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 THE INTERESTS OF THE OTHER STATES. 
 
 We are told, again, that the interests and safety of the remaining 
 States would be endangered by the secession of one or more and the 
 formation of another confederacy, and that the instinct of self-protection 
 justifies the coercion of a seceding State into the confederacy. But the 
 same argument is pleaded in favor of acquiring Mexico, and it is the iden- 
 tical doctrine of the famous, or rather infamous, Ostend manifesto, in 
 relation to the acquisition of Cuba. And Senator Johnson, in his late 
 speech in favor of coercion, even quotes the Ostend manifesto as autho- 
 rity in his favor. But it is the identical plea of the bandit or common 
 thief. It is a re-appearance of the iame old moster, that " might makes 
 right." It is well known, that in the canvass which resulted in the Presi- 
 dency of James Buchanan, no terms of condemnation were too severe 
 for his political opponents, against the sentiments and authors of that 
 famous document. It is true that then it was your bull that gored my 
 ox. But that does not make robbery justifiable. It does not repeal the 
 principles of eternal justice* 
 
 What right, I ask, in the name of popular supremacy, has one com- 
 munity to subject the will of another to its own convenience and inte- 
 rests? No; whatever the relation of Mexico may become to England 
 or France, by the volition of each, we have no right to invade, plunder, 
 and subject her, to prevent it. Sb of Cuba, and so of South Carolina. 
 This selfish plea of national interest and political safety, would annex to 
 our republic every foot of territory on the face of the earth. Why not 
 demand the control of the river St. Lawrence, as well as the Mississippi? 
 Why allow the British flag to float triumphantly in the very heart of 
 this North American continent ? 
 
 HAVE WE XOT PAID FOR THOSE STATES? 
 
 But it is argued that we have paid millions of money to acquire 
 Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, and that therefore we have a pecuniary 
 claim upon them. But if so, this claim must be either of the nature of 
 a debt, due from a sovereign State to the general government, or else 
 the general government must have a pecuniary proprietorship in such 
 States. If the former, the debt must be enforced like any other pecu- 
 niary obligation between different nations. But if the latter, then those 
 States are mere serfdoms, and not free sovereignties. And the people 
 are not sovereigns, exercising self-government, choosing their own su- 
 preme executive; but only serfs of the soil, transferable from one poten- 
 tate to another for a pecuniary consideration. 
 
 But is this so ? Is Louisiana a serfdom, sold by the French, and pur- 
 chased by the American empire for fifteen millions of dollars ? and did 
 the lone star republic, after bravely achieving her own independence, 
 ignobly sell herself into everlasting serfdom to the United States, for ten 
 millions? Are we, indeed, going back to the semi-barbarous institution 
 of serfdom, not only for the slaves, but for masters and all? 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 If Louisiana and Texas, having seceded, shall refuse to pay back what 
 has been advanced for them, I can see no redress but in the lesson it 
 will teach us, not to make investments of such questionable propriety. 
 Whatever the understanding of the parties was, one thing is certain, 
 that the occupants of the soil were never authorized to sell their natural 
 birthright of political supremacy. If they intended it, the transaction 
 was null and void. No matter what bargain the Fathers made, they 
 could never barter away the natural rights of an unborn and irrespon- 
 sible posterity. Nor could any action of theirs absolve the acting gene- 
 ration from the responsibility of the faithful exercise of their natural 
 sovereignty. This is a talent which cannot be innocently buried or 
 sold. Grod and humanity will hold the people responsible, not that 
 "the republic," so called, " shall receive no detriment," but that human 
 liberty "receives no detriment." 
 
 I am asked, what if we should advance two hundred millions for the 
 Island of Cuba, and the next day the people, on this doctrine of popu- 
 lar supremacy, should vote to secede? I can only reply that we had 
 better not advance the two hundred millions. Ah ! this buying States 
 and territories is not the business of a free government. It is for the human 
 occupants — the people of those territories themselves to choose or form 
 their own government. The whole system of purchase is wrong, and of 
 course cannot be reconciled with true political wisdom. 
 
