Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Full text of "Political fallacies: an examination of the false assumptions, and refutation of the sophistical reasonings, which have brought on this Civil War"

See other formats











Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S63, by 

la the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern 
District of New York. 

, JOHN Fj TRO\V, f 

New York. 






God the Author of Societj- Not Human Volition No Social Compact- 
Promise creates not Obligation, but vice versa Expatriation Dan 
gers of False Logic 19 



Rights not defined by Blackstone Savage, not Man s Natural State- 
Rights and Duties reciprocal SO 



Defined Civil Ordained of God Their Power limited by Divine Au 
thority 36 



"Webster s Definition Bouvier s Vat t el s Blackstone s Balance of 
Powers How deposited and transmitted When abused reverts to 
the People 43 



Originate from Religious Oppression Monopolizing Spirit of the Crown 
England desires to be the "Workshop of the "World Depress 
American Manufactures 51 



French. "War occasioned the Convention of Albany, 1754 Franklin s 
Hints Plan of Union Movements in several Colonies toward Union 
Charleston, S. C. Newport, R. I. Port Tobacco, Md. Lar. cas 
ter, Penn. House of Representatives, Maes. Pennsylvania Conven 
tion and Legislature Congress of 1774 United Colonies Congress 
of 1775 Appoint a General The Declaration is based on Union- 
South Carolina Opinions Virginia Opinions 58 






Powers Distributed Moses and Israel E PLUUIBCS UNCM a Revelation 
from Heaven . 94 



A Provisional Deposit of Power Not a Government Proper A Grand 
Committee of the States 99 



Judge Dray ton s Opinion A Covenant Union Do not Create a Gov 
ernment T. 103 



Its Occasion First Object, Union A Government the Grand Object 
Contrasted with the Articles Great Controversy lay between a 
Confederation and a National Government Mr. Jefferson Davis s 
Error South go for National Madison, George Mason, Charles 
Pinckney, Charles C. Pinckney, Governor Randolph, Mr. Pendleton. 109 



Plain Man s Opinion The People of the United States Calhoun s 
View, and Criticisms on it 126 



The Word Federal Nowhere found in the Constitution Nor Compact, 
League, Covenant The Name Federal applied to the Party who op 
posed a mere Confederation and advocated a Government 135 



Explained briefly Produced mainly by the Creation of a Fourth Term. 140 


Colonies essentially Dependent Independent used in two senses of 
England of each other Views in Convention Martin, Wilson, 
Hamilton, Madi-son False Syllogism 146 



Edmund Randolph too strong Madison Pinckney favors United States 
Negative on State Laws Sovereignty, Two Senses Syllogism 151 





Combines the two preceding States Independent Sovereignties Jeffer 
son Davis General Jackson on Nullification and Disunion. , 156 



Spring Resolutions HistoryRemarks on their meaning 163 





The Discussion Arguments for run into Secession in Church and State 
Jefferson Davis and Calhoun Presbyterian Ministers South much 
to blame Could have arrested Secession 179 



Loose manner of using the word Government All assume two Govern 
ments in the strict Sense Play between State Government and 
United States Government States not Governments They recog 
nize the Independence of the Confederate States of America They 
also decide a purely Political Question 192 



Remarks 204 



A Question for Foreign Powers to decide Phrase used improperly 
Absalom, Robin Hood, Shays, the Whiskey Boys, Dorr, and Nat. 
Turner, all Governors de facto , 213 



"When is Rebellion justifiable ? Who to judge of the Reasons? Must be a 
Forfeiture Jeroboam s Successful by Divine Interposition rAppeal 
to God by the Sword Our Rebels must prove cruel and irremedia 
ble Oppression Must conquer Independence Hon. A. II. Stevens 
proves Prosperity under the United States So Jefferson Davis No 
Forfeiture is or can be in our System No ultimate Success to the 
Rebellion , , 220 





Government Forma changeable by the People Syllogistic Statement.... 236 


Allegiance To whom due John Janney, Example from First in His 
torical Order First in Magnitude, Weight, Importance Highest 
Obligation due to the Highest Power Constitution TheJBiblc 
Code of Virginia Love of Country 240 



Its Foundation Each is Judge in its own Case This a reserved State 
Right It is conceded Suicide Duke of Argyle Count de Gaspa- 
rin A Blow at Social Organization A Sin against Republican 
Government Essential Injustice Equal Rights in the Territories 
A Bald Abstraction this Claim 252 



Right in Labor recognized Cotton gives it Value Interchange of 
Opinion North and South History of King Cotton Slave Trade 
Extension Rendition a Duty of States Prediction of Ruin from 
Slavery Agitation Wrong doirg North no Justification of Secession 
Secession no Remedy Difficulty of Rendition 268 



Not impracticable Personal Quarrels often are followed by Reconcilia 
tion Nations respect each other after hard Battles The Philosophy 
Family Ties Colonization a Remedy Geographical Reasons 287 



Reconstruction Odious No Architects, Statesmen The Constitution 
as it is ; the Union as it was 304 



Family Re-unions The Government proved All Nations may come 
under the Stars and Stripes Amazing Displays of~Power Respect 
of the Nations Blessings to the Church Freedom, founded on 
Christianity, to the World 311 


THIS little book, as its title intimates, has for its im 
mediate design the exposure of the leading fallacies 
which lie at the root of the great conspiracy, and have 
conduced to its success. By their means the conspiracy 
realized its design in rebellion, and led on, probably 
contrary to the expectations of its plotters, to civil war, 
with all its fearful consequences. It was not the inten 
tion of the author to give a history of the conspiracy, 
the rebellion, or the war ; and he has consequently only 
introduced so much as was necessary to render intel 
ligible the refutation of the sophistical arguments by 
which the work of blood-shedding has been extended 
over this vast country. 

The ulterior and chief object of the book is to 
exhibit these groundless assumptions and false reason 
ings, so as to enable the candid reader to break away 
from the snares so well adapted to entangle him, to 
discover where the truth lies, and to recover his stand 
ing, if, indeed, he had lost it, or was likely to lose it, 
and fix himself immovable upon the rock, and thus to 


promote a return to the ark of our safety the CONSTI 
TUTION and the UNION. 

As the book is designed not for readers only who 
have thoughts, but also, and indeed more especially, for 
those who think, it does not indulge in poetic flights 
and array its sentiments in elegant drapery. It affects 
the simplest style, and hopes it uses the language of 
common sense. 

It is necessary to crave the reader s indulgence at 
the outset to a little personality, I might say egotism, 
which seems indispensable to enable him to understand 
what comes before him. I removed from Lafayette 
College, Easton, Penn., in November, 1848, to Wash 
ington College, Lexington, Va. This institution was 
founded by the Hanover Presbytery in 1774- 5, under 
the rectorship of Rev. Win. Graham, then late of Dau 
phin County, Penn. It was endowed by Washington, 
who gave to it certain stocks in the James River 
Canal, which were sold, and the proceeds, $50,000, 
invested in Virginia State securities. In this institu 
tion the author served, according to his feeble ability, 
twelve and a half years, with great comfort to himself 
and his household. His salary was ample and satisfac 
tory his surroundings were such, all the time, as al 
ways to call forth gratitude to the kind Providence 
which had led him to that most beautiful locality and 
most inviting field of labor. He doubts not but his ser 
vices were made, by Divine favor, a blessing to the 
church and the community at large. There, as in 


every other field of labor, the main purpose of his heart, 
when in 1830 he surrendered his pastoral charge in the 
forks of the Susquehanna, and devoted himself to edu 
cation, viz., to assist in bringing young men into the 
ministry of the church, was largely realized. Three of 
his children remain in Rockbridge, and one is not, for 
the Lord took her away from the evil to come. There 
he was called upon, for the second time, to purchase 
his cave of Machpelah, that he might bury his dead out 
of his sight ; there he made the sacred deposit, first, of 
one who had sojourned by his side for nearly thirty-five 
years ; then of his second daughter, Mrs. Jackson ; then 
of a noble and dearly beloved son-in-law; then of 
the sweet and lovely boy who soon followed his father ; 
and there he had reserved a plot of ground, three feet 
by six, for himself. Sixteen miles northeast from Lex 
ington, one son was settled as pastor of a large and 
most intelligent and comfortable church; ten miles 
southwest another son, similarly situated, and his oldest 
daughter located beside him in Lexington. 

But otherwise, oh ! how far otherwise, had the Lord 
arranged the matter! Calhoun s sophistry prevailed. 
The bloody fallacies brought on secession, rebellion, 
civil war, peradventure my heart shudders at the con 
ception peradventure, servile war. From all these de 
lightful surroundings I had my choice to fly, or, abid 
ing, to succumb to the approaching despotism. True, 
Virginia had twice voted against secession. The Bell 

and Everett electors were run in by a plurality vote ; 


add to this the Douglas democratic vote, and the ma 
jority was crushing against secession. Then, in the 
election for members of the convention, the Union vote 
was a triumphant majority : about two thirds of the 
convention were union men. In Rockbridge county, 
the average secession vote was less than one in eleven 
votes. Yet, notwithstanding all this, I saw plainly that 
if I remained, absolute silence, or a voice in favor of 
secession, must be the price of my personal safety. 
This price was too great for me to pay. It would 
bankrupt my self-respect and pollute my conscience. 
The only alternative was flight ; and so, leaving my 
books and furniture to the mercy of Mr. Benjamin s 
confiscation law, as expounded by himself, I took time 
by the forelock, and crossed the Potomac at Williams- 
port after dark on the 9th of May, 1861, having driven 
the last thirty-five miles, from Winchester, without 
stopping to feed my horses. To gratify my friends 
and state the real facts of the case truly, the following 
narrative was published; and I append it hereto, just 
as it is, as containing evidence of the most kindly feel 
ings, and affording a good hope that when the storm 
of war shall have passed, there will be a general return 
to the same ; and also as a fitting general introduction ; 
adding only a note or two to the original publication. 
With these remarks I submit the little book to the 
kind guardianship of Heaven and the candid judgment 
of the American people. 

The following was drawn up at its date, and pub- 


lished for the satisfaction of the author s friends ; its 
circulation was, however, limited, and it may prove 
useful, as leading to a correct understanding of my re 
moval from Virginia. 

[For the Standard.] 


MR. EDITOR : The following is no Parthfan arrow, but a 
simple history, designed to correct misapprehension and let 
my friends in Virginia and Pennsylvania know the truth in 
reference to MY EXODUS from the former to the latter.. 

In the month of February last I took up the Constitution 
of the United States for exposition to the Senior Class in 
Washington College, Va., of which I was then president, using 
Sheppard s excellent little work as a text-book. This was an 
anticipation of some two months, in accordance with the de 
sires of the class and my own convictions of duty, in reference 
to the dangerous misconstructions of that highest production 
of human genius. I wished, by a fair and honest exposition, 
to convince my young friends that UNION preceded Independ 
ence, and even the Articles of Confederation ; much more the 
present Constitution; that neither the Continental Congress 
nor the Articles of Confederation created and constituted a 
Government : they had neither supreme, legislative, judicial, 
nor executive powers. The Congress was simply a grand 
Committee of the States, exercising many powers of sove 
reignty, but by no means all that belong to national sove 
reignty. In these lectures I dealt largely with the archives 
published by United States authority, reading from them to 
sustain my positions, and especially from the minutes of the 
Convention that formed the Constitution, passing through the 
entire volume, and demonstrating the fact of union as the 
leading principle the polar star recognized by these wise 
men of the west, from the very first meeting in this city in 
September, 1774, and again in May, 1775. I showed that 


they felt themselves a unit they recorded themselves a unit: 
as the United Colonies they appointed and commissioned 
George Washington as Commander-in-chief, in whose com 
mission the phrase "United Colonies" occurs three several 
times. My object, in these extended preparatory discussions, 
was to rivet the conviction in the minds of these dear young 
men, thai UNION was always the master thought in the minds 
of American patriots ; that UNION was the basis of all their 
actions ; that without UNION there could be no freedom, no 
national government, no independence. From this position, it 
follows irrefragably, that there never existed a State sove 
reignty ; the supreme power is in the States UNITED: no State 
ever declared itself an independent nation none was ever 
recognized by any power on earth as an independent sove 
reignty; the doctrine of State rights, or State sovereignty 
outside of the limits of State constitutions and the lines of de 
marcation fixed in the United States Constitution, is neces 
sarily subversive of the national government, as General Jack 
son proved in his proclamation to the people of South Caro 
lina, and from this follows the doctrine which he affirmed, 
that u disunion by armed force is treason." The right of se 
cession is a national wrong. Hence, I reach the conclusion, 
by the eternal principles of logic, that " secession " is the 
essence of all immorality; it neutralizes the highest obliga 
tions. Accordingly, the senators of Virginia and others pro 
claimed the doctrine, that their oath was null and void they 
owed no allegiance to the government of the United States. 

But in the progress of these discussions I observed a grow 
ing restiveness among the students; heard myself called a 
" Pennsylvania Abolitionist," and saw written on the column 
opposite my recitation-room door " Lincoln Junkin." 

About the close of March, a Palmetto flag was placed on 
the centre building of the college, surmounting the wooden 
statue of Washington, on whose head they had nailed a fool s- 
cap. In this process, led on by a Georgia student, the copper 
lightning rod was bent, and subsequently broken off. For a 
student to go out on the roof has always been an offence, pun 
ished by demerit. This flag I ordered the servants to take 


down and bring to me. I was asked what I would do with it, 
and replied, "burn it after evening prayer." But whilst I 
was at dinner, they procured a ladder, climbed into the win 
dow of my lecture room, and took the flag away. 

About a week after it was again erected. I immediately 
ordered the servants to take it down, and at an hour when all 
except the Freshmen were at their recitations; these stood 
about as spectators, and asked what I was going to do with 
it. I answered, "I ll show you." I ordered the servants to 
hold the but of the flag pole firmly, and throw the top over 
from the chapel roof, which is a story lower than the centre 
building. TVhen the flag came within reach, I stepped up and 
took some matches out of my pocket, set it on fire, and when 
it blazed up told the servants to throw the pole out from the 
building, and whilst it flamed up, I said, " So perish all efforts 
to dissolve this glorious Union / " * 

On the 15th of April, my lecture-room door was much in 
jured by attempts to break it open with a strong iron 4)ar. 
The library door they succeeded in forcing open. The object 
was to procure the jointed ladder, which the servants had put 
behind the amphitheatre for safe keeping. (A door opens be 
tween the library room and my lecture room.) On the mor- 

* It is worthy of special notice here, that the young men who were 
chiefly active in the erecting of these flags perished on July 21, 1861, 
in the first battle of Bull Run. Two of them were killed by one cannon 
shot, and a third (and he the leader) perished from excessive over-ex 
ertion in carrying his wounded companion three miles to the railroad 
car. This companion breathed his last just as they were lifting him on 
the car. And thus, to a melancholy and fearful extent, has the male 
diction prophetic been accomplished. I am to this day Dec. 9, 1862 
but very imperfectly informed on the subject, by reason of the rebellion 
cutting off all intercourse between me and my two sons and daughter 
in Rockbridge ; but from all I have heard, I am painfully impressed 
with the belief that more than fifty per cent, of all those misguided 
youth who were active in rebelling against me have paid the forfeit of 
their folly by the sacrifice of their lives. This is cause of unfeigned sor 
row; for a very large proportion of them were youth of remarkable 
promise for talents, diligence in study, purity of moral and religious 
character : who, but for these bloody fallacies would have lived long 
and adorned the higher walks of professional life. 


ning of the 17th, I saw a disunion flag surmounting the statue 
of Washington and the lightning rod. After prayer I detained 
the members of the Faculty, and waved my hand to the stu 
dents to retire. I stated to my colleagues that this thing must 
be stopped, &c. One of them said he had just received a pe 
tition on the subject, signed by most of the students. I asked 
him to read it. The substance (I have not a copy) of it was, 
that the flag which they had erected might be permitted to 
remain. I stated to the Faculty that it had been placed there 
in violation of law, and in contemptuous resistance to my ex 
press order, and, of course, if they would grant the prayer of 
the petition, my course of duty was clear and plain I could 
not be coerced, but would instantly secede ; and left them to 
deliberate, and let me know their decision. 

At eleven o clock, the usual hour, the Junior class came 
into my room. I asked whether the flag was on the top of 
the College, and received an affirmative answer. "Then, 
gentlemen," said I, "I am under the necessity of assuring you 
that I cannot submit to this kind of coercion," and dismissed 
them. One rushed toward the door, shouting, "Thank God 
for that ! thank God for that ! " * and yelled his utmost, in 
which he was joined by a few others. 

At twelve o clock, when the Seniors came in, I recid to 
them the substance of what I had said to the Juniors, and 
which, meanwhile, to be sure of the identical words, I had 
written down as follows : 

"Is the flag still on the top of the College ? 

" Answer, Yes. 

" * Well, then, gentlemen, as you put it there in express 
opposition to my order, I am under the necessity of telling 
you that I have never been ridden over rough shod in that 
style, and I never will be ; therefore, I never will hear a reci 
tation or deliver a lecture under a rebel flag. The class is 

"April VI, 1861." 

* Killed at Bull Run, as I learned shortly after from a Richmond 


They rose and withdrew in the most gentlemanly and re 
spectful manner, with every appearance of sincere regret. 

In the evening of the same day, I received from my col 
leagues a paper, of which the following is a copy, viz : 

" W. COLLEGE, April 17, 1861. 

"Action of the Faculty in relation to the Flag on the College 


" "Whereas the students, in reference to the tidings that the 
Virginia Convention are about to adopt an ordinance of se 
cession, have hoisted a Southern flag upon the college build 
ing, and have made a respectful request of the Faculty that 
they would permit it to remain ; and whereas the Faculty 
have assurance that this act has not taken place in any desire 
to violate college laws, or offer indignity to any member of 
the Faculty an assurance given by the students themselves to 
a member of the Faculty, and confirmed by the fact that they 
promptly took down, at the request of the Faculty, a similar 
flag, erected on a former occasion ; and whereas Dr. Junkin 
regards this act as a wilful violation of law and a personal in 
dignity, and requires the Faculty to have it removed at once, 
on penalty of his resignation an alternative which the Faculty 
think that Dr. Juukin has no right to impose, and which we 
cannot allow to influence our action in the premises, although 
we are fully determined to sustain the president, or any indi 
vidual member of our body, in the maintenance of discipline ; 
and whereas the sole object of the faculty is to allay excite 
ment, and ensure good order and attention to study in college, 
in this time of civil disturbance, believing, as we do, that 
these ends will be best promoted by not requiring the imme 
diate removal of the flag ; therefore, 

" Resolved, That the flag be permitted to remain, at the 
discretion of the Faculty. 

" Copied from the minutes, and communicated to Dr. 
Junkin by order of the Faculty. 

" J. L. CAMPBELL, Cleric." 

There is but one point in which there is positive inaccu- 


racy in the above. It is in regard to the flag said to have 
been taken down at the request of the Faculty. 

The flag there referred to was not " a similar flag," (as I 
was afterward informed, for I never saw it and knew not of 
its erection until after it was taken down ;) it was a red flag, 
and it was not erected on the centre building, but on the 
building in which my lecture room was. It was therefore en 
tirely different in its, significance. And it was not taken down 
at the request of the Faculty, for the Faculty as such knew 
nothing about it ; it was taken down at the remonstrance, as 
I understood, of Professor White, for which interposition I 
felt thankful.* After what had already transpired, neither I, 
nor the public, could be at any loss to know what was meant 
by erecting a red flag, not on the centre building over the 
statue of Washington, as had been the others, but over my 
Lecture Room. 

On the next day I called a meeting of the Trustees at 2 
p. M., the earliest hour practicable, on account of the meeting 
of the Presbytery of Lexington, and of the Superior Court. 
In urging the Trustees individually to attend, I assured them 
it would take but a few minutes, for my resignation would be 
peremptory and absolute, and leave no room for discussion. 
I mention this circumstance in order to counteract the gross 
misrepresentations which I have been told have found their 
way into some of the Richmond, papers, but especially, the 

* The lovely youth who took down this red flag from over my lec 
ture room, perished at the second battle of Bull Run on the 28th of 
Aug., 1862, aged about eighteen years. He was an ardent Union man 
a devoted student, pure minded as the blood of sprinkling ever 
cleanses sinners here below. A nobler boy never took seat before me 
in class, during the thirty-one years of my presidency in Colleges. But 
this accursed rebellion crushes into its ranks the hoary head and the 
beardless boy, and drags them on to the slaughter. His brother, a 
former graduate, lost an arm in the same fight, and two others of my 
dearly beloved young friends, graduates of two years standing, the pride 
of their parents, and ornaments to society, fell likewise on the same 
bloody field. Oh ! ye conspirators against our glorious Union and the 
peace of the world, look at the slaughter you have brought about, and 
think of the dread tribunal of Eternal Justice. 


The Trustees met accordingly, and the Board was opened 
with prayer, as usual, and my resignation was presented as 
follows : 

""WASHINGTON COLLEGE, April 18, A. D. 1861. 
" To the Board of Trustees of Washington College. 

"GENTLEMEN:! hereby resign the office to which you 
called me more than twelve years ago. 
" Very respectfully 

" Your humble servant, 

" GEO. JUNKIN, President." 

Dr. McFarland took the chair, made a few kind remarks : 
others were made especially by Lawyer Davidson, who was 
quite complimentary; the vote was passed, I shook hands 
with all the members, many of whom, as well as myself, were 
overpowered with tender emotions. 

Thus, within twenty hours from the time I was informed 
that my colleagues had determined to permit the secession flag 
to wave over the head of Washington, my connection with 
the College which he had so nobly endowed ceased forever. 

With pleasure I append the following, which shows truly 
that no personal ill feeling has ever existed toward me on 
the part of my late colleagues, as I doubt not they are per 
fectly aware that my mind is equally free from every emotion 
inconsistent with our literary and Christian relations. These 
difficulties have sprung from the false political maxims of 
Calhounism, which break down all the barriers of moral 
truth, and are rushing human society into the vortex of anar 
chy, and which must end in iron-handed despotism. 

""WASHINGTON COLLEGE, April 18, 1861. 
"JRev. Geo. Junkin, D.D. 

" DEAR SIR : Although we, your recent colleagues, as mem 
bers of the Faculty of "Washington College, felt it to be our 
duty, under peculiar circumstances, to pursue a line of policy 
which you did not approve, and in consequence of which you 
have felt constrained to resign your connection with the In- 


stitution, we wish to say that we were actuated by no feelings 
of disrespect to you personally, or disregard of the high posi 
tion you have filled in the College for so many years. And 
we desire now to express our high regard for your manly 
virtues as a Christian minister, and as a gentleman of distin 
guished talents and learning ; and to assure you of our entire 
confidence in your integrity, of our sincere friendly regards 
for yourself and family, and our earnest prayer that the twi 
light of your life may be its brightest and happiest period. 
" With much esteem, we are very sincerely 
"Your friends, 


Next day after these transactions I set to work in winding 
up my business, selling my property, paying my debts, &c., 
and as the ways of public conveyance were then blocked, I 
purchased a carriage, drove my own horses three hundred 
and fifty miles to Oxford, Chester County, and came in on 
the cars from that place yesterday morning. 

" The Lord shall keep thy soul ; he shall 

Preserve thee from all ill : 
Henceforth thy going out and in 
God keep forever will." 


PHILADELPHIA, May 18, 1861. 




THE nature of anything is the sum of its prop 
erties. By these only is it known to us ; and, unless 
our knowledge extends to every property, we cannot 
affirm it to be complete. Who will say he compre 
hends all the qualities of any one object of human 
thought ? Who will not rather admit that here, 
at least, we know but in part ? No man pretends 
to know all the properties of light, of caloric, of elec 
tricity, of carbon, of any substance whatever ; and 
therefore no man presumes to suspend investigation 
and forestall and preclude research into the nature 
of anything. Still, to us practically, the sum of 
its known properties is the nature of that thing. 
To these we give names, so that each quality has 


its proper term, by the use of which we suggest to 
one another the conception of that particular qual 
ity ; and then we invent or appropriate a word to 
express the general aggregate. It is by this simple 
process the bounds of knowledge are extended, lan 
guage is constantly enlarged, and science is im 
proved. Observation and experience furnish the 
particulars, and the mind classifies and arranges 
them into a system ; and thus, as the eye of obser 
vation runs to and fro, knowledge is increased. 

Nor is there any object of the mind s attention 
more complex and more difficult than man him 
self. His physical organization holds him in re 
lations to all physical science ; whilst his intellec 
tual and moral qualities open up a vast, a boundless 
field for investigation. And there is no study more 
important, more dignified, and attended with more 
profitable results, when pursued in the spirit of true 
philosophy, than man himself. On this field, when 
we turn our eye of observation, the social property 
arrests our attention. Turn whichever way we may, 
this characteristic looms forth ; and the graphic 
accuracy of the sacred historian is demonstrated, 
when he remarks, that " it is not good that the 
man should be alone ; I will make him a help suit 
able for him," or, as better in the margin, a help 
as before him, in his presence, always with him 


strongly expressing the idea of close, intimate social 
relations. Beautiful as is the poetic imagery, there 
is more truth than poetry in the assertion that 

" Eden was a wild, 
And man, the hermit, sighed, till woman smiled." 

Thus the divine history of our origin coincides pre 
cisely with the universal induction from the facts 
of all history, that man s nature is social ; and hoth 
force upon our convictions the belief that this social 
quality is an original element implanted by his Cre 
ator. Society is a felt necessity of his being, con- 
created with him. Without it he would not be 
man at all. This we have evinced in numerous 
instances. If a human creature have lost it ; if the 
law of social life is gone ; if the creature turn re 
cluse and misanthrope ; if he ignore society, society 
ignores him, denies his humanity, treats him as an 
animal, and shuts him up as a wild and dangerous 

Thus, in a two-fold sense, is God the Author of 
human society. First, in that He created the social 
element in our nature as a primary law, which ne 
cessitates the existence of society ; and secondly, in 
that He put this law into actual operation in the 
organization of the social body. 

These things being so, it follows, by inevitable 


logical necessity, that society does not owe its ex 
istence to any supposed voluntary compact. The 
phrase social compact is often used in such connec 
tions as to imply this erroneous idea. The theory 
it suggests seems to be this : that men are created 
and thrown upon the earth as individuals; in a dis 
sociate condition bound together by no moral ties, 
but every man an automaton, subject to the action 
of his own will ; that in process of time they volun 
teer to institute society; they form a covenant, 
agreement, or compact, and bind themselves to live 
together in society : this voluntary agreement is 
the social compact, and now, after it is constituted, 
the parties, formerly entirely insulated, are bound 
together a^nd lie under various obligations which 
did not before exist. (See Blacks tone, I. i.) 

Such seems to be the philosophical theory ; 
against it I array the foregoing facts. If God cre 
ated man social and put him into society, then is 
this theory entirely without foundation. But, sec 
ondly, I object to it, because there is no fact in the 
history of the race to sustain it. Where and at what 
period have individuals ever existed in such a condi 
tion of insulation ? If this is preposterous figment, 
I object, in the third place, that no man is ever 
asked whether he is willing to become a member of 
society or not. There is no such thing now, and 


there never was, as voluntarily entering into society 
and coming under the social compact. All men are 
placed in society, as the first pair were, by the im 
mediate act of their Creator. They are born mem 
bers of society, under protection of its laws, in whose 
enactment they had no agency ; they live subject 
to its laws, and can live nowhere else ; they die 
under the same laws. Private associations, indeed, 
for specific purposes, are formed voluntarily ; but 
this is not civil society. True, also, men may 
change their location, may remove from one country 
to another voluntarily, but this is not creating so 
ciety by compact. 

But, fourthly, no man 1ms a right, at his own 
option, to leave society and renounce its obligations 
and discard its duties. I say the right, the moral 
potver, he has not. The physical power he possess 
es. He can destroy his life : he can do it by a 
single blow, or by a number of acts. He can retire 
from all intercourse with his fellows ; but he cannot 
live in that state ; he must and will pay the forfeit, 
not of his breaking his voluntary compact with man, 
but of his rebellion against God in the violation 
of the social laws which He created in him. He 
will die. 

A compact, therefore, in the ordinary sense of 
the term an agreement voluntarily entered into by 


parties binding themselves by obligations to duties 
not before existent such a social compact never 
had any existence, and never can. It is simply a 
figment of false philosophy ; and it ignores the 
government of God, abnegates the universal law 
of love, subverts all government over man, and 
plunges the universe into the chaos of dark, cheer 
less atheism. 

Indeed, we might, perhaps, with profit, take an 
other step on this road of sound philosophy, and 
affirm that man cannot, by any merely voluntary 
act of his own, create give existence to, any moral 
obligation whatever. The Creator alone can pre 
scribe duties. He that made the moral machine 
and He only can dictate the laws for its government. 
Abstractly, this assumes the aspect of a self evi 
dent proposition, and yet, in some practical points 
of view, it will be called in question. We will be 
asked, Cannot a man bind himself by promise, 
contract, oath voluntarily taken ? What becomes 
of the business of society ? How could it progress 
if promissory notes were not binding ? Before the 
promise was made there was no obligation of duty, 
/ and how is it afterward ? 

These are plausible objections ; but let us see 
whether they be substantial. And let us be sure 
where the difficulty lies. Is it not precisely here ? 


in the interchange of antecedent and consequent ? 
An adroit, but inadvertent substitution of effect for 
cause and cause for effect ? Is not the promise to 
pay a sum, at a given time, based upon a preexist- 
ent obligation ? Will any man promise to pay if 
he is under no obligation ? Why, on the very face 
of the note this question is answered " for value 
received." This, in the nature of the transaction, 
precedes the promise. For value received I prom 
ise to pay, and if there has been no value received, 
there is no obligation the bond is null. Prove 
against the pro quo, and no quid follows. Destroy 
the antecedent and you destroy the consequent. 
Clearly it is not the promise that creates the obli 
gation, but the preexistent obligation that creates 
the promise. The duty the obligation to do some 
thing, springs from the law which God has estab 
lished for the regulation of human rights. He holds 
every man responsible for every item of property 
which His Providence throws into his hands ; " oc 
cupy till I come ; " and no man has a right to part 
with any property, but for a consideration ; and 
whenever that consideration, in course of Provi 
dence, fyas been given, the duty to pay the equiva 
lent lies ; and therefore the promise follows when 
ever it is not convenient to discharge the obligation 


at present. The duty is father to the promise, and 
not vice versa. 

The same may be evinced by raising the ques 
tion, Can a man bind himself can he make it his 
duty, simply by a voluntary promise on oath, to do 
a wrong thing ? Herod decided in the affirmative, 
when for his oath s sake he beheaded John in prison. 
But was his decision right ? Was his promise bind 
ing ? More than forty men bound themselves un 
der a curse to kill Paul. About the same number 
took an oath to kill Lincoln at the Camden depot, 
Baltimore ; was the promise and the oath binding ? 
Did it become their duty to do this thing ? How 
is it now with the thousands of knights, who are 
under oath to break up the Union ; is it their duty 
to perpetrate this enormous wickedness, because 
forsooth they have sworn to do it ? 

Clearly, then, it is not the voluntary promise or 
oath, that creates the duty ; but it is the duty, that 
renders the promise and the oath right and proper. 
The Author of our moral nature is the Author also 
of all the laws which are prescribed for its govern 
ment. His requisition alone defines duty. His 
will made known to man is supreme. " My meat 
is to do the will of him that sent me." Man s will 
can create no law, prescribe no duty ; but the per 
fection of his moral character consists in the sub- 


ordination of his will to God s. The child is 
in duty bound to obey the parent, not simply be 
cause the parent commands, but because God com 

From these views, we learn that expatriation 
is a duty and a right ; or is a sin and a wrong, just 
as you understand the term. If you take it in the 
native force of this Latin word removing from one s 
country, and transferring one s allegiance from the 
government under which he was born, to another 
country and government this is a privilege, a right, 
and, under certain providential arrangements, be 
comes a duty. If my condition in the country of 
my birth, is such that I cannot enjoy life ; cannot 
secure the happiness of my family ; cannot advance 
the good of man and the glory of his Maker, as well 
as I could by removing to another country, then it 
is my duty to expatriate. My duty is not created 
by my will and wishes, but by Divine Providence. 
My agency in the premises consists simply in the 
exercises of my reason and judgment. Conscience 
is to me the interpreter of providence and its well 
digested decision is the voice of God, binding it upon 
my soul as a solemn duty to obey. 

But if by expatriation be understood, removal 
from human society renouncing all government and 
turning recluse ; then the matter has already been 


decided ; no such right exists, for no man can pos 
sibly have a right to do wrong. 

Much blood and treasure were expended, during 
the war of 1S12- 15, in consequence of the Bullish 
blunder of the British philosophers, in confounding 
these two uses of the term expatriation. c Once a 
subject citizen, member of the body politic always 
a subject/ This is true, if by body politic be meant 
human society : but false, if the British nation and 
government, or any particular nation, be un 
derstood : and this was the sense they transferred 
to the other and assumed its truth. And this blun 
der in logic dyed the ocean, lakes and lands in blood, 
and eventuated in the glorious winding up on the 
8th of January, 1815. Such are some of the legit 
imate results of the war waged by John Locke, 
George Campbell, and others of Britain s most 
learned men, upon the syllogism : for after logic 
was beaten down by perversions of her doctrines, in 
the hands of England s great philosophers, sophistry, 
under the leading strings of the cotton thread, 
stepped in and controlled the destinies of that 
mighty empire. Whether the revival of logic, under 
the auspices of Whately and Hamilton, shall suc 
ceed in unwrapping the sea island fibre from the 
British brain, and breaking the meshes of the arach 
noid web, remains to be seen. Certain it is, that 


fallacy has spread desolation over a large part of the 
earth ; and an analogous sophism is now aiming its 
deadly shafts at the life of the Great Kepublic 3 and 
the vitals of human society. He that repudiates 
Logic is an enemy to social man. 



To forestall a part of those fallacies which spring 
from the double or vague meaning of words, we may 
find our account in defining these two terms. It is 
a curious and singular fact that Blackstone, in his 
chapter on Eights, gives us no definition, except in 
his classification and enumeration. He divides 
rights into absolute and relative by the former 
meaning those that belong to individuals as men ; 
by the latter those which are incident to them as 
members of society ; " such as would belong to 
their persons merely in a state of nature, and which 
every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of so 
ciety or in it." " The absolute rights of man, con 
sidered as a free agent, endowed with discernment 
to know good and evil, and with power of choosing 
those measures which appear to him to be most de 
sirable, are usually summed up in one general ap 
pellation, and denominated the natural liberty of 
mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in 


a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any 
restraint or control; unless by the law of nature ; 
being a right inherent in us by birth ; and one of 
the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he 
endowed him with the faculty of free will. But 
every man, when he enters into society^ives up a 
part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable 
a purchase/ We have already seen that all this v 
is purely fiction. Such a state of natural rights 
and liberty never had any existence. But you will 
observe, he merges absolute rights into natural lib 
erty and then tells us, u This natural liberty consists 
properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, with 
out any restraint or control, unless by the law of 
nature." But now we put the question, is not this 
law of nature the law of God, concreated with us, 
and is not this the very law of our social nature, 
under which man was and is now created ? What 
then becomes of the " out of society" theory ? 

Besides, it is utterly untrue that the savage 
state is the natural state of man and the truly free 
state, as is implied by this theory. " Natural lib 
erty," being here the savage condition, its assertion 
is an impeachment of divine wisdom. Did God 
place man at first in " that wild and savage liber- / 
ty ? " Was this wild and savage liberty " one of 
the gifts of God to man at his creation ? " And 


yet before he can become anything but a wild 
savage, he must give up this " gift of God/ this 
"wild and savage liberty," in order to enter into 
society and to make civil liberty possible ! 

Still we have no definition of Rights. What 
is a right & If we view this as a question of phys 
ics and inquire, Do five and seven make fifteen ? 
Are the three angles of a triangle together equal to 
two right angles ? Am I on the right road to Lex 
ington ? right is equivalent to true, to correct. 
Affirmative answers to the last two questions are 
right; negative to the first is rigid, i. e., true; the 
predicate agrees with the subject of the propositions 
respectively, or disagrees. 

But if we use the word also within the sphere 
of morals, and say, to love my neighbor is right; to 
disobey the command of God is not right; resist 
ance to civil magistrates in the due exercise of their 
authority is not right : in all such cases there is 

reference to a standard or rule of action." " Law, 
v . 

in its most general and comprehensive sense, signi 
fies a rule of action " Blackstone. This definition 
is right true, the predicate agrees with the subject. 
And so in the moral sense, there is always a rule 
of action referred to when the word right is used ; 
and the agreement or disagreement of the conduct 
y of a moral agent with the rule is the theory affirm- 


ed or denied. Honor thy father and mother, this is 
right / it is consonant with the rule of action pre 
scribed by due authority. Right is acting accord- v 
ing to law. But law is the will of God made 
known to us for the guidance of our conduct. Con 
formity with law is right, and when a moral agent 
conforms entirely his conduct with the laws pre 
scribed to him, this viewed abstractly is properly 
called righteousness. 

A right action being one conformed to the law, 
we may rightly say, the actor had a right to per 
form it, i. e., the lawgiver laid it upon him as a 
duty. And thus we come at once, as it were 
abruptly, to a ri^ht definition of duty, i.e., a thing 
due, which ir.rist be done which the law requires 
me to do. Thus we reach the doctrine, that rights 
and duties are reciprocal. Law is the basis and 
measure of rights. Whatever it commands I have 
a right to do, and nothing more. No man has a 
right to do what the law forbids ; it would not be 
right but wrong. Rights, therefore, are the things 
which the Supreme Lawgiver commands us to do ; 
and duties differ from rights only as to the point 
from which they are viewed. The right proceeds 
from the Lawgiver, and the duty is the action re 
quired to proceed from the subject of law. Noth 
ing can be a right which has not its corresponding 



duty. God is the author of all rights ; man is the 
agent of all duties. 

From this, it is but a step to obtain the true idea 
of liberty ; if the divine command creates and meas 
ures all rights, then full and perfect compliance is 
the using up of all our rights. Obedience to law 
is the perfection of freedom. 

" He is a free man whom the truth makes free ; 
All else are slaves beside." 

Would you the question has been often pro 
pounded " would you submit to a Black Kepub- 
lican ? Would you submit to Lincoln ? " No ! 
never nor to any man that ever God made ; but I 
will submit to the constitution and laws of my 
country, because they embody the will of God as 
the rule of action to this nation : and submission 
to them is perfect liberty. 

This doctrine of rights relieves us from some 
anomalous positions held by moral philosophers. 
Even so late and so sound an author as Wayland 
applies the term right so as to cover the most out 
rageously wrong actions, with but a slight qualifica 
tion.- A man has a right, so far as his neighbor is 
concerned, to worship an idol. In the chapter on 
the Sabbath, this principle is advanced ; and it is 
assumed, that what I have no power to prevent him 


from doing, my neighbor has a right to do. I can 
not prevent him from worshipping an idol and he 
has a right to do it. The phraseology is unfortu 
nate ; the principle it suggests, of course, he does 
not justify. 