 THE POSSESSION OF THE FORTS. 
 
 As to the proper possession of the military forts within the bounda- 
 ries of a seceding State or territory, it seems to me that the foregoing 
 principles apply most definitely. The whole object of those forts is to 
 effect the legitimate purposes of government. That proposition is the 
 key to the whole subject. The true end of government, you know, is 
 protection. While the people of those States or territories are protected 
 by the United States, the United States authorities occupy and garrison 
 those forts at an expense which is defrayed by a revenue voluntarily 
 paid by the people. Here is a fair, legitimate transaction, a quid pro quo. 
 A sovereign people paying the United States, by a revenue, for protect- 
 ing and guarding her national interests. But when any State ceases to 
 require the protection of the general government and proposes to pro- 
 tect herself, and the United States authority ceases, for the want of the 
 requisite consent of the people interested, there is no reason why the 
 general government should retain possession of those forts, but every 
 reason why they should go into the hands of the people of that terri- 
 tory; and for the general government to retain possession of the forts 
 of seceding States, is to put herself in a wrong position and to provoke, 
 protract, and aggravate a bloody struggle, in which she must ultimately 
 yield to the great principle of popular supremacy, or the inalienable 
 right of self-government. Her ultimate triumph is impossible. Keep 
 ever in view the only legitimate object of government — the protection of 
 
[ 17] 
 
 the pcojj'c — and you cannot but recognize the absurdity of forcing pro- 
 tection upon an unwilling people at the point of the bayonet. 
 
 THE OATH OF THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 It is said that the President, having taken an oath to execute the 
 laws of the United States, is obliged to enforce the revenue laws and 
 other institutions of the general government upon the seceding States. 
 
 But these States, by an act of inherent sovereignty, which is above all 
 political compacts, are out of the United States. The Constitution and 
 laws of the general government do not apply to them. They are not 
 now States of the Union. Secession and nullification are very different 
 acts. Let the Northern people discriminate here. /Secession is an act of 
 sovereignty, to be respected; nullification, of rebellion, to be suppressed. 
 The seceding States have acted with marked wisdom and propriety in 
 preceding all their acts of so-called disloyalty by the sovereign act of 
 secession and resumed nationality. Their position is impregnable to 
 Federal authority. 
 
 THE PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC DEBT. 
 
 It is said that the United States built and furnished the forts, dock- 
 yards, and custom houses in the seceding States, and, therefore, they are 
 the common property of all of the States. But, it will be remembered 
 that, while the remaining States contributed to the public property of 
 the seceding States, so did these in turn contribute to that of the re- 
 maining States. If it is found, in fact, that there is within the domain 
 of the seceding States a disproportionate amount of public property, let 
 the matter be adjusted by a rational negotiation. 
 
 In reference to this, as well as a proper division of the common public 
 debt, and all other similar questions, the seceding States express the 
 most becoming spirit and honorable intentions, as appears from the fol- 
 lowing article in the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the 
 Southern Confederacy recently established. It is as follows : 
 
 " The government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for 
 " the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their 
 " late confederates of the United States, in relation to the public pro- 
 perty and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them, 
 "these States hereby declaring it to be their wish and earnest desire to 
 "adjust everything pertaining to the common property, common lia- 
 "bilities, and common obligations of that Union upon principles of right, 
 u justice, equality, and good faith" 
 
 This certainly looks like the olive branch of peace ; and if we decline 
 it, and attempt the fatal policy of coercion, will not the civilized w r orld 
 and the impartial record of history be against us? 
 
 EFFECT OF SECESSION ON THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 It is constantly said, particularly by speakers in Congress, that if our 
 government cannot prevent a State from seceding at will, it is no govern- 
 
[ is ] 
 
 merit at all. But it is forgotten, that the true glory of our government 
 — the queen beauty of our system is, that it ceases with the will of the 
 people. Its true strength lies not in navies and battalions, but iu the 
 affections of the people, Numbers in our midst — editors and members 
 of Congress, are vainly boasting that we propose to show the world that 
 we have a government that is strong enough to meet the exigency and 
 to suppress rebellion. But they fail entirely to apprehend and appreci- 
 ate the true theory of the American system. Theirs is the old Euro- 
 pean, and not the American, idea of government. Gov. Seward well 
 remarked in his festival speech in New York, that " you cannot force 
 fraternity." Would that this better impulse of his heart and judgment 
 had not been apparently disturbed in his last speech in the United 
 States Senate ! 
 
 The true strength of a free government — and they are the strongest 
 of all, is in the devoted attachment of its citizen sovereigns. Let this be 
 forfeited, and the government falls. 
 
 A government which is strong by the exercise of military power over 
 its own citizens, is not a free government, but a despotism. 
 
 Instead of the peaceful separation of these States being a disgrace to 
 our government in the eyes of the world, it will constitute in all coming- 
 time its truest glory, and will demonstrate the infinite superiority of the 
 voluntary system of self-government over the despotic usurpations of 
 the past. 
 
 Look at what has already been achieved in the face of prejudice and 
 political antagonism. Where, in the history of the world, is a parallel 
 instance of a government of 31,000,000 of people, dissolved, and that, too, 
 from antagonist feelings, and a new confederacy of six States harmoni- 
 ously formed, and still a seventh standing independent and alone, and 
 not the first drop of blood shed, and hardly a gun fired ? 
 
 This wonderful result I ascribe not to the superior intelligence, vir- 
 tue, and magnanimity of the American people, but to the incomparable 
 superiority of the true theory of our government, viz : the inherent and 
 inalienable right of popular supremacy, or self-government. 
 
 OUR PRESENT DUTY AND POLICY. 
 
 In the present extraordinary exigency of the L T nited States govern- 
 ment, her true morality is her true policy. We should passively permit 
 the slave States to secede. If it is the expressed will of the sovereign 
 people, we should allow them to go in peace. We ought not only to be 
 just and consistent in conceding the right of self-government, but mag- 
 nanimous towards its exercise. It is eminently proper that the United 
 States government should accede to the proposition of the Provisional 
 Government of the "Confederated States of America" above referred to, 
 in regard to negotiations concerning public property, public debts, and 
 other international relations. And I cannot but recognize and appreci- 
 ate the magnanimous and exemplary course of South Carolina in parti- 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 cular, upon this point. One of her first acts of resumed nationality was 
 the appointment of three commissioners to the general government, to 
 negociate in reference to the possession of the forts, and all other mat- 
 ters of conflicting interest between the two powers. 
 
 But how have we answered her? Only with threats of coercion, as 
 rebels and traitors ; not with kind words of reason, but with armed 
 vessels and frowning forts. 
 
 Senator Benjamin makes to you a most, eloquent and manly appeal to 
 allow the dissatisfied States to go in peace. And I here earnestly pro- 
 claim that, aside from the question of slavery, not directly involved, the re- 
 quest of that eloquent Senator is only the "golden rule" of conduct. 
 It is only doing as you would be done by. 
 
 Senator Davis, in his farewell address to the United States Senate, 
 says, " I feel I but express the desire of the people whom I represent, 
 "when I say, I hope, and they hope for those peaceful relations with 
 " you, though we must part, that may be mutually beneficial to us in 
 "the future." 
 
 I must accord to the Southern statesmen, in reference to the present 
 issue, not only a magnanimity of spirit which their Northern antagonists 
 seem to lack, but a far more worthy apprehension of the abstract prin- 
 ciples of free government. 
 