FROM the social nature of man spring the ne 
cessity and the fact of government. No state of 
human society has ever been without it. The most 
artificial and the farthest removed from the primi 
tive or natural state is not without government. 
Savages have indeed few laws and few rulers, but 
some they always have. Theirs is, in the highest 
sense, the lex non scripta of Blacks tone. Still, law 
exists in the rudest, and, as I contend it is, the 
least free condition. It cannot be conceived, that 
intelligent beings, endowed with reason and will and 
a social nature, could act out the principles of their 
nature without rules of order, by which to regulate 
their intercourse. Nor can it be conceived that, 
when they become vastly numerous, they could sus 
tain their intercourse without any special agency 
for the application of these rules to society. Now 
this gives us the idea of government the applica 
tion of truth to the subject or thing governed, that 


is, here, the truths of law furnished by his Creator. 
Government is the agency which social man em 
ploys to direct, restrain, control its members by 
rule and law. " Upon these two foundations, the 
law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all 
human laws ; that is to say, no human laws should 
be suffered to contradict them." Blackstone, sec. 2. 
Men may, and, by reason of the defect of human 
reason, do often differ as to what the law of nature 
and of revelation is ; but, all over, it is agreed that 
the will of God made known for that purpose is the 
supreme law to man. The twofold method, above 
referred to, of its communication, varies not its 
binding force. Whether revealed in man s inner 
consciousness and his reasonings from data furnish 
ed by Providence to outward observation (which 
constitute natural religion, and are equivalent, 
rather identical, with " the law of nations"), or 
communicated to us in language, written or spoken, 
there is no difference in their obligations. The sum 
of duty of every governing agency is their applica 
tion to social man for the regulation of his conduct. 
It is usual to connect the term " civil " with 
both society and with government. This is derived 
from the Komans, and has its origin in the obvious 
fact that men closely connected in cities were laid 
under the necessity of organizing governments 


sooner than when living in a loose and scattered 
condition. The more frequent the intercourse of 
society, the more of detail became necessary both 
in the ramifications of law and in the agencies of 
its execution. Towns, then, being necessarily ahead 
of country places in this respect, the epithet civilis 
became attached to their more detailed rules of 
conduct. We see the same proofs passing before 
our eyes : as towns fill up and enlarge, subdivisions 
of law become necessary and therefore common. 

We moreover have another use for the epithet 
civil; it is used to contradistinguish those laws 
which relate solely to secular, earthly, worldly af 
fairs, from such as are of a religious or a spiritual 
character ; we have laws civil, and laws ecclesiasti 
cal or spiritual. We have civil society and reli 
gious society ; civil government and ecclesiastical 
or church government. And these, both and 
equally, are of Divine origin, though not of equal 
extent. The religious element, indeed, is found in 
the original laws of our social nature, and is, there 
fore, an essential item in the law of nature and of 
nations ; but the revealed law laid down in Holy 
Scripture, besides its clear exhibition of the law of 
nature, contains, as its main element, the doctrines 
of grace, of which the primary law gives us no in 
formation at all. Now, it is this last, this Gospel 


revelation (which it is the grand end of the lex 
scripta to make known), that creates the difference 
in extent of the civil and the ecclesiastical govern 
ments. The voluntary reception of the revealed 
doctrines is necessary to place the recipient under 
its authority and protection, and to guarantee its 
rights, whereas all mankind are by nature under the 
law written in the heart, as Paul designates the law 
of nature. 

This civil government, consisting of the laws pre 
scribed by the Creator, and the agency by which 
they are applied for the regulation of human con 
duct, is ordained of God. I can see no difference 
in this regard between government civil and gov 
ernment ecclesiastical. Both and equally are jure 
divino. With the former we have now to do. And 
little need be added, by way of proof, if the princi 
ples already laid down are correct. Even as to the 
mode of their communication we may not add an 
other word. But as to the appointment of the 
agency, the king, the president, the governor, &c., 
this must come up hereafter. The fact of the Divine 
authority must detain us a moment. And there 
are two modes of argumentation on. the point : from 
the revealed law and from the facts of providence. 
The latter maintains, that power actually exercised, 
by an individual or an association of men, over a 


larger number, is evidence of the Creator s will that 
so it ought to be. The divine right of kings has 
long been affirmed. And this is true, in a strict 
and qualified sense. The governing power belongs 
to God, and by whomsoever exercised, must be res 
pected and obeyed as Divine law ; but whether the 
party by whom it is exercised has a Divine commis 
sion, whether the de facto governor is also de jure, 
is another question. Be this as it may, just and 
right laws are to be obeyed because they are God s. 
And this is the teaching of sacred Scripture : 
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, 
for there is no power (exousia) but of God ; the 
powers that be are ordained of God." Eom. xiii. 
The Greek word here properly signifies moral power 
rightful authority. So Solomon, Prov. viii. 15, 
16 : " By me kings reign, and princes decree justice 
[not injustice]. By me princes rule, and nobles, even 
all the judges of the earth." So Dan. iv. 32 : " The 
Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giv- 
eth it to whomsoever He will." All righteous rule 
is from God. So Paul, having affirmed that the 
existing powers authorities for applying the Divine 
laws to the regulation of human conduct are or 
dained of God, proceeds to the consequences : " Who 
soever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive 


to themselves damnation. For rulers [archons 
supreme magistrates] are not a terror to good works, 
but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of 
the power ? do that which is good, and thou shalt 
have praise of the same, for he is the minister of 
God to thee for good. But if thou do that which 
is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in 
vain ; for he is the minister of God, a revenger 
[avenger] to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
evil/ Nothing could be more conclusive. The 
power, the authority to apply the Divine law for the 
government of men, belongs to the Divine Being. 
The supreme magistrate (which at this juncture 
was bloody Nero, for he was now the archon of the 
Koman world) had no authority to burn Christians 
or to murder his own friends. Physical force he 
had (dunamis), and that from God ; but only in 
the same sense that any assassin or Satan himself 
has no rightful authority. 

Nor is Peter s testimony less explicit, 1, ii. 13, 14 : 
" Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for 
the Lord s sake ; whether it be to the king as su 
preme, or unto governors, as unto them that are 
sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and 
the praise of them that do well/ Here is submis 
sion very peremptorily enjoined, but not absolute 
for the Lord s sake; Divine authority in the magis- 


trate is that to which submission is enjoined. If 
the king, as supreme, as the head archon, order an 
act of idolatry, he must not be obeyed, for he has 
no authority for such an order. As the minister, 
the deacon, the executive officer of God, his Mas 
ter s warrant is wanting ; the order is tyranny, and 
must not be complied with. Eesistance to tyrants 
is obedience to God. Peter also settles the order 
of submission : where there are magistrates of dif 
ferent grades, the highest officer must of course be 
first obeyed ; and this brings us into the margin 
of another and a distinct field of investigation. 



MERE philological research guides to the true 
idea here. Webster traces the word back to the Lat 
in, super supernus, superus, sopranus through 
the French, souverain. 

" Sovereign. 1. Supreme in power ; possessing 
supreme dominion ; as a sovereign prince. God is 
the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. 

" 2. Supreme ; superior to all others ; chief/ 

" Sovereignty supreme power ; supremacy ; 
the possession of the highest power, or of uncon 
trollable power. Absolute sovereignty belongs to 
God only." 

Bouvier s Law Dictionary has it thus : " Sov 
ereignty The union and exercise of all human 
power possessed in a state ; it is a combination of 
all power ; it is the power to do everything in a 
state without accountability to make laws, to 
execute and apply them ; to impose and collect 
taxes, and levy contributions; to make war and 


peace ; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce 
with foreign nations, and the like." 

Yattel : " Nations or states are bodies politic, 
societies of men united together for the purpose of 
promoting their mutual safety and advantage by 
the joint efforts of their combined strength." 
P. liv. 

" Every nation that governs itself, under what 
form soever, without dependence on any foreign 
power, is a sovereign state. P. 2. 

" It is necessary that there should be established 
a Public Authority to order and direct what is to be 
done by each in relation to the end of the Associa 
tion. This political authority is the Sovereignty, 
and he or they who are invested with it are the 
sovereign." P. 1. 

" By the sovereign pow r er (says Blackstone, 
Introd., sec. 2), as was before observed, is meant 
the .making of laws ; for wherever that power re 
sides, all others must conform to, and be directed 
by it, whatever appearance the outward form and 
administration may put on. * * * In a democ 
racy, where the right of making laws resides in 
the people at large, public virtue, or goodness of 
intention, is more likely to be found, than either 
of the other qualities of government. Popular as 
semblies are frequently foolish in their contrivance, 


and weak in their execution ; but generally mean 
to do the thing that is right and just, and have 
always a degree of patriotism or public spirit. In 
aristocracies there is more wisdom to be found than 
in the other frames of government ; being com 
posed, or intended to be composed, of the most 
experienced citizens. A monarchy is, indeed, the 
most powerful of any, all the sinews of government 
being knit together, and united in the hand of the 
prince ; but then there is imminent danger of his 
employing that strength to improvident or oppres 
sive purposes." He then cites the opinion of Cicero, 
that a wise and prudent combination of these three 
would constitute the best republic an opinion con 
troverted by Tacitus. He proceeds to argue the 
preeminent superiority of the British Constitution, 
because it embodies and exemplifies Cicero s opinion. 
" The legislature of the kingdom is intrusted to 
three distinct powers, entirely independent of each 
other : first, the king ; secondly, the lords spiritual 
and temporal, which is an aristocratical assembly 
of persons selected for their piety, their birth, their 
wisdom, their valor, or their property ; and, thirdly, 
the house of commons, freely chosen by the peo 
ple from among themselves, which makes it a kind 
of democracy. 

" Here, then ; is lodged the sovereignty of the 


British Constitution ; and lodged as beneficially as 
is possible for society. For in no other shape could 
we be so certain of finding the three great qualities 
of government so well and so happily united. If 
the supreme power were lodged in any one of the 
three branches separately, we must be exposed to 
\the inconveniences of either absolute monarchy, 
aristocracy, or democracy ; and so want two of the 
three principal ingredients of good polity, either 
virtue, wisdom, or power." 

It will be noticed here, that the great oracle of 
English law impliedly, but most emphatically de 
nies that the king per se is sovereign of the British 
nation. The monarch holds only a part of the 
sovereignty, which is not only divisible, but neces 
sarily divided, wherever freedom dwells. The idea 
of sovereignty being a unit, and a unit sui generis, 
incapable of division, an atom, a monad this idea 
is repudiated : it belongs to a newer philosophy. 
Its paternity is not much to its praise. Sovereignty 
is governing authority in a state ; as Paul calls it, 
exousia; and there is no power but of God. Kul- 
ing authority, in human hands, must be distributed ; 
and the wise tempering of the distribution, the "sit 
modice confusa " of Cicero, will very accurately 
measure the freedom of a state. 

In mechanics, the adjustment of balances is in- 


dispensable to the success of the machine. If this 
is lost, the preponderating force must drive on, to 
the utter demolition of the whole, from the most 
delicate structures of the horologist to the engine 
of ten thousand horse power. Let the balance of 
centrifugal and centripetal forces be lost, and the 
solar system becomes a wreck, and Phaeton s fiery 
car runs riot through a desolated universe. So, in 
the moral machinery of human government, powers 
must be so adjusted as to constitute mutual checks 
upon each other, that all the parts may combine to 
the perfection of the whole. 

For answering the question of location where 
is this power deposited ? we are already possessed 
of the material. Daniel (iv. 32), standing in the 
simple grandeur of Faith and the confidence it 
generates, before the mightiest monarch on earth, 
tells him, " The Most High ruleth in the kingdom 
of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." 
Sovereignty absolute is found only in God : from 
him alone is it distributed among men. But to 
whom, and how ? It is scarcely necessary for us 
to dwell for a moment even upon the divine right 
of kings, as that phrase has been sometimes under 
stood a direct and immediate gift from God. It 
is nowhere maintained that such a grant exists ; 
not even by those who now hold to the hereditary 


descent of ruling power. For even these are obliged 
to run back to a point when the first of any line is 
reached, at which they admit the authority was 
not found in the family blood, but was derived to 
it from the consent of the people. This is clearly 
admitted in English history, and even more decid 
edly acknowledged in nations where the Salic law 
prevails, by which the royal blood even, is excluded 
whenever it flows only in females veins. 

The people are intrusted with their own gov 
ernment, and their assent or consent is indispensa 
ble even to kings and nobles. This idea looms out 
and irradiates the whole line of history in every 
nation. " The executive power of the English 
nation is vested in a single person, by the general 
consent of the people." Blackstone, b. i., c. 3. 
The only practical difficulty in our way, is the 
question, How ? How does the sovereignty, the 
power of governing themselves, pass from them to 
the rulers ? Hoiv does He, who ruleth in the king 
dom of men, give His ruling authority to the king, 
the president, the governor, the sheriff, the police 
officer ? If sovereignty is a franchise from the God 
who made him, how can man be deprived of it, but 
by authority of the Giver ? Can he rightfully 
abandon it ? Can he bury this precious talent in 
the earth, and yet escape his responsibility ? So 


far, therefore, from kings and rulers having any 
immediate right of sovereignty, mankind those on 
whom the franchise is bestowed are under bonds 
the most solemn conceivable, to maintain and re 
tain it, and yield it only to their own proper agents, 
to be exercised for their benefit ; and whenever it 
is abused, so as to destroy its designed end, they 
are bound to reject these agents, recall the power, 
and resume its exercise. That is, there exists an 
ultimate right of rebellion and revolution in the 
people of every nation, to be resorted to whenever 
the authority to rule is so abused as to miss entirely 
its grand end the welfare of the people. 

The methods of this temporary transfer of 
supreme power, or rather of that part of it which 
it is right for a people to delegate for a time, are 
various. If a hundred men and women were thrown 
upon a desert island, and so cut off from all civil 
government, it would be both a privilege and a 
duty to act toward each other according to the 
social laws to which we have referred. One of their 
number, suitably qualified, might assume headship, 
of his own motion. If this assumption be acqui 
esced in by the rest, he becomes an executive head 
perhaps also, in a degree, a legislative head to the 
body politic. If one were called by the formal vote 
of the body, i. e., a majority of the people, to exer- 



else a part of the sovereignty, he would be, to all 
intents, and in all right, a minister of God to that 
people. His acts, within the sphere of the laws 
prescribed by the Creator, are those of a civil ruler, 
or rather a servant of that people ; and he is bound 
to do and to act for their good : he is jure divino 
an officer, as truly as is the monarch of a hereditary 
line, swaying a sceptre over a hundred millions of 
men. In short, it is of little consequence in what 
form the people s consent to the exercise of any 
part of sovereignty over them, by any individual, 
may be expressed. The fact of its expression places 
that authority in his hands, just to the extent of 
the concession ; and he is therefore and thereby a 
magistrate a minister of God to that people, 
during the period designated. In such a transfer 
and its acceptance, there is compact, covenant, or 
agreement between the people and the elected ruler 
or public servant; and usually the question of wages 
for his service, or salary for office duties, forms an 
essential part. 



THE most striking circumstance in their history 
is the original moving cause of their inception. 
Why did so many people tear themselves away 
from the comforts of Christian and civilized society ; 
and that too in a country where as much of liberty 
was enjoyed as in any on the glohe ? Was it that 
the place of their fathers sepulchres had become too 
strait for them ? the population had become too 
dense for them to gather a comfortable subsistence 
from the soil ? The population of the British Isles 
was scarcely a tithe of what it is now. Was it 
that the enticements to these shores, the refinements 
and felicities of society here, was so much superior 
to those of their native land ? Nothing of the kind. 
A trackless wilderness lay before them, inhabited 
only by savage beasts and not less savage men. 
Why then should they abandon the sweets of home 
for a strange and barbarous country ? Every school 
boy has the answer ready : they were borne down 


by the spirit of religious intolerance. The error of 
the world, the church, the age, was the idol of uni 
formity in religious belief. This looms out from all 
the pages of our colonial .history, that religious per 
secution, disfranchisement, and oppression forced the 
colonists from the bosom of a misguided church 
and an unrelenting state into the wilderness. With 
perhaps the single exception of Virginia, all the 
colonies were planted by refugees from intolerance. 
To enjoy liberty of conscience in a wilderness home, 
seemed to them preferable to a residence in glorious 
old Albion, under compulsion of bowing the knee 
to the image of Baal. Virginia was a speculation, 
originating in commercial cupidity ; Plymouth was 
a church, persecuted and peeled ; trodden down, 
and yet not destroyed ; but seeking a refuge from 
the storm and a covert from the tempest the sha 
dow of a great rock in a weary land. Not the fos 
tering care, but the cruelty of the mother country 
planted these colonies ; and her avarice was early 
displayed in systematic endeavors to reap a revenue 
from their industry. In Virginia this was exem 
plified in the efforts of the Stuarts to secure to 
themselves a monopoly of the tobacco trade. So 
eagerly did England grasp at the profits of trade, 
that Charles I. conceded large privileges as a set off 
for this monopoly. " The plantation," says Ban- 


croft (ii. 194), "no longer governed by a chartered 
company, was become a royal province, and an ob 
ject of favor ; and, as it enforced conformity to the 
Church of England, it could not be an object of sus 
picion to the church or the court. Franchises were 
neither conceded nor restricted ; for it did not recur 
to his pride that at that time there could be in an 
American province anything like established privi 
leges or vigorous political life ; nor was he aware 
that the seeds of liberty were already germinating 
on the borders of the Chesapeake. His first Vir 
ginia measure was a proclamation on tobacco, con 
firming to Virginia and the Somer Islands the ex 
clusive supply of the British market, under penalty 
of the censure of the star chamber for disobedience. 
In a few days, a new proclamation appeared, in 
which it was his evident design to secure the profits 
that might before have been engrossed by the cor 
poration. After a careful declaration of the features 
of the charters, and consequently of the immediate 
dependence of Virginia upon himself, a declaration 
aimed against the claims of the London company, 
and not against the franchises of the colonists, the 
monarch proceeded to announce his fixed resolution 
of becoming, through his agents, the sole factor of 
the planters. Indifferent to their constitution, it 
was his principal aim to monopolize the profits of 


their industry ; and the political rights of Virginia 
were established as usages by his salutary neglect." 
Thus, as often happens, one sinful lust devours 
another ; the eagerness of the kings to secure a 
revenue, conceded a strong protective tariff to the 
great staple of Virginia ; and at the same time 
unwittingly acknowledged a representative govern 
ment, and even the occasional election of their own 
governor to the colonists. Avarice fed the goose 
that he might eat the eggs and feather his own 
nest ; but the goose became an eagle, and the eggs 
sent forth a numerous brood, which plucked the 
crown from its selfish benefactor. "This is the 
first recognition, on the part of a Stuart, of a rep 
resentative assembly in America." But the price 
asked was too great. The planters refused to put 
themselves in the power of the crown as an absolute 
monopolist of tobacco, even though the king offered 
the monopoly of the English market ; for obviously, 
if the king could be the only purchaser, they were 
at his mercy. Similar efforts were made after the 
restoration. Cromwell s navigation act, which laid 
the foundation of England s supremacy on the sea^ 
and of her manufacturing preeminence on land, 
was variously modified to the disadvantage of co 
lonial commerce. " No vessel, laden with colonial 
commodities, might sail from the harbors of Vir- 


ginia for any ports but those of England, that the 
staple of those commodities might be made in the 
mother country ; and all trade with foreign vessels, 
except in cases of necessity, was forbidden." (Ban 
croft, i. 221.) This constitutes one of the reasons 
in the Declaration " giving his assent to their acts 
of pretended legislation for cutting off our trade 
with all parts of the world." There is perhaps no 
one feature of British legislation, in reference to the 
colonies, more prominent than this, of securing a 
revenue in one or both methods, of direct taxation 
and of commercial advantages. All the charters 
and grants of every description carefully secure 
these interests, and bind the colonies under obliga 
tions to the crown and parliament. All her sub 
sequent legislation is shaped with the view to insure 
perpetual dependence, both in regard to the manu 
facture of goods and their exchange. Whether they 
understood it may be doubtful, but their policy was 
an embodiment of the doctrine so ably set forth in 
Mr. H. C. Carey s masterly work, " Social Philoso 
phy/ viz., that a people whose industrial energies are 
expended wholly in the production of raw materials 
to be exported to another country for manufacture 
a-nd return, is a colonial dependent of the country 
that manufactures and returns them. Manufactur 
ing industry is the civilizer ; raw producers glide 


toward semi-barbarism. England s policy ever has 
been to hold her colonies in this position : if she 
has not succeeded, it has not been for want of ef 
fort, but because of the natural tendency of man, 
and especially of the Anglo-Saxon racc ; toward the 
development of the human powers. To check this 
in America and to stimulate it in Britain has been 
her master policy for three hundred years. 

Division of labor, so necessary an element in a 
people s large development by mechanical industry 
and progress, has its basis in diversities of soil and 
climate, and this springs from the inclination of 
the earth s axis to the plane of its orbit. Thus 
the Creator makes division of labor a necessity on a 
large scale ; and commerce is a dependant on diver 
sified pursuits. England s madness consists in her 
gigantic efforts to become the ergastulum generate 
the universal workshop of the globe. But as her 
desperate effort to execute this wild scheme upon 
her own colonies failed, so will all her efforts to 
make the nations all colonial dependants. 

A capital point in this scheme, as to America, 
was to hem up the colonies severally within them 
selves, prevent them from traffic one with the other, 
and thus cut off all interdependence, by prohib 
iting, as far as possible, all intercommunication ; 
and at the same time, and by this very means, to 
insure the dependence of each upon herself. " Let 


us," she says, "have your raw materials ; we can 
manufacture them much cheaper and better than 
you can ; we will send for them and work them up 
for you in the most beautiful manner, and return to 
you as much as each may need." In furtherance of 
this scheme, she threw every hindrance possible in 
the way of the colonies becoming skilled in produ 
cing for themselves the decencies and luxuries of 
life. Heavy fines were imposed upon artisans for 
attempting to emigrate to the colonies, and especi 
ally for attempting to remove any implements and 
machinery. Books were written for America ; and 
Adam Smith s doctrines were glossed, and are to 
this day, to mean the opposite of what they do 
mean, and thus to give the weight of his name 
against American manufacturing industry and in 
favor of foreign. Thus, the infants are always to 
remain helpless and be kept in leading strings, and 
so dependent on the nurse and the step-mother. 
They must be kept ignorant of their relations to 
each other only through their common parent ; 
and their adaptation to aid each other and bear 
each other s burdens, by reason of diversities of soil, 
climates, and productions, must not be improved, 
lest unions might be formed by their home ex 
changes detrimental to the dependence of each 

upon the home government. 



THE social laws of his nature, and these only, 
elevate man and give him dominion over the more 
powerful animals. Without combination he is 
weak, and must soon perish from the earth ; but in 
union there is strength. " Concentrated action is 
powerful action." The colonies early felt the neces 
sity of consolidation of the members of each into a 
body politic, and the exercise of that partial or lim 
ited sovereignty which they held ; but moreover, 
of a federative union, to give them strength to re 
sist outward pressure common to them all. The 
union of their forces in their conflicts with the In 
dians had taught them its importance ; and " the 
vicinity of the Dutch, a powerful neighbor, whose 
claims Connecticut could not, single-handed, de 
feat, led the colonists of the West to renew the 
negotiation for a union, and with such success that, 
within a few years, THE UNITED COLONIES OF 
NEW ENGLAND were made all as one." (Bancroft, 


i. 420.) " The Union embraced the separate gov 
ernments of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, 
and New Haven ; but to each its respective local 
jurisdiction was carefully reserved. The question of 
State rights is nearly two hundred years old. [This 
was in 1643.] The affairs of the confederacy were 
intrusted to commissioners, consisting of two from 
each colony." 

Passing over several exemplifications of the 
same character, let us attend for a moment to the 
case of 1754. A hundred and eleven years of very 
varied experience had enforced upon the minds of 
the colonists the importance of the maxim which 
soon came to be a song in the mouth of every 
schoolboy : " United we stand, divided we fall." 
Yea, this conviction had worked itself deeply into 
the minds of the British nation, for in its conflicts 
with its "natural enemy/ the royal government 
was made to feel, more than once, that the colonies 
were an element of strength ; for the French were 
resisted successfully, and could only be successfully 
resisted and driven from America, by the aid of 
colonial power cooperating with that of the mother 
country. Consequently, whilst the cloud of a new 
French war was lowering in the dim distance, the 
British Government, departing from their habitual 
policy of preventing the colonies from intimate con- 


nections among themselves, invited a congress of 
deputies from all the colonies to meet in Albany, 
New York. " With a view to this end, an order 
was sent over by the Lords of Trade [trade always 
governs England], directing that commissioners 
should be appointed in several of the provinces to 
assemble at Albany. The immediate object was to 
conciliate the Six Nations, by giving them presents, 
and renewing a treaty by which they should be 
prevented from going over to the French, or being 
drawn away by the Indians under their influence." 

"The day appointed for the assembling of the 
commissioners was the 14th of June, 1754, at Al 
bany, but they did not meet till the 19th, when it 
was found that the following colonies were repre 
sented, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsyl 
vania, and Maryland. The whole number appoint 
ed was twenty-five, who all attended. Franklin 
was one of the delegates from Pennsylvania." 
(Franklin s Works, vol. iii., p. 22.) 

On his way to Albany, Franklin, whose inven 
tive genius was ever on the alert, conceived the idea 
of a more extended and permanent union of the 
colonies. If he seems to have reasoned if, for 
repelling the 1 Indians and French, a temporary 
union by representatives of the northern colonies is 


deemed by England to be important, why not en 
hance the importance by a permanent union of all 
the colonies ? Can the beneficial effects of combi 
nation be only a temporary expedient ? Conse 
quently he drew up a very brief sketch of a plan of 
union with a view to permanency. This paper he 
left with a friend in New York, with the following 

note : 

" NEW YOKE, June 8th, 1754. 

"Mr. Alexander is requested to peruse these 
Hints, and make remarks in correcting or improv 
ing the scheme, and send the paper with such 
remarks to Dr. Golden for his sentiments, who is 
desired to forward the whole to Albany, to their 
very humble servant, B. FRANKLIN." 

" While the Indian business was in progress/ 
says Sparks, the historian and editor of Franklin s 
works, iii. 23, " the subject was brought before the 
convention. Under date of June 24th, the follow 
ing record is found in the journal : 

" A motion was made that the commissioners 
deliver their opinion whether a union of all the col 
onies is not at present absolutely necessary for their 
security and defence. The question was accordingly 
put and passed in the affirmative unanimously." 

A committee of one from "each government" 


was appointed to digest and report a plan of 
union. Franklin s sketch is in the words follow 
ing, namely, " A GOVERNOR-GENERAL, to be ap 
pointed by the king ; to be a military man ; to 
have a salary from the crown ; to have a negation 
on all acts of the Grand Council, and carry into ex 
ecution whatever is agreed upon by him and the 
Grand Council. GRAND COUNCIL : One member 
to be chosen by the Assembly of each of the smaller 
colonies, and two or more by each of the larger, in 
proportion to the sums they pay into the general 
treasury. MEMBERS PAY : shillings sterling 
per diem during their sitting, and mileage for trav 
elling expenses. PLACE AND TIME OF MEETING : 
To meet times in the year, at the capital of each 
colony, in course, unless particular circumstances 
and emergencies require more frequent meetings, 
and alterations in the course of places. The Gov 
ernor-General to judge of those circumstances, &c., 
and to call by his writs. GENERAL TREASURY : 
Its fund, an excise on strong liquors, pretty equally 
drank in the colonies, or duty on liquor imported, 
or shillings on each license of a public house, or 
excise on superfluities, as tea, &c. &c. All which 
would pay in some proportion to the present wealth 
of each colony, and increase as that wealth increases, 
ind prevent disputes about inequalities of quotas. 


To be collected in each colony and lodged in their 
treasury, to be ready for the payment of orders 
issuing from the Governor- General and the Grand 
Council jointly. DUTY AND POWER OF THE GOV 
all Indian treaties. Make all Indian purchases not 
within proprietary grants. Make and support new 
settlements, by building forts, raising and paying 
soldiers to garrison the forts, defend the frontiers, 
and annoy the enemy. Equip guard vessels to 
scour the coasts from privateers in time of war, and 
protect the trade, and everything that shall be found 
necessary for the defence and support of the colonies 
in general, and increasing and extending their set 
tlements, &c. For the expense they may draw on 
the fund in the treasury of any colony. MANNER 
OF FORMING THIS UNION i The scheme, being first 
well considered, corrected, and improved by the 
commissioners at Albany, to be sent home, and an 
act of parliament for establishing it." 

It will be seen that these Hints are the sub 
stance of the plan reported by the committee. We 
shall here present it as adopted by the convention, 
omitting the exposition and defence of the articles, 
as presented by Sparks, vol. iii., 32 to 55, with, 
however, the strong recommendation to the reader 
that he carefully inspect the whole. I shall num- 


ber the articles for convenient reference. They 
first show the weakness and inefficiency of the 
colonies for want of a common bond, and then 
come to the unanimous resolution " that a union 
of all the colonies is absolutely necessary for their 
preservation." Then, to insure its perpetuity and 
to forefend secession, they remark : " Yet, as any 
colony, on the least dissatisfaction, might repeal its 
act [of entering the union], and thereby withdraw 
itself from the union, it would not be a stable one, 
or such as could be depended on ; for, if only one 
colony should, on any disgust, withdraw itself, 
others might think it unjust and unequal, that 
they, by continuing in the union, should be at the 
expense of defending a colony which refused to 
bear its proportionable part, and would therefore, 
one after another, withdraw, till the whole would 
crumble into its original parts." Therefore the 
commissioners came to another previous resolution, 
" that it was necessary the union should be estab 
lished by an act of parliament." 


That the said general government be adminis 
tered by a President-General, to be appointed and 
supported by the crown ; and a Grand Council, to 


be chosen by the representatives of the people of 
the several colonies met in their respective assem 


who shall meet for the first time at the city 
of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, being called by 
the President- General as soon as conveniently may 
be after his appointment. 


That there shall be a new election of the mem 
bers of the Grand Council every three years ; and, 
on the death or resignation of any member, his 
place should be supplied by a new choice at the 
next sitting of the Assembly of the colony he 


That after the first three years, when the pro 
portion of money arising out of each colony to the 
general treasury can be known, the number of 
members to be chosen for each colony shall, from 
time to time, in all ensuing elections, be regulated 
by that proportion, yet so as that the number to be 


chosen by any one province be not more than seven 
nor less than two. 


That the Grand Council shall meet once in 
every year ; and oftener if occasion require, at such 
time and place as they shall adjourn to at the last 
preceding meeting, or as they shall be called to 
meet at by the President-General on any emer 
gency ; he having first obtained in writing the 
consent of seven of the members to such call, and 
sent due and timely notice to the whole. 


That the Grand Council have power to choose 
their speaker ; and shall neither be dissolved, pro 
rogued, nor continued sitting longer than six weeks 
at one time, without their own consent or the special 
command of the crown. 


That the members of the Grand Council shall 
be allowed for their service ten shillings sterling 
per diem, during their session and journey to and 
from the place of meeting, twenty miles to be 
reckoned a day s journey. 



That the assent of the President-General be 
requisite to all acts of the Grand Council, and that 
it be his office and duty to cause them to be carried 
into execution. 


That the President-General, with the advice 
of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian 
treaties, in which the general interest of the colo 
nies may be concerned ; and make peace or declare 
war with Indian nations. 


That they make such laws as they judge neces 
sary for regulating all Indian trade. 


That they make all purchases from Indians for 
the crown, of lands not within the bounds of par 
ticular colonies, or that shall not be within their 
bounds when some of them are reduced to more 
convenient dimensions. 



That they make new settlements on such pur 
chases, by granting lands in the king s name, reserv 
ing a quit rent to the crown for the use of the gen 
eral treasury. 


That they make laws for regulating and govern 
ing new settlements, till the crown shall think fit 
to form them into particular governments. 


That they raise and pay soldiers and build forts 
for the defence of any of the colonies, and equip 
vessels of force to guard the coasts and protect the 
trade on the ocean, lakes, or great rivers ; but they 
shall not impress men in any colony, without the 
consent of the legislature. 


That for these purposes they have power to 
make laws, and lay and levy such general duties, 
imposts, or taxes, as to them shall appear most 
equal and just (considering the ability and other 


circumstances of the inhabitants in the several col- 
onies), and such as may be collected with the least 
inconvenience to the people ; rather discouraging 
luxury, than loading industry with unnecessary 


That they appoint a General Treasurer, and 
particular treasurer in each government, when ne 
cessary ; and from time to time may order the sums 
in the treasury of each government into the general 
treasury, or draw on them for special payments, 
as they find most convenient. 


Yet no money is to issue but by joint orders 
of the President-General and Grand Council ; ex 
cept where sums have been appropriated to partic 
ular purposes, and the President-General is previ 
ously empowered by an act to draw such sums. 


That the general accounts shall be yearly set 
tled, and reported to the several assemblies. 


That a quorum of the Grand Council, empow- 


ered to act with the President-General, do consist 
of twenty-five members ; among whom there shall 
be one or more from a majority of the colonies. 


That the laws made by them for the purposes 
aforesaid shall not be repugnant, but, as near as 
may be, agreeable to the laws of England, and 
shall be transmitted to the king in council for ap 
probation; and if not disapproved within three 
years after presentation, to remain in force. 


That, in case of the death of the President- 
General, the speaker of the Grand Council for the 
time being shall succeed, and be vested with the 
same powers and authorities, to continue till the 
king s pleasure be known. 


That all military commission officers, whether 
for land or sea service, to act under this general 
constitution, shall be nominated by the President- 
General ; but the approbation of the Grand Coun 
cil is to be obtained before they receive their com 
missions : and all civil officers are to be nominated 


by the Grand Council, and to receive the President- 
General s approbation before they officiate. 


But, in case of vacancy by death or removal of 
any officer, civil or military, under this constitution, 
the Governor of the province in which such vacan 
cy happens may appoint, till the pleasure of the 
President -General and Grand Council can be 


That the particular military as well as civil 
establishments in each colony remain in their pres 
ent state, the general constitution notwithstand 
ing ; and that on sudden emergencies any colony 
may defend itself, and lay the accounts of expense 
thence arising before the President-General and 
Grand Council, who may allow and order payment 
of the same, as far as they judge such accounts just 
and reasonable. 

On these Hints and this Plan the reader will 
make his own comments, whilst I remark : 

1. The purpose for which they are adduced they 
do surely accomplish : they prove the deep feeling 


conviction of this body, of the indispensable neces 
sity for a UNION of the colonies. 

2. They view and speak of the colonies as gov 
ernments xiii, xvi and denominate what they 
propose the " General Government/ (i.) 

3. They call this a constitution, a " general con 
stitution." (xxii, xxiii, xxiv.) 

4. It creates and involves all the proper powers 
of a government, except that it establishes no ju 
diciary. Legislative authority is fully recognised, 
with power to execute their own laws, subject only to 
the veto of the crown for three years, (xv, xvii, xvii.) 
In this it goes far beyond " The Articles of Confed 
eration and Perpetual Union/ as we shall more 
fully see hereafter. 

5. This Plan of Union bears all the marks of 
that original genius which produced the Hints. 
Manifestly Franklin was the father of it ; and as he 
was the only man who sat in the convention, and 
also, thirty-three years afterwards, in this conven 
tion to form our present Constitution, it is impossi 
ble to doubt his great weight and influence in in 
fusing the substance of this Plan into the more 
matured system that now (September 9th, 1862) is 
to be subverted. 

6. England s necessity constrained her to teach 
to the colonies this great and important lesson of 


union in order to strength. The lords of trade, to 
save money, of course, and to prevent interruption 
of trade, suggested the hint of a union of the col 
onies in their own defence against France and the 
Indians, which nineteen years later was matured 
into a union of the colonies against England and 
the same Indians. 

Let us advert to a few other moves made in this 
direction. And here it is deeply interesting to notice, 
by the dates, how almost miraculously the spirit of 
freedom and union moved the masses at the same 
moment over all the land. Charleston, S. C., June, 
1774, a public meeting having been called and hav 
ing deliberated, did unanimously agree to "such 
steps as are necessary to be pursued, in union with 
the inhabitants of all our sister colonies on this 
continent, in order to arrest the dangers impending 
over American liberties in general/ 7 (See Amer. 
Archives, 4th series, vol. i, p. 409.) 

Newport, Khode Island, June 13, 1774, the 
General Assembly met, and on the 15th passed the 
following : " Eesolve 1st. That it is the opinion of 
this Assembly that a firm and inviolable union of 
all the colonies, in counsel and measures, is abso 
lutely necessary for the preservation of their rights 
and liberties." (P. 416.) The Eesolve 2cl appoints 
Samuel Hopkins and Henry Ward " to represent 



the people of this colony in a general congress of 
representatives from other colonies," &c. 

June 14, 1774,, Charles County Court House, 
Port Tobacco, Md. " Kesolve 5th. It is the opinion 
of this meeting that a congress of deputies from the 
several colonies will be the most probable means of 
uniting America in one general measure to effectu 
ate a repeal of the said act of Parliament" (the 
Boston Port bill). 

" At a meeting of the inhabitants of the borough 
of Lancaster, Penn., at the Court House in said 
borough, on Wednesday, the 15th day of June, 1774, 
Agreed, that to preserve the constitutional rights 
of the inhabitants of America, it is incumbent on 
every colony to devise and use the most effectual 
means to procure a repeal of the late act of Parlia 
ment against the town of Boston." (P. 415.) 

Massachusetts House of Eepresentatives, June 
17th, 1774, " do resolve, that a meeting of commit 
tees from the several colonies on this continent is 
highly expedient and necessary. That the Honor 
able James Bowdoin, Esq., the Honorable Thomas 
Gushing, Esq., Mr. Samuel Adams, John Adams, and 
Kobert Treat Paine, Esqs., be, and they are hereby 
appointed a committee on the part of this province 
for the purposes aforesaid, any three of whom shall 
be a quorum, to meet such committees or delegates 


from the other colonies as have been or may be ap 

Easton public meeting, June 21, 1774. Kesolve 
" 3d. That it is our opinion the most constitutional 
and effectual method of obtaining such redress, is 
by having a general congress of committees, to be 
composed and chosen out of the members of the 
different assemblies of each colony." (P. 436.) 

" Pennsylvania convention, July 15, 1774, 
Philadelphia. Kesolved unanimously, That there 
is an absolute necessity that a congress of deputies 
from the several colonies be immediately assembled, 
to consult together and form a general plan of con 
duct to be observed by all the colonies." (P. 556.) 

This resolution was shortly afterward adopted 
and passed by the Legislature. (P. 606.) 

This is a sample and selection of the incipient 
measures toward a Continental Congress and a 
union of the colonies. Accordingly the meeting 
took place. On the 5th of September, 1774, the 
committees from twelve colonies assembled in the 
Carpenters Hall, Chestnut street, Philadelphia. 
Virginia was represented by Peyton Randolph, 
George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, 
Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton. Alas ! 
where noiv shall we look for such names ? The 
committees proceeded to organize and form them- 


selves and their constituents into a unit. They 
unanimously elected as their president the oldest 
man, and from the oldest colony, Peyton Kandolph. 
(P. 893.) Now they are one body, and as a body 
transacted much business in little time and with 
amazing unanimity, for it had one spirit and one 
life. It passed resolutions ; it discussed the inter 
est of the country ; it adopted and signed articles 
of association pledging abstinence from the use of 
goods, " the growth, produce, and manufacture of 
Great Britain ; " it published a bill of rights ; an 
address " to the people of Great Britain ; " one " to 
the inhabitants of these colonies ; " one " to the 
inhabitants of the province of Quebec/ 7 in which 
they urge them to unite their destinies with their 
own. " In order to complete this highly desirable 
union, they say, we submit it to your consideration, 
whether it may not be expedient for you to elect 
deputies to represent your province in the Conti 
nental Congress to be held at Philadelphia on the 
I0th day of May, 1775." (See Amer. Arch., 4th 
series, vol. ii, p. 1819.) 

There is an incident mentioned in a note at the 
bottom of the page, in which was displayed the 
spirit of liberal hospitality that to-day character 
ises the birthplace of independence and the home 
of freedom. A few days after this unparalleled 


band of sages constituted " the United Colonies/ 
as they called themselves, an elegant dinner was 
given by the friends of the great cause : a series of 
toasts was prepared and drunk ; the fifth is in these 
notable words : " PERPETUAL UNION TO THE COL 

On the 10th of May, 1775, "the Continental 
Congress/ this grand committee of the colonies, 
again assembled in the same place, and elected the 
same president. From their acts let us proceed in 
the evidence of unity. We have already seen them 
constitute what Kant would call " the unity of the 
diverse," and neither they nor any others conceived 
or viewed them in any other light than that of a 
unit the United Colonies in Congress assembled. 
No body of men ever did or ever could feel them 
selves more perfectly united more truly one. As 
a grand committee of the colonies they met : they 
organized by the appointment of all officers usual 
and necessary for aggregate masses met for delibe 
ration. They transacted business in the name and 
by the authority of the colonies united. Not a few 
people, stuck on to the side of a barbarous continent, 
only looked on and took an interest in their delib 
erations and decisions. The British king and peo 
ple, France, the civilized world, stood in mute as 
tonishment Humanity held its breath, and Liberty 


trembled and sighed for the results. Such a "body 
of men she had not before seen assembled in her 
cause. She had hovered over the Amphictyonic 
hall and listened to the last thrilling eloquence of 
Greece s most illustrious orator ; she had given an 
attentive ear to the silvery tones of Koine s most 
illustrious orator ; but never did she look in upon 
the deliberations of any assembly with more intense 
interest than when, on the 15th of June, 1775, the 
United Colonies in congress assembled passed the 
resolution, " That a General be appointed to com 
mand all the continental forces raised, and to be 
raised, for the defence of American liberty. 