 Nor can I fail to admire their superior adroitness in managing to di- 
 vert the great national contest from the issue of personal liberty, where 
 they are wrong and indefensible, to one of national independence, where 
 they are right, and sure of the victory. And this doctrine of coercion 
 has facilitated this change of the controversy on the part of the South, 
 from a selfish struggle to fortify and extend the institution of negro 
 slavery, to a righteous and dignified contest for nationality ; so that, while 
 they are contending for the identical object of the American revolution, 
 we are only maintaining the despotic claims of British royalty. 
 
 Thus the South has ever managed to keep their Northern antagonists 
 not only on the defensive, but constantly retreating from untenable 
 positions. 
 
 I cannot feel for the South, in reference to this controversy, the con- 
 tempt which their antagonists seem often to affect. Their course in re- 
 gard to the right of self-government has been sufficiently manly and 
 consistent. True, they have not "asked our consent" to secede; and I 
 thank them for it: for, in so doing, they have maintained your natural 
 rights and mine, as well as their own. Yea ! they are bravely vindicating 
 the rights of all nations. By asking the consent of the general govern- 
 ment, they would have relinquished the right of independence. 
 
 Whatever we may think, or say, or do, in reference to their domestic 
 policy, the world owes them their gratitude for fighting out the great 
 battle of national sovereignty. 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 GENUINE ABOLITIONISTS THE FRIENDS OF THE SOUTH. 
 
 If J should be accused of being the friend of the South in regard to 
 the present issue, and on all issues their real friend, I shall never deny 
 the charge. 
 
 All genuine abolitionists are the true friends of the South. " Faithful 
 are the wounds of a friend." We would snatch the charming serpent 
 from her bosom. We would take from their midst the firebrand of do- 
 mestic war. We would give her internal peace, domestic security, pri- 
 vate and public virtue, and true Christianity. 
 
 Those are false abolitionists, and selfish as slavery itself, who use the 
 anti-slavery sentiment merely As their political capital; who subordinate 
 and sacrifice the true principles of freedom to party success and personal 
 aggrandizement. Such have no moral power over slavery, and the po- 
 litical power they obtain they use for themselves. There is a difference 
 between the mere hatred of slavery, and the genuine love of liberty. The 
 former is selfish, controversial, and revengeful; the latter, self-sacrificing, 
 kind, and magnanimous. While the lofty and virtuous sentiment of the 
 genuine love of liberty will never rest until the oppressed is disen- 
 thralled, the mere hatred of slavery is satisfied if the oppressor is chas- 
 tised. The one springs from true philanthropy ; the other from political 
 ambition. Be assured, there is no malice or revenge in the genuine, 
 liberty-loving, heart. Its magnanimous purpose is incompatible with such 
 passions. 
 
 Ah ! the poor, priest-ridden, government-oppressed, and self-enthralled 
 world, never knows its true friends until after it has crucified them. 
 
 Thus I have endeavored to unfold and present the principles of po- 
 litical philosophy which should guide the nation in this, her most trying 
 exigency. 
 
 TWO OPPOSITE COURSES SUGGEST THEMSELVES. 
 
 Two opposite courses of national policy suggest themselves in view of 
 the present crisis. 
 
 First, that of physical coercion, and 
 
 Second, that of passive consent. 
 
 Let us examine a moment their relative propriety or impropriety. 
 
 First, look at the policy of coercion. By coercion, I mean only the 
 enforcement of the laws of the United States upon an unwilling or se- 
 ceding State. To this policy, I suppose, the incoming administration is 
 quite fully committed. The late remarks of the President elect at In- 
 dianapolis put the matter beyond ambiguity or dispute — although he 
 strangely denies that this is coercion ! 
 
 The same policy is prompted by the first impulse of the popular mind. 
 The Union has long been the popular idol of the country, and to touch 
 the Union is to desecrate the household gods of the nation. The rank- 
 est despotism over soul and body, has been preferred to the dissolution 
 of the Union. Nay ! all political virtues have been sacrificed upon its 
 altar, and even the authority of Jehovah, in the holiest mandates of 
 
[21 ] 
 
 Christianity, have been trampled upon in obedience to this phantom 
 ideal of the land. 
 