" That five hundred dollars per month be allow 
ed for his pay and expenses." . 

" The Congress then proceeded to the choice of 
a General, when George Washington, Esq., was 
unanimously elected." 

Nor did she abate a hair of her high hopes, when, 
next day, upon the announcement, by the president 
of this august body, being made to him of his ap 
pointment, the General elect delivered the following 
speech : 

" Mr. President : Though I am truly sensible 
of the high honor done me in the appointment, yet 
I feel great distress, from, a consciousness that my 
abilities and military experience may not be equal 


to the extensive and important trust. However, as 
the Congress desire it, I will enter upon the mo 
mentous duty, and exert every power I possess in 
their service and for the support of the glorious 
cause. I beg they will accept my most cordial 
thanks for this distinguished test of their appro 

" But lest some unlucky event should happen, 
unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be re 
membered, by every gentleman in the room, that I 
this day declare, with the utmost sincerity, I do not 
consider myself equal to the command I am honored 

"As to pay, sir, I beg leave to assure the Con 
gress, that as no pecuniary consideration could have 
tempted me to accept this arduous employment, at 
the expense of domestic ease and happiness, I do 
not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an 
exact account of my expenses. These, I doubt not, 
they will discharge, and that is all I desire." 
(P. 1848.) 

Oh ! what a contrast this forms with many 
who are now in similar employment in our country. 
Look at the modesty, and even diffidence, and 
bring it up alongside of the boldness and self- 
sufficiency which continually present themselves. 
We have men by hundreds, almost by thousands, 


who feel delightfully assured and conscious that 
their abilities, military experience (present, but 
rather prospective), are fully equal to the command 
they wish to be honored with. Then again, look at 
the self-sacrifice and entire disinterestedness that 
refuses all pecuniary compensation and reward! 
and contrast it with the thousand speculators in 
the material of war and in the commissions required 
to use or destroy them. 

But we may not turn aside from our line of 
march in pursuit of evidence of unity. The next 
step carries us forward but a single day. On the 
17th of June, 1775, and at the very hour when the 
blood of Warren and his illustrious fellow heroes 
was baptizing Bunker Hill to freedom s cause, the 
commission was adopted and handed to the Gen 
eral-in-Chief. I need not copy the whole. Thus 
on the record it begins and ends viz. : " The 
Delegates of the United Colonies of New Hamp 
shire," &c., &c. 

"To George Washington, Esquire: We, repos 
ing special trust in your patriotism, valor, conduct, 
and fidelity, do, by these presents, constitute and 
appoint you to be General and Conimander-in-Chief 
of the Army of the United Colonies," &c. 

And in the last paragraph, they instruct him 
to regulate all his conduct and " follow such orders 


and directions, from time to time, as you snail re 
ceive from this or a future Congress of the United 
Colonies, or committee of Congress." 

Thus, three times in Washington s commission, 
do they affirm the existence of the Union. 

Let us see what evidence of its union preexist- 
ent is contained in the Declaration. They were 
known as the United Colonies by England herself, 
and by the world, anterior to their own declaration 
of nationality, and to its recognition by any of the 
nations ; and thus it continued up to July 4, 1776, 
when they changed their name, not by rejecting the 
term united, but by rejecting Colonies and insert 
ing States. 

Here let me say, it is eminently due to truth 
and right to insist upon the fact that, until this 
point of time, no colony was a sovereign power 
none put in the claim to be a sovereign power. 
Every colony acknowledged fealty to the British 
crown. The very name by which each denominat 
ed itself, by which the relation between them and 
Britain was habitually designated, and by which 
every nation on the globe recognized them the 
very name by which the immortal Declaration itself 
designates them the name colony testifies that 
they were not sovereign powers. An association of 
men, in a colonial condition, may have, indeed must 


have and exercise many of the rights, privileges, 
and powers which are comprehended under the idea 
of sovereignty ; but some, and those the higher 
attributes of sovereignty, they cannot have. To 
be a colony, and to be a sovereign power, are con 
tradictories, and can never agree. Try the combi 
nation, and see whether it be not only absurd in 
the very expression, but ridiculous. A sovereign 
colony ! ! 

The unity for which we contend is assumed in 
the very first sentence of the Declaration : " When, 
in the course of human events, it becomes necessary 
for one people to dissolve the political bonds which 
have connected them with another, and to assume 
among the powers of the earth the separate and 
equal station," &c. Here, demonstratively evident 
it is, that the colonies are a unit in this action 
" ONE PEOPLE," and, moreover, that hitherto they 
were not none of them even not one of them was 
a sovereign power not one of them had ever as 
sumed among the powers of the earth a separate 
and equal station. 

We proceed to the Declaration proper : " We, 
therefore, the representatives of the UNITED STATES 
pealing to the SUPREME JUDGE of the world for the 
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by 


the authority of the good people of these colonies, 
solemnly publish and declare, that these United 
Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent States ; that they are absolved from 
all allegiance to the British crown, and that all 
political connection between them and the state of 
Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved ; 
have full power to levy war, conclude peace, con 
tract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all 
other acts and things which INDEPENDENT STATES 
may of right do. And, for the support of this 
declaration, with a firm reliance upon the protec 
tion of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge 
to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred 

This most illustrious document is known the 
world over as the Declaration of Independence, 
and the whole civilized world has long ago inter 
preted it for themselves. It is perhaps the sim 
plest, the plainest, and most unsophisticated docu 
ment in the world. Nevertheless, it can be it has 
been, misconstrued, and perverted to purposes so 
foul as to make all humanity weep, and pandemo 
nium exult. But let us honestly ask : 

1st. Independence on what, is herein declared ? 
All civilized humanity returns but one answer 


independence on "the state of Great Britain/ 
"All political connection between them and the 
state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally 

2d. But who are thus independent ? Those who 
make the declaration. "We, the representatives 
of the United States of America." Surely not the 
individual men ; but the representatives. 

Now a representative must represent some per 
sons, and these persons are his principals his con 
stituents ; and he acts for them and by their author 
ity. The question then reverts, whom did they 
represent ? by whose authority did they act ? "In 
the name, and by the authority of the good people 
of these colonies." There it is, just as now in our 
Constitution : " We, the PEOPLE," but acting through 
our representatives. As in the Constitution, "We, 
the People of the United States, do ordain and 
establish this constitution ; so here, We, the PEOPLE, 
do make this declaration. In both, the people are 
taken collectively as a unit " one people." 

3d. But are not the colonies to be taken sever 
ally ? Are they not the constituents of the repre 
sentatives ? Did not the colonial legislatures 
appoint the members to the Congress ? This last 
case is true they were appointed by the assem 
blies ; but it does not hence follow that they do 


not represent the people and act by their authority, 
for they say they do. The colonies cannot be 
viewed severally, for the very terms of the Declara 
tion assure us that they are the representatives, 
not of the colonies severally, but "of the United 
States, in general congress assembled " jointly, as 
a unit. Besides, we have seen most abundantly 
that even when they first met, September 5, 1774, 
they declared themselves united, and acted all along 
as one body ; and Mr. Madison says : 

"I hold it for a fundamental point, that an 
individual independence of the States is utterly 
irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sov 
ereignty." (See Mad. Papers, p. 631). 

General 0. C. Pinckney says (see Elliott s De 
bates, vol. iv, p. 301) : " The separate indepen 
dence and individual sovereignty of the several 
States were never thought of by the enlightened 
band of patriots who framed this Declaration [he 
had just quoted the declaratory clause above cited] ; 
the several States are not even mentioned by name 
in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress 
this maxim on America, that our freedom and in 
dependence arose from our Union, and that without 
it we could neither be free nor independent. Let 
us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this 
Union, by maintaining that each State is separate- 


ly and individually independent, as a species of 
political heresy, which can never benefit us, but 
may bring on us the most serious distresses/ 
What a prophetic insight this most noble of South 
Carolinians had into our system and the basis on 
which it rests ! " Most serious distresses " alas ! 
how they hang as a cloud of blood upon the land, 
precipitated in a deluge by this " political heresy ! " 
And his noble compeer, Hon. Charles Pinckney, 
after remarking " that this is the best government 
that has ever yet been offered to the world, " added 
that without public spirit, "the national Union 
must ever be destroyed by selfish views and private 
interest/ " He said that, with respect to the Union, 
this can only be remedied by a strong government, 
which, while it collects its powers to a point, will 
prevent that spirit of disunion from which the 
most serious consequences are to be apprehended. 
He begged leave, for a moment, to examine what 
effect this spirit of disunion must have upon us, as 
we may be affected by a foreign enemy. It weak 
ens the consistency of all public measures, so that 
no extensive scheme of thought can be carried into 
action, if its accomplishment demands any long 
continuance of time. It weakens not only the con 
sistency, but the vigor and expedition of all public 
measures ; so that, while a divided people are con- 


tending about the means of security or defence, a 
united enemy may surprise and invade them. 
These are the apparent consequences of disunion/ 
(See Elliott s Debates, iv, 261.) 

How imminent this danger of disunion at the 
present time ! How easy it will be for France and 
England, when we shall have still further exhausted 
ourselves by this war of disunion, to step in and 
wind up the Kepublic, and partition it out among 
the despots of the old world ; and thus put an end 
to the troubles which the spirit of freedom from our 
country has afforded to despotic power ! Ay ! 
and how highly probable it is that this purpose 
lies at the foundation of their neutral policy ; a 
neutral policy which is the most likely course they 
could pursue to be successful, on the supposition 
which doubtless is the truth as to the monarchy 
and the aristocracy that their object was the de 
struction of free government from the earth. 

Hon. Kobert Barnwell expressed himself equal 
ly strong on the vital necessity of Union. In re 
sponding to Mr. Lowndes, he alleged that his whole 
course against the Constitution had "as the basis 
of his objections, that the Eastern States entertained 
the greatest aversion to those which lay to the 
South, and would endeavor in every instance to 
oppress them. This idea he considered as founded 


in prejudice, and unsupported by facts. To prove 
this assertion, Mr. B. requested gentlemen for a 
moment to turn their attention to the transactions 
which the late war has engraved upon the memory 
of every man. When the arm of oppression lay 
heavy on us ; were they not the first to arouse them 
selves ? When the sword of civil discord was* 
drawn, were they not the first in the field ? When 
war deluged our [their ?] plains with blood, what 
was their language ? Did they demand the South 
ern troops to the defence of the North ? No ! Or, 
when war floated to the South, did they withhold 
their assistance ? The answer was the same. 
When we stood with the spirit, but weakness of 
youth, they supported us with the vigor and pru 
dence of age. When our country was subdued, 
when our citizens submitted to superior power, it 
was then these States evinced their attachment. 
He (Mr. Barnwell) saw not a man [it was in the 
South Carolina Legislature these things were said, 
when the question of calling a convention to ratify 
the United States Constitution was under discus 
sion] He saw not a man who did not know that 
the shackles of the South were broken asunder by 
the arms of the North." 

Gen. Pinckney had said a little before, p. 283, 
in reply to the same Mr. Lowndes : "The honor- 


able gentleman alleges that the Southern States are 
weak. I sincerely agree with him. We are so weak 
that by ourselves we could not form a union strong 
eDOUgh for the purpose of effectually protecting 
each other. Without union with the other States, 
South Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one 
among us so much a Quixote as to suppose that 
this State could long maintain her independence if 
she stood alone, or was only connected with ^ the 
Southern States ? I scarcely believe there is," &c. 

Such were the sentiments of the great men of 
the South : alas ! have the blood and spirit of the 
revolutionary patriots evaporated entirely from 
their soil ? 

Nor did the great men of Virginia come short 
of these South Carolina witnesses for the truth. In 
the debates of the convention on the United States 
Constitution, Grov. Eandolph winds up a powerful 
speech, in reply to Mr. Henry, who displayed not the 
statesman but the demagogue throughout, thus : " I 
shall conclude with a few observations, which come 
from my heart. I have labored for the continuance 
of the Union the rock of our salvation. I believe 
that, as sure as there is a God in heaven, our safety, 
our political happiness and existence, depend on the 
union of the States ; and that without this union, 
the people of this and the other States will undergo 


the unspeakable calamities which discord, faction, 
turbulence, war, and bloodshed have produced in 
other countries. The American spirit ought to be 
mixed with American pride to see the Union mag 
nificently triumphant. Let that glorious pride, 
which once defied the British thunder, reanimate 
you again. Let it not be recorded of Americans, 
that, after having performed the most gallant ex 
ploits, after having overcome the most astonishing 
difficulties, and after having gained the admiration 
of the world by their incomparable valor and policy, 
they lost their acquired reputation, their national 
consequence and happiness, by their own indiscre 
tion. Let no future historian inform posterity that 
they wanted wisdom and virtue to concur in any 
regular, efficient government. Should any writer, 
doomed to so disagreeable a task, feel the indigna 
tion of an honest historian, he would reprehend and 
criminate our folly with equal severity and justice. 
Catch the present moment, seize it with avidity 
and eagerness for it may be lost, never to be 
regained ! If the Union be now lost, I fear it will 
remain so forever. I believe gentlemen are sincere 
in their opposition, and actuated by pure motives ; 
but, when I maturely weigh the advantages of the 
Union, and dreadful consequences of its dissolu 
tion ; when I see safety on my right, and destruc- 


tion on my left ; when I behold respectability and 
happiness acquired by the one, but annihilated by 
the other I cannot hesitate to decide in favor of 
the former." (Elliott s Debates, iii, 85, 86.) And 
thus throughout, the great ones of the country, 
North and South, believed the Union preceded the 
Declaration, and formed its basis ; and, by conse 
quence, was indispensable to our freedom and na 

But the most indubitable evidence, a posteri 
ori, as it were, of the Declaration being based and 
founded in union that the independence was not 
of one another, but only of the state of Great 
Britain is found in the subsequent history. Had 
it been their intention to assert for each State in 
dependence of all and every other had they not 
designed to assume and vindicate political inde 
pendence and unlimited political sovereignty for 
the Union only, and not for the colonies severally 
then assuredly we should have seen the States, each 
for itself, at once arrogating to themselves and ex 
ercising all the attributes of sovereignty which, in 
the Declaration, had been withdrawn from the Brit 
ish crown. Each State must " have full power to 
levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, estab 
lish commerce, and to do all other acts and things 
which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do." 


But now, what is the fact, as it looms out from 
their whole history ? Did any of the States assume 
the exercise of these powers, or claim the abstract 
right even so to do ? We have seen how jealousy 
of local colonial rights displayed itself in the little 
colonies of Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, 
when they, with Massachusetts, formed " the United 
Colonies of New England." And how much more 
must this spirit have displayed itself, had the 
thought ever been entertained that the Declara 
tion made thirteen independent sovereignties 
thirteen nations. No ; it is preposterously absurd 
and untrue, that any one State supposed this to be 
the intent of the act of separation. No ; the 
foundation corner-stone of independence is UNION. 
Without antecedent, and coexistent, and the firm 
faith in subsequent union, the idea of independence 
had never been entertained. No State ever declared 
independence. Katify the act of July 4th, the peo 
ple and States did oftentimes, as we do to-day in 
all our meetings ; but a declaration of independence 
by a State, averring itself to be a sovereign power 
this is unknown to history. What State ever de 
clared war, contracted alliances, received or sent 
out ambassadors to other nations ? 

But again, similar irresistible evidence is de 
duced from the notable fact, that no foreign power 


ever recognized such State independent sovereignty. 
What nation ever sent an ambassador to the na 
tional government of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mas 
sachusetts ! ! The thing is utterly unheard of 
never was done never could be done. 

Yet, the higher attributes of sovereignty having 
been withdrawn, on the formal ground of forfeiture 
under the laws of God, on account of non-user and 
abuse, these did not fall to the ground and leave 
the people of America in a state of anarchy. The 
Great God, who rules the destiny of men and of 
nations, and who is trying His grand experiment of 
free government on this broad continent, has so 
adjusted His divine plan as to leave nothing to the 
whim or caprice, the folly or the madness of a few 
ambitious and misguided men. He knows how to 
overrule these human attributes for its furtherance ; 
He maketh the wrath and other sinful passions of 
man to praise Him, and restraineth the remainder. 
It will be necessary, to a due appreciation of the 
Divine scheme, that we revert to the political state 
of the colonies preceding the Declaration ; that we 
study to understand the true nature and position 
of the Continental Congress, and - then those of 
the Constitutional Convention, and their work. 
These three in order. 



IN the chapter on Sovereignty (IV) we had 
occasion to say that only parts of it can be trans 
ferred from and by the people, where God has 
placed it. It is utterly impossible that any one 
man, or any one association of men, can attend to 
the minute and multitudinous affairs of a great 
people. Moses was overburdened by the weight of 
his duties as a ruler, supernaturally thrown upon 
him, and sustained as he was by supernatural 
powers. Seventy-two vice-presidents, additional to 
the elders that came out of Egypt, were appointed, 
to relieve him of parts of the sovereignty. Still, 
this was an inadequate distribution, and hundreds 
of subordinate officers were spread all over the ten 
thousands of Israel. Every one of these officers, 
by consent indeed by formal election at first of 
the people, exercised within his particular sphere 
a portion of the sovereign power of ruling or gov- 


erning. Similar was the condition of things with 
us. When we approached the Keel Sea of our 
bloody Kevolution ; our twelve tribes were not a 
loose rabble ; but, like Israel, each tribe had its 
officers, adapted to all the details of business in 
dispensable in so large a community. Legislative, 
executive, and judicial officers, for the management 
of all the lower exercises of sovereignty, were familiar 
to the people in every State. The crossing of our 
Ked Sea, so far from suspending the exercise of all 
these lower functions of sovereignty, left the whole 
machinery in full operation, and even strengthened 
and confirmed it by a perpetual union. 

Let us pause here a moment, for speculation 
and inquiry. What has ever been the grand 
difficulty in the government of large masses of 
mankind ? Has it not been this very matter of 
managing the minute and innumerable details 
nearest to the people ? As you descend from the 
vast generalities of a mighty power, you meet the 
infinite ramifications which are involved in the 
necessary divisions of society. You must divide 
the country into sections, states, departments, 
counties, townships, corporations, precincts, wards, 
families ; and for all these you must have yourj 
appropriate officers, every one invested with a por 
tion of the sovereignty. Now, it appears to me, 


here lies the difficulty in a vast empire, under one 
supreme head. This head may be wise as Solon 
and energetic as Caesar ; but no man is omniscient, 
no man omnipotent. Ahasuerus, with all the wis 
dom of his seven chamberlains, failed in securing 
honest and faithful and efficient agents to manage 
his government, "from India to Ethiopia, over a 
hundred and seven and twenty provinces." No 
one heart has power to drive the current of political 
life through the distant members of so extended a 
body politic. It must stagnate at the extremities, 
and ultimately convey its corruption back to the 
centre. The empire of Xerxes, like his army, fell 
to pieces by its expansion. Alexander s dominion 
could not be sustained by one head, and perished 
with him. Rome conquered herself into fragments 
and fell to pieces, because she spread too wide for 
the practicability of a single government. Kevo- 
lutionary, republican France once Ceesar s prov 
ince now mighty as old Home herself split to 
pieces upon the rock of consolidation "one and 
indivisible." With the e pluribus unum of the 
great western republic waving its peaceful folds 
within her view, she, nevertheless, never learned 
its grand lesson until too late. She attempted to 
govern France by one representative head, and 
failed. To the United States alone has the Kuler 


of the world revealed the great and priceless mys 
tery of one general government, for the conduct; of 
great national and international affairs, resting 
upon the broad and firm basis of the people of 
thirteen governments, appropriately adapted to 
conduct and care for all local and, as it were, 
domestic interests. This, I say, is God s revelation 
to America, and to the world through her. It is a 
rev elation, not oral nor written on vellum, but 
providential. It is not the product of human 
genius. No man studied it out ; no man planned 
it. Neither the Prince of Concle nor Admiral 
Coligni ; neither John Smith nor John Kobinson ; 
neither Gustavus Adolphus nor Henry IV.; neither 
Stuart nor Guelph ; neither Penn nor Oglethorpe 
none of these, nor all combined, originated the 
grand conception. In the word of God, His people 
had found the representative principle basis of 
democratic liberty and in His providence guided, 
unconsciously to themselves, they, in the progress 
of two hundred years, worked out the grand prob 
lem of free government, and painted it, with their 
own blood, on the blue and the white, amid the 
stars of glory E PLURIBUS UXUM ; and there let it 
shine, in the simplicity of its own grandeur, as long- 
as a glimmering ray descends from the galaxy of 



The colonies, at the date of independence, were 
distinct governments, in the constant exercise of a 
large and important part of sovereign powers, viz., 
those which lie nearest the homes of the people 
local, domestic affairs, whose range went not beyond 
colonial bounds ; whilst as to exterior affairs and 
the relations they sustained to other colonies and 
to foreign nations in other words, as to all that 
part of the sovereignty which had been hitherto 
vested in and exercised by the British Government, 
the States were not sovereign ; but had placed 
these powers in the hands of their own agents, the 
Continental Congress. 



THE most obvious remark on this body is, that 
it is provisional it is intrusted with the tempo 
rary exercise of great powers, by an irregularity not 
susceptible of reduction at least not susceptible 
of being easily and speedily reduced to regular and 
systematic form. This Congress is the residuary 
legatee of a defunct sovereign ; in trust, however, 
for the use of an insulted and injured people. The 
higher powers of sovereignty which were held by the 
crown, with consent of the colonies as far up as 
1776, now reverted to the people ; yet not to them 
directly, but to the hands of the Congress, previ 
ously appointed as their agents to receive and exer 
cise the same. These powers, it is well to repeat, 
returned to the people in consequence of their for 
feiture by the crown. The right to rule is derived 
to the sovereign from God, through the people ; 
who, constrained by the tyrannical abuse of power, 


had appealed to the Supreme Euler of the universe 
for its return to them, that they might vest it in 
the hands of their trusty friends, who thus became 
" the United States in Congress assembled/ 

This provisional or temporary agency, from the 
necessity of the case, must exercise a large discre 
tion in fulfilment of their trust. Such a transition 
state, including the conduct of a seven years war, 
cannot reasonably be looked to for examples of ac 
curate conformity with the technical rules of law 
and the forms of an organized government. Sub 
stantial justice, indeed, their trust and their char 
acter authorize us to expect ; but defects and irreg 
ularities must not surprise us. 

Hence my second general remark, that the Con 
tinental Congress were not, properly speaking, a 
government, but a temporary substitute in the ab 
sence of a government. The analysis given in our 
Constitution is true and exhaustive : government is 
resolved into three elements the legislative, the 
executive, and the judiciary ; but now we find 
neither of these in its proper fulness of idea in the 

Not the legislative ; for, though they deliber 
ated with consummate wisdom, and decided with 
judgment clear and generally sound though they 
passed resolutions and acts innumerable, in the na 


ture of laws and even the forms, yet they lacked 
the grand element of legislation ; they had no power 
to enforce their laws, which, therefore, degenerated 
into simple counsel or advice. If they planned a 
campaign, decreed the levying of a body of troops 
and of the material and sinews of war, and struck 
the proportion or quotas which each State ought to 
furnish, still it depended on the good pleasure of 
the States whether their decrees would be car 
ried out. 

As is implied in the preceding paragraph, there 
was no executive head ; no civil officer endued with 
power and bound to see to the execution of the 
laws. Officers of the house, or special committees 
for the time being, filled up this gap. 

Nor was there any semblance of any organized 
judiciary. Justice was administered through State 
authorities, and occasionally by committees ; and 
within its precincts, by military authority and 
agency. But for a body of law officers, devoted to 
the high and most important duty of holding courts 
and administering justice, we search in vain. 

At best it was a quasi government ; or, to speak 
more correctly, we remark, thirdly, that this Congress 
was a grand committee of the States. So Massachu 
setts calls the members whom she recommends (see 
ante, p. 74) " a meeting of committees from the sev- 


eral colonies." So the Easton resolution, " a general 
congress of committees" (p. 75, ante). It was the 
age of committees ; they had committees of vigi 
lance, committees of safety, &c. But what is a 
committee ? A select and small number of per 
sons, appointed by a deliberative body to investi 
gate some special subject and report to the body for 
their final action. It is of the nature of an inquest, 
and is sometimes, yet rarely, clothed with executive 
powers. Thus was it, to a great extent, with Con 
gress. Their legislation was subject to revision by 
the State Legislatures. The practical working of 
the system if system it might be called shows 
the extreme jealousy of the people in reference to 
the higher functions of sovereignty. The abuses 
of them by the government at "home/ as the 
Plan of Union calls the crown authorities, made 
them very cautious how they intrusted them even 
to their own committees ; and hence they reserved 
the right to recall members at pleasure, and to ap 
point others. 



ON the llth day of June, 1776, a committee 
was appointed " for preparing the Declaration/ and 
the next entry on the record is : " Resolved, that a 
committee be appointed to prepare and digest the 
form of a confederation to be entered into between 
these colonies/ On the next day this was done 
by taking one member from each colony. This 
committee reported on the 12th of July, when 
eighty copies were ordered to be printed, the print 
er being put under oath of secrecy, and the mem 
bers and officers under solemn injunction not to di 
vulge the matter. The articles were taken up on 
the 22d of July in Committee of the Whole, and dis 
cussed on that day, and on ten other clays, until 
Aug. 8, when the House gave leave to sit again 
" to-morrow." But the immense crowd of business, 
in vast detail, seems to have shoved the matter en 
tirely out of sight, until April 2, 1777, when it was 
made an order for " Monday next, and that two 


days in the week be employed on that subject, until 
it shall be wholly discussed in Congress/ But it 
seems to have been overlaid until Monday, April 21, 
when, after discussion, it was " postponed to Friday 
next." On May 5 it was again discussed, and 
then " postponed ; " and between that date and 
Nov. 17, when, after some discussion of amend 
ment, it was adopted finally, there were at least 
twenty-two days on which it was discussed, besides 
several when it was only taken up and postponed. 
This historical detail is presented, in order to im 
press the reader s mind with the magnitude of the 
work and the immense difficulties that lay in its 
way. Think of the character of the men, for intel 
ligence, integrity, business tact, and earnestness, 
and that even these patriots spent from June 11, 
1776, until Nov. 17, 1777, and for thirty-three 
different times discussed the matter and form of 
UNION, and you will readily infer it was no light 
task they had before them, and that it was no ex 
travagant utterance of Judge William Henry Dray- 
ton, when, entering on the same discussion in the 
Legislature of South Carolina, he said : God has 
called us forth to legislate for the new world, and 
to endeavor to bind the various people of it in du 
rable bands of friendship and union." 


The first thing which any intelligent reader will 
observe upon the face of this document is, that its 
leading object, its prominent and main design, is 
UNION. This he will see from its history. Inde 
pendence of England, and mutual dependence on 
one another, stand asserted in adjoining lines. The 
printer can bring them no closer together. The 
same stroke that cuts us loose from our cruel 
mother, binds us together. The same blow that 
prostrates the sovereign on account of powers 
abused and forfeited, provides a deposit for these 
powers in safer hands. 

Moreover, look at the phraseology the very 
name and style of the paper force this upon you, 
as the master thought : "ARTICLES OF CONFEDERA 
TION AND PERPETUAL UNION." This phrase, per 
petual union, occurs in the document six times 
"and the union shall be perpetual"; "the union 
shall be perpetual." " The United States in Con 
gress assembled " occurs twenty-eight times ; " the 
United States," twenty-seven times additional. But 
this enchanting union is not the final cause ; it is a 
means to an end : Liberty is the grand end de 
fence, security, welfare, all included in liberty 
these are the end ; union is an indispensable 

But this union is federative. " The style of 


this confederacy shall be, THE UNITED STATES OF 
twelve times. It creates "a firm league of friend 
ship." Now a league is a covenant between 
States, which changes not their organization, but 
simply pledges unity of action cooperation in 
reference to the accomplishment of some particular 
object interesting to the parties contracting. This 
object is specified in Article III, and is nothing 
but the object already pursued by Congress. The 
league is nothing new, but is simply a formal ex 
pression of existent relations, duties, and obliga 
tions. Observe the phraseology : " Each State 
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, 
and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is 
not by this confederation expressly delegated to the 
United States in Congress assembled." I have 
emphasized expressly, as indicating the previous 
and present implied exercise of certain powers by 
Congress. And the word severally, in Article III, 
shows that the States, as States, formed this league. 
They retain all the sovereignty, freedom, independ 
ence, &c., which they do not delegate ; that is, 
when they proceed, as in Article IX, to define 
them peace and war, sending and receiving am 
bassadors, entering into treaties and alliances, 
regulating the alloy and value of coin, fixing the 


standard of weights and measures, trade with In 
dians, regulating post offices, &c., which are the 
very parts and portions of the sovereignty they had 
withdrawn from the crown and vested in Congress, 
and which this body had been exercising ever since 
June, 1775. Never did the States suppose their 
sovereignty was any other or more extensive than 
they had held it all along, when they were colo 
nies. Nor, that their independence was anything 
different from what they asserted in the Declara 
tion, and had been enjoying ever since ; for, in the 
very confederation, or act of covenanting together 
(which is the simple English of that Latin word), 
they proclaim their dependence on each other. 

The phrase, The United States in Congress as 
sembled., which, as stated above, occurs twenty- 
eight times, proves the same thing. It is the 
/States that assembled in Congress ; the States that 
vote separately as a unit the States, severally as 
individuals, but being assembled, the diversity is 
merged in the unity. 

Again, we remark, " The Articles of Confedera 
tion and Perpetual Union " are designed to assert 
the perpetuity of the union, not of the articles. 
For Article XIII, which affirms " the union shall 
be perpetual," also makes provision for alterations, 
if " agreed to in a Congress of the United States, 


and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of 
every State." The whole people felt the necessity 
of it, and dreaded dissolution as the greatest pos 
sible calamity. 

And lastly here, the articles do not create a 
government, but leave everything, almost, precisely 
as before their adoption. Governing power they 
recognize in Congress ; the higher functions of 
sovereignty are conceded, and in many respects 
regulated ; but analyzed and distributed into the 
three departments, under appropriate officers, these 
powers are not. All that has just been said in 
Chapter VIII of the Congress before, is applicable 
to them after the adoption of the articles. They 
provide no legislative, no executive, no judiciary, 
in any full and proper sense of those terms. They 
are simply an authoritative letter of instruction to 
the Congress, as the Grand Committee of the 

This scheme of union was resisted in many of 
the State Legislatures, and on various grounds, 
which caused much delay. It was not until March 
1, 1781, that Maryland, the last to do it, acceded, 
and on the next day Congress met under the ar 




No man who reads the minutes of the Conti 
nental Congress, before and after the adoption of 
the articles, and marks the multiplicity and variety 
of business they were called to perform, can for a 
moment wonder at the impracticability of that 
system of administration. Whilst the superin 
cumbent weight of the revolutionary struggle lay 
upon the arch federal, it was held together ; but, 
this removed by the peace of 83, the centrifugal 
force rapidly tended to and foreboded ruin. This 
grand committee created by the States was felt by 
them to be almost powerless. Congress is our 
creature they seem to have reasoned our serv 
ant, and our obedience to our servant is optional. 
Hence feebleness. But worse than this. The 
articles left the imposition of duties on imports in 
the hands of the States. Of course, the State 


which levied the lightest duty would draw the 
trade to her ports. Difficulties soon sprung up. 
Virginia and Maryland interfered with each other, 
and ill blood was stirred. Attempts wer* made to 
adjust the matter, but in vain. Congress also failed 
to raise a revenue to meet necessary means to de 
fray the expenses of government and pay the pub 
lic debt. Credit began to break down. Anarchy 
threatened to produce a ruin which the power of 
England failed to bring about. The patriot heart 
began to tremble for the ark of safety. In a letter 
to James Madison, from R. H. Lee, then President 
of Congress, dated the 26th of November, 1784. 
he says : " It is by many here suggested as a very 
necessary step for Congress to take, the calling on 
the States to form a convention for the sole purpose 
of revising the Confederation, so far as to enable 
Congress to execute with more energy, effect, and 
vigor the powers assigned to it, than it appears by 
experience that they can do under the present state 
of things/ The answer of Mr. Madison remarks : 
" I hold it for a maxim, that the union of the States 
is essential to their safety against foreign danger and 
internal contention ; and that the perpetuity and 
efficacy of the present system cannot be confided 
in. The question, therefore, is, in what mode, and 
at what moment, the experiment for supplying the 


defects ought to be made/ Mad. Papers, p. 707-8. 
This sentiment soon became general with leading 
men all over the Union, and led to the Convention. 
"As a natural consequence of this distracted and 
disheartening condition of the Union, the Federal 
authority had ceased to be respected abroad, and 
dispositions were shown there, particularly in Great 
Britain, to take advantage of its imbecility, and to 
speculate on its approaching downfall. At home 
it had lost all confidence and credit." " It was 
known that there were individuals who had be 
trayed a bias toward monarchy, and there had 
always been some not unfavorable to a partition of 
the Union into several confederacies ; either from a 
better chance of figuring on a sectional theatre, or 
that the sections would require stronger govern 
ments, or by their hostile conflicts lead to a mo 
narchical consolidation. The idea of dismember 
ment had recently made its appearance in the 

" Such were the defects, the deformities, the dis 
eases and the ominous prospects for which the con 
vention were to provide a remedy, and which ought 
never to be overlooked in expounding and appreci 
ating the constitutional charter, the remedy that 
was provided." (F. 713, 714.) 

On all hands it was and is admitted that the 


Federal Government, so called, was too weak to 
sustain life for any length of time. It lacked power 
and energy, or, as I hold, was not a government at 
all, in any just sense of that term, but only a Grand 
Committee of the States. 

Such being the situation of the country, let 
me ask the reader, what do you think will be the 
prime, leading, grand object before the minds of 
this most illustrious body ? What the pole-star to 
guide them through the rocks and quicksands of 
this sea of anarchy ? Who, that hath a soul trem 
blingly alive for the cause of free government and 
the hopes of humanity, does not at once respond, 
UNION the glorious thirteen in ONE : E PLURIBUS 
UNUM ? And what say the convention themselves? 
Their response meets you in the forefront of the 
Constitution : " We, the people of the United 
States, in order to form a more perfect Union/ * &c. 
The preamble sets forth the grand design of the 
law ; and here it is, first, the formation of a more 
perfect Union more perfect than what ? Certainly, 
more perfect than existed before under the articles. 
But these affirm, repeatedly, the Union shall be per 
petual. This is the leading, the felt necessity. 
Then it meets you at the close. Read it, in the 
letter submitting their finished work to the Con 
gress. " In all our deliberations on this subject, we 


kept steadily in our view that which appears to us 
the greatest interest of every true American the 
consolidation of our UNION in which is involved 
our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national 
existence. This important consideration, seriously 
and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State 
in the convention to be less rigid on points of in 
ferior magnitude than might have been otherwise 
expected ; and thus the Constitution which we now 
present is the result of a spirit of amity and of that 
mutual deference and concession which the peculi 
arity of our political situation rendered indispen 

To this last remark permit Hie to call attention 
for, a moment. These profoundly wise and patriotic 
men this more than Koman Senate or Amphic- 
tyonic council acknowledge themselves hemmed in 
and shut up, and providentially constrained to act 
and do precisely as they did it was indispensable. 
And this is what I mean, when I affirm this consti- 
tion to be the most stupendous fabric ever erected 
by human genius ; yea, a quasi inspired production. 
No man ever planned such a government as ours. 
On the contrary, it was long held that an imperium 
in imperio was a contradiction, an impossibility, an 
absurdity ; but Divine Providence superintended (/ 
this whole movement, and led our fathers to the 


construction of a system unknown hitherto in the 
history of the human race a plan of union and of 
separation affording the largest freedom and secur 
ing the most energetic operation of power a system 
where law is sovereign law abiding in the individ 
ual conscience and spreading itself over the entire 
surface of society, securing the greatest happiness 
to the largest number. 

But it has been already admitted, that even 
Union, the first object of these patriots, was a means 
to an end. The prosperity, felicity, safety, national 
existence, are involved in it, for these depend upon 
their success in establishing a government.- After 
the election, by unanimous ballot, of George Wash 
ington as the president of the convention, and the 
arrangement of a few small matters, the very first 
principle they decided was, that a government 
should be formed. Edmund Randolph, presented 
fifteen resolutions, which constituted the basis of 
their action, the third of which was the first adopted 
in committee, after amendment, in these words, 
viz., " Resolved, that it is the opinion of this com 
mittee that a national government ought to be 
established, consisting of a supreme legislature, 
executive, and judiciary." 

Accordingly the constitution contains the ex 
haustive analysis of government into the three ele- 


ments, legislative, executive, and judicia^. In 
this there is a strong contrast to the articles of con 
federation, which, as we have seen (Chap. IX), 
establishes neither of the three. This settled the 
question of a mere confederacy or confederation. 
The word confederation occurs in the articles twelve 
itimes and confederacy once ; but in the Constitu 
tion it occurs but twice, viz., art. i, sec. 10 : "No 
State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or con 
federation ; " and art. vi, 1 : " All debts shall be as 
valid as under the confederation/ Now why this 
studied exclusion of the very term ; it is never ap 
plied at all to the Constitution, but the word consti 
tution is given as the very name of the new docu 
ment, and is used in the body of it a dozen of times. 
It is moreover noticeable that the word constitu 
tion never occurs at all in the old articles. I say, 
why are these things so ? Is it not designed there 
by to show the entire difference of the two papers ? 
The one designates it a confederacy or league be 
tween the States, but does not create a govern 
ment, and of course does not furnish a constitution, 
or elementary platform of fundamental law ; but 
the other writes out a system of such law and calls 
it " this CONSTITUTION." 

The articles were adopted by the States as 
such ; the Constitution by the people, " We, the 


NfEOPLE, do ordain and establish this constitution! 
Here we have the theory of democratic republican 
government exemplified. The power of ruling is 
vested by his Creator in man ; and man designates 
the agency for its exercise. Thus the theory of a 
mere confederation of States is carefully exclucledrr^ 

The same is set forth in the letter of the con 
vention to the president of Congress, accompanying 
the Constitution. It clearly and explicitly repudi 
ates the idea of entire State independence. 

" The friends of our country have long seen and 
desired that the power of making war, peace, and 
treaties ; that of levying money and regulating 
commerce ; and the correspondent executive and 
judiciary authorities should be fully and effectually 
vested in the general government of the Union ; 
but the impropriety of delegating such extensive 
trust to one body of men is evident : hence results 
the necessity of a different organization." 

"It is obviously impracticable, in the Federal 
government of these States, to secure all rights of 
independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide 
for the interest and safety of all." 

It would be difficult to express the idea more 
explicitly of a limited State sovereignty, unless we 
adopt the language of the old articles : " ii. Each 
State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- 


pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right 
which is not by this confederation expressly dele 
gated to the United States in Congress assembled/ 
Here is clearly set forth a restricted, a limited, a 
partial sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as 
belonging to the States as States. Nor is the same 
less distinctly uttered in the Constitution itself. 
Art. vii, 2 : " This constitution and the laws of the 
United States which shall be made in pursuance 

thereof ; shall be the supreme law of the 

land, anything in the constitution or laws of any 
State to the contrary notwithstanding." 

The same is proved by the very jealousy which 
produced the 10th article, in amendments. " The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 
Indubitably the States are not absolutely sov 
ereign under the Constitution ; they were sovereign 
only in a limited sense, and not absolutely, under 
the articles of confederation and perpetual union^ 
and they never were, even before, sovereignties ab 
solute, as we have seen, chap, vii, but had created a 
body politic, as the trustee of the higher powers of 
sovereignty held by the crown, before they withdrew 
them from the royal trustee ; and, as before stated, 
the representatives of the United States made this 


withdrawal " in the name, and by the authority of 
the GOOD PEOPLE of these colonies." 

And yet, with such facts staring him in the 
face, Mr. Jefferson Davis, in his message in May, 
1861, denounces as a monstrous thing, "the rise 
and growth in the Northern States of a political 
school which has persistently claimed that the gov 
ernment thus formed was not a compact between 
States, but was in effect a National Government, 
set above and over the States/ But let us ask 
Mr. Davis whence this party for a National Gov 
ernment had its rise. The Madison Papers assure 
us it had a Southern origin. Mr. Edmund Kan- 
dolph uses the phrase National Legislature, in his 
fifteen resolutions, twelve times. His seventh reso 
lution says, "that a national executive be insti 
tuted " ; and his ninth, " that a national judiciary 
be established." Mr. Madison strenuously advo 
cated a National Government. He says (see Mad. 
Papers, p. 632) : " Let the National Government 
be armed with a positive and complete authority in 
all cases where uniform measures are necessary; as 
in trade," &c., &c. 

" Let it have a negation in all cases whatso 
ever, on the legislative action of the States, as the 
King of Great Britain heretofore had. This I con 
ceive to be essential, and the best possible abridg 
ment of the State sovereignties. 


" Let this national supremacy be extended also 
to the judicial department. 

" A Government formed of such extensive 
powers ought to be well organized. A national 
executive will also be necessary." 

Colonel George Mason, of Virginia, strongly 
advocated a National Government. " He took this 
occasion to repeat, that, notwithstanding his solici 
tude to establish a National Government, he never 
would agree to abolish the State Governments, or 
render them absolutely inefficient." Ib., p. 910-12. 

Charles Pinckney, South Carolina, presented a 
" Plan of a Federal Constitution/ at least as strong 
as that adopted. Ib., p. 735. 

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina, 
offered a resolution for "a more effective Govern 
ment, consisting of a legislative, executive, and 
judiciary." P. 749. He " thought the second 
branch [the Senate] ought to be permanent and 
independent." P. 819. In short, it is indubitably 
true, that a strong National Government was ad 
vocated in Convention mainly by the Southern 
members ; all the leading Southern men having 
taken a decided stand in support of it, whilst the 
opposition to a National Government was chiefly 
from the North. Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, 
moved, and Mr. Graham, of Massachusetts, sec- 


ended the motion, to strike out the word national 
from Mr. Kandolph s resolution. P. 908. Mr. 
Patterson, of New Jersey, proposed a plan for 
enlarging the powers of Congress, but not for 
creating, properly speaking, a National Govern 
ment. His was designated in the convention as 
the "federal plan/ in contradistinction from " a 
national plan." Mr. Gouverneur Morris, Pennsyl 
vania, explained the distinction between a federal 
and a national, supreme Government ; the former 
being a mere compact resting on the good faith of 
the parties, the latter having a complete and com 
pulsive operation. He contended that in all com 
munities there must be one supreme power, and 
only one/ Mad. Papers, p. 748. 

" Mr. Wilson, Pennsylvania, entered into a con 
trast of the principal points of the two plans, so 
far, he said, as there has been time to examine the 
one last proposed. These points were : 1. In the 
Virginia plan there are two, and in some degree 
three, branches in the Legislature ; in the plan 
from New Jersey there is to be a single Legislature 
only. 2. Eepresentation of the people at large is 
the basis of the one ; the State Legislatures the 
pillars of the other. 3. Proportional representa 
tion prevails in one, equality of suffrage in the 
other. 4. A single executive magistrate is at the 


head of the one ; a plurality is held out in the 
other. 5. In the one, a majority of the people of 
the United States must prevail ; in the other, a 
minority may prevail. <J6. The National Legisla 
ture is to make laws in all cases to which the sepa 
rate States are incompetent, ^c.; in place of this, 
Congress are to have additional power in a few cases 
only. 7. A negative on the laws of the States ; in 
place of this, coercion to he substituted. 8. The 
executive to be removable on impeachment and con 
viction, in one plan ; in the other, to be removable 
at the instance of a majority of the executives of the 
States. 9. The revision of the laws provided for 
in one ; no such check in the other. 10. Inferior 
national tribunals in one ; none such in the other. 
11. In the one, jurisdiction of national tribunals to 
extend, &c.; an appellate jurisdiction only allowed 
to the other. 12. Here, the jurisdiction is to ex 
tend to all cases affecting the national peace and 
harmony ; there, a few cases only are marked out. 
13 Finally, the ratification is, in this, to be by the 
people themselves ; in that, by the Legislative au 
thorities, according to the thirteenth article of the 

Now, if we consider that, on the vote between 
these two plans, there were but three negatives, and 
Maryland divided, and that Virginia, North Caro- 


lina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for Mr. 
Randolph s plan, it excites our wonder to see Mr. 
Jeff. Davis assert that this school, which went in 
for a national government, had its rise and growth 
in the Northern States. (See Mad. Papers, p. 904.) 
Is there no regard to be paid to historical truth ? 

Additional proof that the Constitution was 
adopted, not by the States as sovereign powers, but 
by the people, is found in the fact, that this very 
point was raised in his first speech in the Virginia 
convention by Mr. Henry, the most bitter and in 
veterate opponent of the Constitution. " I am sure 
they were fully impressed with the necessity of 
forming a great consolidated government, instead 
of a confederation. That this [the Constitution] is 
a consolidated government is demonstrably clear ; 
and the danger of such a government is, to my 
mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration 
for those gentlemen ; but, sir, give me leave to de 
mand, what right had they to say, We, the people ? 
My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious soli 
citude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who 
authorized them to speak the language of We, the 
people, instead of We, the State ? States are the 
characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If 
the States be not the agents of this compact, it 
must be one great, consolidated national govern- 


ment of the people of all the States." (See Ell. 
Deb., iv, 22.) True, Mr. Patrick Henry ; and the 
word "national," put in by his Excellency Governor 
Kandolph of Virginia, was stricken out on motion 
of Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut. True, Mr. Henry ; 
that is the very word put by the convention into 
their letter accompanying the Constitution, which 
letter was signed by one George Washington. "In 
all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily 
in our view that which appears to us the greatest 
interest of every true American the consolidation 
of our Union in which is involved our prosperity, 
felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." 
Thus, on the third day of their sessions, Mr. Henry 
raised the phantom demon of a consolidated national 
government, and the ghostly spectre haunted him 
to the end. 

In response to the challenge of Mr. Henry, Gov. 
Randolph says (p. 28), " The gentleman then pro 
ceeds, and inquires why we [the convention, of 
which he was a leading member] assumed the lan 
guage of We, the people ? I ask, why not ? 
The government is for the people ; and the misfor 
tune was that the people had no agency in the gov 
ernment before What harm is there in con 
sulting the people on the construction of a govern 
ment by which they are to be bound ? Is it un- 


fair ? Is it unjust ? If the government is to be 
binding upon the people, are not the people the 
proper persons to examine its merits or defects ? " 

Mr. Pendleton (p. 37) : "But an objection is 
made to the form ; the expression, We, the peo 
ple/ is thought improper. Permit me to ask the 
gentleman who made this objection, who but the 
people can delegate powers ? Who but the people 
have a right to form government ? The expres 
sion is a common one, and a favorite one with me. 
The representatives of the people, by their author 
ity, is a mode wholly inessential. If the objection 
be, that the Union ought to be one, not of the peo 
ple, but of the State governments, then I think the 
choice of the former very happy and proper. What 
have the State governments to do with it ? Were 
they to determine, the people would not, in that 
case, be the judges upon what terms it was 

It is prominent on the whole face of the de 
bates, that the question between a confederacy and 
a strong national government was openly and dis 
tinctly controverted throughout, and on the final 
vote the Nationals had. eighty-nine, and the Fed 
erals, properly so called, i. e., those who went for a 
Confederate government, had seventy-nine. And 
it is well worthy of note, the adopting act runs : 


" in the name and in behalf of the people of Vir 
ginia/ not of the State or representatives ; and 
this stands in bold contrast with the action of the 
confederated secession constitution, which runs 
thus : " We, the deputies of the sovereign and in 
dependent States of South Carolina, &c., do hereby, 
in behalf of these States, ordain and establish this 
Constitution." Thus the people are ignored. 



A PLAIN, unsophisticated man reads the Con 
stitution, the history of its formation and adoption, 
and then is interrogated as to who adopted it : he 
feels no embarrassment, but tells you at once it was 
adopted by the people of the United States. He 
goes behind this, and assures you it was made by 
the people through their agents or representatives. 
Still farther, these representatives in the convention, 
acting for the people, were appointed to do this 
work by the Legislatures of the several States. 
Once more he tells you, the men who composed 
these different Legislatures were elected by the 
people in the several districts of their States respec 
tively. He has a perfect understanding, in the 
concrete, of the whole subject. The people of each 
county or district choose a man to go up and legis 
late for the people of the State. The laws passed 
by this collective mass of individuals from the coun 
ties, are binding upon all the people, although the 


people in a given county did not vote but for one 
member. The legislators act for the people^ the 
whole people. They are under bonds to seek the 
good of the whole. In the forming state, under the 
provisional government, the people s representa 
tives in the State Legislatures respectively appointed 
certain citizens, each of their own State, to meet in 
a congress, as a kind of grand committee, to con 
sult for the good of the whole colonies, now united 
in this very body. This congress, amid an infini 
tude of business which they transacted for the peo 
ple, recommended the Legislatures of the States to 
appoint another set of men to meet and form a 
government for the whole people. This they did ; 
this congress was called a convention. Ask, now, 
this unsophisticated man : Whom did the members 
of this convention represent ? for whom did they 
act ? His answer is prompt : For the people, 
whose representatives appointed them. But whom 
do you mean by the people ? Is it those of your 
county for which they act, and none else ? Is 
it for the people of your State, whose Legislature 
sent them to the convention ? or is it for the people 
spread over all the States ? His answer is for the 
last, assuredly. They are the special representa 
tives of the whole people of the United States, 
bound to consult the general good. 


According to the response of this common-sense 
man, all is simple and plain ; and so the production 
of the representatives of the whole people, in con 
vention assembled, is submitted to the people for 
their acceptance or rejection. But, just as it is 
impracticable, and unsafe if practicable, for the 
whole population, or even the whole adult male 
population of a State, to meet in legislative coun 
cil personally and pass laws ; so it was impractica 
ble, and unsafe if practicable, for the whole male 
population of the United States to meet in one 
grand legislative assembly and act on this consti 
tution this law of laws this legislation that is to 
bind and limit all national legislation : therefore it 
must, by necessity, be submitted to the people of 
the States severally, through their representatives 
in convention assembled. It might, indeed, have 
been submitted to the State Legislatures ; and this 
method had several advocates in the Convention. 
But the ratification by conventions in the States 
prevailed, as it kept the two Governments, State 
and National, separate. 

If the people make their own laws, as is most 
meet, because God has placed the whole sovereignty 
in their hands, it is supremely fit and proper they 
should enact that fundamental law which is de 
signed and destined to control future lawmakers. 


This was done. " We, the people of the United 
States, * * * do ordain and establish this CONSTI 
TUTION." There it stands on the record, and there 
it will stand forever. The people can govern them 
selves, but only by applying to themselves the ever 
lasting truths of God s most holy law. 

But now, if you sophisticate, you may puzzle 
our plain man. Ask him whether the people of 
each State acted as a State independent and sov 
ereign, or as part of the greater people of the whole 
nation, and you force him into the fog of the great 
Southern abstractionist. Mr. Calhoun, in his cele 
brated speech on Jackson s Force Bill, says : "Ac 
cording to my conception, the whole sovereignty is 
in the several States, whilst the exercise of sovereign 
power is divided a part being exercised under com 
pact through this General Government, and the 
residue through the separate State Governments. 
But if the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kives) 
means to assert that the twenty-four States form 
but one community, with a single sovereign power 
as to the objects of the Union, it will be but the 
revival of the old question of whether the Union is 
a union between States, as distinct communities, or 
a mere aggregate of the American people, as a mass 
of individuals ; and in this light his opinions would 
lead directly to consolidation." 


Now let our simple, honest denizen apply his 
powers to this statement, and see what he can 
make of it. But let us aid him, if ive can. And, 
1st remark : Are the several States in whom is the 
sovereign power to be taken as the people, being a 
mass of individuals, or is it the abstract conception 
of a government that is meant ? 

But, 2d. The whole sovereignty, he says, is in 
the several States; therefore, there being twenty- 
four whole States severally taken, there are twenty- 
four whole sovereignties ! 

But, 3d. Whilst the whole sovereignty is in the 
twenty-four States, i. e., twenty-four wholes, the 
exercise of sovereign power is divided part being 
exercised by this General Government ; i. e., the 
power is exercised where it is not ! The whole is 
in the States ; a part of that same whole is exer 
cised by and in the United States Government ! 

4. Mr. Calhoun seems to deny that the twenty- 
four States form but one community; i. e., he denies 
that the people of the United States are united ! 
are " one people " as in the Declaration. 

5. He denies that the United States have a 
single sovereign power, even as to the objects of the 
Union that they are sovereign within the limits 
of the Constitution. 

6. He denies that the Constitution is designed 


to consolidate the States ; whilst we have heard the 
Convention affirm in their letter, " In all our delib 
erations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view 
that which appears to us the greatest interest of 
every true American the consolidation of our 
Union. Then is Mr. Calhoun not a true Ameri 
can, in the eyes of Washington and his Conven 
tion ? And so it proves this day : the blood of 
thousands, of tens of thousands, is poured out, and 
is now (September 20, 1862) running, as the neces 
sary consequent of these wicked doctrines. A vast 
harvest of death succeeds this seedtime of abstract 
nonsense and foggy philosophy. Whereas, nothing 
is more patent and better understood, or can be 
more clearly expressed, than that the "one peo 
ple," who published the Declaration in 1776., who 
united together in the Continental Congress, did 
also adopt the Constitution. Every precaution was 
taken to guard against the notion of a mere con 
federacy of States, and to make it clear and plain 
that a Government was to be established by the 
people a Government superior to and above the 
States separately considered, and as confederate 
under the articles ; yet a Government restricted 
and limited by lines clearly defining the bounds 
between it and the State Governments a Govern 
ment, at whose formation this whole question of 


State rights was most amply discussed on all sides, 
by such men men who saw at a glance, as they 
say in their letter to Congress, " It is obviously 
impracticable, in the Federal Government of these 
States, to secure all rights of independent sover 
eignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and 
safety of all ; " and who therefore adjusted the boun 
daries of each, and then submitted the whole to 
THE PEOPLE in conventions assembled. These 
supreme arbitrators, after long canvassing the mat 
ter of the Constitution, in their social meetings, in 
their popular movements toward the election of 
members for their several conventions, and then 
by their representatives in convention assembled, 
came to the grand conclusion, once more, that they 
form one people one nation. 

It seems almost trifling on a grave subject, 
when men allege the fact that the ratifying con 
ventions were called by the State Legislatures, and 
met within the States severally, as evidence that 
the United States is merely a confederacy of inde 
pendent States, and not "a National Government, 
set up above and over the States." To this, as an 
argument, the easy response is, that the conven 
ience of submitting the ratification through the 
action of State Legislatures, was the governing 
idea. A second convention of the whole was pro- 


posed, but not seriously advocated. The language 
of George Mason, certainly one of the safest and 
wisest men in the Virginia delegation, is cogent, 
and worthy of serious consideration. " Colonel 
Mason considered a reference of the plan to the 
authority of the people,, as one of the most impor 
tant and essential of the resolutions. The Legisla 
tures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere 
creatures of the State constitutions, and cannot be 
greater than their creators. And he knew of no 
power in any of the constitutions he knew there 
was no power in some of them that could be 
competent to this object. Whither then must we 
resort ? To the- people, with whom all power re 
mains that has not been given up in the constitu 
tions derived from them. It was of great moment, 
he observed, that this doctrine should be cherished, 
as the basis of free government. Another strong 
reason was, that, admitting the Legislatures to 
have a competent authority, it would be wrong to 
refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legisla 
tures, having equal authority, could undo the acts 
of their predecessors ; and the National Govern 
ment would stand, in each State, on the weak and 
tottering foundation of an act of Assembly." (Mad. 
Papers, p. 1177.) These opinions were sanctioned 
by Mr. Madison (see Papers, 1183). The ratifica- 


tion, then, or adoption of the Constitution was by 

the people, not of Massachusetts or New York ; 

not by the people of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or 

South Carolina, as Mr. Jefferson Davis says ; but 




IN our first chapter we endeavored to show that 
human society is not a voluntary association, in the 
usual sense of that phrase. Its existence did not 
originate in human volition, but in the divine. The 
whole theory of a social compact is utterly baseless 
a mere speculation, without a single fact in man s 
history on which to rest. If it were a harmless 
theory, very well, let it pass. But it is a perni 
cious fancy, and has produced fearful fallacies and 
some of the most disastrous consequences. Some 
of these fallacies are now soaking our soil with the 
blood of its inhabitants. It is honestly believed, 
by many of our unhappy and misguided brethren 
of the South, that the United States Constitution 
is a Federal Compact, and creates a Federal Gov 
ernment. If the reader has embraced the doctrines 
of our first four chapters, we shall have little dif 
ficulty in exposing to his satisfaction and refuting 
this error. 

And 1. Let us to the word : Federal is from the 


Latin, Fcedus, meaning a covenant or league. The 
term Federal, therefore, implies the idea of a cove 
nant , agreement, or league ; and, if applied to so 
ciety, assumes as true the false doctrines exposed in 
our first chapter. But when applied to communi 
ties of men organized into states or governments, 
it imports some specific articles or matters about 
which the covenant is made. The nations two 
or more there must be agree ; they enter into a 
covenant, compact, treaty, for the accomplishment 
or security of some matter of interest to the con 
tracting parties ; and this makes them one, quoad 
hoc, but not one as to anything outside of the 
specific terms of the contract. But, in the essen 
tial nature of a compact, it cannot be a govern 
ment invested with the ordinary powers. Two na 
tions may, indeed, contract to uphold, by recognition 
and by forces loaned, another people as a nation ; 
but they cannot possibly make a nation or establish 
a government out of themselves, comprehending 
themselves. They must, by necessity, merge their 
duality into a unity, and instead of the two becom 
ing three, they become one. 

True, two nations may appoint, by covenant, a 
joint commission, to exercise some political func 
tions in their name and authority, but then, such 
is not a government, a new nation. So the Colo- 


nies acted through their grand committee. Such 
arrangement., however, cannot be permanent, but 
must eventuate in dissolution or in a government. 
Let the reader attempt to mature the conception 
of two governments covenanting to become one and 
yet remaining two, and he will soon convince him 
self of the absurdity of two or of thirteen supreme 
sovereign nations covenanting themselves into one 
sovereign nation i. e. } the absurdity of the phrase 
Federal Government. Therefore, 

2. The word Federal is nowhere found in our 
Constitution. Once only is it used in the letter ; 
but then, as the phrase General Government oc 
curs in the immediately preceding sentence, evi 
dently because the writer wished to avoid repeti 
tion, and used Federal as a synonym for General. 
Manifestly the idea in both cases is identical. Or 
it occurs in the letter in that loose and general sense 
which grew up under the old Articles. I contend 
that the absence of the word Federal from the Con 
stitution is not accidental. Its use was redundant 
all over the land in Congress, in the money mar 
ket, in the mouths of all men everywhere ; in the 
Convention, in the public prints. Now, why is it 
entirely excluded from the Constitution ? Has this 
omission no significance ? Notoriously, the long 
est and hardest battle fought by those beloved and 


loving friends of liberty, was just on this ques 
tion, whether to adhere to the Federal system, or to 
adopt a National Government. When, therefore, 
the Virginia doctrine triumphed, and the Conven 
tion, by overwhelming majorities, determined to re 
ject the mere confederation and to establish a Gen 
eral Government, they very properly repudiated and 
rejected the term Federal ; neither the name nor 
the thing can be found in the Constitution. 

And yet, Mr. Jefferson Davis, who notices this 
omission, speaks thus : " The States endeavored 
in every possible form to exclude the idea that the 
separate and independent sovereignty of each State 
was merged into one government or nation ; and 
the earnest desire they evinced to impress on the 
Constitution its true character, that of a compact 
between independent States, the Constitution of 
1787 having, however, omitted the clause already 
recited." Mr. Davis sees no evidence herein of any 
difference between the Articles and the Constitu 
tion ; this, he insists, is still merely a compact ; 
although the designed omission of every word ex 
pressive of that idea compact, covenant, federal, 
confederacy, confederation more than omission, 
the exclusion of every such term, stares him in the 
face ; yet all this affords this gentleman no proof 
at all against a confederacy and in favor of a gov- 


eminent. The Constitution itself calls it a Govern 
ment : Art. II. " Seat of Government of the Unit 
ed States." The letter speaks of " the General 
Government." All nations recognize it as a Gov 
ernment ; Mr. Secretary and Mr. Senator Davis 
served it as a Government, and received his wages 
from his master but alas ! all this availeth me 
nothing so long as I see Mordecai the [Black Ke- 
publican] Jew sitting at the king s gate. The 
hundred and seven and twenty provinces from India 
to Ethiopia, are, after all, only " a compact." 

But before this solemn ostracism of the word, it 
had passed into common currency, and became the 
name of a party, and of that party too who had 
expurgated both name and thing from the Consti- 
tion of the country. It was a most singular sum 
merset. The Federal party they were called, who 
had repudiated federalism and established a na 
tional government as a counter system to it. We 
have in this an exemplification of the way in which 
the generic meaning of a word is entirely lost sight 
of, and it comes into use as a mere arbitrary appel 
lative. By Federal Government is now meant 
nothing more than, or different from, General or 
National Government simply to distinguish it 
from State Governments. 




WE are now in possession of the elements ne 
cessary for exposing the false logic that is desolat 
ing our country ; but before proceeding, it will be 
proper, for the sake of such readers as are not 
familiar with the logical process, except in its un 
scientific forms, to give a brief chapter on Fallacy, 
the most important part of Logic. Yet, in order 
to show what Fallacy is and how to detect it, we 
must first have an idea of what an act of reasoning 
is : I apprize the unlearned reader that it is exceed 
ingly simple so simple that he will be ready to 
suppose I am trifling with him. The greatest of 
England s metaphysicians committed a great sin 
against humanity when he assailed the syllogism 
or formal statement of an argument, or act of rea 
son. Its very simplicity, and a mistake of its true 
intent and proper use, led John Locke, in an evil 
and sad hour, to do against the syllogism such bat 
tle as has since covered many a field with blood. 


Great men only can do great mischief great rea- 
soners only can become great sophists. 

Logic is the art of reasoning, and the science of 
its principles ; and this is the actual order of their 
existence. Men reason now before they can give a 
reason for the process which they perform "before 
they can lay down a rule for it. So it was before 
the father of the technical syllogism was born. 
Aristotle s mother reasoned as soundly as he could 
do, after he wrote his logic. So men talk, and talk 
correctly, without understanding the grammar rules 
which they practice. So it is with most arts. The 
blacksmith welds the iron and tempers the steel, 
but understands not the chemical laws on which 
the process depends. 

But we proceed : A equals B. 

C equals A, 

Therefore, C equals B. 

My cane is as long as your umbrella, 
His yardstick is as long as my cane, 
Therefore, His yardstick is as long as your umbrella. 
Or, negatively : A does not agree with B, 

C agrees with A, 
Therefore, C does not agree with B. 

No traitor should command an army, 
General Nemo is a traitor, 

Therefore, General Nemo should not command an 


This is the sum of the logical processes : vary 
and modify it the mind can ; but go beyond these 
principles it cannot ; and the whole rests on the two 
simple axioms Things which are equal to one and 
the same third thing, are equal to one another, 
Two things, one of which agrees with one and 
the same third thing, and the other differs, differ 
from one another. The carpenter wants a piece of 
timber to reach from one wall to anothe" ; he 
stretches his line from wall to wall ; then stretches 
the same line on the timber, and finds these agree, 
hence concludes this piece will answer his purpose. 
Here is an act of reasoning, and, if written in the 
logical formula above, it makes a syllogism. Now 
you perceive that there are three comparisons made 
here, and yet but three things compared. These 
things the names of them are called in logic 
terms,, and each is used twice. The line and th3 
. distance of the walls are compared ; the same line 
and the length of the timber are compared. These 
are done mechanically and in the mind too ; and 
then, mentally only the timber and tlio distance 
of the walls are perceived to agree : this is tlio con 
clusion. Now, suppose the line to be elastic tape, 
could you compare these two lengths through the 
medium of such a line ? This would deceive you ; 
it would be a fallacious proof of their agreement ; 


it would be a fallacy. Why ? Because the line, the 
middle term, is not one and the self-same, but vari- 
riable. The terms, then, must not be variable, but 
one and the same. If either of them have a dou 
ble meaning, it is no argument, but fallacy, i. e., 
deception. Thus we arrive at the definition of fal 
lacy. It is an apparent argument, which concludes 
contrary to truth. It must appear to be what it is 
not, or it would not deceive. We have also ascer 
tained the cause of all fallacies in the process of 
argumentation, viz., the creation of a fourth term. 
Archbishop Whately divides fallacies into two 
classes logical and non-logical. By logical falla 
cies he means those in which the fault lies in the 
reasoning process itself. By the non-logical, where 
the reasoning is correct in itself, but, from assuming 
some false position to start from, lands in error. 
The former class he subdivides variously ; but I 
think they are all reducible to the one formula 
above stated, viz., the creation of a fourth term. 
A is equal to B, and C is equal to D. This gives 
no conclusion. My umbrella is as long as a stick ; 
your flagstaff is as long as a stick ; can you draw 
any conclusion ? Why not ? Because a stick is 
not a fixed quantity as thus stated. Fix the quan 
tity say the self-same stick and the fallacy is re 
moved. From the carpenter s process we see that 


an act of reasoning requires a measure one com 
mon measure of two quantities ; and this is called 
the middle term. The elastic tape is not one 
length, "but two or more. In like manner, if either 
of the other two terms, called the major and the 
minor, have a double meaning, there are four terms, 
and no argument. Take for example, the old 
sophism : 

A church is a building of stone. 

A company of Christians (associated for worship) 
is a church. 

Therefore a company of Christians is a building 
of stone. 

Here the word church has two meanings, and 
thus there are really four terms, though apparently 
but three. Logic has rules for detecting the various 
methods by which the fourth term is created, but 
we cannot go into detail. 

Non-logical fallacies are those where the decep 
tion lies not in the reasoning process itself, but in 
the assumption of some false principle at the start. 
The thing assumed must lie covered up so as not 
to be apparent, or it will not deceive, and its detec 
tion requires close inspection of the premises. Her 
od reasoned thus when he inferred his obligation to 
kill John. He assumed as true what is false, viz., 



that an oath to do a wrong thing is binding. The 
suicide reasons thus, when, from the principle that 
what is a man s own he may dispose of as he 
pleases, he concludes to destroy his own life. The 
false assumption is that his life is his own, in the 
same sense that his money or his goods are his own. 
It may be necessary only to add, that some 
times two fallacies, and of different classes, may 
meet in the same argument. These we shall not 
illustrate until we find them in our progress. 

The three angles of a triangle are equal to two 
right angles. This proposition may T)e true, it may 
be false ; true, if you mean jointly ; false, if you 
mean severally. These three boys, Joe, John, and 
James, are equal in height to Goliath of Gath : this 
is true, if they are taken collectively ; false, if sever 
ally. So easy is it to divide a term into two, and 
thereby to create a fourth term in the syllogism, and 
of course, a fallacy. 




Independent is a relative term ; it has reference 
to some other person, being, or thing, and suggests a 
negative idea. To depend is to hang from and upon. 
The apple upon the tree it is pendent, i. e., hang 
ing from the branch, and is dependent for its posi 
tion, absolute and relative, upon the tree. Now 
break the stem, it falls to the earth, and is not 
longer dependent for its position, but is independ 
ent on the tree. The child is dependent on its 
mother for food and protection, for instruction and 
education. He changes relations ; he is now a man ; 
he no longer hangs on his mother s bosom ; he is in 
dependent, quoad lianc ; but not absolutely ; for 
he stands related variously to other human beings. 
He depends upon society around him for enjoyment, 
for business and its results ; he depends on govern 
ment for protection to life and liberty. A colony is 
a social infant, and, by necessity, is dependent in 
this stage of its being upon the mother country for 


support and protection. Even so late as 1754, 
Franklin speaks of England as " home " " the 
government at home/ But this social infant, like 
the apple and the child, cannot remain always in 
the pendent condition ; relations must change in 
the onward flux of human affairs. The umbilical 
cord is cut, the infant has become a man, the colony 
a nation ; it is no longer pendent, or dependent as 
to the parent country, but is independent. It is a 
nation in fact, and if other nations admit the fact, 
it is a nation in form one of the great family, de 
pendent on self and mother earth alone. 

But now, is this our history ? Was our nation 
a colony ? One colony ? Did Pennsylvania sepa 
rately ever cut herself loose from the mother coun 
try ? did Virginia ? did South Carolina ? Then 
there are three independent nations ! The absur 
dity of this has been exposed in Chap. VI. Now we 
must glance at the fallacy based on, rather depend 
ent on the historical absurdity. 

The term is necessarily relative. To be inde 
pendent has reference to other things independent 
on what ? The Tartar dynasty ? The Sublime 
Porte ? The autocrat of all the Kussias ? All 
this is true concerning the States severally, but was 
just as true before the Immortal Declaration as 
after it ; so the question reverts independent on 


what ? The only true response is on Britain. 
This is the one and only true meaning. But an 
other construction has been foisted in upon this no 
ble term. It means, say some, non-dependence on 
one another each colony declared itself independ 
ent on every other. This fallacy is older than our 
Constitution ; for we find it in the Convention. 
(See Mad. Pap. p. 906.) 

" Mr. Martin, Md., said, he considered that the 
separation from Great Britain placed the thirteen 
States in a state of nature toward each other ; that 
they would have remained in that state till this 
time, but for the confederation ; that they entered 
into the confederation on the footing of equality ; 
that they met now to amend it, on the same foot 
ing, and that he could never accede to a plan that 
would introduce an inequality, and lay ten States 
at the mercy of Virginia, Massachusetts, and Penn 

" Mr. Wilson, Penn., could not admit the doc 
trine that when the colonies became independent of 
Great Britain, they became independent also of each 
other. He read the Declaration of Independence, 
observing thereon, that the United Colonies were 
declared to be free and independent States ; and in 
ferring that they were independent, not individually, 


but unitedly , and that they were confederated, as 
they were independent States." 

" Colonel Hamilton assented to the doctrine of 
Mr. Wilson. He denied the doctrine that the 
States were thrown into a state of nature. He was 
not yet prepared to admit the doctrine that the 
confederacy could be dissolved by partial infrac 
tions of it." 

" I hold it for a fundamental point, that an in 
dividual independence of the States is utterly irre 
concilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty." 
(Mad. Papers, p. 631.) 

Here we have the political heresy and its refu 
tation. The Union, as we have seen, Chap. VI., 
was formed in 1774. Now we have to expose the 
logical heresy. The word is used in two senses it 
means independence on Great Britain, in the first 
and true use ; but independence on the sister colo 
nies, and all the world of nations, in the second and 
false sense. Let us syllogize it, thus : 

An independent State may do as she pleases. 
But South Carolina is an independent State. 
Therefore, South Carolina may do as she pleases. 

Here we have States 7 rights, States sovereignty 
and secession, all demonstrated. But here we have 
the precise logical formula, which demonstrates a 


body of pious Christians to be a building of stone 1 
How so ? Why, the middle term, independent State, 
is used in one sense in the major premise, and in a 
quite different sense in the minor ; hence we have 
four terms, and, of course, no argument, but a mis 
erable and bloody fallacy. 



" BUT can you" I was often asked before I 
left Virginia " can you coerce a sovereign State ? " 
Ask Mr. Edmund Randolph, certainly one of the 
safest and most profound sons of " the mother of 
States and of statesmen." What does he say in the 
Madison Papers, p. 732 : " That the national legis 
lature ought to be empowered * * * to call forth the V 
force of the Union against any member of the Union 
failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof/X 
This was too strong mustard for Mr. Madison, wEo 
thought " the use of force against a State would 
look more like a declaration of war, than an inflic 
tion of punishment " (Mad. Pap. 761) ; and sug 
gested to accomplish the object in another way. 
" Mr. Pinckney, South Carolina, moved, that the 
National Legislature should have authority to neg 
ative all laws [of States] which they should judge 
to be improper/ He urged that such a universality 
of the power was indispensably necessary to render 
it effectual ; that the States must be kept in due 


subordination to the nation ; that if the States were 
left to act of themselves, it would be impossible to 
defend the national prerogatives, however extensive 
they might be, on paper ; that the acts of Congress 
had been defeated by this means ; nor had foreign 
treaties escaped repeated violations ; that the uni 
versal negative was, in fact, the corner stone of an 
efficient National Government ; that under the 
British Government, the negative of the crown 
had been found beneficial, and the States are more 
one nation now than the Colonies were then/ 
Pretty strong doctrine this for an illustrious prede 
cessor of John C. Calhoun. But how did Virginia 
speak on this point ? " Mr. Madison seconded the 
motion. He could not but regard an indefinite 
power to negative legislative acts of the States as 
absolutely necessary to a perfect system." (See 
Mad. Pap. p. 821-2.) 

So far, however, as these quotations are argu 
ments, they go only against the new generation of 
States rights men. They are not my answer to 
the question, " Can you coerce a sovereign State ?" 
My answer ever was and is ; there never ivas a sov 
ereign State. The doctrine of sovereignty we have 
seen in Chap. IV. Our business now is to expose 
the fallacy of the question. We saw that sov 
ereignty is an absolute unit only in the hand of 


God ; that in human hands the distribution of rul 
ing power is a necessity ; consequently, that the 
lower functions are apportioned out to subordinate 
officers, and only the higher reserved to the King, 
President, Governor, Legislature, &c. So, in our 
Providence-invented system, in the States is depos 
ited, by the people, to whom God gave the whole, a 
large and important part of the sovereignty, to be 
by them exercised for their particular and special 
benefit. These lower functions regard all the local 
interests of the people near home and within the 
sphere limited and bounded by the National Con 
stitution. The General Government includes all 
the higher functions of sovereignty which have been 
delegated to it by the people of the whole nation, to 
be exercised for the good of the whole. It is the 
grand depository of the supreme functions ; the pon 
derous flywheel which regulates the movements of 
the whole system of machinery ; the central sun, 
whose attractive force preserves the unity of all the 
surrounding planets, whilst its light guides them in 
the paths they pursue. 

You perceive, therefore, at a glance, that the 
States are sovereign in a limited sense. All the at 
tributes and functions of sovereignty not granted to 
the General Government, remain still in the people, 
except what they have severally vested in the State 


Governments. So that we may truly say, the States 
are sovereign ; and we may as truly say, the States 
are not sovereign. Both propositions are true, but 
each in its own peculiar sense. They are sovereign 
within their own proper sphere ; they are not sov 
ereign outside of their own sphere. I am supreme 
and sovereign in my own house ; in your house, I am 
not. Here then we have two different things ex 
pressed by one phrase a sovereign State. In one, 
it means supreme power, or sovereignty, properly so 
called ; in the other, a limited portion of sovereign 
powers. To illustrate its operation, something like 
the following seems to have been an immensely 
practical argument about 1782 and 1832 : 

A sovereign State cannot be coerced to pay tax 
es to another power. 

But South Carolina is a sovereign State. 

Therefore, South Carolina cannot be coerced to 
pay taxes to another power the United States 

Under this reasoning, the cause of the country 
had wellnigh failed for want of revenue. But now 
here is the same error in logic. The first proposi 
tion is true, using the phrase, sovereign State, in the 
high and proper meaning. For obviously, if she is 
under bonds and force, she is not truly sovereign, 


but subordinate. The second proposition is also 
true, but in another sense a partial sovereignty 
only has she. Here then, as before, the middle 
term sovereign State is divided into two, so we 
have four terms and no argument, but a miserable 
and bloody fallacy. 

It may be useful to notice the composition of 
these two fallacies by the combination of the terms, 
sovereign and independent States ; or by calling the 
States independent sovereignties. This constitutes 
a fallacy of the second class. 



THIS runs through all the argumentations of the 
States rights men, the nullifiers, the secessionists. 
Rather it is the basis of their operations ; down it 
comes to even Mr. Jefferson Davis ! The second 
paragraph of his first inaugural contains it " the 
sovereign States " " they, as sovereign States, were 
final judges " when they should withdraw. " Thus 
the sovereign States here represented." And in his 
second message, April 29, 1861, he assumes it as the 
basis of his argument ; in the progress of which, 
nevertheless, he quotes the very article of the Con 
federation (Art. II.) which affirms the limitation of 
the powers .of the States and affirms their depend 
ence on one another. True he misquotes the Arti 
cle, thus : f( In order to guard against any miscon 
struction of their compact, the several States made 
an explicit declaration in a distinct article, that each 
State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independ 
ence, and every power of jurisdiction and right which 


is not, by this said Confederation, expressly delegat 
ed to the United States in Congress assembled un 
der this contract of alliance." (See Kebellion Ke- 
cord, Doc., p. 167.) . -Such is Mr. Davis s reading ; 
we turn to the record : 

" Art. II. Each State retains its sovereignty, 
freedom and independence, and every power, juris 
diction and right, which is not by this Confedera 
tion expressly delegated to the United States in 
Congress assembled." 

The reader will observe the difference, whilst we 
note the purpose for which he adduces the Article, 
viz., to prove the absolute independence and sover 
eignty of the States ; whereas it expressly asserts, 
that parts and portions of both are already delegated 
to the United States in Congress assembled. Yet 
the whole force of his argument is based on the as 
sumed, but disproved fact, of their absolute sover 
eignty and independence. These gentlemen all af 
firm the unqualified and unlimited right of each 
State to judge and determine, by itself alone, with 
out let or hindrance, whether it will secede from the 
Union or not, and when it will secede. That is, 
they claim, for each the highest sovereignty and 
most absolute independence, and they prove the 
soundness of their claim by citing Article II., which 
in most express terms asserts the contrary ! 


In Chaps. XIV. and XV. we have disproved this 
doctrine and exposed the fallacies which, very possi 
bly, have led many unconsciously to entertain these 
two dangerous falsehoods. Here we wish only to 
show up the two deceptions as combined in the one 
gratuitous assumption of independent State sover 
eignty. This assumed, the reasoning which estab 
lishes the right of secession is sound. 

If the States are sovereign and independent na 
tions, then of course it follows, that they have a 
right to declare war, establish peace, form alliances, 
make treaties, &c. &c. But even then, it does not 
follow that they have a right to annul treaties, &c., 
at pleasure. But even sound reasoning, from a 
false premise, leads to the discovery and establish 
ment of truth, never. 

If, however, under the Articles of Confederation, 
the States retained but a limited sovereignty, pro 
tected by their league of friendship, and where the 
whole instrument purports to be a Confederation, 
as we have seen in Chap. IX., how much less ground 
is there for an independent State sovereignty, under 
the Constitution, which ignores most particularly, 
as we have seen in Chap. XII., both the name and 
the thing ? 

" This right to secede," says General Jackson, 
" is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, 


which they [the nullifiers] say, is a compact be 
tween sovereign States who have preserved their 
whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no 
superior ; that because they made the compact, 
they can break it, when in their opinion it has been 
departed from by the other States. Fallacious as 
this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride," 
&c. (See Statesman s Manual, p. 800.) 

" The Constitution of the United States, then, 
forms a government, not a league, and whether it 
be formed by compact between the States, or in 
any other manner, its character is the same. It is 
a government in which all the people are repre 
sented, which operates directly on the people indi 
vidually, and not upon the States they [the peo 
ple] retained all the power they did not grant. 
But each State, having expressly parted with so 
many powers as to constitute, jointly with the 
other States, a single nation, cannot from that pe 
riod possess any right to secede, because such se 
cession does not break a league, but destroys the 
unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is 
not only a breach which would result from the 
contravention of a compact, but it is an offence 
against the whole Union. To say that any State 
may secede from the Union, is to say, that the 
United States are not a nation, because it would 


be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation 
might dissolve its connection with the other parts, 
to their injury or rnin/ without committing any 
offence. Secession, like any other revolutionary 
act, may be morally justified by the extremity of 
oppression ; but to call it a constitutional right, is 
confounding the meaning of terms, and can only 
be done through gross error, or to deceive those 
who are willing to assert a right, but would pause 
before they made a revolution, or incur the penal 
ties consequent on a failure. 