 Of course, a dissolution of the Union is popularly regarded as the 
 most impious kind of treason. Hence the popular demand for coercion. 
 Hence, also, the position of the popular leaders. 
 
 But let us examine this policy in the light of first principles. Is not 
 the coercion or subjugation of an unwilling State, by the other States, a 
 violation of the natural right of self-government? Who are the natural 
 and legitimate rulers of a given territory — the people of that territory, 
 or those of a foreign territory ? 
 
 The advocates of coercion do not, I believe, propose more than to hold 
 the forts, re-take those that are lost, blockade the ports, and collect the 
 revenue of the seceding States. 
 
 But would that be effecting the legitimate object of government ? 
 Would it be protecting the people of those States? What is it to hold 
 the forts of an unwilling people but military subjugation ? What is the 
 collection of a forced tribute but national robbery, or the legitimate 
 spoils of conquest ? And what more did Eome to conquered Carthage, 
 and Alaric in turn to humbled Home. 
 
 COERCION WOULD PRODUCE CIVIL WAR. 
 
 This policy of coercion must inevitably involve the whole country in 
 a most disastrous civil war. It is the most provoking kind of a casus 
 belli. It must call out and unite, in a harmonious antagonism in the 
 seceding States, all the national resources of patriotism, pride, and self- 
 interest. Even the whole South will probably be a unit against the po- 
 licy of coercion. The necessities of her contested rights, even the mother 
 right of self-government, require it. Submission is political suicide. 
 
 Nor will there be wanting in the North honest and effective resistance 
 to a policy so utterly subversive of the great principles of popular liberty 
 involved in the constitution of the American government. 
 
 Nor can the event be doubtful. The policy of coercion can never tri- 
 umph. It must yield before the resistless might of great principles. It 
 ensures to the slave States concert — courage — perseverence, and all the 
 advantages which naturally result from a correct political position. And 
 it must throw discord, doubt, and imbecility into the councils and mea- 
 sures of the general government. 
 
 In this unnatural attempt to subdue the seceding States and literally 
 put them under tribute, your most formidable enemy will be, not a 
 united and indignant South, in whose well known constitution pride is 
 a stronger principle than life ; but it will be the great principles of popu- 
 lar liberty which you challenge to mortal combat. You will war against 
 the principle of your own immortal ^Revolution, viz.: the right of any 
 people to choose their own government. All the glorious reminiscences 
 of revolutionary valor will swarm around your armies and haunt your 
 council chambers. You will stir the very bones of revolutionary heroes, 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 ns your fratricidal armies march across the fields rendered sacred and 
 classic by their death. The tombs of Kosciusko, De Kalb, and La Fay- 
 ette will become yocal with execrations at your treason against the 
 great principle of independent nationality, to which they generously de- 
 voted their lives. 
 
 Would it not be far wiser and more statesmanlike — would it not be 
 more consistent with the dignity, and more conducive to the moral 
 power of the government, to consistently concede to States the right of 
 secession and self-government, and magnanimously bid them go in peace; 
 than thus to deny that right, violate the principle of our own Eevolu- 
 tion and suicidally attempt the subversion of the government itself, and, 
 after all, be obliged to retreat from our position and yield reluctantly 
 and of necessity the great right of self-government, which we had un- 
 successfully attempted to overthrow ? 
 
 ITS EFFECT OX THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM. 
 
 But suppose the combined policy of concession and coercion should 
 be successful, and a two-fold cord should thus be formed sufficiently 
 strong to bind the incongruous elements in one nominal confederacy; 
 what must be the effect upon the cause of freedom North and South? 
 On this point I am sure that many of the moderate well-wishers of the 
 the slave are deluded. 
 