" Because the Union was formed by compact, 
it is said, the parties to that compact may, when 
they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it ; 
but it is precisely because it is a compact, that 
they cannot. A compact is an agreement or bind 
ing obligation, &c., &c." 

On p. 802 General Jackson proceeds : " The 
States severally have not retained their entire sov 
ereignty. It has been shown that, in becoming 
parts of a nation, not members of a league, they 
surrendered many of their essential parts of sov 
ereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, 
levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legisla 
tive powers, were all of them functions of sovereign 
power. [He might have added naturalization of 
foreigners, which belonged to the States under the 


Articles, but is given by the Constitution to the 
United States.] The States, then, for all those 
important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The 
allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the 
first instance, to the Government of the United 
States ; they became American citizens, and owed 
obedience to the Constitution of the United States^ 
and to laws made in conformity with the powers 
vested in Congress." On p. 806, having pointed 
out the unparalleled prosperity and happiness of the 
country, especially of the people of South Carolina, to 
whom the proclamation is addressed, he proceeds : 
" And for what, mistaken men ! for what do you 
throw away these inestimable blessings for what 
would you exchange your share in the advantages 
and honor of the Union ? For the dream of a 
separate independence a dream interrupted by 
bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile 
dependence on foreign power. If your leaders 
could succeed in establishing a separation, what 
would be your situation ? Are you united at 
home are you free from the apprehension of civil 
discord with all its fearful consequences ? Do our 
neighboring republics, every clay suffering some new 
revolution or contending with some new insurrec 
tion do they excite your envy ? But the dictates 
of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce 


that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United 
States must be executed. I have no discretionary 
power on the subject my duty is emphatically 
pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told 
you that you might peaceably prevent their exe 
cution, deceived you they could not have been 
deceived themselves. They know that a forcible 
opposition could alone prevent the execution of 
the laws, and they know that such opposition must 
be repelled. Their object is disunion ; but be not 
deceived by names : disunion by armed force, is 
treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt ? " 
Oh ! si sic omnes. If a Jackson had been in the 
Presidential chair, we should not now be in the 
midst of a bloody rebellion. 





THESE five following chapters have a peculiar 
type, indicated, obscurely indeed, by the above 
caption. They involve discussions of the great 
matters before the nation fealty, loyalty, Chris 
tian duty in these times. They are not religious, 
properly speaking, nor ecclesiastical ; and, though 
they have phrases adapted especially to interest 
Presbyterians, yet the essence of the whole will 
prove, I doubt not, as interesting as any of the 
preceding ; because the arguments examined are 
common, and regard the duties of all sects and 
of no sect. The XVIIIth and XXIst have no re 
lation to anything peculiai^to any denomination. 

On the morning of the 18th of May " Dr. Spring 
offered a resolution, that a Special Committee be 
appointed to inquire into the expediency of this 


Assembly making some expression of their devotion 
to the Union of these States and their loyalty to 
the Government ; and if, in their judgment, it is 
expedient so to do, they report what that expres 
sion shall be." (See Min. Gen. Assem., p. 303.) 

"On motion of Mr. Hoyte, this resolution was 
laid on the table, by a vote 123 to 102." 

Remark : 1. On a motion of simple inquiry, 
a refusal seldom occurs in any body where free dis 
cussion is allowed. Nothing but some evident, 
glaring impropriety ever occasions a refusal of a 
committee to inquire. But such impropriety, the 
vote here, and the subsequent action of the body, 
prove had no existence. 

2. A motion to lay on the table a resolution 
before discussion, and especially if the mover is a 
respectable man, not given to be troublesome, is, to 
say the least, discourteous. It contains a severe 
rebuke. But to take snap judgment, if you will 
pardon the expression, on a man so aged, so ven 
erable, so dignified, gentlemanly, and courteous, 
and withal so universally admired and beloved 
throughout the churches, seems to me altogether 

, outside of the amenities, of Christian intercourse. 

3. This impropriety this want of delicate 
Christian sensibility is greatly enhanced by the 
source of the motion to lay on the table. A Ten- 


nesseean, at least, ought to have shrunk from it. 
Surely it ought to have been left for some North 
erner neighbor to Dr. Spring. 

"A call for the c yeas and nays/ to be recorded, 
was made by Mr. Kobertson, after the members 
had begun to vote by rising, which the Moderator 
declared to be out of order." This decision, absurd 
as it is, was not appealed from. It is the usual 
course, when it is obvious that there is a close vote 
and that it is exceedingly difficult to count so large 
a number accurately, to resort to the yeas and nays 
as the only way to insure certainty, and such is the 
rule parliamentary ; and this may be done even 
after the vote is taken. 

" After the result had been announced, Mr. H. 
K. Clarke moved to take this resolution up from 
the table, and on this motion called for the yeas 
and nays/* 

This occasioned discussions about points of 
order for the rule forbids discussion of the motion 
to take off the table until Wednesday morning, 
May 22, when, to cut off such discussion, " Dr. 
Spring offered a paper with resolutions respecting 
the appointment of religious solemnities for the 
4th of July next, and the duty of ministers and 
churches in relation to the condition of the coun 
try ; which, on motion of Dr. Hodge, was made the 


first order of the day for Friday morning next." 
(Min., p. 308.) 

For a whole week, off and on, these resolutions 
were discussed with great zeal and ability. Vari 
ous amendments, substitutes, &c., were offered, and 
one strenuous effort was put forth to lay the whole 
subject on the table, which motion, made by Dr. 
Hodge, was decided by ayes 87, and noes 153. 
The final vote was taken on Wednesday evening, 
May 29 ayes 156, noes 66. 

It is unfortunate that Dr. Spring s resolutions 
were not put on the record until after all discus 
sion, amendments, &c., were ended ; so that the 
reader cannot easily learn what the originals were. 
But as finally adopted, they stand thus : 

" Gratefully acknowledging the distinguished 
bounty and care of Almighty God toward this 
favored land, and also recognizing our obligations 
to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord s 
sake, this General Assembly adopt the following 
resolutions : 

" Besolved, 1. That in view of the present 
agitated and unhappy state of this country, the 
1st day of July next [Dr. Spring had it the 4th, 
the day on which Congress was to meet] be hereby 
set apart as a day of prayer throughout our land ; 
and that on this day ministers and people are called 


on humbly to confess and bewail our national sins; 
to offer our thanks to the Father of lights for His 
abundant and undeserved goodness toward us as a 
nation ; to seek His guidance and blessing upon 
our rulers and their counsels, as well as on the 
Congress of the United States about to assemble; 
and to implore Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
the great High Priest of the Christian profession, 
to turn away his anger from us ; and speedily restore 
to us the blessings of an honorable peace. 

" Hesolved, 2. That this General Assembly, in 
the spirit of that Christian patriotism which the 
Scriptures enjoin, and which has always character 
ized this Church, do hereby acknowledge and declare 
our obligations to promote and perpetuate, so far as 
in us lies, the integrity of these United States, and 
to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal 
Government in the exercise of all its functions 
under our noble Constitution ; and to this Consti 
tution, in all its provisions, requirements, and prin 
ciples, we profess our unabated loyalty. 

" And to avoid all misconception, the Assembly 
-declare that by the terms c Federal Government/ 
as here used, is not meant any particular adminis 
tration, or the particular opinions of any particular 
party, but that central administration which, being 
at any time appointed and inaugurated according 


to the forms prescribed in the Constitution of the 
United States, is the visible representative of our 
national existence." (Min., 331.) 

I have placed the whole matter adopted by the 
Assembly before the reader, although the first para 
graph of the second resolution alone will come un 
der the following discussion. The second paragraph 
was not in Dr. Spring s resolution, but was append 
ed by the Assembly. It may be proper to say that 
the doctor was taken ill, and left at an early part 
of the discussions, in which he can scarcely be said 
to have participated. 

Before proceeding to the main object .of this 
chapter, viz., the exposition of the fallacy which, 
pervades the arguments against the resolution, a 
few general remarks seem proper. A majority, I 
hope, of my readers know nothing of the ecclesias 
tical relations of this matter, and are therefore the 
better qualified to judge the resolution simply on 
its merits. What does it teach ? 

1. Here is a simple, acknowledgment and decla 
ration of a fact. " This General Assembly do ac 
knowledge and declare." There is not the sem 
blance of an authoritative dictum of a legislative or 
judicial body : no command, no order, no decree, 
no injunction upon any human being or class of be 
ings, ordering them to do or not to do anything 


whatsoever. It is a simple declaration of a 

2. This fact is, that obligations lie, not upon 
you, or Napoleon III, or Pio Nino, or the members 
of the church at Smyrna, or New Orleans, or the 
church of Nashville ; nothing at all of all this, but 
on us our obligations. We, the General Assem 
bly, do declare the fact obligations lie on us. Had 
this body, i. e., a majority, a right to declare this 
fact ? Assuredly, if it was true, they had ; if it 
was not true, they had not. But suppose some 
thought it was not true ; they felt no such obliga 
tion : must they, are they bound to assert a false 
hood ? No ; they are bound to say no, to tell the 
truth, and say they feel no obligations to 

3. Promote and perpetuate the integrity of 
these United States. This is the first obligation 
declared and acknowledged. On whom does it lie ? 
On us our obligation. To promote and perpetuate 
is not enjoined is not commanded. No obligation 
is created by this act, nor attempted or professed 
to be created. But simply the preexistent, the 
always existent obligation, is acknowledged and de 
clared to perpetuate the Union. 

4. But even this is not conceived or expressed 
to be absolute. An unlimited obligation to pro 
mote and perpetuate the Union is not declared to 



be on us ; but only " so far as in us lies." If, then, 
Mr. Hoyte or Dr. Backus are so situated that they 
can do nothing at all toward promoting and per 
petuating the integrity of the United States, there 
is not here even a declaration of obligation lying 
upon them ; absolutely nothing. 

5. And this qualification, " so far as in us lies," 
extends to every one of the things in reference to 
which the Assembly acknowledges " our obliga 

6. Here is a profession of faith and attachment 
unabated to our Constitution. There is no com 
mand, order, or decree laid upon any human being ; 
but a simple declaration of a fact " our unabated 
loyalty." If, then, any man does not fed it, let 
him not say it. We, the Assembly lay no hand on 
him : no such idea is anywhere found in any part 
of any of the Spring resolutions. And yet, 

7. In the face of these facts, in the very teeth 
of this resolution, it was affirmed in the discus 
sion to be an usurpation of power, a decree of 
excision, leading to schism in the church ; and this, 
although all the church knew that the decree of 
schism had gone forth from Columbia, the ruling 
centre of the South. The Presbytery of Charleston 
had appointed commissioners to this very Assembly ; 
but the guns against Sumter woke up the lion, 


who, by the by, was not asleep ; a pro re nata meet 
ing of Presbytery was called, the commissions were 
revoked, and the steps inaugurated for secession 
from the Presbyterian Church in these United States. 
Others followed suit. The Presbytery of Lexington 
appointed their commissioners before I left it. South 
Carolina moved, and the commissioners never at 
tended they were dragged out. This resolution, 
it was affirmed, made new terms of communion 
subverted the Constitution, and forced men to pray 
and work for the Union, when it was sure to lead 
to their execution. In my brief span of experience 
I certainly never saw such an extended discussion, 
and so ably and zealously conducted, entirely aside 
from and outside of the paper from which it started. 
This was owing to the warmth of the opponents and 
their excited imaginations. They having gone on 
to this ground, their opponents followed them in 
the wild chase. But the grand mistake of all re 
mains to be pointed out, and must be the subject 
of a distinct chapter. 



THIS dialogue between Captain Smith and his 
pastor, Rev. Mr. Brown, is thrown in here because 
the principle vindicated by Mr. Brown comes in 
necessarily in the discussions of the succeeding 

Captain Smith. Good morning, Mr. Brown ! 
I hope I see you well after the hard service of 

Pastor Brown. Thanks to our good Master, I 
am nothing the worse of the labors of the Sabbath ; 
but I don t quite like the expression "hard, which 
you apply to the services of the holy day. I often 
think of the remark of old Father Scrimgeour, a de 
voted and godly Scotch preacher of New York 
State, who used to say, " Preaching has been often 
the worse, of me, but I have never been the worse of 

Capt. S. Very true ; but you seemed yesterday 


to exert yourself so vigorously, that I supposed you 
must feel uneasy and Mondayish this morning. You 
did pour it upon them with all your might. By the 
way, Mr. Brown, did you know you gave a little 
offence to some of your hearers, by your remarks 
about whiskey, bribery, and the tricks and schemes 
of the demagogues, about these election times ? 

Mr. B. Sorry for that ; I certainly didn t wish 
to wound the feelings of any sinner improperly, and 
God forbid that I should sin against the generation 
of the just. Who is it that I have offended ? 

Capt. S. Old Tom Harris thinks you came a 
little too close on him in your remarks about whis 
key and bacon ; and, indeed, considering he s so 
poor, and has unfortunately got such a habit of 
drinking, he seems as if he couldn t help it ; and I 
pitied the poor dog, and thought, at the time, that 
perhaps it would be better not to bring politics into 
the pulpit at all. Fve long thought there was truth 
in the proverb, " Eeligion has nothing to do with 
politics ; " and, to be candid, you came so close 
sometimes, that I began to wince myself ; for, you 
know, I m a little of a politician, too. 

Mr. B. Well, it s true I do cut pretty close 
sometimes ; but then, you see ; it seems to come 
right in my way. How could I expound the lan 
guage of my text, and show the character of the 


good man, " who walketh righteously, and speaketh 
uprightly ; he that despiseth the gain of oppres 
sions, that shaketh his hands from holding of 
bribes/ without saying something which must 
make men wince who act differently ? I vowed at 
my ordination to " preach the word," whether men 
will hear or whether they will forbear. There s an 
other proverb worthy of recollection : "If the shoe 
fits you, put it on." My^sworn duty is to present 
to my hearers the plain meaning of the word, leav 
ing it to conscience and to the Holy Spirit to bring 
it home to the individuals to whom it is adapted. 

Copt. S. Ay, but these election times, when 
we politicians are somewhat excited and on the 
sharp lookout, it appears as if it might be prudent 
(excuse my freedom) to bear off politics, at least till 
we get time to cool down. 

Mr. B. That is plausible, and I don t at all 
wonder that you feel so. But then, my dear sir, 
just look at the matter from my standpoint : " Ke- 
prove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and 
doctrine." Now, does it seem common sense to re 
prove and rebuke evils that have no existence at the 
time and place ? Should not the blister be laid 

where the inflammation is, and at the time ? Be- 

sides, Captain, your proverb, Eeligion has nothing 

to do with politics, has, perhaps, led you into a mis- 


take in your reasoning. I, on the contrary, affirm 
that religion is the very foundation of politics. 

Capi. S Oh ! that ll never do. We ll differ 
entirely ; here is a direct contradiction. If you take 
this ground, you ll be everlastingly preaching against 
the Democrats, or the Whigs, or the Kepublicans, 
ithe secession rebels or the loyal Unionists; and well 
get no gospel at all. 

Mr. B. Not quite so fast, Captain. There is 
another scripture which I try to keep in mind : 
" Kightly dividing the word of truth, giving to every 
man his portion of meat in due season/ 7 Besides, 
Captain, we don t differ much, after all. Your pro 
verb and mine are not contradictory, as you suppose, 
but both are true, when you come to understand the 
meaning of the terms; and if you will bear with me, 
I will endeavor to explain wherein you are deceived 
by the vague, equivocal, double meaning of a word. 
The term politics, in your proverb, means partyism, 
political management, tricks of faction, duplicity, 
deception, wirepulling, frauds upon the purity of 
elections, whiskey and other bribery, pipelaying, and 
all the thousand devices that go to make up the 
character of the demagogue. So, lie s a great poli 
tician means that the man is up to all these he s 
an adept in them. Now, in this sense, I perfectly 
agree with you, religion has nothing to do with pol- 


itics. Surely there is no religion in all these. So 
there we are agreed. 

But there is another sense in which the word_po- 
itics is used. It includes great knowledge of polit 
ical affairs the principles of government the very 
nature of man in regard to society, to law, to jus 
tice, to social order, to national and international 
affairs. Thus, we say, Washington, Jefferson, the 
Adamses, Madison, Jay, Franklin, Morris, &c., were 
profound politicians. They had studied with great 
success the principles of political science and econ 
omy. I like their politics L e., their sentiments., 
their doctrines in reference to political affairs. 
When, therefore, I say that religion is the founda 
tion of politics, I don t differ from you in regard to 
things. The difference lies merely in the meaning 
of a term. 

Capi. S. Oh, very well. Fni glad to find we 
agree as to principle. To be sure, there is no 
sure foundation for civil government but the moral 
law. If we abandon the pure doctrines of the Bible, 
we can never build up a political fabric that will 
endure ; and I have always understood that our 
great politicians, judges, statesmen, have declared 
Christianity to be a part of the common law. 

Mr. B. But, Captain, I noticed you said princi 
ple I agree with you in principle. If so, we can- 


not greatly differ in practice. Yet, allow me to 
point out the fallacy which had almost made us to 
differ. It lies in the double meaning of the word 
politics. In Chapter XIII we have seen that logical 
fallacies are generated by the creation of a fourth 
term ; and here we have it. You compare religion 
with politics, in one sense, and perceive that they 
differ, and hence you infer that ministers ought to 
abstain from preaching politics, and find fault with 
me because I preach politics, which I do in quite 
the other sense. I advocate no party principles or 
party chicanery ; but simply expound the doctrines 
of the moral law, and apply them in rebuking and 
reproving the misdeeds of political partisans and 
all others. 

Here we have, then, the devil s double entendre, 
by the adroit use of which he has succeeded to a 
large degree in paralyzing the pulpit and destroy 
ing its power for good over one large portion of its 
appropriate field. Under this fallacy, politicians 
have become a privileged class. They occupy a 
sphere within which " the reproofs of instruction, 
which are the way of life/ must not presume to 
enter. With regard to lying, swearing, treating, 
drunkenness, bribery, Sabbath electioneering, &c., 
&c., connected with political management, this fal 
lacy cries, " Hands off, preachers ! This ground 



is appropriated to his Satanic Majesty. He has 
turned politician, and religion has nothing to do with 
politics ; ergo, shut up, and let us alone ; art thou 
come to torment us before the time ? " 

And now, my dear Captain, I must close ; and 
I leave for your serious consideration the following 
question, viz. : When the devil claims his own and 
carries off the politician, where will the man be 
found ? 



THIS is the main position of the opponents ; v 
and, as it involves the subject of moral obligation 
to government, its discussion here will, I hope, aid 
in settling the true doctrine, by exposing the fal 
lacy by which gigantic efforts were put forth for its 

It is agreed, on all hands, that Church and 
State have each their own proper sphere within 
which to act ; whilst it is sometimes difficult to 
run the division line with precision between them. 
Both in the Assembly of 1861 and 1862 the Con 
fession of the Presbyterian Church, chap. 31, sec. 
4, was cited in their favor by the protestants : 
" Synods and councils are to handle and conclude 
nothing but that which is ecclesiastical ; and are 
not to intermeddle in civil affairs which concern 
the commonwealth, unless by way of humble peti 
tion in cases extraordinary ; or by way of advice for 


the satisfaction of conscience, if th ey be thereunto 
required by the civil magistrate." Hence, it was 
triumphantly concluded, this resolution is con 
demned ; and this by men of sound, logical minds ! 
It was plainly evident, nevertheless, that they per 
ceived not at all their perfectly gratuitous assump 
tion, that the resolution aimed to settle a political 
question, and was therefore intermeddling, in the 
sense of the Confession. But now, this was the 
very point in dispute. To declare our obligations 
to obey magistrates, to be loyal, " so far as in us 
lies," to support our Government is this a political 
question ? Or is it of the very highest morality ? 
None of these brethren ever thought love of coun 
try, love to civil officers, obedience to all their law 
ful commands, belonged to the domain prohibited 
to the church ; for they all know that a large part 
of the church s duty is to inculcate these virtues, 
and also to censure for their neglect. When Peter 
(1st Ep., chap, ii, 13, 14) commanded, " Submit 
yourselyes to every ordinance of man, for the Lord s 
sake ; whether it be to the king, as supreme ; or 
unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him 
for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise 
of them that do well," did he intermeddle with 
civil affairs ? What is intermeddling ? It is, lit 
erally and truly, coming in between another person 


or party and his proper duty or business, so as to 
hinder or obstruct its performance. Or, as the 
Assembly s able and conclusive answer to the pro 
test puts it, did Christ intermeddle when he said, 
" Eender to Ceesar the things that are Caesar s " ? 

Besides, this citation from the Confession bears 
against the protestants in another way : Synods are 
not to intermeddle, " unless by way of humble peti 
tion in cases extraordinary." I suppose ours is a 
case extraordinary ; and yet the Assembly did not 
go the length even of humble petition to the civil 
powers. Some brethren, indeed, of the opposition, 
did telegraph to Attorney-General Bates, to get his 
counsel and aid in support of their cause ; but the 
Assembly kept within their own proper sphere, and 
did not even give a side glance to the peculiar 
province of the civil magistrate. Let the opponents 
of the resolution prove that it intermeddles in civil 
affairs, and their business is concluded ; but a 
sweeping petitio principii is not a logical finality. 

It is sometimes important in controversy (and 
there are people who think it very important) to as 
certain what is the precise point in dispute. In the 
present case, the Spring resolution was not the point. 
The doctrine it contains was, with very nearly perfect 
unanimity, considered true and proper abstractly 
sound and good and all men approved it. Dr. 


Hodge, the author of the protest, and indisputably 
the ablest debater in the opposition, uses very strong 
language : " We make this protest, not because we 
do not acknowledge loyalty to our country to be a 
moral and religious duty, according to the word of 
God, which requires us to be subject to the powers 
that be ; nor because we deny the right of the As 
sembly to enjoin that and all other like duties on 
the ministers and churches under its care ; but be 
cause we deny the right of the General Assembly 
to decide the political question, to what govern 
ment the allegiance of Presbyterians, as citizens, 
is due, and its right to make that decision a condi 
tion of membership in our church." (See Min., p. 
339.) This last, as to a condition of membership, 
we have seen is utterly a mistake : nothing of the 
kind. is contained in the resolution, and, of course, 
nothing of the kind is inferable from it. But here 
is a full acknowledgment of the right and authority 
of a church court to teach and enforce all duties of 
loyalty as moral and religious. Again he says 
(Princeton Eeview, 1861, p. 559) : "We believe 
the course of the South, in its attempt to break up 
our glorious Union, is unreasonable, ungrateful, and 
wicked. We believe that the war in which the 
Government is now engaged is entirely righteous, 
necessary for the preservation of our existence as a 


nation, and for the security of the rights, liberty, 
and well being, not only of this generation, but of 
generations yet unborn. We believe that it is the 
duty of every man in these United States to do all 
that in him lies to strengthen, sustain, and en 
courage the Federal Government in the conflict in 
which it is now engaged/ This is extremely sat 
isfactory. What, then, is wrong ? What is the 
point in controversy ? If we succeed in answering 
this question, we shall probably succeed in expos 
ing the fallacy. The first step, according to old 
Walton, toward cooking a sturgeon, is to catch 
him. Where is he ? Just here : " The General 
Assembly has no right to decide the political ques 
tion, to what Government the allegiance of Presby 
terians, as citizens, is due." 

In like manner, the paper adopted by the Synod 
of Kentucky, which was drawn up by Dr. K. J. 
Breckinridge, the strongest and most heroic de 
fender of the right on these questions, asserts " the 
subject matter of the action of the Assembly, in 
the premises, being purely political, was incompe 
tent to a spiritual court. Undoubtedly it was in 
competent to the Assembly, as a spiritual court, to 
require or to advise acts of disobedience to actual 
governments by those under the power of those gov 


In like manner, the Presbytery of Louisville 
says : " The assumption of power to determine 
questions of political allegiance is directly contrary 
to the teachings of Christ and his apostles, who 
uniformly enjoin obedience to Caasar as a Christian 
duty, but abstain from determining as between the 
claims of rival Caesars to the allegiance of Chris 

Two points, undoubtedly, are taken by these 
gentlemen : 1st. That the question involved in the 
Spring resolutions is purely political, as contradis 
tinguished from moral and religious ; viz., to which 
of two governments Presbyterians owe allegiance. 

2d. That the church has no right and power to 
decide this question. 

Their argument, logically stated, is thus : 

The decision of a question purely political, is 
not within the church s power. 

But the Spring resolutions are a decision of a 
question purely political : 

Therefore, the Spring resolutions are not within 
the church s power. 

We concede the major we admit that purely 
political questions lie without the sphere of church 
authority. The battle field, therefore, is the minor 
premise, and, as it is an affirmative proposition, the 


onus probandi lies upon those who claim the con 
clusion ; and we shall certainly not yield it to them 
until they may and shall have proved that this is a 
purely political matter. This has been attempted, 
especially in their protest and its defence in the 
Princeton Keview. And the first response we 
make is an ad hominem to that distintinguished 
and able advocate. In the number for July, 1S62, 
p. 515, he says : " We remarked on the floor of the 
last Assembly, that we would cheerfully vote for 
Dr. Spring s resolutions, if introduced into the 
Synod of New Jersey, although constrained to vote 
against them, as the decisions of the Assembly. 
Those resolutions declare it to be the duty of our 
Southern brethren to maintain the integrity of the 
Union, and to sustain the General Government." 
And is it not the duty of our Jersey brethren to 
sustain the General Government ? Are there no dis 
ciples of Calhoun in that Synod ? If the Spring 
resolutions contain a political question in the As 
sembly, why not in the Synod ? Is there no branch 
of the Knights of the Golden Circle in New Jersey ? 
in Pennsylvania ? in Ohio ? in Indiana ? in Mary 
land ? Why not refuse to vote for the resolutions 
in these localities, for the benefit of the band sworn 
to assassinate Abraham Lincoln ? 

2. Another special ad hominem. The Keview 



lays great stress on the representation in fact pres 
ent in the Assembly. The protest says : " It was, 
in our judgment, unfair to entertain and decide such 
a momentous question, when the great majority of 
our Southern Presbyterians were, from necessity, 
unrepresented in this body." To this the Assem 
bly responds : " We need only reply, that the roll 
of this Assembly shows delegates from Virginia, 
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louis 
iana, and Texas. All might have been easily 
represented." But the Princeton Review (1862, 
p. 516) says : " The Assembly of 1861, represent 
ing the South as well as the North, did decide a 


grave political question. The Assembly of 1862, 
representing only the loyal States, decided no such 
question, but simply enjoined a duty, which binds 
all for whom the Assembly acted, no matter how 
that political question may be decided." We leave 
these two to face one another on the line of contra 
diction, with the remark, that in the Assembly of 
1861, there were forty-one, or, omitting six in 
foreign lands, thirty-five Presbyteries unrepresent 
ed ; and in that of 1862, sixty-seven, out of one 
hundred and sixty-seven, or, omitting six in 
foreign countries, sixty-one. Surely it is not in 
tended to affirm the doctrine, that Presbyteries 
not represented through their own delinquency 
have ground of complaint in this fact ; or that the 


action of the Assembly properly affects only those 
represented. Can they take advantage of their own 
wrong ? 

3. The Eeview admits (1861, p. 542) the 
point in debate : " Under these circumstances the 
General Assembly was called upon to take sides. 
This had been an easy and obvious duty, if all Pres 
byterians represented in the Assembly, and whose 
organ it was, had been of one mind on the subject. 
But, alas ! this was not so." And why was it not 
so ? Was it the fault of the 156 ayes or of the 66 
noes ? Yes, it is easy to decide when all are of one 
mind ; but if a minority dissent and steadfastly 
hold their position, must the majority succumb, and 
waive their duty, and their rights forego ? This is 
Calhounism Davisism, of the most recent stamp. 
Mr. Jefferson Davis, in his message in April, 1861, 
says : " And so utterly have the principles of the 
Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind, 
that in the inaugural address delivered by Presi 
dent Lincoln in March last, he asserts, as an axiom 
which he plainly deems to be undeniable, that the 
theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases 
the majority shall govern." (Reb. Eec., vol. i, 
Doc., p. 168.) Here is the aristocratic idea which 
the Constitution of the United States is bound to 
put down when, it guarantees to every State a re- 


publican form of government. Now, are we to have 
aristocracy also in the church, and must minorities 
govern ? If South Carolina chooses to bo in the 
Assembly, by her commissioners, then the majority 
may govern, unless South Carolina should happen 
to differ in opinion from the rest. Then and in that 
case the minority must govern. And our brethren 
must either admit this, or grant the right of seces 
sion in the church. Why were not the Southern 
Presbyteries in the last two Assemblies ? Because 
they did not choose to be where they could not con 
trol by majorities or minorities. Was it not no 
torious at Indianapolis and at Rochester, that the 
Southern Presbyteries were then preparing to se 
cede ? Why, the Princeton Eeview substantially 
admits the fact, (See p. 556, 1861.) Must the 
Northern and Western Presbyteries wait until the 
Southern choose to come up ? Here is schism, and 
the right is claimed to secede at pleasure ; and, as 
was before said, they have exercised the reserved 
right. In view of these facts, it is worse than idle 
for our brethren to dirge out jeremiads prophetic 
over the divisions which the Spring resolutions will 
produce. Who was it that exercised the Bright of 
secession ? When was it ? Undeniably, before the 
Assembly of 1861 met, South Carolina seceded de 
facto from the Presbyterian Church. 


4. Both the Kentucky Synod s paper and the 
Presbyterian Keview assume that the Presbyteri 
ans in the South must either be absent from the 
Assembly, and not pray for the United States Gov 
ernment, or be tried for treason and hung. Poor, 
unfortunate men ! And this wicked General As 
sembly and that cruel and hard-hearted Father 
Spring shut them up to the dire alternative of 
schism or the gallows. These thoughts pervaded 
all the discussions. Oh ! this cruel resolution. 
Brethren ! spare your sympathy and tears. These 
Southern Presbyterians are either laughing at your 
simplicity, or pitying your stupidity. 

For, first, it is notorious that they held the 
controlling power in their hands. I could name 
half a dozen of Presbyterian ministers who could 
have arrested the secession, if they had seen fit. 
Notoriously, the Presbyterian ministers of the 
South were the leading spirits of the rebellion. It 
could not have been started without them. That 
stupendous victory, won by ten thousand of the 
unconquerable chivalry, over Eobert Anderson and 
his seventy-two half-starved soldiers, after thirty-six 
hours of heavy cannonading, could never have been 
achieved but for the encouraging shouts of Rev. 
James H. Thornwell, D.D., and Rev. Benjamin ,./ 
M. Palmer, D.D. 

But, secondly, even in the Border States, the 


Presbyterian ministers alone, if they had had a 
moiety of the heroic, martyr spirit of Eobert J. 
Breckinridge ; could have shut up the sluices of 
treason and turned the battle from the gates. 
All that was needed was to present a solid front, 
and the demon spirit would have cowered before 
them, and slunk back to his own den. Had my 
beloved brother Dr. White and his twelve Union el 
ders stood firmly together, all the demons of pan 
demonium and Charleston too could not have driven 
them from Kockbridge county, and forced treason 
and rebellion on a people who had voted more than 
ten to one in favor of the Union candidates for the 

But, thirdly, it were better to die a martyr to 
religious liberty and the oaths they had taken to 
support the Constitution of the United States, 
than to be dragooned into treason, perjury, and 
rebellion. Posterity will know who are more re- 
spected and esteemed in history, Dr. Breckinridge 
or Dr. Palmer. The newspapers report that 
Breckinridge has been seized by the guerilla bands : 
be it so ; they cannot conquer him, and they dare 
not hang him. God is his shield and buckler. 
The assassin s dagger cannot reach those whom 
Divine power would protect. Kentucky and Ten 
nessee have a pledge of their ultimate redemption 
in the unconquerable spirit of such heroic men. 


One other point of weakness in the minor pre 
mise is the fact, admitted too by the very men 
whose argument it destroys, that war was begun on 
Fort Sumter at half past four o clock on the morning 
of Friday, April 13th ; that the first glorious victory 
of secession first except by false syllogisms had 
occurred, on the 15th, when the fort surrendered ; 
that the victorious general, all hanging over with lau 
rel, and a great army in his train, was on his march 
for Washington, with the avowed purpose of captur 
ing that city. On the 10th of May, nineteen days 
before the adoption of the obnoxious resolutions, 
Major-General E. E. Lee was ordered by the rebel 
secretary to the command of the army in Virginia. 
In short, secession had, as its nature required, even 
tuated in rebellion and civil war. Now the gentle^ 
men admit (see protest) that " loyalty to our coun 
try is a moral and religious duty/ that treason 
and perjury are sins, and that it is the duty of the 
Assembly to bear witness against sins of all kinds. 
It is notoriously untrue, therefore, that the resolu 
tion is political. Its drift and purport, and design 
and end and object, is to rebuke the bloody spirit 
of war then waging, and the treason which generated 
that war. The minor premise is glaringly false, and; 
the argument no argument at all ; but a most 
bloody fallacy. 



THE man who stands on the locomotive ; lever in 
hand, governs the engine. His management of it 
is a government. The two balls, the levers, the 
pins, joints, &e., which regulate the steam upon the 
engine in the mint, at the factory, the grist mill, are 
called a governor, and this regulating influence is a 
government. The management of a gang of labor 
ers on the turnpike, the ruling influence over a squad 
of soldiers, of policemen, of children in a school, is a 
government. The management of religious matters 
in a church, and of civil matters in a state, is a gov 
ernment. Now this infinite variety of meanings 
must be kept in view when we say the Southern 
rebellion is not a government it has not resulted 
in a government. Virginia, South Carolina, Penn 
sylvania is not a government is not a sovereign 
power is not a nation. We speak of the Govern 
ment of the United States, and the Government of 


Pennsylvania ; but by the former we mean very 
differently from the latter : this is not a power in 
the sense of the Bible, that is, a power supreme. In 
short, analogous distinctions exist here to those 
pointed out in Chap. IV., in regard to sovereignty. 
The phrase United States Government has a clear 
and well defined meaning the world over. All na 
tions understand it as designating an independent, 
sovereign power, having all the rights, privileges, 
prerogatives of absolute supremacy ; there is no 
power above it ; it is amenable to none but God. 
None can dictate law to it or call it to account, but 
for violations of international law ; and that only by 
war. Now, in this highest sense, I deny the propo 
sition that the Confederate States of America, so 
self-named, the C. S. A., is a government, and 
that any State is a government. (See Chaps. VI. 
and VII.) The converse of this proposition is the fal 
lacy of fallacies on this whole subject, and it per 
vades the entire argumentations of those who oppose 
the Spring resolutions : it is a petitio principii. 

The protest (see Min. 1861, p. 339) states it 
thus : " We deny the right of the General Assem 
bly to decide the political question, to what govern 
ment the allegiance of Presbyterians, as citizens, is 
due/ i. e., two governments, viz., the United States 
on the one hand, and the State of South Carolina,, 


or the C. S. A., on the other. Now the question is, 
to which of the two is that allegiance due ? 

Again, same page, " The question is whether 
the allegiance of our citizens is primarily due to the 
State or to the Union." Here are tioo governments 
claiming allegiance or, as Lord Coke defines alle 
giance, " the highest and greatest obligation of duty 
and obedience that can be." Allegiance to two, 
therefore, is impossible is an absurdity is incon 
ceivable : no man can serve two masters. 

On the next page, the resolution, they say, 
" puts into the mouths of all represented in this 
body a declaration of loyalty and allegiance to the 
Union and to the Federal Government. But such 
a declaration, made by our members residing in what 
are called the seceding States, is treasonable." 
Treason is levying war against the government of 
one s country, or giving aid and comfort to an ene 
my carrying on war against one s country. If, then, 
it is treasonable to profess fealty to the United 
States, the treason must be against another govern 
ment the C. S. A. Here for the third time is the 
assumption that the rebellion is a government a 
supreme, sovereign power. 

On the preceding page there is another in 
stance : " A man may conscientiously believe that 
he owes allegiance to one government or another." 


Two supreme, sovereign powers are everywhere im 

5th Case. (See Pr. Eev. for 1861, p. 558.) 
" But suppose there is a difference of conscien 
tious conviction among the members of the church 
as to the government to which their allegiance is 
due, what is the province of the church in that 
case ?" Here again we have the idea of two su 
preme sovereignties claiming allegiance. Though 
not necessary to my logic, I stop to remark, that 
the exemplifications adduced by way of argument 
are entirely inapplicable. The question between 
the houses of York and Lancaster, between Charles 
I and the Parliament, between Orange and the 
Stuarts, and about the Salic law in Spain, were not 
at all questions of two supreme governments, but 
simply which of two was the head of the one sover 
eignty of England or of Spain ; mere questions of 

6. (do., p. 562.) " Is not South Carolina a gov 
ernment ? Are not Georgia, Alabama, Virginia 
commonwealths ? " These brethren do not pre 
sume to say that the Assembly did not decide the 
question whether the allegiance of Presbyterians as 
citizens is due primarily to the several States to 
which they belong, or to the United States. The 
several States have constitutions and laws which 


their citizens are sworn to support and obey. They 
are recognized in the Constitution and laws of the 
United States, by the Federal Government, and by 
all the nations of the earth. They are established, 
legitimate governments, to which allegiance, su 
preme or subordinate, is due. The answer, there 
fore, entirely ignores the real question in dispute. 
Its authors could not, of course, maintain that 
there was no difference of opinion among Presbyte 
rians as to which of these governments, the State or 
Federal, they owe supreme allegiance. It is not 
correct, therefore, for them to say that the " As 
sembly has not determined, as between conflicting 
governments, to which our allegiance is due." This 
is the very thing they did decide. The Government 
of South Carolina is in conflict with the Govern 
ment of the United States ; and the Assembly de 
cided that Presbyterians in that State, and every 
where else in this country, are under obligations to 
strengthen, support, and encourage the Federal 

Observe here the gratuitous assumption that 
the Assembly decided against fealty to the State 
Governments. There is, however, no reference at 
all to State authorities in the resolutions ; nor did 
they express the least doubt as to the obligations 
to the States constitutions and laws, under the 


United States Constitution and laws. Had the 
question of loyalty to the States constitutions 
been up, there was not, probably, a single member 
of the body who would have hesitated a moment in 
giving an affirmative answer. Everybody knows 
that the Assembly would urge, as a moral duty, 
obedience to all legitimate State authority. But, 
as this idea was not before the house at all, it is 
more than illogical to assume that it was decided. 
It was, however, indispensable to their argument 
to have two governments to choose between, and 
they extemporize one out of a State, at the very 
moment when they admit that the State is not a 
government, has not a right to supreme allegiance, 
is not a power. The Government of South Carolina 
is in conflict with the Government of the United 
States, and the Assembly decided between them 
for the Presbyterian people. Header ! don t you 
see the false assumption that South Carolina is a 
supreme, sovereign power ? 

We must add, that the affirmation that all the 
nations of the earth recognize the States as sepa 
rate governments, is both equivocal and untrue : 
equivocal, because it is doubtful, from the face of 
the sentence, whether it means a recognition of 
their existence as subordinate portions of the 
United States of America, or as independent 


States ; but in both senses it is untrue. No na 
tion recognizes, in any legal way at all, any State 
separately. No man is known in Europe, or any 
other quarter of the globe, as a citizen of New 
Jersey, of Pennsylvania ; but only as a citizen of 
the United States, resident in New Jersey, Penn 
sylvania, &c. No foreigner is ever naturalized a 
citizen of a particular State. No citizen travelling 
abroad ever applies to the consul of New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, &c., for protection. But we must 

The purpose logical for which this quotation is 
now made is perfectly accomplished ; viz., to show 
that Dr. Hodge and friends do recognize the exist 
ence of two governments the United States and 
the Confederate States of America. If the rebels 
could get as distinct a recognition from France and 
England, they would exult in the accomplishment 
of their secession and the establishment of their 

7. I shall quote but one other case : The paper 
of the Kentucky Synod makes the same acknowl 
edgment. It complains that the Assembly en 
couraged the people " to disregard the hostile 
governments which had been established over 
them, and, in defiance of actual authority of those 
governments, to pray for their overthrow. In the 


judgment of a large minority of the Assembly, and 
of multitudes in the church, the subject matter of 
the action of the Assembly, being purely political, 
was incompetent to a spiritual court. Undoubtedly 
it was incompetent to the Assembly, as a spiritual 
court, to require or to advise acts of disobedience to 
actual governments by those under the power of 
those governments." 

Here again, mark the full and distinct recogni 
tion of the independent sovereignty of the Confed 
erate States of America. They are " actual gov 
ernments established over the people" "those under 
the power of those governments." And this actual 
power is not an unlawful usurpation, but by actual 
AUTHORITY. Clearly, here is an acknowledgment 
of the Confederate States of America, and all the 
rebel States, as legitimate governments, having 
actual power and authority. My position is unde 
niably established ; viz., that this ill-starred logic, 
all along, lays down as the basis of its argumenta 
tion and the corner stone of their system, the false 
position that the Confederate States of America is 
a supreme, sovereign government, to which the peo 
ple of the South are bound to swear and maintain 
allegiance ; i. e., " the highest and greatest obliga 
tion of duty and obedience that can be," as Coke 
defines it, is due to the Confederate States of 


Moreover, the Princeton Eeview admits the sev 
eral States in rebellion to be governments. " Is 
not South Carolina a government ? Are not 
Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, commonwealths ? " 
Affirmative answer is indispensable to his argu 
ment ; but this we cannot concede. True, in one 
sense, Virginia is a commonwealth ; but so, Paul 
says (Eph. ii, 12), is the church of God "the 
commonwealth of Israel." But will Dr. Hodge 
therefore affirm that the church is an independent, 
sovereign state, having Divine right to enforce civil 
allegiance from all within its bounds ? South 
Carolina is a government, but only within the 
sphere marked out in her own constitution and 
that of the United States. This the Beview ex 
pressly admits, in the very same paragraph : " They 
are established, legitimate governments, to which 
allegiance, supreme or subordinate, is due/ Why 
say supreme ? Because this is essential to his 
argument. But then it is notoriously untrue that 
the State Governments are supreme. Jefferson 
Davis had to blush to the lugs when he asserted 
this doctrine, and proved it by citing the second 
article of the Confederation, which expressly denies 
it and asserts the contrary.* No wonder, then, that 
the amiable and modest Eeview adds, " or subordi- 

* See Appendix. 


note" This is true, but by no means justifies the 
supreme, which is notoriously untrue, but indis 
pensable to be assumed in his argument. Here 
again we have the equivocal middle true in one 
sense, false in another, and this other a sine qua non 
of the argument ; which, therefore, is not an argu 
ment, but only a plausible sophism. 

Thus our brethren acknowledge and declare the 
sovereignty and independence of the Southern re 
bellion ! 

But again, astounding as is this annunciation, 
they go much farther ; they decide a PURELY PO 
LITICAL question. 

Toward the support of this allegation, remark, 
1. The question whether a given people is a sover 
eign, independent nation, is surely purely political. 
It belongs to the very highest class of politics 
the politics of nations. It is a question incapable 
of decision by any one nation. Is Liberia a nation ? 
Does it stand, in the view of the world, an inde 
pendent, sovereign power ? Has it the right to 
declare war, conclude peace, coin money, make 
treaties, &c., &c. ? Is not this political ? Can 
any but the nations of the world decide it ? Does 
it not regard political relations solely ? Most as 
suredly, the question of national sovereignty and 
independence lies in the higher regions of politics. 


It is not a question of morality simply, and of reli 
gion ; for the inhabitants of that region have long 
lived there under moral law and religious influences. 
They have long had churches and schools, and social 
order, and a government acknowledging itself sub 
ordinate to some other power. Now, is not the 
question of Liberian independence purely politi 
cal ? Did our Government suppose itself inter 
meddling with morals and religion when it acknow 
ledged the independent sovereignty of Liberia ? 
Well, then 

2. Our brethren, in affirming that the General 
Assembly decided, as between the two sovereign 
governments, the United States of America and the 
Confederate States of America, to which of the two 
Presbyterians owe allegiance, did decide, first, that 
the Confederate States of America is a supreme, 
sovereign power. It takes two to make a bargain ; 
and it takes two to make a choice. There is no 
choice possible, where there is but one object to 
choose between. Hobson s choice is simply no 
choice. " There s the horse," says John ; " you 
may choose out of my stable ; but your choice is 
limited to Dick." Before our brethren can make 
us decide, for Presbyterians, to which of two gov 
ernments they owe " the highest and greatest obli 
gation of duty and obedience that can be," they 


must of necessity a logical necessity, absolute and 
inevitable present before us at least two objects of 
choice. This they have done in admitting the 
Confederate States of America to be a supreme, sov 
ereign power. 

But in doing this they have decided the highest 
purely political question. They have done precisely 
the thing which they charged us with doing. " They 
have digged a pit before me, into the midst whereof 
they have fallen themselves." 




THE following paper, presented by Kev. K. J. 
Breckinridge, D.D., was adopted by a vote of 206 
yeas and 20 nays, after full and extended discussion. 
It may be proper to state that of the twenty nays, all 
but five qualified their votes by sundry explanations 
in the form of dissents or protest ; so that really 
there are on the record but five bold, unqualified 
negatives. The paper follows (see Minutes, 1862, 
p. 624) : 

" The General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, now in 
session at Columbus, in the State of Ohio, consid 
ering the unhappy condition of the country in the 
midst of a bloody civil war, and of the church, agi 
tated everywhere, divided in sentiment in many 
places, and openly assailed by schism in a large sec- 


tion of it ; considering, also, the duty which this 
chief tribunal, met in the name and by the author 
ity of the glorified Saviour of sinners, who is also the 
Sovereign Kuler of all things, owes to him our Head 
and Lord, and to his flock committed to our charge, 
and to the people whom we are commissioned to 
evangelize, and to the civil authorities who exist by 
his appointment ; do hereby, in this deliverance, 
give utterance to our solemn convictions and our 
deliberate judgment touching the matters herein 
set forth, that they may serve for the guidance of 
all over whom the Lord Christ has given us any 
office of instruction, or any power of government. 

" I. Peace is amongst the very highest temporal 
blessings of the church, as well as of all mankind ; 
and public order is one of the first necessities of the 
spiritual as well as of the civil commonwealth. 
Peace has been wickedly superseded by war, in its 
worst form, throughout the whole land, and public 
order has been wickedly superseded by rebellion, 
anarchy, and violence, in the whole southern portion 
of the Union. All this has been brought to pass in 
a disloyal and traitorous attempt to overthrow the 
National Government by military force, and to di 
vide the nation, contrary to the wishes of the im 
mense majority of the people of the nation, and 
without satisfactory evidence that the majority of 


the people, in whom the local sovereignty resided, 
even in the States which revolted, ever authorized 
any such proceeding, or ever approved the fraud and 
violence by which this horrible treason has achieved 
whatever success it has had. This whole treason, 
rebellion, anarchy, fraud, and violence is utterly con 
trary to the dictates of natural religion and moral 
ity, and is plainly condemned by the revealed will 
of God. It is the clear and solemn duty of the 
National Government to preserve, at whatever cost, 
the National Union and Constitution, to maintain 
the laws in their supremacy, to crush force by force, 
and to restore the reign of public order and peace 
to the entire nation, by whatever lawful means 
are necessary thereunto. And it is the bounden 
duty of all people who compose this great nation, 
each one in his several place and degree, to uphold 
the Federal Government, and every State Govern 
ment, and all persons in authority, whether civil or 
military, in all their lawful and proper acts, unto 
the end hereinbefore set forth. 

"II. The Church of Christ has no authority from 
him to make rebellion, or to counsel treason, or to 
favor anarchy in any case whatever. On the con 
trary, every follower of Christ has the personal liberty 
bestowed on him by Christ, to submit, for the sake 
of Christ, according: to his own conscientious sense 


of duty, to whatever government, however bad, tin 
der which his lot may be cast. But while patient 
suffering for Christ s sake can never be sinful, trea 
son, rebellion, and anarchy may be sinful most 
generally, perhaps, are sinful ; and, probably, are 
always and necessarily sinful, in all free countries, 
where the power to change the government by 
voting, in the place of force, exists as a common 
right constitutionally secured to the people who are 
sovereign. If, in any case, treason, rebellion, and 
anarchy can possibly be sinful, they are so in the 
case now desolating large portions of this nation 
and laying waste great numbers of Christian con 
gregations, and fatally obstructing every good word 
and work to those regions. To the Christian people, 
scattered throughout those unfortunate regions, and 
who have been left of God to have any hand in 
bringing on these terrible calamities, we earnestly 
address words of exhortation and rebuke, as unto 
brethren who have sinned exceedingly, and whom 
God calls to repentance by fearful judgments. To 
those in like circumstances who are not chargeable 
with the sins which have brought such calamities 
upon the land, but who have chosen, in the exercise 
of their Christian liberty, to stand in their lot and 
suffer, we address words of affectionate sympathy, 
praying God to bring them off conquerors. To 


those in like circumstances, who have taken their 
lives in their hands and risked all for their country, 
and for conscience* sake, we say we love such with 
all our heart, and bless God such witnesses were, 
found in the time of thick darkness. We fear, and 
we record it with great grief, that the Church of 
God, and the Christian people, to a great extent 
and throughout all the revolted States, have done 
many things that ought not to have "been done, and 
have left undone much that ought to have been 
done, in this time of trial, rebuke, and blasphemy ; 
but concerning the wide schism which is reported 
to have occurred in many Southern Synods, this 
Assembly will take no action at this time. It de 
clares, however, its fixed purpose, under all possible 
circumstances, to labor for the extension and the 
permanent maintenance of the church under its 
care, in every part of the United States. Schism, 
so far as it may exist, we hope to see healed. If 
that cannot be, it will be disregarded. 

" III. We record our gratitude to God for the 
prevailing unity of sentiment and general internal 
peace which have characterized the church in the 
States that have not revolted, embracing a great 
majority of the ministers, congregations, and people 
under our care. It may still be called, with empha 
sis, a loyal, orthodox, and pious church ; and all its 


acts and works indicate its right to a title so noble. 
Let it strive for Divine grace to maintain that good 
report. In some respects the interests of the Church 
of God are very different from those of all civil insti 
tutions. Whatever may befall this or any other 
nation, the Church of Christ must abide on earth, 
triumphant even over the gates of hell. It is, there 
fore, of supreme importance that the church should 
guard itself from internal alienations and divisions, 
founded upon questions and interests that are ex 
ternal as to her, and which ought not by their 
necessary workings to cause her fate to depend on 
the fate of things less important and less enduring 
than herself. Disturbers of the church ought not 
to be allowed ; especially disturbers of the church 
in States that never revolted, or that have been 
cleared of armed rebels ; disturbers who, under 
many false pretexts, may promote discontent, dis 
loyalty, and general alienation, tending to the un 
settling of ministers, to local schisms, and to mani 
fold trouble. Let a spirit of quietness, of mutual 
forbearance, and of ready obedience to authority, 
both civil and ecclesiastical, illustrate the loyalty, the 
orthodoxy, and the piety of the church. It is more 
especially to ministers of the Gospel, and, amongst 
them, particularly to any whose first impressions 
had been, on any account, favorable to the terrible 


military revolution which has been attempted, and 
which God s providence has hitherto so signally re 
buked, that these decisive considerations ought to 
be addressed. And in the name and by the author 
ity of the Lord Jesus, we earnestly exhort all who 
love God or fear his wrath to turn a deaf ear to all 
counsels and* suggestions that tend toward a reac 
tion favorable to disloyalty, .schism, or disturbance, 
either in the church or in the country. There is 
hardly anything more inexcusable connected with 
the frightful conspiracy against which we testify, 
than the conduct of those office bearers and mem 
bers of the church who, although citizens of loyal 
States, and subject to the control of loyal Presby 
teries and Synods, have been faithless to all author 
ity, human and Divine, to which they owed subjec 
tion. Nor should any one to whom this deliverance 
may come fail to bear in mind that it is not only 
their outward conduct concerning which they ought 
to take heed ; but it is also and especially their 
heart, their temper, and their motives, in the sight 
of God, and toward the free and beneficent civil 
government which he has blessed us withal, and to 
ward the spiritual commonwealth to which they 
are subject in the Lord. In all these respects we 
must all give account to God in the great day. And 
it is in view of our own dread responsibility to the 


Judge of quick and dead that we now make this 

On this noble testimony to truth and loyalty I 
have little to say. The reader of this and the 
Spring resolutions will, of course, form his own 
opinion. He will undoubtedly perceive that, in 
comparison, the resolutions are mild and gentle 
a portion of the lager beer of which the German la 
borer testifies, to prove its unintoxicating character, 
that he drank ten gallons and a half of it in one 
day ; and when the judge asked him how he felt, he 
replied, " I feels coote and I shleeps vel ; " and the 
Breckinridge paper is fourth-proof cognac, such as 
lost us the battle of Bull Kun, July 21, 1861. If, 
therefore, the former were objectionable because 
they contained the decision of a political question, a 
fortiori, the latter is much more objectionable. 
This paper calls the secessionists " rebels." Is not 
this deciding a political question ? It affirms " a 
disloyal and traitorous attempt to overthrow the 
National Government by physical force." Is this 
no political question ? It decides on disloyalty and 
treason. " This whole treason, rebellion," &c. 

" It is the bounden duty of all people who corn- 
pose this great nation, each one in his several place 
and degree, to uphold the Federal Government and 


every State Government, and all persons in author 
ity, whether civil or military, in all their lawful arid 
proper acts." This is good mustard : the Spring 
resolutions in comparison are yellow cornmeal in a 
mustard bottle. No man can read the two articles 
without seeing, yea, feeling } that the action of the 
Assembly in 1862 far transcends in expansion, 
nerve, and vigor that of 1861 ; just as it should do 
to correspond with the changed state of ^the country 
at large. The Spring resolutions were opposed by 
sixty- six negatives to a hundred and fifty-six af 
firmatives. Had this paper of 1862 been supported 
by a feeble vote, the Southern secessionists, the cot 
ton lords of Lancashire, and the London Times 
would have raised a shout of victory that would 
have gladdened the hearts of all the enemies of re 
publican government throughout the world. 



THE manner in which this later phrase has been 
used in this discussion, raises the suspicion that it 
is an instrument of error. What does it mean ; and 
how does it become fallacious ? 

De facto is simply in fact practical, actual. 
In the phrase a government de facto, it implies a 
government a power in actual exercise in present 
operation. And the phrase is used for the purpose 
of ignoring the question of legitimacy. I enter a 
cotton mill and inspect the machinery : a gentleman 
takes me round, describes things as we pass on ; 
notices different operators ; gives a hint or a sign 
in one place, an express order in another. He is 
the governor de facto ; whether he is the owner I 
know not ; whether he has a right to direct these 
hands it is no part of my business to ascertain. 

I visit a hospital : a gentleman in regimentals 
returns my salute and conducts me through the 
wards ; permits me to distribute tracts and Testa- 


ments to talk with the sick and wounded. I am 
pleased and retire ; who the gentleman is I know 
not ; whether he has authority to behave thus and 
thus toward me and the invalid, is not a mat 
ter for me to inquire into he is the governor de 

I am sent by my government as an ambassador, 
with letters addressed to his excellency Don Juarez, 
President of the Mexican Kepublic. By the time 
I arrive a revolution has taken place ; Juarez is 
banished, a new regime is inaugurated ; I present 
my credentials and am received, and treat with this 
government de facto, without inquiring into the le 
gitimacy of his authority ; that is a domestic mat 
ter with which I have no concern. 

The French Revolution overthrew the Bour 
bons ; then carne the reign of the people, then Na 
poleon, then Louis the Desired, then Louis Phi 
lippe. But the United States of America have no 
difficulty in recognizing the government de facto, 
and Louis Philippe had to pay indemnities occurring 
under the administration of the preceding enemies 
of his house. 

Various contracts were entered into by the Uni 
ted States in Congress assembled, under the Arti 
cles : will they be binding under the Constitution ? 
This question the fathers did not leave open, fear- 


ing some difficulty about the de facto government ; 
but settled it in the Constitution. 

In all the above changes, and even in the wars of 
the Koses in England, and the conflict between the 
Parliament and the Stuarts, the question never was 
raised, as between two governments, but, admitting 
always that the sovereignty is one and not diverse 
the sole question was wherein whose hands is the 
legitimate right of supreme rule ? 

So in the secession of Absalom, there was no 
dispute about a government de facto. Such a dis 
pute was impossible ; for there were not two gov 
ernments. The sole controversy was about the 
deposit of the one supreme power. Is Absalom 
king, or is David king ? The idea of two supreme 
powers was not conceived as involved in that un 
happy controversy. 

In fact, this question of a government de facto 
is exclusively for a foreign power. It is always de 
cided by a foreign power, and is simply a mode of 
expressing the idea of non-intervention of one na 
tion in the interior concerns of another. Whether 
Louis Napoleon is legitimately in possession of the 
French throne, or Mr. Lincoln of the presidential 
chair, is not a question for England or Spain to de- 
cide. There is no room, therefore, for the de facto 
question in our case ; for there are not two claim- 


ants to the presidential chair. When the United 
States Government shall have been overturned 
when Jefferson Davis shall have ousted all the 
present authorized agents of the people at Wash 
ington, and filled up the offices with the men of 
his own choice ; when he shall have become the 
locum tenens of the White House, and claimant of 
sovereign power ; then, and not till then, can the 
de facto question spring up ; and then the govern 
ments of the world will have no difficulty in recog 
nizing, as our brethren have clone, the de facto 
government of the Confederate States of America. 
The slight change of the United into the Confeder 
ate will not long embarrass the powers of the world. 
But, until Generals Lee and Jackson shall have fin 
ished up their pleasure excursion to Harrisburg and 
Philadelphia, to New York and Boston, and erected 
the abomination that maketh desolate over Faneuil 
Hall and the granite stylus on Bunker Hill, the na 
tions will not be called upon to encounter even this 
trifling embarrassment. 

But our brethren use the de facto in quite an 
other, and, as I must try to show, an illegitimate 
sense the sense which Bull Kun Kussell inaugu 
rated. Whenever a body of people separate and 
set up for themselves, and organize by the appoint 
ment of the officers by them deemed needful for the 


present, they have a government de facto. This, 
if I have been able to comprehend them (and I 
have labored to do so), is their idea. Here permit 
me to use the argument ad absurdum. If this as 
sumption logically leads to grievous absurdities and 
fell ruin, then it must be abandoned as false. Such 
results as these following, must be met : viz., Ab 
salom s was a government pro tempore, and ought 
to have been recognized as a government de facto 
by the nations. He organized his people had all 
the necessary officers in his kingdom had a larger 
number than David he was a legitimate sov 

ereign ! 

Kobin Hood was a supreme and legitimate sov 
ereign. His government was very energetic, and 
displayed many noble qualities. And so, every 
band of highway robbers or horde of pirates consti 
tutes a government de facto f 

Shays rebellion, in Massachusetts, was a thor 
oughly organized company of intelligent, bold, and 
energetic men. 

The whiskey insurrection in western Pennsylva 
nia had less of organization, but they were organ 
ized. They had their squires and their captains, 
then companies and their regiment. So powerful 
and energetic was this government de facto, that 
Washington thought best to order out fourteen 


thousand men to suppress it one fifth of what 
President Lincoln ordered out at first to suppress 
the present insurrection a vastly larger proportion 
than Mr. Lincoln s first levy. 

Dorr s rebellion in Rhode Island was a still bet 
ter organized movement. It included a body of 
legislative, judicial, and executive officers. Surely 
here was a government that ought to have been 
recognized as de facto. 

The Southampton insurrection in Virginia was 
a very formidable affair. A large number of slaves 
associated together in the purlieus of the Dismal 
Swamp : they organized such a government as 
their capacity and circumstances called for. With 
their president at their head, who displayed great 
military and governmental ability, they became a 
terror to all the surrounding country. United 
States troops from Fortress Monroe and marines 
from two United States vessels were sent down to 
aid in suppressing this rising of some two or three 
hundred negroes. l s low, according to the doctrine, 
ISTat. Turner was a legitimate ruler, and his people 
ought to have been recognized as a government de 
facto & nation ! 

But now the reasoning is identical, in all these 
cases, with that by which we are called upon to 
recognize the Confederate States of America as a 


government in fact. We all scout the conclusions, 
and thereby repudiate the premises. Neither Ab 
salom nor Eobin Hood, neither Shays nor Dorr, 
neither Tom the Tinker nor Nat. Turner nor Jef 
ferson Davis is the head of a lawful government. 
Their efforts were, every one, insurrections and re 
bellions to put down a government. 

But it may be said, If there is no recognition 
of them in any sense, how can this war end ? 
How can you treat with them for its termination? 
I would say : As David treated with Absalom and 
his party ; the war is at an end as soon as the 
weapons of rebellion are cast down and the rebels 
return to their place in their country s government. 
"And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people re 
turned from pursuing after Israel : for Joab held 
back the people." " And all Israel fled every one 
to his tent." 

The fallacy, on this point, lies in using the 
word government sometimes in the lower mean 
ing, as when we apply it to the management of a 
squad of soldiers or a school. In this low sense, I 
admit the Confederate States of America to be a 
government ; but the conclusion is deduced in the 
high and proper sense, as concerning a nation a 
supreme, sovereign power. 



UNDOUBTEDLY, there is truth and justice in 
the adage, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to 
God." In Chapter III, on Government, we have 
seen the foundation to "be of Divine authority. If, 
then, civil government is an ordinance of God, how 
can resistance to it become a duty ? If it be a 
solemn and religious duty to submit to the civil 
ruler as to a minister of God, how can rebellion 
ever be justified, and a rebel organization become a 
legitimate, sovereign power ? 

This question is of infinite importance. The 
ease and facility with which sophistry obscures ii 
has made it one of great practical difficulty and 
danger. Upon the youthful mind of Virginia this 
sophistry has accomplished more delusion than, per 
haps, any other. " Didn t our fathers rebel against 
England, throw off their allegiance, assert their in 
dependence, and vindicate it in a seven years war ? 


And is not this their heroism the glory of America ? 
If they did right, can it be wrong for us to follow 
in their footsteps ? They were called rebels, and 
shall we shrink from the finger of scorn and an 
odious name ? " Thus the "boys reasoned ; the 
fathers, many of them, knew not how to answer 
these sophisms, any more than the boys did 
others, who saw the fallacy, gladly glossed it over, 
and led the boys on to slaughter. 

The question before us is, When is rebellion 
justifiable ? If reason could have been brought 
to bear on the question, apart from passion, there 
would have been little difficulty in reaching a just 
and safe conclusion. This, however, could not be : 
passion ruled the fearful hour, and arrayed it in the 
terrors of a bloody conflict, and the boys and the 
sophists drifted to ruin. 

We have seen that power to rule over men is 
God s ; that He has vested it in mankind ; that 
particular individuals can exercise it only by the 
consent of the ruled, expressed no matter how by 
formal vote, by acquiescence, by silent assent ; that 
obedience to ruling authority, thus vested in magis 
trates hands, is obedience to God ; and, vice versa, 
disobedience is rebellion against God. We have 
also seen that tyranny is no part of sovereign 
power wicked, cruel, oppressive, brutal exactions 


have no divine sanction ; that these, persevered in, 
work a forfeiture of the legitimate powers, as in the 
hands of present rulers, and thus open the door for 
rebellion and make it right. 

But the question springs up in our path, Who 
are to judge when and under what circumstances 
this forfeiture occurs ? when the right to rule has 
reverted to the people, whence it came; so that 
they are bound to resume its exercise and place it in 
the hands of other agents ? 

Our answer is, The people not a part, but the 
majority must judge : they feel the oppressive 
burdens, and they only can judge of their weight ; 
but they must judge under a rule, according to 
truth. The rule, for a Christian people, is the 
word of God, and for us, besides, the Constitution 
of our Government. Accordingly, our fathers lay 
the basis of their Declaration on a few simple ele 
ments : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all men are created equal ; that they are en 
dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, 
governments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the governed ; 
that, whenever any form of government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the peo- 


pie to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new 
government, laying its foundations on such princi 
ples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to 
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety 
and happiness." " But when a long train of abuses 
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same ob 
ject, evinces a design to reduce them under abso 
lute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to 
throw off such government, and to provide new 
guards for their future security." 

Here is the doctrine of truth and right. A 
government fails to secure to the people, life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness ; but, on the contrary, 
unrighteously destroys life, rivets the chains of 
bondage upon the people, and turns their happiness 
into gall and wormwood : such rulers have forfeited 
their office, and may of right be hurled down from 
the seats of power. 

A good example we have in the rebellion of the 
ten tribes against the house of David. The reason 
alleged was the heavy taxation under the splendid 
reign of Solomon. The glory of Israel as a kingdom 
was greatly advanced under this great scientific 
king ; but this involved great expense and heavy 
taxation. Upon the accession of Kehoboam, the 
people a majority made a strong remonstrance ; 
they appointed a grand committee of weighty men, 


wlio carried up tlieir complaints and entreated a 
diminution of the taxes. This very reasonable re 
quest was rejected with "insult, according to the 
counsel of the "boys, " the young men which were 
grown up with him." (See 1 Kings, xii.) As 
might have heen expected, the remonstrants became 
revolters, and set up the chairman of their commit 
tee as Idng of the ten or eleven tribes. Eehoboam 
levied an army of one " hundred and eighty thou 
sand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight 
against the house of Israel." But this revolt was 
settled by another method. God sent his prophet 
to the king, saying, " Thus saith the Lord, ye shall 
not go up, nor fight against your brethren the chil 
dren of Israel ; return every man to his house : for 
the thing is from me." You have in the preceding 
chapter the reasons of all this. The grievous idol 
atry of Solomon (ver. 33) caused this revolt : " Be 
cause that they have forsaken me, and have wor 
shipped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, 
Chernosh, the god of the Moabites ; and Milcom, 
the god of the children of Ammon," &c. Therefore 
it was that God commissioned Jeroboam, the son of 
Nebat, to punish the house of David with this re 
bellion. Unfaithfulness to God leads to tyranny 
over men, and thus chastises itself. Yet this Jero 
boam was even worse than Solomon and Eehoboam, 


and all the kings that followed ; so that his name 
became a proverb of malediction for wickedness : 
" Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to 

Thus a new kingdom is a result of rebellion on 
account of the abuse of power by heavy taxation ; 
and the declared purpose to go on and increase in 
definitely the already intolerable burdens of the 
people. This new nation, however, had its origin 
farther back. For their gross idolatry,- which is 
rebellion against their King, the nation of Israel 
were doomed of God to terrible chastisements, be 
ginning in secession, and leading to never-ending 
wars between the nations of Judah and of Israel. 
For more than a thousand years these two powers 
were a scourge and a torment to each other. With 
a border line between them of less than a hundred 
miles, their conflicts were frequent and bloody ; 
their prosperity waned, their existence as separate 
nations was hardly recognized by the other nations, 
nor is there a single circumstance in their history 
to show that the rebellion of Jeroboam, the son of 
Nebat, was anything else but a curse of Heaven to 
punish for sin. That it would have been initiated 
by fearful slaughter, but for special and supernatu 
ral Divine interposition, the record expressly testi 
fies. The army called out by Rehoboam to suppress 


the rebellion, " one hundred and eighty thousand 
men which were warriors/ astonishes us. How 
such a body could be levied in so small a territory 
as the tribes of Judah and Benjamin possessed, it 
is difficult for us to conceive. Their whole territory 
was less than the State of New Jersey, and yet it 
turned out one hundred and eighty thousand men 
of war. Had President Lincoln ordered out at his 
first levy a million and a half, it would still have 
been a less proportion than swelled the armies of 

This rebellion resulted in &n independent sov 
ereignty, but by express Divine command. Such 
command is not to bo expected in modern times. 
If, then, the King of all the earth is about to estab 
lish another power among the nations, His will 
mnst be ascertained in some other way. Kebellion 
open and avowed hostility direct resistance by 
a part of a nation against its government for its 
overthrow and utter subversion, so far as the rebel 
lious portion is concerned is another method of 
ascertaining a divine sanction for a new nation. 
The appeal to arms is an appeal to the Divine Be 
ing the Lord of hosts, the God of battles. When 
our fathers took their cause up to this high tribunal, 
they presented to the world and recited before the 
Supreme Judge the reasons in its support. These 


cover the bulk of their immortal Declaration. They 
allege and prove a forfeiture, by the British crown, 
of all right of supreme sovereignty over these colo 
nies, and affirm a reverting of the same to the 

This is the issue joined, and the Great King and 
the Supreme Judge decided in their favor. And 
now that they have in a seven years contest fought 
out the battle, and beaten down all opposition, 
the world of nations, acquiescing in the decision of 
the Supreme Judge, acknowledges these United 
States to be an independent, sovereign nation. 

Such a movement our Southern people have in 
augurated. Two things, therefore, they are bound 
to prove : 1st, that the sovereign powers vested in 
the United States have been forfeited by a cruel 
and tyrannical abuse, so that " life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness " are no longer possible for the 
Southern people, under the United States Govern- 
ment, but " a long train of abuses and usurpations, 
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a de 
termination to reduce them under absolute despot 
ism : it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off 
such government, and to provide new guards for 
their future security/ 2d. They have to show their 
ability to vindicate sovereignty to themselves by 
arms, until opposition to their rebellion ceases, and 


this nation and the world acknowledges the fact of 
their independent sovereignty. 

As to the first, there is scarcely a pretence 
certainly not the shadow of any evidence that the 
United States Government has ; by tyranny, forfeit 
ed the right to rule. What is the government but 
the Constitution and the agencies it creates to exe 
cute it ? That the country, the whole country, 
North and South, has prospered under it, no man 
pretends to deny not even the most ultra seces 
sionists. To evince the truth of this I cannot do 
better than to cite from Hon. A. H. Stephens s 
speech, delivered in the hall of the House of Repre 
sentatives of Georgia, Nov. 14, 1860, in the pres 
ence of the members and of Hon. Mr. Toombs, and 
in reply to his speech. Not that Mr. Stephens is of 
authority, but because the matter he uttered on the 
point before us is true and defies the gainsayers. He 
responded most triumphantly to Mr. Toombs s objec 
tions in regard to the fishing bounties, the tariff, 
the navigation laws. After confuting him, he pro 
ceeds : " Now, suppose it to be admitted that all 
of these are evils in the system, do they overbal 
ance and outweigh the advantages and great good 
which this same government affords in a thousand 
innumerable ways that cannot be estimated ? Have 
we not at the South, as well as the North, grown 


great, prosperous, and happy under its operation ? 
Has any part of the world ever shown such rapid 
progress in the development of wealth, and all the 
material resources of national power and greatness, 
as the Southern States have under the General Gov 
ernment, notwithstanding all its defects ? " (Keb. 
Eec. I, 222.) * * * " There are defects in our gov 
ernment, errors in administration, and shortcomings 
of many kinds, but in spite of these defects and er 
rors, Georgia has grown to be a great State. * * 
There were many among us in 1850 zealous to go at 
once out of the Union, to disrupt every tie that binds 
us together. Now, do you believe, had that policy 
been carried out at that time, we would have been 
the same great people that we are to-day ? It may 
be that we would, but have you any assurance of that 
fact ? Would you have made the same advance 
ment, improvement, and progress in all that con 
stitutes material wealth and prosperity, that we 
have ? 

""I notice in the Comptroller- General s report, 
that the taxable property of Georgia is $670,000.000 
and upward, an amount not far from double that 
it was in 1850. I think I may venture to say that 
for the last ten years the material wealth of the 
people of Georgia has been nearly, if not quite, 
doubled. The same may be said of our advance iu 


education, and everything that marks our civiliza 
tion. * * * When I look around and see our 
prosperity in everything agriculture, commerce, 
art, science, and every department of education, 
physical and mental, as well as moral advancement, 
and our colleges I think, in the face of such an ex 
hibition, if we can, without the loss of power, or any 
essential right or interest, remain in the Union, it is 
our duty to ourselves and to posterity to let us not 
too readily yield to this temptation do so. Our 
first parents, the great progenitors of the human 
race, were not without a like temptation when in the 
garden of Eden. They were led to believe that 
their condition would be bettered that their eyes 
would be opened and that they would become as 
gods. They in an evil hour yielded instead of 
becoming gods they only saw their own nakedness. 

" I look upon this country, with our institutions, 
as the Eden of the world, the paradise of the uni 
verse. It may be that out of it [the Union] we 
may become greater and more prosperous, but I am 
candid and sincere in telling you that I fear, if we 
rashly evince passion, and, without sufficient cause, 
shall take that step, that instead of becoming great 
er, or more peaceful, prosperous, and happy in- 
stead of becoming gods, we will become demons, and 
at no distant day commence cutting one another s 


Such was the language of the most honest and 
talented Georgian, uttered not two years ago ; who 
would have supposed it possible that in less than 
three months the speaker would have himself be 
come the Vice-President of these demons, and have 
inaugurated this throat-cutting process ! Alas ! 
into this " Eden of the universe " the incarnate 
fiend of secession had already entered, and up to 
this hour, Nov. 1, 1862, tens of thousands of noble 
men have been already offered up as victims at the 
accursed shrine of this Moloch ! 

Mr. Jefferson Davis, in his message of 29th 
April, 1861, is equally explicit in affirming the 
amazing prosperity of the whole South. He says 
[see Eeb. Rec. I, p. 169] : " In the mean time, un 
der the mild and genial climate of the Southern 
States, and the increasing care for the well-being 
and comfort of the laboring classes, dictated alike by 
interest and humanity, the African slaves had aug 
mented in number from about six hundred thousand, 
at the date of the adoption of the constitutional 
compact, to upward of four millions. 

" In a moral and social condition they had been 
elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, 
and civilized agricultural laborers, supplied not only 
with bodily comforts, but with careful religious in 
struction, under the supervision of a superior race. 


Their labor had been so directed as not only to al 
low a gradual and marked amelioration of their con 
dition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of 
square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands 
covered with a prosperous people. Towns and 
cities had sprung into existence, and rapidly in 
creased in wealth and population under the social 
system of the South. 

" The white population of the Southern slave- 
holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 
at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to 
more than 8,500,000 in 1860, and the productions 
of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for 
the full development and continuance of which the 
labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, 
had swollen to an amount which formed nearly 
three fourths of the export of the whole United 
States, and had become absolutely necessary to the 
wants of civilized man." 

Thus we have the testimony of the President 
and the Vice-President of the Confederate States of 
America, in proof of the great prosperity of the 
South, in every respect, under the protecting shield 
of the United States Government. Can any man 
believe that this prosperity accrued under a despotic 
power, so desperately cruel, unjust, and wicked, that 
resistance to it is obedience to God ? On the con- 


trary, this evidence is so conclusive in proof of the 
mildness, equity, and justice of the Government, 
that it is not necessary to proceed farther in support 
of the negative proposition, that the United States 
Government has not, by cruelty and oppression, 
forfeited its right to rule, and become, like George 
III, so despotic as to make resistance to the tyrant 
a duty. The speech of Mr. Stephens was delivered 
in the face of Mr. Toombs and the whole Georgia 
secessionists, and recites such evidences of prosperity 
as were undeniable, and, indeed, as were the boast 
and glory of the whole South, and are so at the 
present hour. The very epithet, KING COTTON, 
proves their own lofty conception of the vastness of 
their resources, the abundance of their wealth, and 
every other element of greatness, prosperity, liberty, 
and happiness. 

Moreover, the idea of a forfeiture of sovereign 
rule and its return to the people in consequence, in 
a system which provides for that return once in 
every four years, is preposterous. Where is the sov 
ereignty, the supreme, active sovereignty lodged ? 
Not in the President ; not in the Congress ; not in 
the judiciary ; not in the army ; not in the navy ; 
but spread all over. Its semblance, indeed, is in 
the President, but not its reality. And if it were, 
the South have had the supreme rule for forty-nine 


out of seventy-two years ; and the North twenty- 
three. Must the sovereignty be forfeited the mo 
ment it falls into Northern hands ? But it has 
never so fallen. Every presidential term it reverts 
to the people not, indeed, to the people of South 
Carolina of Virginia of Pennsylvania as, by a 
bloody fallacy, yet to be exposed, is assumed ; but 
to the PEOPLE of the United States, by whom the 
Government was established. These PEOPLE not 
an insignificant fragment of them but the PEOPLE 
of the United States, then appoint other hands to 
hold the power for a time : how then can it be for 
feited ? The thing is impossible ; and, if you con 
sider its division and partition to the other branches 
of the government inconceivable. Such is the su 
perhuman wisdom involved in this wonderful Consti 
tution. Demons trably evident, therefore, it is, that, 
as forfeiture is impossible, rebellion can never be 
justified. It must always and everywhere be a sin 
against that God who appoints the civil magistrate, 
and enjoins upon all men to obey him as his own 
minister, and assures us that they who " resist shall 
receive to themselves damnation." 

The other point which the revolt must make 
out, before they become a nation, is the demonstra 
tion in blood. If they succeed if they conquer the 
armies of the Republic if they seize our fortresses 


and our capital if they carry on the war begun at 
4 30 of April 12, 1861, by the first gun discharged 
at Fort Sumter, until the United States surrender, 
or cease the defence if they fight on until the stars 
and stripes are everywhere hauled down and trailed 
in the dust, and the Government of the United 
States say, It is enough we yield and own you as a 
nation why, then, it will be even so ; and then 
other nations may and will write the rebellion a suc 
cess, and the result, one more added, by division, to 
the family of nations. Whether this conditional 
shall become an absolute proposition, is yet unre- 
vealed. In the hands of an inscrutable Providence 
the matter rests, and we must await the unrolling 
of His scroll. 

Meanwhile, I beg to add, by way of caution to 
such as may be disposed to intermeddle : Hands off! 
A title by prescription never accrues in the face of 
an adverse claim, or against the commonwealth. 



THE right of a people, when the form of their 
government becomes inefficient, oppressive, or in any 
way unsuitable, to alter and amend, or to abolish it 
and establish a new form, is everywhere admitted 
on this continent. The doctrine is prominent in 
position and in importance in the Declaration. No 
friend of freedom anywhere disputes it. God has 
deposited the supreme sovereignty in the people ; 
and government, which is their agency for its exer 
cise, derives its just powers from their appointment 
or consent. Here we are all agreed. 

But who are the people ? The term is mani 
festly vague ; and must be defined, if we use it in 
reasoning ; or then we must fall into error. For 
want of such definition, we meet with argumentation 
such as this : the people have an undoubted right 
to alter, amend, or abolish their government and 
form a new one ; therefore Virginia can go out of the 
Union and set up for herself, or form a new Union, 


as she pleases. And thus is demonstrated the right 
and power of a part to destroy the building erected 
by the whole. The people formed the Constitution, 
and surely they who made can unmake. That is, 
in one place the people means the citizens of the 
whole United States ; in the other, the people 
means the citizens of Virginia. Now, the former 
is true the people of the United States established 
the Constitution, and can at pleasure alter, amend, 
or abolish it. But it is not difficult to see that 
the whole of a thing and one thirty-fourth or one 
fourth part of that whole are not one and the self 
same thing. The fallacy will be more palpable by 
a full logical statement ; thus : 

The people [of the United States] have a right 
to alter the Constitution [of the United States]. 

But the inhabitants of Virginia are the people 
[of the United States]. 