 This policy of coercion, if successful, would inaugurate in the North 
 the very despotism which would most effectively sympathise with and 
 uphold the slavery of the South. It is to my mind the most certain of 
 prospective events, that the spirit of freedom in the North would be 
 subject to embarrassments never before known. The fugitive slave law 
 would be executed by the general government with unwonted rigor. In 
 some of the Northern States legal restraints would probably be imposed 
 upon the tongue and the press. Already has the popular voice gone 
 forth in several of our large cities against the free discussion of the 
 principles of liberty. The public feeling would be alike intolerant of 
 what it calls fanaticism, both North and South. Thus, a despotic 
 popular conservatism would be inaugurated, more fatal to liberty than 
 the bloody assizes of Jeffries, and more blighting to manliness than the 
 most imperious despotism. 
 
 Such, in my apprehension, is a glance at some of the inevitable results 
 of the policy of coercion. 
 
 THE OPPOSITE POLICY. 
 
 * Look, now,, a moment at the alternative policy of passive consent. 
 What will be its legitimate effect ? First, the general government will 
 be right in principle, and consistent with her own glorious history — itself 
 conclusive of duty. 
 
 In the next place, the tendency of secession will be to terminate that 
 supreme outrage upon human nature, American slavery. 
 
 Separate the slave States from the others, and slavery must stand on 
 its own merits — now it stands on ihr merits of freedom. For nearly a cen- 
 
[ 23] 
 
 tury it has been enshrined in the temple of liberty. This has been its 
 sanctuary and security. It has escaped the ban of the civilized world 
 solely by its political connection with the admirable system of the 
 American confederac}' - . 
 
 It is, also, well known that the general government is pledged against 
 any effective measures to bring slavery to a speedy end. In theory and 
 practice, it is the bulwark of chattel slavery — its impregnable fortress. 
 
 Senator Johnson, of Tennessee, in his earnest speech in favor of 
 coercion, says : " If the abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery, the first step they 
 would take would be to dissolve the Union." Clemens, of the House, says 
 that "secession would crucify slavery." The Marlboro (N. C.) Patriot 
 ably argues, that " secession would necessarily make North Carolina a 
 free State;" and Gov. Seward, in his speech of January 12, says: "It is 
 the Union that restrains the opposition to slavery in this country." He 
 says it prevents the development of what he calls the European 
 idea of opposition to slavery, viz.: that of " simple direct abolition — effected, 
 if need be, by compulsion." The testimony of Gov. Hicks, of Maryland, 
 and ex-Gov. Morehead, of Kentucky, is conclusive to the same point. 
 Thus it is the uncontradicted testimony of our most intelligent states- 
 men, and those, too, the friends of the Union, that secession must effect 
 or hasten the termination of slavery. 
 
 Where, then, does it place the coercionist? Manifestly in direct 
 alliance with the foulest despotism on earth. Coercion, then, is not a 
 harmless error, but a cruel vice. It it a two-fold crime, viz.: against 
 national independence and personal liberty. It is not only the ally of 
 European despotism, but the support of American slavery. The anti- 
 slavery advocates of coercion are surely beside themselves. " They 
 know not what they do." They are not only forging political chains 
 for themselves, but strengthening those which have so long galled their 
 neighbors. They profanely resist the decree of Heaven, which would 
 divorce the unnatural and fatal alliance of slavery and freedom. 
 
 ITS EFFECT ON THE UNION. 
 
 In the next place, how will secession effect the American Union? I 
 answer, exultingly, it will effect its regeneration and salvation. 
 
 It is assumed that secession is the destruction of the government. 
 The distinguished Seward assumes it, in his speech of January 12, when 
 he exclaims, "I feel sure that the hour has not corne for this great 
 nation to fall." He says, also, that "dissolution would not only arrest, 
 but extinguish the greatness of our country!" 0! the thraldom of 
 mind to matter! Is it true that our national greatness consists in our 
 physical proportions — our number of States and extent of territory ? 
 Then semi-barbarous Eussia is our superior, and degraded China to be 
 envied by us. The assumption is unworthy of a true statesman. 
 