Therefore, the inhabitants of Virginia have a 
right to alter the Constitution [of the United 

The minor is false and the argument futile, and 
yet it is one of the most popular and efficient of 
these bloody fallacies. I have seen it used often by 
the soundest and clearest logicians in that State. 
I have put in brackets the definitions : read without 


them the fallacy is unseen, but with them the ab 
surdity is at once exposed ; but when wrapped up 
in the loose verbiage of conversation or of stump or 
atory, it passes for overwhelming demonstration. 
" Are we slaves ? Are we tied down under bonds so 
that we can t alter our Constitution ? Are we not 
an independent, sovereign State ? And shall the 
free people of the Old Dominion f the mother of 
States and of statesmen be told that they 
haven t power to amend their Constitution, when 
they please and how they please ? What, then, 
have we gained by the Kevolution, if we are thus 
cramped and held in ? " Thus it is that logic is 
crucified, and the blood of tens of thousands flows 
to amend the syllogism or to atone for its cruci 

A similar error is perpetrated upon the adopt 
ing act of the Virginia Convention. " We, the 
delegates of the people of Virginia, * * * do, 
in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, 
declare and make known, that the powers granted 
under the Constitution, being derived from the peo 
ple of the United States, may be resumed by them 
whensoever the same shall be perverted to their in 
jury or oppression." From these words the infer 
ence is deduced that the people of any one State 
Virginia, ex. gr. may withdraw, and resume the 


powers granted ; i. e., may secede from the Union 
at pleasure. But the inference is a non sequitur; 
for the wording precludes it. The words set forth 
that the powers granted under the Constitution are 
derived from the, people of the United States; sec 
ondly, that they may be resumed by them. By 
whom ? The people of Virginia ? Certainly not ; 
but by them by whom they have been granted 
the people of the United States. Not by apart, a 
portion, a fragment of the grantors, but by the 
whole ; that is, by a majority. Whensoever the 
grantors a majority of them think proper, they 
can withdraw the powers, modify their exercise 
alter and amend the whole instrument and the 
form of government which it establishes. This 
fallacy, whereby the term people, is divided into 
two, and the argument spoiled by the creation of a 
fourth term, is identical with the preceding, in its 
substance. The extent of its range and the devas 
tation it has spread over the land is inversely as 
the extent of space required for the exposure of its 
fallacious character. 



ALLEGIANCE, according to Lord Coke, is " the 
highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedi 
ence that can be." The word is of Latin origin, 
and signifies binding to the government rather 
the king, ruler, emperor. It simply expresses the 
obligation under which the subject lies to obey and 
be faithful to his sovereign ; an obligation resulting 
not at all from his consent or his oath of allegiance, 
but from the providence of God, who placed the 
subject or citizen in that relation which the oath 
recognizes. So obedience, or true allegiance, borne 
to the sovereign is obedience to God. We are, ac 
cordingly, commanded to " submit ourselves to every 
ordinance of man, for the Lord s sake/ " Command 
them to obey magistrates." All commands of the 
king, or sovereign power, not inconsistent with our 
duties to our Creator, are to be obeyed. But, should 
the supreme magistrate order the doing of anything 


contrary to God s law, we ought to obey God rather 
than man we ought to obey the Supreme Lord 
rather than His erring minister, to whom He has 
never given authority to command and enforce obe 
dience in doing a sinful thing. 

Allegiance, it is thus evident, may be due and 
paid to the absolute Supreme and to the subordi 
nate authorities too ; but always having reference 
to the Supreme. Thus submission to the lowest 
civil officer, within his sphere, is obedience to God, 
and every intelligent Christian so views it, and 
thus brings the social, civil, and political duties of 
life within the sphere of morality and religion 
God is in all his thoughts, and he honors Him in 
all his ways. 

But if, in an evil hour, the magistrate order 
what God forbids, the question of allegiance springs 
up. as just stated Whom shall we obey ? To 
which claimant is allegiance due ? Here there is 
no room for hesitancy. But when the claimants 
are fallible men, there may be practical difficulty, 
as in the case discussed in Chapters XVII, XIX, 
and XX. The principle on which the decision 
hangs is a question of authority of moral power. 
Which of the two gives the clearest proof of a 
divine commission ? In military affairs, when the 
first in command falls, the succession to the coni- 


mand is settled by rank. Or, if the major-general 
is killed, and there yet remain two or more briga 
diers, the question is decided by time the oldest 
commission succeeds. In civil affairs, time and 
rank are also elements ; but useful, as before, sim 
ply as indices of authority, pointing out the will of 
the sovereign. 

The question of allegiance, in all cases, resolves 
itself into the question of supreme sovereignty. So 
in the Kevolution, our fathers first inquired into the 
matter of forfeiture, and then pronounced the colo 
nies "absolved from all allegiance to the British 
crown." The supreme sovereignty thus reverted to 
the United States in Congress assembled. Another 
phase, however, of the question turns up in the 
present rebellion, viz. : To which is the first alle 
giance due, to the State or to the United States ? 
An erroneous answer to this dragged Virginia out 
of the Union, and is rapidly converting the glorious 
Old Dominion into an Aceldama. " My first alle 
giance is due to my State." This false assumption, 
I do know, led many a pure and strong-minded man 
into the midst of blood and carnage. Military re 
nown has followed ; but slaughtered thousands is 
the price, and humanity and God will require an 

This proposition " My first allegiance is due 


to my State" is an equivoke. There is a sense in 
which it is true, i. e., chronologically. In the order 
of time it is true, but only in a reduced sense of the 
term allegiance. A correspondent of the New York 
Times, under date " Leesburgh, Va., Nov. 1, 1862," 
gives an excellent case for illustration of this, in re 
lating a conversation with Hon. John Janney, into 
whose mouth he puts these words : " Sir, I am, in 
a word, a Virginian a citizen of a commonwealth 
that had existed as a sovereign organized govern 
ment for two hundred years before the United 
States had a name/ " Such (the correspondent 
proceeds), in a sentence, is the history of the lapse 
of thousands of the best and purest men of Vir 
ginia men who are now the mainstay of the rebel 
lion in the council and in the field." Alas ! this 
record is true, and gives us another example of the 
fearful consequences of a lapse in logic. Where, 
now, lie the errors of this venerable, talented, dis 
tinguished, and patriotic man ? Primarily, in the 
assumption that Virginia was a sovereign State from 
the days of John Smith to the days of Thomas Jef 
ferson. Two mistakes occur here. From the land 
ing at Jamestown to the Declaration, by which the 
United States became the name of a nation, was 
only one hundred and sixty-nine years : this, how 
ever, is of no consequence to the argument. The 


first fatal error is the assumption that Virginia 
was all that time a " sovereign, organized govern 
ment " ; whereas, the radical and essential idea of a 
colony is, that it is a country cultivated by persons 
sent and coming from another country, under the 
care and protection of its government, and subject 
to its rule. Such was Virginia, all along, until 
1776 : it never was a sovereign, but always a subor 
dinate government ; and the most hearty and loyal 
to the British crown of all the colonies. Hence the 
very sobriquet, Old Dominion. (See post., Chap 
ter XV.) The other painful error is the assumption 
that his first allegiance is due to the State, as con 
tradistinguished from the United States. Now, as 
I said, there is a sense in which, subordinately, it is 
true. In order of time before the United States 
Government was established, allegiance, in a limited 
sense, was due the colonial government. But first 
is used here in another sense highest, greatest, 
most imperiously binding. When a man affirms 
his first allegiance to be due to the United States, 
he means, not priority in time, but in degree, in 
magnitude " the highest and greatest obligation 
of duty and obedience that can be." In this sense, 
the first allegiance is due to the United States ; 
the secondary and subordinate duty belongs to the 


This is proved (1) by the nature of the thing. 
Allegiance is essentially the recognition of the su 
preme sovereignty and regulating the conduct in ac 
cordance with its nature. But it has been shown 
that no State in this Union ever was a supreme 
sovereign power : none ever pretended to set up 
such a claim, until Calhoun s rebellion began ; and 
to this day no power on earth has ever recognized 
any State as a supreme, sovereign power. 

(2.) The Constitution explicitly and in the 
most express terms vests and recognizes the supreme 
sovereignty as existing in the United States Gov 
ernment. All the higher attributes of sovereignty 
belong to the United States, and not to the States. 
But, on the contrary, they are denied to the States. 
Art. vi says : " This Constitution and the laws of 
the United States which shall be made in pursu 
ance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall 
be made, under the authority of the United States, 
shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the 
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any 
thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the 
contrary notwithstanding." Now, on their own 
theory of a compact, the States all agreed to this 
article ; and on the theory of civil society being 
formed by voluntary agreement among the individ 
uals composing it. This we have shown in Chapter I 


to be a baseless theory ; but if true, as assumed in 
the convention s letter, this wild scheme of the 
greater allegiance being due to the lesser power, 
can never be defended. For, as the Convention 
says, " Individuals entering into society must give 
up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." This 
was done by the people when they " ordained and 
established this CONSTITUTION for the United States 
of America/ This sixth Article was in it, and was 
accepted by all the States. Accordingly the next 
clause provides that " the Senators and Representa 
tives before mentioned, and the members of the 
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial 
officers, both of the United States and of the several 
States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to 
support this Constitution/ View the matter in 
every possible light, the evidence is conclusive that 
the highest allegiance is due to the highest power ; 
and every officer in every State has voluntarily 
sworn and subscribed to this doctrine, and promised 
" to support this Constitution." 

(3.) But now this teaching of sound philosophy 
and of the Constitution is also the doctrine of the 
Bible. Eom. xiii, " Let every soul be subject to the 
higher powers/ not to the lower, but the higher. 
Is the government of the nation, of the whole na 
tion, established not by the people of a single State, 


but by the PEOPLE of all the States, as the grand 
sovereign is this government a subordinate power ; 
or is it the higher power to which all others are 
subordinate ? 

Again, 1 Pet. ii, 13, 14 : " Submit yourselves 
to every ordinance of man for the Lord s sake ; 
whether it be to the king, as supreme ; or unto gov 
ernors, as unto them that are sent by him for the 
punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them 
that do well." Here the order of subjection is de 
fined the supreme, the subordinate : not vice versa, 
to the subordinate officer first and then to the su 

(4.) The Code of Virginia, published in 1860, pre 
scribes the same order, p. 310. It states, in regard 
to officers elect, that before they enter upon official 
duties, they shall take the anti-duellist s oath ; then 
the oath of allegiance to the United States Consti 
tution ; then the oath of allegiance to the common 
wealth ; then the oath of office. This is the order, 
and if any officer elect presumes to act officially, 
before he has taken these oaths, he is liable to fine 
and imprisonment. 

Here, then, the Code of Virginia prescribes to 
all her officers to take the oath of allegiance to the 
Constitution of the United States first and foremost, 
and then to the State. Yet could tens of thousands 


of these sworn officers scout their oaths at the bid 
ding of the arch traitor, and say with his subordi 
nate, Mr. Thompson, " To Mississippi I owe alle 
giance ; and because she commands me, I owe obe 
dience to the United States. But when she says I 
owe obedience no longer, right or wrong, come weal 
or woe, I stand for my legitimate sovereign ; and 
to disobey her behests is, to my conscience, trea 
son." What a conscience ! that dictates obedi 
ence in the wrong as well as the right ! ! And 
what a reversal of reason, constitutional oath, and 
Scripture ! ! But here is the fallacy ; and nullifi 
cation, secession, treason, and rebellion are the 
bloody results. 

Let us pause a moment, for a glance at this 
new phase of patriotism ; for patriotic these men pro 
fess to be ; and vast numbers of them really believe 
their patriotism is of the true and genuine stamp. 
Let us analyze it. Patriotism is love of one s coun 
try. The word does not occur in the Bible ; hence 
it was alleged in debate last May, the church must 
not act on the subject. I think no one answered 
the argument. Probably it occurred to some, that 
the word grandfather is not found in the Bible, and 
therefore, though I may be under bonds to love my 
grandmother Lois, yet the old gentleman is not en 
titled to a share in my affections. Still it is more 


than probable that the commands to love our neigh 
bor, to obey magistrates, to pay taxes, to live peace 
ably, to do good as we have opportunity, &c., cover 
the essence of patriotism. The question, however, 
springs up, when we define patriotism to be love of 
one s country, What is my country ? Is it the 
spot where I was born ? Now, I confess to local 
attachments. I travelled two hundred and thirty 
miles to preach on the seventy-first anniversary of 
my birth on the farm, and to sleep in the house in 
which I was born. Then and there I enjoyed a 
feast of melancholy but delightful reminiscences: 
and I will not deny that such local attachments 
are patriotic. But, if my soul could be shrivelled 
up to the limits of that farm, or even* to those of 
East Pennsborough Township, Cumberland Coun 
ty, or even to the State of Pennsylvania, instead 
of patriotism, I should call it mean selfishness. 

" Oil ! once again to Freedom s cause return, 
The PATEIOT TELL, the BRUCE of Bannockburn." 

Did Tell bend his bow for Biirglen or for Switzer 
land ? Was his country Uri only, or the whole 
mountain holds of freedom ? Did Bruce fight at 
Bannockburn for Stirlingshire, or for the indepen 
dence of Scotland ? Did the prince of Christian 
patriots draw his sword and fight his first battles 


for his native province, or for the defence of his 
majesty s American colonies ? Was Washington s 
patriotism limited to Virginia ? Was that his 
country which he loved ? Why, then, did he stay 
in the North, and there fight all his battles but 
one ? Why did he refuse to visit Mount Yernon 
and his native State for six long years, and even 
when Arnold was ravaging her coasts ? Clearly 
Washington s country, which he loved, for which 
he fought, for which he forsook Mount Vernon s 
peaceful shades, was not Virginia, but United 
America. His soul was incapable of such com 
pression and condensation as that of the Mississippi 
representative or the great Southern sophist and 

Patriotism ! ay, such as cotton produces, this in 
deed cannot be found in the Bible ; but that love 
of country which the Kevolution elicited, displayed, 
and illustrated that love which discards the nar 
row limits of States and embraces the whole glori 
ous Union that love which took Washington to 
Boston, to Long Island, to New York, to Trenton, 
to White Plains, to Monmouth, to Brandywine, to 
Valley Forge, to Yorktown that heroic, compre 
hensive patriotism may be found in the holy book 
wherever love to our neighbor is enjoined wherever 
the gratitude of the heart is called forth toward any 


one who loveth our nation and hath built us a syn 
agogue. As treason is the highest social and po 
litical crime, so patriotism is the highest social and 
political virtue. 




SECESSION claims it as a right, under the Consti 
tution, for any State to withdraw from the Union at 
pleasure ; and for reason s, if any at all, of which she 
is the sole judge. This is the doctrine, as drawn 
from Mr. Hayne by Mr. Webster, at the commence 
ment of his unanswerable argument on that great 
occasion. The speech is one of the most illustrious 
triumphs of truth and logic over error and sophistry 
that occurs in the history of forensic or parliamen 
tary discussion. It settled the question for almost 
a score of years, and it would have remained settled 
had not fanaticism and demagoguism formed a cor 
rupt coalition, resulting in destruction to the peace 
of a continent I may say the peace of the civil 
ized world. Of course, there is no pretence set up 
here to amend the argument of the great expounder 
and immortal defender of the Constitution. But 


these brief chapters would lack an important link 
in their consistency and force, if this subject were 
omitted. It is proposed, therefore, to examine the 
theory of secession in a variety of aspects ; and, 1st, 
as to its foundation. The State, it is claimed, has 
the sole right to determine whether or not she has 
justifiable cause to secede ; and this is one of the 
reserved rights, which were never given up to the 
General Government. 

But now, this reserved right is notoriously a 
wrong ; if the sentiments of all mankind, civilized 
and savage, are to be regarded. Surely there is no 
principle better and more universally settled in hu 
man judgment, than that a man is not a proper 
judge in his own cause. The converse principle 
subverts society, because it annihilates justice. If 
every man is to be judge in his own case, and 
" takes the law into his own hand," forms of justice 
vanish at once ; public order is impossible ; legisla 
tive, judicial, and executive powers are all reserved 
rights of the individual man. This is the halcyon 
return of the primeval state of insulation and indi 
vidual independence the enchanting savage state 
of primitive humanity. It is the very theory whose 
falsehood and absurdity we have exposed in Chap 
ters II and III. There it is shown that man never 
existed, and never can, in such a state. God not 


only authorized, but organized society, and made 
every man his brother s keeper ; and Cain uttered a 
grievous falsehood when he denied it. " Am I my 
brother s keeper ? " Yes, you are. The supreme 
law of love, the sum of all law, binds every man 
that lives, and there is no escape from its obliga 
tions. His Creator lays them on, and no man can 
throw them off. 

Nor let it be said, True, the individual man is 
not a proper judge in his own case, but the aggre 
gate mass of a body politic are not so liable to err, 
and may with safety and propriety be its own judge 
of its own rights, and consequently of their infrac 
tion, and of their own course in the execution of 
their own sentence. This allegation assumes a 
point whose truth is at least not self-evident that 
aggregate and heterogeneous masses, such as are 
found in every State, are better and safer judges 
than individuals. The contrary seems to me more 
like truth. A community is made up of individuals ; 
and how the selfishness and vicious passions, which 
pervert the judgment of all the individuals, are to be 
eliminated and lost in the aggregation, is not easily 
seen. More readily is it perceived, in the light of 
experience, that the disturbing elements in the way 
of a sound judgment are enhanced by their agglom 
eration, This is often exemplified in the declama- 


tions of the demagogue. If his audience is large, 
he is more likely to arouse their passions, and lead 
them to act contrary to sound discretion, than when 
he addresses a small numher. Besides this natural 
tendency, there is great diminution of moral force 
in a divided responsibility. Men in associate bodies 
do things very often from which every individual 
would shrink were the whole responsibility laid upon 
himself. Many a false and unjust verdict has been 
awarded under the wrong and baleful influence of a 
supposed divided responsibility. Jurors erroneously 
imagine that but a twelfth part of the wrong ver 
dict lies upon each, and, therefore, feel less of a 
burden on their shoulders than if each believed him 
self guilty of the whole wrong. So with other bodies 
of imperfect men. Evil passions multiply them 
selves in a geometrical, good, in an arithmetical ra 
tio-. These considerations make it exceedingly 
probable that a million of people, associated in a 
State Government, are at least as incompetent to 
be the supreme and exclusive judge in their own 
case as is the single individual. 

Besides, there being no judgment possible, un 
less there be two things to be compared, there can 
be no judgment on any question of infraction of 
rights, unless there be two parties. If, therefore, 
one of the parties arrogate to itself the sole power 


of determining when its rights are infringed, has 
the other party no rights ? Is it not equally enti 
tled to decide the case ? Every State in the Union 
has equal rights ; and if one claims the right to 
judge that the Constitution has been violated to its 
injury, that decision is a charge of wrong doing 
against all the other States in union ; thus the one 
condemns the whole, hut the right of the whole to 
form any judgment ill the case at all, is denied ; 
and this is constitutional liberty and equality ! One 
thirty-fourth part has a right to charge and con 
demn the thirty-three thirty-fourths ; but the thir 
ty-three thirty-fourths have no right to judge and 
condemn the one thirty-fourth ! ! And this is 
" equality among equals ! " 

There is yet a second and more objectionable 
assumption here. It is assumed that this exclusive 
right of judging when there is good cause for seced 
ing, is a reserved right to the States. But what 
says the Constitution ? Does it, indeed, make no 
provision for protecting the States and the people 
of the States ? Does it create no umpire and pre 
scribe no remedy for State wrongs ? If an insur 
rection occur in any State, is there no provision for 
suppressing it by the power and at the expense of 
all the States that is, at the expense of the Uni 
ted States ? If a revolution is gotten up in any 


State, and the government is usurped by an arbi 
trary leader assuming monarchical power, does not 
the Constitution guarantee his dethronement and 
the continuance of a republican government ? And 
cannot the State claim and enforce the claim for its 
own protection ? Has not the Constitution created 
a judicial tribunal, with powers and duties to pro 
tect all individual citizens of all the States, in all 
their just rights, when State courts are incompetent 
to do it ? Did not the people in every State, and 
every State by the people, instead of reserving the 
right to judge in its own case, expressly concede the 
power to the United States? " In all cases, in 
which a State shall be a party, the supreme court 
shall have original jurisdiction/ (Art. Ill, 2.) 
Thus the right of judging in all cases wherein a 
State is a party, is expressly granted to the United 
States, instead of being reserved, as secession main 
tains. So, to the States are guaranteed the right 
to recover, by United States authority and power, 
fugitives from justice and fugitives from labor. The 
States thus expressly concede this power to the 
United States. Utterly groundless, therefore, is 
the assertion that the State is the sole and exclu 
sive judge of its own wrongs, and lolien they 
amount to a just cause of secession. The Constitu 
tion furnishes the most safe, because the most im- 


partial tribunal conceivable, to meet these very 
cases, and every State has conceded this to the 

(3). A third stone in the foundation of the right 
of secession, is, that the States were sovereign pow 
ers separate nations in fact. This we have shown 
is not so never was so. (Chap. VI.) 

(4). A fourth is, that the States were independ 
ent, severally, at the Declaration. This we have 
also proved to be utterly a mistake. See, in Chaps. 
XIV and XV, the testimony of the leading 
Southern men, especially those of South Carolina, 
against this " political heresy," as Gen. Pinclmey 
calls it. 

(5). That the Constitution created a confedera 
tion that it is a compact merely is the fifth item 
in the basis of secession. This has been disproved, 
we hope, abundantly, in Chap. XII, where it is 
made evident that the question, whether to estab 
lish a government or to amend and perpetuate the 
confederation, was the question most discussed, and 
most warmly ; and when the advocates of a govern 
ment and opponents of a confederacy gained the 
day, the agony was over ; there remained no dan 
gerous rocks in the current of their legislation save 
only the slavery question. 

(6). A sixth rotten sandstone in this founda- 


tion, is the doctrine that a man s first allegiance is 
due to the State, and a secondary allegiance only is 
due to the United States. This has been refuted in 
Chap. XXY. 

(7). That the Constitution was adopted by the 
States, as organized governments, and not by the 
people, is another foundation a mere cobble stone 
it is, as is shown in Chap. XI where the sophism 
of Calhoun, as reiterated by Mr. Jefferson Davis, is 
stripped of its power to deceive. 

All these seven are necessary and constitute the 
substratum on which the structure of secession 
rests. None of them can be spared or the building 
cannot stand ; and as they are every one untrue, 
the superstructure is doomed to an early fall, and 
the ruin of that house must be great and irreme 

II. The right of secession is a stupendous 
wrong, inasmuch as it is the right to commit sui 
cide. A nation that embodies this supposed prin 
ciple as a part of its fundamental law, provides for 
and secures its own destruction. A reserved right 
to withdraw from any association without reason 
rendered, is a right to dissolve it at pleasure ; and 
this may be practicable, and perhaps prudent, in 
such associations as are indifferent in themselves as 
to whether they exist or not. Where the object of 


association is a matter morally indifferent, and there 
is no obligation, no moral necessity for its existence, 
this may be allowed. But as human society and 
government are ordinances of God, and indispensa 
ble to human existence, the power of self-destruction 
is not allowable. No individual has such a moral 
power. The argument of the suicide is fallacious. 
He argues thus : Whatever is my own I may dispose 
of at pleasure ; but my life is my own ; therefore I 
may dispose of it as I please ; and inasmuch as life 
has become a burden and a weariness, and not a 
blessing, I choose to lay it aside. But here are two 
false assumptions. It is assumed that a man may 
dispose of his property as he pleases. This is not 
true. No man has a right to burn his house, to 
kill his horse, to throw his bank notes into the fire, 
or his silver and gold into the ocean. " The silver 
and the gold are mine, saith the Lord of hosts " 
worldly goods are gifts rather loans from our Su 
preme Lord, and we have no right to use them but 
for His glory and the good of men. The other er 
ror is, that a man s life is his own. It is not so. 
It belongs to God, and must be used for the same 

Now, as with the individual, so is it with soci 
ety with government ; the right of self-destruc 
tion is a nullity a murderous wrong. In Chap. I 


we have seen in what sense expatriation is a right 
and a duty, viz., as a removal from one country and 
government to another, when the general welfare 
will be promoted ; but from human society no man 
has the right and power to remove. 

The Duke of Argyle, in one of the very first 
speeches uttered by any man of distinction in Brit 
ain that does justice to America, remarked : " We 
will not regard the question, of what is called the 
right of secession ; no government has ever existed, 
to my knowledge, admitting the right of separation 
within itself. There is a curious kind of starfish in 
the waters of Loch Fine, which I myself have 
caught several times, and which effects the most 
extraordinary and adroit species of suicide. On 
drawing it from the water and attempting to re 
move it from the hook, the fins immediately drop 
off, the body falls in pieces, and of one of the most 
beautiful forms of nature, nothing remains but a 
few fragments. Such would have been the fate of 
the American Union, had its Government accepted 
what is called the right of secession. Gentlemen, 
we must admit in all justice, with respect to Amer 
icans, that they are fighting for things that are 
worth the pains, and that the national existence is 
one of these things." Count de Gasparin adds : 
" Yes, the national existence. This idea alone con- 


tains the unanswerable refutation of what is called 
the right of secession. But is a confederation a 
nation ? Is it not rather an assemblage of nations ? 
We are reminded of the celebrated definition of 
Montesquieu : A community of communities/ ;; 

Count Gasparin proceeds to remark on our 
government as such, and that it is not a confedera 
tion ; and comes very near stating the doctrine we 
have defended and illustrated in Chap. XII, viz., 
that a federal government meaning by government 
an independent, sovereign nation is a moral impos 
sibility, as well as a logical contradiction. 

III. This doctrine is a blow at all social organi 
zation. If there exist a right for a State to with 
draw from the Government of the United States, 
the same right exists in a county to withdraw from 
the State, a township or borough from the county, 
the family from the town, the wife from the hus 
band, and the children from the family. It is a 
perfect disintegration, and leaves nothing of the 
beautiful starfish but a few insulated fragments of 
humanity. When I used this argument in public 
debate with secessionists in Virginia, I was met by 
this response : " No, because the county is not a 
sovereign power/ My obvious and unanswered 
rejoinder was, Neither is a State never was never 
supposed itself to be a sovereign nation. No people 


on earth ever recognized any State as a sovereign 
nation. Thus the abstract argument stands unas- 
sailed and unassailable. It runs the doctrine into 
an inadmissible absurdity, but it does it logically. 

But this absurd result of the doctrine is not an 
abstraction. I met it in the concrete often in 
184S- 55 in Washington College, Va., where it had 
broken the arm of discipline. Often, often have 
students, who, from negligence of study or vicious- 
ness of conduct, had reason to apprehend the ap 
proach of the amputating instruments, come to me 
and informed me they wanted to resign. It was to 
me a strange language, and it required time and 
attention to ascertain its true intent and meaning. 
It turned out that the object was to escape dis 
cipline, by cutting the bond of connection and 
throwing themselves beyond the limits of college 
authority they claimed the right of secession. 
This is a single illustration of the principle ; but 
thus the foundations are destroyed everywhere. The 
offender against law any law, school law, church 
law, civil law, all law has only to throw himself 
upon his reserved right and say I secede : now he is 
outside of your jurisdiction, and ruling power is 
prostrated : government is at an end. Mine eyes/ 
run down with tears because " they have made void 
thy law." 


IV. Secession is, of course, a sin against repub 
lican government. It would be difficult to conceive 
more favorable circumstances under which to try the 
experiment of man s self-government, than we have 
had. The planting of the colonies in their different 
locations their growth up under necessities most 

imperiously demanding their utmost prudence and 
greatest energies toward self-support a hundred 
and seventy years training in this school of necessi 
ties, by which the people, individually and aggre 
gately, were constrained to call forth all their pow 
ers the very difficulties which, toward the close 
of this long schooling, sprung from the blundering 
management of the British ministry the diplo 
matic tact which in a ten years effort by negotia 
tion to adjust these difficulties was acquired by 
the leading statesmen of the republic the large 
amount of true, honest, Christian patriotism, which 
leavened the entire mass of the people all these 
seem to put off to a distant day any hope of a more 
favorable experiment. If, therefore, this fail, as se 
cession insures its failure, man may give over as 
hopeless all government by the people ; and fall 
back upon despotic power as the only alternative 
f j for the race. 

V. Secession is unjust. This has been pointed 
out a thousand times. The territories purchased 


by the United States have, to a large extent, been 
formed into States, as Louisiana, Florida, Texas; 
and vast millions besides the purchase money have 
been expended in removing the Indians, in building 
fortifications and lighthouses. And yet secession 
carries all this out of the Union : a small portion 
of the people who made the purchase, &c., carry 
ing off the whole. The iniquity is glaring. 

Again : Suppose Pennsylvania secedes and, of 
course, she has equal rights with other States her 
territory cuts the United States in two, extending 
as it does from Lake Erie to the seaboard, or nearly. 
After seceding, she makes herself a province of the 
British empire, and, of course, becomes a most effi 
cient foe of the United States, in case England 
makes war upon them. The iniquity of this is 
easily perceived, but cannot at all be estimated. 

VI. Secession, we have just seen, has no solid 
ground to stand on. One alleged ground we have 
yet to notice equal rights in the Territories. This, 
it is said, is denied by the United States. Mr. 
Lincoln s election, says Kev. Dr. Thornwell, of 
South Carolina, changes the government funda 
mentally it is a revolution in the government. 
The only reason this ablest advocate of secession 
lays down for it, is the exclusion of the South from 
the Territories. And yet there was no such exclu- 


sion before the rebellion. There was not a foot of 
territory in the Union from which the slaveholder 
was excluded by any act of the Government. Na 
ture sets up a barrier. Frost and snow are not 
congenial to the colored people ; and this is the 
only exclusion : but legislation has thrown no 
obstacle in the way; and judicial decisions have 
declared equal access to the slaveholder and his 
property, as to the non-slaveholder. 

But, however this may be and we cannot dis 
cuss the subject one thing is plain that it is a mere 
ly abstract question. Concede equal rights in the 
Territories, does any slaveholder wish to go thither ? 
Is there any place where slavery can be profitably 
planted ? These gentlemen themselves respond in 
the negative. They know perfectly well that Kan 
sas is impracticable to the peculiar institution. If 
it were perfectly open to-day, no Southerner would 
remove into it. Hon. K. J. Walker, in his letter to 
President Buchanan, made this perfectly plain. Is 
it wise, we ask, is it prudent, is it Christianlike, to 
baptize a continent in Christian blood for a bald 
abstraction ? Decide the question whichever way 
you please, the practical results are the same. 
Slavery can never go where it is unprofitable, and 
we have no territory in which it would be profita 
ble. Should it be said we may acquire such here- 


after, this, too, is practically an abstraction ; for, if 
the right were admitted, then, in case the question 
should arise of taking in new territory suitable for 
slave culture, the pros and the cons would try their 
strength on this previous question. The slave in 
terest would vote for taking in, and the free against 
it. Long since, Mr. Clay attempted to prove, and, 
it seemed to me, did prove, that northern Texas 
could not ultimately be slave territory. It is large 
enough for two States, which must necessarily be 
devoted to the product of cereal crops, by the cul 
ture of which slaves cannot support themselves! 
Mr. Calhoun, in conversation with the present 
writer in 1845, stated that he was too far north 
in Abbeville District, South Carolina for the 
profitable working of his people in the production 
of cotton ; that he had removed a part of them to 
Alabama, where his son, as partner with him, was 
planting ; and that, as soon as he could make the 
arrangements to suit, he would remove them all to 
the more congenial clime. Why, then, fight against 
nature, and distract the world for a bald abstrac 
tion ? 




THERE can be no controversy as to the recogni 
tion, by the United States Constitution, of a right 
of property in man s labor. Article IV, section 2, 
clause 3 : " No person held to service or labor in 
one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into 
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regu 
lation therein, be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
Whatever opinions may be held, as to the abstract 
question of slavery, in a moral point of view, there 
can be but one* opinion as to the recognition of its 
existence in the country, and under the Constitu 
tion. Service or labor may be due, that is, due by 


the laws of one State ; and the design of this clause 
is to secure this due service. 

Slavery, or, in Southern phrase, " the peculiar 
institution of the South/ was viewed by the fathers 
as an economic evil, and by many as a moral evil ; 
and the idea of its abatement was very generally 
held, even in the South. It cannot be disputed 
and we believe it is not, except by a very few ultra- 
ists that, until a recent period until Whitney s 
cotton gin made it profitable the idea of its per 
petuity and extension was not held and advocated 
by any of the great statesmen even in the South. 

The history of cotton is a history of this change 
of opinion. A few weeks before his inauguration, 
Washington wrote to his intended secretary, Ham 
ilton, and proposed the question whether, constitu 
tionally, a bounty could be offered by Congress on 
hemp and cotton. He expressed the hope and be 
lief that both these articles might be produced in 
our country, and the opinion that it would be sound 
policy in the Government to foster their production 
by bounties. 

With this introductory remark, we present the 
following, from Mr. Everett s address in New York, 
published as an introduction to the Eebellion Kec- 
ord. See vol. i, p. 29. 

" But the history of the great Southern staple 


is most curious and instructive. His Majesty, 
6 King Cotton/ on his throne, does not seem to be 
aware of the influences which surrounded his cradle. 
The culture of cotton, on any considerable scale, is 
well known to be of recent date in America. The 
household manufacture of cotton was coeval with 
the settlement of the country. A century before 
the pianoforte or the harp was seen on this conti 
nent, the music of the spinning wheel was heard at 
every fireside in town and country. The raw mate 
rials were wool, flax, and cotton, the last imported 
from the West Indies. The colonial system of 
Great Britain, before the Eevolution, forbade the 
establishment of any other than household manu 
factures. Soon after the Kevolution, cotton mills 
were erected in Ehode Island and Massachusetts, 
and the infant manufacture was encouraged by 
State duties on the imported fabric. The raw ma 
terial was still derived exclusively from the West 
Indies. Its culture in this country was so extremely 
limited and so little known, that a small parcel sent 
from the United States to Liverpool in 1784 was 
seized at the customhouse there as an illicit im 
portation of British colonial produce. Even as 
late as 1794, and by persons so intelligent as the 
negotiators of Jay s treaty, it was not known that 
cotton was an article of growth and export from 


the United States. In the twelfth article of that 
treaty, as laid before the Senate, cotton was included 
with molasses, sugar, coffee, and cocoa, as articles 
which American vessels should not be permitted to 
carry from the islands, or from the United States, 
to any foreign country. 

" In the revenue law of 1795, as it passed from 
the House of Kepresentatives, cotton, with other 
raw materials, was placed on the free list. When 
the bill reached the Senate, a duty of three cents 
per pound was laid upon cotton, not to encourage, 
not to protect, but to create the domestic culture. 
On the discussion of this amendment in the House, 
a member from South Carolina declared that c cot 
ton was in contemplation in South Carolina and 
Georgia, and, if good seed could be procured, lie 
hoped it might succeed! On this hope the amend 
ment of the Senate was concurred in, and the duty 
of three cents per pound was laid on cotton. In 
1791, Hamilton, in his report on the manufactures, 
recommended the repeal of this duty, on the ground 
that it was a very serious impediment to the manu 
facture of cotton ; but his recommendation was 

" Thus, in the infancy of the cotton manufac 
ture of the North, at the moment when they were 
deprived of the protection extended to them before 


the Constitution by State laws, and while they were 
struggling against English competition under the 
rapidly improving machinery of Arkwright, which it 
was highly penal to export to foreign countries, a 
heavy burden was laid upon them by this protecting 
duty, to enable the planters of South Carolina and 
Georgia to explore the tropics for a variety of cotton 
seed adapted to the climate. For seven years, at 
least, and probably more, this duty was, in every 
sense of the word, a protecting duty. There was 
not a pound of cotton spun, no, not for candle 
wicks to light the humble industry of the cottages 
of the North, which did not pay this tribute to the 
Southern planter. The growth of the native arti 
cle, as we have seen, had not in 1794 reached a 
point to be known to Chief Justice Jay as one of 
actual or probable export. As late as 1*796, the 
manufacturers of Brandywine, in Delaware, peti 
tioned Congress for the repeal of this duty on im 
ported cotton, and the petition was rejected on the 
report of a committee, consisting of a majority from 
the Southern States, on the ground that to repeal 
the duty on raw cotton would be to damp the 
growth of cotton in our own country. Kaclicle 
and plumule, root and stalk, blossom and boll, the 
culture of the cotton plant in the United States 
was in its infancy the foster child of the protective 


" When, therefore, the pedigree of King Cot 
ton is traced, he is found to be the lineal child of 
the Tariff; called into being by a specific duty; 
reared by a tax laid upon the manufacturing in 
dustry of the North, to create the culture of the 
raw material in the South. The Northern manu 
facturers of America were slightly protected in 
1798, because they were too feeble to stand alone. 
Beared into magnitude under the protective system 
and the war of 1812, they were upheld in 1816 
because they were too important to be sacrificed, 
and because the great staple of the South had a 
joint interest in their prosperity. King Cotton 
alone, not in his manhood, not in his adolescence, 
not in his infancy, but in his very embryo state, 
was pensioned upon the treasury before the seed 
from which he sprung was cast in the lowest parts 
of the earth/ In the book of the Tariff his 
members were written, which in continuance were 
fashioned when as yet there was none of them/ 

" But it was not enough to create the culture of 
cotton at the South, by taxing the manufacturers 
of the North with a duty on the raw material ; the 
extension of that culture, and the prosperity which 
it has conferred upon the South, are due to the 
mechanical genius of the North. What says Mr. 
Justice Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the 


United States, and a citizen of South Carolina? 
With regard to the utility of this discovery (the 
cotton gin of Whitney), the Court would deem it a 
waste of time to dwell long on this topic. Is there 
a man who hears us that has not experienced its 
utility ? The whole interior of the Southern States 
was languishing, and its inhabitants emigrating, for 
want of some object to engage their attention and 
employ their industry, when the invention of this 
machine at once opened views to them which set 
the whole country in active motion. From child 
hood to age, it has presented us a lucrative employ 
ment. Individuals who were depressed in poverty 
and sunk in idleness, have suddenly risen to wealth 
and respectability. Our debts have been paid off, 
our capitals increased, and our lands trebled in 
value. We cannot express the weight of obliga 
tion which the country owes to this invention ; the 
extent of it cannot now be seen/ Yes ; and when 
happier days shall return, and the South, awaking 
from her suicidal delusion, remembers who it was 
that saved her sunny fields, with the seeds of those 
golden crops with which she thinks to rule the 
world, she will cast a veil of oblivion over the 
memory of the ambitious men who have goaded 
her to the present madness, and will rear a monu 
ment of her gratitude, in the beautiful City of 


Elms, over the ashes of her greatest benefactor 

A similar change of sentiment occurred in the 
North. It is undeniable that the extension of time 
for the toleration of the slave trade, from 1800 to 
1808, was effected by the Northern vote. It stood 
thus : yeas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Con 
necticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
and Georgia 7 ; nays, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, and Virginia 4. A change of senti 
ment, therefore, has come over the spirit of the 
Northerners, analogous, but counter to the subse 
quent change South, mentioned above. But the 
Constitution remains unchanged, and to attempt its 
change by forced interpretation is disingenuous and 

A fair and candid construction of this rendition 
clause, in our opinion, makes it the duty of the 
State to which the fugitive " flees " or "escapes" 
to deliver him up. In hermeneutics the law is set 
tled ; words and phrases occurring in different parts 
of the same instrument of writing, are to be under 
stood in the same sense, unless there be some insu 
perable objection. If this rule is abrogated, all cer 
tainty in the use of language becomes impossible, 
and written agreements indefinite and vague ; and 
written constitutions have no advantage over the 


lex non scripta of the British Constitution. As 
suming the stability and truth of this rule, we re 
mark that the phrase, " shall be delivered up/ 
which occurs in this clause, occurs also in clause 
second ; the person fleeing from justice " shall be de 
livered up ;" the person " escaping from such ser 
vice or labor " " shall be delivered up." Neither 
clause expressly defines by what power or authority 
the delivery up shall be effected. But clause sec 
ond says, on demand of the executive authority of 
the State from which he fled, the fugitive " shall 
be delivered up, to be removed," &c. Construction, 
however, has settled the meaning to be, that the 
delivery up of the alleged criminal shall be by the 
executive of the State to which he fled ; and Gov 
ernor Packer, of Pennsylvania, so construed the 
Constitution, when he arrested Cooke, and wrote to 
the Governor of Virginia to send for him. Now, 
give the same exact interpretation to clause third, 
and it becomes the duty of the executive of the 
State to which he escapes, to deliver up the fugi 
tive from service or labor. In clause second, the 
claim for the fugitive is made by the party concern 
ed, viz., the executive, as the head of the State 
against whom the offence has been committed : so 
in clause third, the claim is made by the party to 
whom the service or labor is due ; and assuredly 


the response to that claim ought to be made by the 
executive of the State to which the fugitive escaped. 
Had this plain meaning of the Constitution been 
carried out in practice, there is a high probability 
that the present civil war would not have fallen out. 
On this topic I crave the reader s pardon for intro 
ducing a part of a speech delivered in the Synod of 
Cincinnati in the year 1843, and now out of print, 
on the occasion of the very improper introduction, 
as I thought it, of the slavery controversy into that 
body. The speech occupied over eight hours in the 
delivery, and a part of it, containing the Bible view 
of slavery, was printed forthwith, from the first 
hasty notes. The extract is inferentially prophetic. 
The reader will judge how far the prophet was in 
spired with the afflatus of a true deductive logic. 
The latter part of the prediction I hope and believe 
will not be altogether fulfilled and verified by his 
tory. It is a little exaggeration, thrown in with 
the view and hope of rendering the whole a prophy 
lactic remedy for a fearful evil, seen in the dim dis 
tance. " Should the opposite doctrine prevail 
should the holding of slaves be made a crime by 
the officers of the churches the non-slaveholding 
States, should they break communion with their 
Southern brethren, and denounce them as guilty of 
damning sin, as kidnappers and menstealers, as 


worthy of the penitentiary, as has been clone here 
in this Synod should this doctrine and this prac 
tice prevail throughout the Northern States, can 
any man be so blind as not to see that a dissolution 
of the Union a civil and perhaps a servile war 
must be the consequence ? such a war as the 
world has never witnessed a war of uncompromis 
ing extermination, that will lay waste this vast ter 
ritory, and leave the despotic powers of Europe ex 
ulting over the fall of the Kepublic ? All the ele 
ments are here the physical, the intellectual, the 
moral elements for a strife different in the horri- 
bleness of its character from anything the world 
has ever witnessed. Let the spirits of these men 
be only once aroused ; let their feelings be only 
once chafed up to the fighting point ; let the irri 
tation be only kept up until the North and the 
South come to blows on the question of slavery, 
their e contentions will be as the bars of a castle/ 
broken only with the last pulsations of a nation s 

"On the contrary, let the opposite doctrine 
prevail, and the practices which necessarily flow 
from it let the North pity their Southern breth 
ren who are afflicted with slavery let the churches 
of the North deal kindly and truly with the South 
let them continue to recognize and treat them as 



Christians., and entreat them and urge them to give 
unto their servants that which is just and equal, to 
treat them as Christian brethren let them aid 
them in the splendid scheme of colonization let 
them seek union, and peace, and love, and they 
will not seek in vain. Thus, the integrity of the 
nation will be maintained. The happiness of the 
colored race will, in the highest degree, be promoted, 
in the land of their fathers sepulchres. God will 
be glorified in the triumphant success of free, re 
publican America." 