 The true greatness of a nation consists in the perfection of her insti- 
 tutions, and in whatever makes her people magnanimous, prosperous, 
 
[ 21] 
 
 and happy. How large was Athens, whose national glory will never fade ? 
 
 If the secession of a State' is the destruction of the Union, what is 
 the addition of a State? Did the annexation of Texas make us any 
 more a Union than before, and will her secession make us any less • 
 Suppose the fifteen slave States all secede, we shall be then one-half 
 more in number than when the Union was formed, and those, too, with 
 the infinite superiority of being the whole nineteen free and homoge- 
 neous, instead of being twelve out of the old thirteen, slave States. This 
 would be an immeasurable advance from 177G to 1861. 
 
 So far from its being a shock to the cause of freedom throughout the 
 world, it would be the unanswerable triumph of the great American ex- 
 periment. All reproaches for our political inconsistency and national 
 hypocrisy would be hushed, and the true spirit of liberty and democratic 
 equality would everywhere break forth in shouts of admiration and joy. 
 Such would be the legitimate and happy effects of the secession of the 
 slave States upon the American Union. 
 
 Who then, I ask, is the genuine friend of the American Union? Is 
 it the managing conservative, who bolsters up with new guaranties a 
 monstrous system of political crime, which is the sole cause of disunion f 
 
 Is it those who say "a house divided against itself cannot stand," and 
 yetcontinue in a confirmed condition, the sole cause of that fatal discord ? 
 
 I say, on the other hand, it is those who, confiding in principle, and 
 also viewing its natural results to be a substantial and permanent 
 Union, have the courage and self-sacrifice to allow right principles to 
 or>erate and things to find their true level. 
 
 The mass of Union savers are Union destroyers, on the principle of 
 philosophy, that " whoso saveth his life shall lose it." 
 
 On the other hand, the true friend of the Union acts upon that sub- 
 lime and heroic principle of virtue, " whoso loseth his life shall save it." 
 
 To peaceably and passively allow secession, is the only possible salva- 
 tion of the American Union. 
 
 THE SECEDING STATES. 
 
 As to the near future of the seceding States, let us not yet lift the 
 curtain. Let them complete, in national solitude, the fearful tragedy of 
 negro slavery! Let us be kind, magnanimous, and pitiful to them; but 
 uncompromisingly true to humanity. And when they shall have drank 
 sufficiently the dregs of national woe, and been filled with their own 
 devices; and when, under the disciplining effects of their own backslid- 
 ings, they shall have put away slavery as both the curse and crime of a 
 nation, and inaugurated true and impartial democracy, then shall we hail 
 with unalloyed delight the "reconstruction," in a harmonious sisterhood, 
 of these now divided States; the only reconstruction of which the nature 
 of the case admits, and the only one which is worthy of that Almighty 
 Providence whose hand is so visible in the momentous events of 
 ihe day. 
 

 
 
 
 *°+ 
 
 % A* * 
 
 e 
 
 
 °o 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 r ^c? 
 
 <G 
 
 
 i>** 
 
 
 i 
 
 <2> "© . A 
 
 £*r 
 
 * . %\ny^ -«> ^ 
 
 <> , *>??v* .^ 
 
 

 
 V^ ^ *W^C 4^ %' 
 
 
 -4 o^ 
 
 \* .. •*■ '•* *° <$<■ '" \* °* • 
 
 
 %/ .* 
 
 o 
 
 4* 
 
 H I 
 
 
 
 >: 
 
 
 'o, *• . » • A <* *•'TV•• .& T o, 
 
 o • * * <^> 
 
 • ,,w <V ^i» ••• a ^ ' 
 
'