But be this question answered as it may be 
the power of delivering up the fugitive from labor 
lodged either in the State authorities or the United 
States, the duty of executing this clause lies some 
where, and the corresponding right is indubitable. 
Equally undeniable is the fact, that this right has 
been imperfectly vindicated, and hence the South 
has just cause of complaint. Be the obstructions, 
intentionally thrown in the way of rendition, from 
what source or of whatsover character they may, 
whether from interference, aiding the escape or con 
cealing the runaway, or preventing the officer of the 
law from performing his duty ; or from State legisla 
tion, or from defects in the United States legislation 
and the failure of United States officials in the ex 
ecution of the laws all such obstructions and avoid- 


able failures are a violation of the plain letter of the 
Constitution, and have a natural, strong, and direct 
tendency toward a dissolution of the Union. 

Nevertheless, while all these obstructions are 
worthy of the most severe reprehension in them 
selves, and on account of their tendency to weaken 
the bonds of our nationality, yet must we think 
their real and actual influence was far from being a 
justifiable cause of dissolution. Eather were they 
a pretext seized upon to justify a foregone conclu 
sion, deduced from far different premises. 

The first ground of this last opinion lies in the 
fact, that the United States Government never re 
fused to exert its power ; and, as President Buchan 
an states in his last annual Message, it never failed 
in a single instance, when seasonably applied to, to 
execute the fugitive slave law. Why, then, should 
the South aim a blow at the United States, as 
though it had been derelict in regard to this consti 
tutional duty ? 

But a second reason is, that the States whose 
citizens lost many servants were not the leaders in 
this rebellion. Not Delaware, not Maryland, not 
Virginia, not Kentucky, not Missouri, but South 
Carolina took the lead ; South Carolina, whose cit 
izens lost nothing. On this point let me be again 
indebted to Mr. Everett : 


" The number of fugitive slaves, from all the 
States, as I learn from Mr. J. C. Gr. Kennedy, the 
intelligent superintendent of the census bureau, was, 
in the year 1850, 1,011, being about one to every 
3,165, the entire number of slaves at that time be 
ing 3,200,364, a ratio of rather more than one-thir 
tieth of one per cent. This very small ratio was 
diminished in 1860. By the last census, the whole 
number of slaves in the United States was 3,949,- 
557, and the number of escaping fugitives was 803, 
being a trifle over one-fiftieth of one per cent. Of 
these it is probable that much the greatest part 
escaped to the places of refuge in the South, alluded 
to before (the Dismal Swamp, the everglades of 
Florida, the mountain regions, the Mexican States, 
and the Indian territory). At all events it is well 
known that escaping slaves, reclaimed in the Free 
States, have in almost every instance been restored." 

Another evidence arises from the inefficiency of 
secession, as a remedy against the loss of servants by 
flight. If these losses are unendurable, even with 
the whole power of the United States exerted to 
prevent them, what will they not be if this power 
withdraws its protection, and leaves the hostile feel 
ing toward slavery, under all the aggravations of a 
bloody civil strife, to goad on the work of running 
off negroes, along a boundary line of twenty-five or 


thirty hundred miles ? This is the boundary which 
secession claims between freedom and slavery ; and 
how is it to be guarded ? Plant forts on or near to 
the line at the distance of five miles apart ; and 
place in each fifty soldiers as sentinels to guard the 
way against fugitives, would your five hundred forts 
and your twenty-five thousand sentinels be able to 
prevent the negro s escape ? Could they operate the 
hundredth part of the influence which is now exert 
ed by the United States authorities ? Why, the 
very fact of such a guard would inspire the negro 
with intensely increased desire to escape and cour 
age to make the attempt ; and at the same time it 
would stimulate to redoubled efforts, all along the 
line, those on the free side who would be ready to 
afford every facility to escape. Besides, the moment 
the slave crosses the line, the sentinels of the mas 
ters dare not step across to follow him. That would 
be an aggression, and would be instantly resisted. 
And this suggests (what is at once an evidence that 
the loss of fugitives is not a main ground for seces 
sion, and an argument against its practicability), 
that an everlasting border war must inevitably fol 
low. Whether forts and sentinels be established or 
not, negroes would run off : they would be followed ; 
and if across the line, very often the pursuers would 
be tempted to follow, and attempt their arrest and 


forcible return. This would be war, and could have 
no end as long as there was a slave within a hun 
dred miles of the border. A sundering of the Union 
insures endless conflict, and the destruction of 
slavery along the boundary. Then the parts of 
States, from which it is thus driven away, will 
make a move for its entire abolition from the State, 
as Western Virginia has done, and as Missouri is 
doing. Thus there is no help for " the peculiar in 
stitutions of the South " in the empirical prescrip 
tion of South Carolina. 

But we have been told, time after time, " We ll 
secure the institution by treaty." What childish 
ness ! The United States are to guarantee by 
treaty stipulations with the new Government the 
very institution whose protection was guaranteed in 
her Constitution that very Constitution from whose 
protection secession tore herself away by the dis 
memberment of the nation ! This is one of the 
most preposterously absurd ideas that can be con 
ceived ; and yet it has been frequently urged in my 
hearing by intelligent Virginians. 

Personal liberty laws, so called, have been pass 
ed by some State Legislatures in the North, which 
have done much mischief ; not so much by their 
actual contents as by misconception of them in the 
South ; for there is not one of them in direct con- 


tradiction to the laws of Congress ; yet they in sev 
eral instances betray a strong bias and wish in the 
Legislatures to do something in contravention of the 
Constitution and laws of the Union. They have 
gone as far as they dare go in this direction, and 
have thus proved themselves traitors to the Union 
in a moral sense. He who wishes to violate the 
law, and is restrained only by its penalties, is mor 
ally a transgressor. Legislatures who have pushed 
their repugnance to slavery to the very extreme, 
bordering upon conflict with the United States au 
thority, have stained their hands with the blood of 
this civil war, and must answer for it to history and 
to God. 

So, also, individual interference to prevent the 
execution of the laws of the United States, incurs 
this fearful responsibility. Blood hangs in the 
skirts of the men who murdered Kennedy at Car 
lisle Court House, and Gorsuch at Christina, in 
Lancaster county, Pa. Not only the direct perpe 
trators of these foul deeds, but the counsellors, the 
abettors and aiders of this resistance to law, and all 
who assisted in manufacturing the morbid public 
sentiment which goaded on these poor, ignorant 
blacks to these bloody deeds, are participes crimi- 
nis, and have their account to settle with Him who 
judgeth righteously. 


Whilst, however, we censure and deplore these 
assaults upon the laws of the States in the form 
of actual murder, and these acts of quasi treason 
against the United States, we nevertheless can see 
no reason in them all to justify rebellion. Law is 
better, always, than its execution ; because the ex 
ecution is in the hands of imperfect men. Proof 
against crime cannot be always made out legally. 
Many a jury has brought in a verdict of not guilty, 
while at the same time every man of them was 
convinced that the criminal perpetrated the mur 
der. Moral evidence and legal evidence are not 
always identical. On the difficulties of executing 
the fugitive law, the reader will surely be gratified 
with a glance at a few more sentences from Mr. 
Everett : 

" There is usually some difficulty in reclaiming 
fugitives, of any description, who have escaped to 
another jurisdiction. In most of the cases of fugi 
tives from justice which came under my cognizance 
as United States Minister in London, every con 
ceivable difficulty was thrown in my way, and 
sometimes with success, by counsel for the parties 
whose extradition was demanded under the Web- 
ster-Ashburton treaty. The French ambassador 
told me that he had made thirteen unsuccessful 
attempts to procure the surrender of fugitives from 


justice, under the extradition treaty between the 
two Governments. The difficulty generally grew 
out of the difference of the jurisprudence of the 
two countries, in the definition of crimes, rules of 
evidence, and mode of procedure." 

The United States Government has done every 
thing in its power, and never refused or failed, by 
its own fault, to protect the Constitution and all 
that it protects. The faults of individuals and of 
States are not chargeable upon it ; and therefore 
there is not the shadow of a reason for rebellion 
against it on their account, 






THE design of these chapters is one the pres 
ervation of our National Union. It is not their 
purpose to detail a history of the rebellion ; or 
then many things must come in which are pur 
posely omitted. We should be obliged, in that 
case, to inquire into the various somersets of Mr. 
Calhoun, and especially his sad disappointment 
and failure of getting the nomination for the Presi 
dency in fact, his history for the last thirty years 
of his life ; " The Partisan Leader," its plans and 
plots ; " the Knights of the Golden Circle ; " and 
Mr. Toombs herculean labors in organizing these 
secret clubs all over the South. Such was not our 
purpose from the first ; and we have introduced 
history only as necessary in prosecuting our design, 


and sustaining the hope of success in exposing the 
erroneous steps of reasoning by which the country 
has been brought into peril and suffering. That 
restoration is practicable, we have never permitted 
ourselves to doubt. The argument against this 
possibility, derived from the fact of war and all the 
evil passions to which it gives rise, is not based 
upon correct principles. It ignores the distinction 
between a public and a private enemy. It assumes 
the inveteracy of hostile feeling as a personal char 
acteristic that virulent antipathies are necessarily 
chronic, and therefore there is no reason to hope 
that the bitterness of this hate will ever pass away. 
We do not think so, and we will give our reasons. 

1. Individual quarrels, involving the most bitter 
personal wrath, are not always permanent. Often 
two enraged men do the utmost violence to each 
other in trials of strength, and yet become friends 
again. The celebrated General Daniel Morgan was 
a great and notable fighter with the fist ; he was 
real game at what, in the civilized nation of Eng 
land, is called "the milling art." At the same 
place Battletown, Va., so called because it was 
the grand rallying station of the buffers lived a 
man named Bill Davis, greatly distinguished for 
his pugilistic prowess. These bullies eyed one 
another with great jealousy, fear, and hate for a 


long time. At length the question, who was the 
better fellow, came to the arbitrament of the fist 
rough and tumble ; and, after a struggle which 
might put Dares and Entellus to the blush, Mor 
gan (who, by the way, was a Pennsylvanian by 
birth) was proclaimed victor. Now the agony is 
over, and the fierce and mad antagonists shake 
hands, take a little whiskey, and are better friends 
than before. Such is human nature ; and the 
world is full of examples of the same kind. Men, 
individually, often whip themselves into respect for 
each other. Morgan complimented Davis in strong 
terms, as the most powerful man he ever took hold 
of ; and Davis thanked him for the compliment : 
coming from the hero of Battletown, he felt it was 
the next thing to a triumph. And especially, after 
Morgan returned from the fields of Kevolutionary 
strife, all hung around with laurels, Bill Davis 
thought it an honor to have been whipped, after a 
desperate struggle, by the hero of Quebec, Saratoga, 
and a hundred other battles. 

2. Thus has it been on a larger scale. Nations 
respect each other the more for the very courage and 
heroism which have caused them great loss of blood 
and treasure. England had a far higher respect for 
her late colonies, after she had felt the prowess 
that slumbered in a peasant s arm after Bunker 


Hill and Yorktown and all that lay between them. 
The war of 1812 removed from the British mind 
the false notion, which had grown up in thirty 
years of peace that English, blood had become 
corrupt and degenerate in American veins ; and 
the treaty of Ghent soon restored commerce and 
all the friendly relations of former times, and even 
more. Undoubtedly a higher regard for each other 
pervaded the recently hostile nations. Mexico and 
the United States are to-day more friendly than 
before the war between them. Such is the kindly 
feeling, that, beyond a doubt, but for our domestic 
troubles, we should say to Napoleon III " Hands 
off, Sire ! this continent is not for Frenchmen." 
How respectfully England, France, and Eussia 
treat each other ! Where is the rankling hate 
which it is supposed war necessarily engenders and 
perpetuates ? No, it is gold, not gunpowder 
commerce, not cannon, that creates permanent 
hostility between nations. 

So, we have no doubt, it will be in our case. 
Before the outburst, one son of chivalry could 
whip five Yankees. " They shall acknowledge 
our independence, or we ll take Washington, march 
on to Philadelphia, take New York, and plant our 
banner over Faneuil Hall." All this gasconade 
has expended its force. They know now, that 


refusal to fight a duel is not proof of cowardice ; 
and we know that slavery does not insure such 
degeneracy as to disable men for the labors and 
hardships of the tented and the battle field. 

The philosophy of all this is easily understood. 
In all such conflicts, individual and national, there 
are called into action physical powers that lay hid 
and whose existence was before unknown : there 
are developed intellectual energies that often as 
tonish us ; and even moral properties that com 
mand our respect, admiration, and love. When a 
wounded enemy in the anguish of his heart cries 
for relief, and his foe divides his last cracker and 
his last gill of water with him, how can hatred 
rankle any longer in his soul ! When a strategetic 
movement, planned with skill and executed with 
energy, places one general and his army in the 
power of the other, what is there in the whole 
operation to engender hate ? What is there not 
to excite admiration and draw forth the highest 
respect ? And when the successful general uses 
his success honorably soothes the feelings of his 
prisoner by kind and generous treatment, how can 
it result in anything else than an increase of 
kindly regards and a return to the amenities of 
Christian friendship ? Now these properties, phy 
sical, intellectual, and moral, are in themselves 


good ; and we cannot avoid admiring them, even in 
an enemy yea, even when exhibited in the case 
of the highwayman and the pirate, although at the 
same time we despise the cause in behalf of which 
they are exercised. Now, let the cause perish, the 
properties still abide : the man who, as a foe, dis 
plays such excellent traits of character, I should 
like to have as a friend. The very reasons why I 
fear and hate him as an enemy, generate a desire 
to have him as a friend. 

It may be said on the contrary, that acts of 
cruelty most barbarous have been extensively per 
petrated, and wanton insults given beyond the 
possibility of pardon, and therefore the hope of 
reconciliation is as the giving up of the ghost. 
True, lamentably true, numerous instances of this 
character have disgraced the armies at least par 
tisans on both sides, and their tendency is un 
doubtedly against returning friendship. But after 
all, these are the exceptions ; the general conduct 
of the conflict has displayed a hundred acts of 
honorable and respectful treatment, for one of 
debased barbarism. The hundred, being common, 
arrest not attention, while the one act of brutality 
arouses indignation and renders the record inef 
faceable. We can t forget it ; while the ordinary, 
generous conduct passes soon away. Besides, in 


most cases of this aggravated nature, the per 
petrators are condemned by the great mass of 
their own side, even where they are not otherwise 
punished. Ex uno, disce omnes is the basis of 
many a fallacy in reasoning : we cannot learn the 
character of all from that of one, until we have 
assurance that all are like the one. Goods sold by 
sample often disappoint the purchaser. 

Another reason in favor of restoration is found 
in family connections. It is a family feud so in 
tended by its projectors, more than a quarter of a 
century ago. " The Partisan Leader/ a bantling 
novel, of which Judge Beverly Tucker of Virginia 
was the father, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina 
the godfather, and Duff Green the dry nurse, this 
bantling proclaimed this war to be a guerilla con 
flict, and made the leaders children of the same 
parents. The two Trevors, brothers, meet in deadly 
strife, and both perish, if I don t forget the wicked 
story. This has been substantially realized. Father 
and son, brother and brother, cousin and cousin, 
uncle and nephew, father-in-law and son-in-law 
have often met ; and possibly fallen by mutual 
wounds. But, then, the same relationships, and all 
others, exist in countless numbers, who, on both 
sides of this direful, fratricidal conflict, still live, and 
with palpitating heart yearn for peace and the 


restoration of the Union. These ties of kindred 
blood, I know, are kept at bay by the terrors of 
demagogy, so that they dare not speak out. But 
the moment it becomes safe, they will speak out, 
and rush together, and, locked in each other s arms, 
will defy the spirit of disunion to separate them 
evermore. The voice of nature will drown the mad 
cry of ungodly ambition. 

Besides, as stated some time since, there never 
was a majority in the South deliberately in favor 
of separation. For example, Virginia twice decided 
by overwhelming votes against it ; first, in carrying 
the Whig ticket and appointing Bell and Everett 
electors ; and secondly in electing two thirds of the 
Union members to the convention. In this election, 
for further example, take Kockbridge county, where 
the average vote shows a fraction less than one out 
of eleven for the disunion ticket ; and yet, by dra 
gooning and dragging, the slavetraders a despised 
class, who raised one hundred thousand dollars for 
the purpose of corrupting and perverting the conven 
tion, combining with the one third minority and the 
Kichmond junta that has always governed Virginia, 
succeeded in constraining a disunion vote from this 
Union convention. Toward this success, however, 
the guns against Sumter were a necessary contin 
gent. Look at the dates. On the 13th of April, 


1861, the convention, always sitting with closed 
doors, had gotten " into a tight place," as one of its 
members wrote me. Another of its members, Hon. 
Koger A. Pryor, went to Charleston to urge on the 
rebellion there, and was intensely engaged in that 
iniquitous work, pressing the assault upon the fort. 
This was deemed indispensable, as a means of forcing 
the convention to take sides with South Carolina. 
At half past four A. M. of the 13th the first gun was 
fired ; at half past nine of the 15th Major Ander 
son hauled down his flag and surrendered the fort. 
On the 17th the secessionists were in the ma 
jority and voted Virginia out of the Union. Then 
came the popular vote on the secession ordinance, 
preceded by Senator Mason s letter, virtually order 
ing all the freemen of Virginia who could not and 
would not vote secession, to leave the State. Thus 
were majorities created thus a people, claiming to 
be free, were forced against their oft-expressed 
wishes wishes expressed at the polls when no ter 
ror hung over them were dragged out of the Union 
a lion dragged at an ass s tail. 

Now, can it be conceived that disunionists thus 
created will feel no inclination, when the terror of 
expulsion from their State, or extreme maltreat 
ment in it, shall have been removed, to return to 
their first love, and again gladly range themselves 


under the banner of their country ? Assuredly, 
when the deceptions practised upon them pass away 
when the passions gotten up by such meretricious 
arts cease to distract their bosoms, the people will 
see their interest and their happiness in taking their 
proper place in the counsels of their nation, under 
the government created by their fathers, and sus 
tained and participated in equally by themselves. 

Then again, the drawing influences of a com 
mon Christianity they will not be able to resist. 
Throw all these cords of Christian affection over 
the ties of natural relationship, and the mighty at 
tractions of an inherited patriotism, in whose glori 
ous achievements all have a common and a deep 
and abiding interest, and we can hardly conceive an 
amount of repelling forces to counteract their con 
tracting power. 

Another ground of hope for a restoration will 
be found in whatever adjustment of the slave ques 
tion shall be reached. For that some settlement will 
take place there ought to be no reasonable doubt. 
One scheme of adjustment I beg leave to re-pre 
sent from a speech of mine, delivered on the first 
of July, 1856, before the Societies of Bulger s Col 
lege, New Jersey, and printed by them. The sub 
ject is, " OUR NATIONAL POSITION/ Toward the 
close, having referred to our Constitution and the 


glorious system of our government under the figure 
of a temple, the speech proceeds : 

" Yes, fellow citizens, this magnificent temple 
enshrines the temporal hopes of bleeding, groaning 
humanity. The Siberian exile and the Eussian 
serf, the Hungarian and the Polish peasant, the 
Austrian and the German boor, have heard of 
American freedom, and sigh for its enjoyment. The 
light of her shekinah has penetrated the dark 
dungeons of the inquisition, and thrilled the bosom 
of many a Copernicus, a Sylvio Pelico, and a 

" Now, my friends, North and South friends 
of freedom, all ! shall this glorious Temple of Lib 
erty this chef-d oeuvre of the Almighty Architect, 
this central attraction of an enslaved world shall 
it be hurled down and torn to atoms ? and, like an 
other Bastile, by the deluded and misguided friends 
of liberty ? Shall the stars and stripes which bear 
your commerce and your thunder in triumph over 
the waves of all the oceans, and float in sublime 
majesty over yon magnificent temple, be trampled 
in the mire and torn into ribbons, and worn in de 
rision beside the stars and garters of a titled despot 
ism, in all the enslaved nations ? What say you ? 
No ! The Union, it must be preserved. 


" What ought to be her doings ? What does 
God, who placed us in this position, expect of us ? 

" I answer, besides the duties enumerated, to be 
Atlantic and Pacific, like our own mighty oceans 
to bear upon our shoulders the political heavens, 
and to quiet down the emotions of a sin-agitated 
earth. The balance of power over the civilized 
world will then be in our hands. Even now the 
opinion of America is a notable element in the de 
liberations of parliaments and cabinet councils the 
world over ; then no great question will be decided 
among the nations without our advice and consent. 
Toward the great Kepublic will all eyes turn before 
any modification of international law will be deter 
mined on. American diplomatists will be of the 
quorum, whenever a congress of nations shall sit on 
the destinies of humanity. Should it ever be other 
wise, and should combinations of kingdoms be form 
ed to crush out pure Christianity, and the liberty 
which it guarantees, a note from some future Milton, 
and under the direction of some future Cromwell at 
the head of the Republic, will arrest the march of 
armies and the sailing of navies. 

" But now, my friends, this responsible, glori 
ous, and proud national position, present and pro 
spective, depends absolutely upon the preservation 
of our National Union. That gone, the depth of our 


misery, degradation, and dishonor will be measured 
by the height of our felicity, grandeur, and glory. 

" For thirty years our national position relative 
to the African race has appeared to me the grand 
providential problem of the nineteenth century. 
God is working out its solution, and glorious will 
be the result ; and the time of the end is near. 
Through the follies, crimes, and cruelties of Spain, 
Holland, Portugal, France, England, and America, 
there have been thrown upon this continent three 
millions of the race whom God hath painted black 
and brought hither. Why did God bring them ? 
Had He no wise purpose ? Does He work by 
guess ? If this is blasphemy, why brought He the 
African to these shores ? 

" God s actual doings are the exponent infalli 
ble of His designs. What hath God wrought ? 
He hath Christianized more than three millions of 
His sable sons. A higher and a holier Christianity 
pervades this mass than does any equal mass of 
humanity on this globe, except in Britain and 
America. He has civilized as well as Christianized, 
in two hundred and thirty-six years, a larger pro 
portion of human beings than Jiave been civilized* 
and Christianized by the agencies of all churches in 
the world for the last thousand years. These are 
facts of history, veritable as she has recorded on 
any section of her sphere. 


" What, then, does God mean to do with the 
Africo-American race, just equal in number to the 
Israelites when they crossed the Ked Sea, and to 
the American Colonies when they crossed the Eed 
Sea of the Eevolution in 76 ? What will He do 
with them ? Make use of them to pull down the 
temple of Liberty, and extinguish the hopes of the 
world ? Who believes it ? If, then, God cannot 
be guilty of such folly, what will he do with them ? 
Here, again, His doing is the expositor of His de 
sign. He will take them back to the place of their 
fathers sepulchres in sufficient numbers to use them 
for the civilization and Christianization of a mighty 
continent. Here is the grand problem ; here its 
solution. Amid the griping lust of avarice and the 
lazy love of ease 3 and the rage of fanatical ignorance 
and stupidity, and the malignant plottings and 
schemings of corrupt, president-making demagogues, 
God is pressing toward the accomplishment of His 
own blessed and glorious plan for the regeneration 
and salvation of a continent. He is now making 
the wrath of man to praise Him, and when these 
agitations shall have brought the American people 
to a realizing apprehension of the difference between 
a war of revolution or a. foreign war, and a civil 
war, which arrays a mighty nation one half against 
the other, He will restrain the remainder, and the 


people not the demagogues and fanatics but 
the mighty CHRISTIAN PEOPLE, will stay the sword, 
and say with one glad voice which will reverberate 
from ocean to ocean ( Ye are brethren, marching on 
toward the conquest of the world for its glorious 
Master ; see that ye fall not out by the way. Let 
the human master exercise all his legal rights, but 
whenever God shall put it into his heart to send his 
servant home to his fatherland, let us furnish the 

" Now, my respected audience, there is a way 
for the accomplishment of this work without danger 
of collision. Let each of the States pass the same 
law, requesting Congress to propose an extension of 
their power so as to remove existing doubts. Let the 
proposed amendment to the Constitution run thus : 
Congress shall have power To appropriate the sum 
of five millions of dollars annually for the removal to 
Africa of such colored persons as are free or may be 
come free and are willing to go/ This would be but 
a revival in substance of Mr. Monroe s plan, which 
had, however, primary reference to recaptured Afri 
cans. It would leave the question of slavery itself, 
where God and the Constitution leave it, at the bar 
of individual conscience ; and it would give the 
United States no power over it whatever, while it 
would open a door for the return of captive Africa 


to his own land. Of course this movement must 
begin and be largely carried forward in the South 
ern States ; before it would be advisable for the 
Northern to touch it. Should the South and the 
North unite and two thirds agree, the emigration 
of the free blacks would progress as fast as the 
safety of the two races could allow ; and when free 
people of color did not offer in sufficient numbers, 
Government might compound with their owners for 
the purchase 01 others. 

" This simple plan would accomplish three 
grand objects, each of which might be glory enough 
for one nation. 

" It would restore to freedom in fact half a mil 
lion of men, who are already nominally free, yet for 
ever tantalized and chafed to madness with the 
perpetual remembrance of their really degraded so 
cial and political position. 

" It would civilize, and Christianize, and bring 
into life and actual being untold millions of their 
own race, for long ages lost to humanity in the deep 
and dark solitudes occasioned by the slav*e trade, 
and carry representative democracy and the English 
language in triumph over a vast continent. 

" And it would save the Union. By transmut 
ing all the bad passions which cluster around the 
slavery agitation, into a heaven-born charity, which 


aims to accomplish so stupendous and benevolent a 
work, it would create an emulation between the ex 
tremes of our American empire, whose thrilling 
energies in the cause of humanity and of God must 
reinstate, in its own masterly power, the great and 
glorious characteristic we are many, we are ONE/ 

Let us merely mention, without expansion, the 
argument geographical. The Creator seems to 
have constructed the country for mutual depend 
ence, and made it impossible for the North or the 
South, the East or the West, to be each indepen 
dent of any or of all the rest. Interdependence 
will necessitate reunion, except on the Pacific. 
Here, iron rails are indispensable ; and the stronger 
bonds of brotherhood, Christianity and national 





RECONSTRUCTION, an expression often used in 
the Senate chamber, and of which Senator Hunter 
was peculiarly fond, presupposes entire dissolution, 
and is therefore odious in our view. It implies the 
pulling of the house down, because of such defects 
as render its tenure dangerous, and the hope of 
fitting it up by repairs, and thus rendering it ten- 
antable, to have been abandoned. It is not, to be 
sure, exactly like the leprous house of the Hebrew 
law, when given over by the priest, to be utterly 
rejected, in all its materials, as useless and forever 
lost ; but the materials may still be partially 
worked up in a new edifice. Some of them are to 
be cast off entirely ; others, however, may, by the 
new architects, be so reformed and dressed as to 
occupy a place suitable to their inferior nature, in 


some obscure parts of the grand, modernized struc 

Against all this, our feelings, we confess, revolt, 
and our judgment very decidedly objects. In the 
first place, we deny the assumption that the mate 
rials are decayed, unsightly, and unsuitable, to any 
such extent as to endanger the occupants of the 
building, or to deform its proportions, symmetry, or 
beauty. We have never believed it perfect in either 
of these respects. Doubtless some improvements 
are possible ; but it makes abundant provision for 
these, without utter demolition. The principal 
defect apparent to our vision meets us at the very 
vestibule. The portico lacks one gem to perfect 
its lustre. There is Union and Justice, Common 
Defence and General Welfare, Blessing and Lib 
erty ; but we cast our eyes about in vain for that 
which alone can give stability and beauty to the 
whole the Koh-i-noor, whose radiant glories 
crown the grandeur of the beautiful temple, the 
Shekinah, is absent. The grand bond of our Na 
tional Union does not distinctly acknowledge the * 
being of a God. For more than forty years, a 4th 
of July has seldom passed, on which I have not 
preached and warned my countrymen of this de 
fect, and told them, if it be not supplied, God tf 
would pull down their temple and bury a nation in 


its ruins. This warning has been sounded forth 
from thousands of pulpits in the land, and would 
have been much more extensively trumpeted, but 
for the paralyzing influence of the fallacy which 
we have already exposed couched in the dema 
gogue s double entendre, " Religion has nothing to 
do with politics." This defect has been supplied 
in the Constitution as reconstructed by the rebels. 
For this we give them honor due. 

But, while we admit imperfection, and go in 
for amendments, we deny the necessity of recon 
struction, and we do not believe it would be wise 
to proceed with amendments until after the resto 
ration. Let that subject lie in abeyance until all 
the States return to their place in the Government 
and in subjection to the Constitution. There are 
other reasons why it should be so ; and especially 
why there should be no dissolution, and, of course, 
no reconstruction. Among these we may set forth 
our defect in architectural skill. We have made 
little, no progress, in the seventy-three years that 
have passed since the building was completed. In 
naval architecture we have indeed shot ahead of 
our fathers and of the world ; in civil and ecclesi 
astical construction and execution also we have far 
outstripped that age; and, indeed, in everything 
belonging to material advancement, the age has 


been progressive, and the fathers have been left in 
the rear threescore years and ten. The truth is, 
the national mind has been so wholly absorbed in 
the vast business of physical development and ma 
terial advancement we have been so fully alive t& 
the philosophy of material experiment, that the 
higher studies of man his nature, his intellectual 
development, his laws of government, his moral 
powers have been relatively overlooked. The con 
sequence is, the race of statesmen has died out, 
and no new race has arisen to take their places. 
We have no statesmen. Whither now will you 
look for a Washington, an Adams, a Jefferson, a 
Jay, a Hamilton, a Madison, a Franklin, a Pinck- 
ney, a Kandolph ? Manifestly, among the fossil 
remains of an age gone by. We have no states 
men. Politicians we have in scores ; and dema 
gogues, alas ! in thousands ; but statesmen, oh ! 
my country ! where are they ? 

On the score of ability abstract, intellectual 
ability to build up a new system of government 
we therefore object to the attempt in this genera 
tion. But, if the capacity did exist, still more 
seriously do we object on the ground of moral 
qualities of political integrity. Politics is a 
grand rascal, and cannot be intrusted with recon 
struction. The pure, unsullied patriotism of the 


fathers, no man expects to find, and, therefore, no 
man looks for it. All that is expected now is 
cunning, chicanery, tact in managing the wires, 
and skill in the tricks of party the intrigues of 

What, then, is to be done ? Nothing nothing 
at all ; but abide as you are and you who have 
departed, return to your own natural position, 
where your fathers placed you. Exceedingly have 
I been grieved at a phraseology often used by 
speakers and writers, inadvertently, no doubt, in 
most cases. Men talk of conquering the South. 
My friends, this is all wrong. You cannot conquer 
the South ten millions of people, or four millions 
of white freemen, cannot be conquered and kept 
down as a conquered people. This phraseology has 
done immense mischief already, and will produce 
much more. We of the United States do not de 
sire to conquer the South. All we wish is, that 
the South return to their proper place take their 
seats in the Senate, in the House, in the executive 
chair occasionally, in the departments, in the navy, 
in the army, in the customhouse, in the postoffice, 
in the diplomacy in every place where the Consti 
tution may and shall place them. Fight the armed 
rebellion we must ; break up hosts in hostile array 
against the flag we must ; but the suppression of 


an insurrection is not conquering a country. Let 
us not irritate our brethren by boasting and brag 
ging about conquering them : we wish only to aid 
the Southern people, by suppressing the revolt, to 
return and place themselves under the aegis of the 
Constitution ; there to exercise all the rights and 
to enjoy all the privileges purchased by the blood 
and treasure of their fathers and guaranteed by 
this semi-inspired instrument. Here they have 
prospered, as we have seen from their own showing, 
beyond all examples in the world s history ; and 
here still more abundantly will they prosper after 
restoration. Experience teaches fools, and they are 
guilty of triple folly who cannot or will not learn 
even in the school of experience. We have all 
acquired much knowledge, within two ysars, that 
ought, if we be not unreasonably perverse, to lead 
us back to peace and harmony and love. 

Plainly, then, the reader sees the basis of resto 
ration in " the Constitution as it is and the Union 
as it was." In our humble opinion, there is no 
other rock on which the glorious temple of liberty 
can stand. Should the lightnings of heaven rive 
it, the building totters and falls ; and the hopes of 
freedom to man pass away as a tale that is told. 
Humanity, struggling forth from beneath the mighty 
ruin of representative democracy, will raise her bruis- 


ed head and stretch forth her feeble hands implor 
ingly, to despotism, seated on his iron throne, and 
pray for intervention to rescue her from the terrible 
grasp of a self-governed people. 




THE vast breadth of our territory nearly equal 
to the whole of Europe ; the immense diversities of 
its soil and climate, adapting it to almost all pos 
sible varieties of productions of the soil and the 
mines ; the countless variety of our population, 
native and imported, insuring and enforcing end 
less diversities in tastes, capacities, and pursuits ; 
the perfect freedom of locomotion and cheapness of 
land, attracting enterprise to all quarters all these 
have brought about such a perfect intermixture and 
thorough dispersion of population and readjustment 
of family ties by intermarriages where no class dis 
tinctions exist, as has never been exhibited on so 
immense a scale since the dispersion at Babel. 
There is scarcely a country on earth unrepresented 
on this continent and in these United States. 


Families must consist of few members and be of 
little enterprise, who have not branched forth into 
one, two, or half a dozen States. From the Atlan 
tic shores they have flooded the West and the South. 
New England exists chiefly outside of herself. New 
York, after receiving an immense New England 
emigration, poured forth from her northern quarters 
multitudes over all the western regions, city and 
country ; and from her southern quarters, her men 
and her capital into all the cities and regions from 
Baltimore to New Orleans and Texas. Her capital 
and men, along with those of New England, awoke 
up New Orleans and made it a commercial empo 
rium. New Jersey left half her lands untilled arid 
trooped away to the West. Pennsylvania, ignorant 
of her underground wealth her iron and her coal, 
doomed shortly to dethrone King Cotton and to 
rule the world henceforth flooded over the Poto 
mac and filled up western Virginia, more than half 
of whose population hailed from the Quaker colony; 
then into Ohio and farther west. And still this 
interminable intermixture continues and increases. 
From all this it results that no great battle can be 
fought in this dire conflict, that does not find fathers 
and sons, brothers and brothers, cousins and cousins 
arrayed against each other. How intense the feel 
ings of friends ! how painful the anxieties of mothers 


and sisters and cousins, in dread apprehension of 
fratricidal slaughter ! What, then, must be their 
state of niind at the restoration ? With what 
palpitations of heart the mother and the sister will 
inquire of the returned soldier, son and brother, to 
be sure that his victories were not written out in 
the blood of a rebel son or brother ! When the 
glad sound of peace shall stay the uplifted sabre, 
just ready to fall and cleave a brother s skull ; or 
arrest the hand just at the moment when it is 
pulling the cord that must send the booming shell 
against the breast of a brother, a cousin, a father ; 
or stop the finger s motion, just as the sight is 
drawn for the face of a dear friend ; and when, in 
a few minutes more, the fact is revealed that the 
deadly movement must have struck down so dearly 
beloved a brother, father, friend oh ! who can con 
ceive- the emotions of tenderness such a discovery 
must generate ? Who can describe with what 
transports of gratitude to God for such interposi 
tion, these enemies will throw down all hostile 
arms and rush into each other s warm embrace ? 
And then, friendly visits and reunion of long 
divided families ; and tearful reminiscences of 
mournful tragedies ; and confessions of regret and 
sorrow for the false logic which generated bad feel 
ings ; and then, falling on their knees and pouring 


out the most heartfelt thanks to God, that He has, 
through all these scenes of blood and carnage, car 
ried so many of our dear ones safely, and brought 
us together before one family hearth and one com 
mon mercyseat. Oh yes, this dark night of sorrow 
and anguish will be followed by a bright morn and 
a joyful day. 

To the nation many blessed consequences must 
follow in the train of peaceful restoration. It 
will have gone through the last trial needed to 
demonstrate the wisdom, power, and strength of 
the system contained in our Constitution. JSTo 
government has ever been subjected to such a 
trial. ISFo such conspiracy for length of time in 
its preparation ; for depth of cunning guided by 
such power of intellect ; for extent of numbers 
engaged ; for fiscal and physical resources ; for 
diplomatic ingenuity and finesse ; for clear insight 
into the pathological susceptibility (if I may use 
the expression) of the people to be stirred up and 
infuriated ; above all, for overreaching sophistry 
no sucli conspiracy has ever existed against any 
government on earth. If we can overcome this, 
and restore the Union as it was, and the Consti 
tution as it is, that Union will be safe for a hun 
dred years ; and the principles of that Constitution 
will be secure forever ; and all the nations of the 


world may yet form one grand Republic under the 
Stars and Stripes. We can see no serious obstacle 
in the way of our unique principle of local govern 
ments to attend to local affairs, and a general 
government based on the representative principle, 
being applied for the world. The powers of Eu 
rope have for more than forty years been approach 
ing, though slowly, toward this point. At the 
close of the Napoleonic wars, the principal nations 
held a congress of states and assumed the settle 
ment of many great questions. Eloquently was it 
said on that occasion, " Scarce has the soldier time 
to unbind his helmet, and to wipe away the sweat 
from his brow, ere the voice of mercy succeeds to 
the clarion of battle and calls the nations from 
enmity to love." 

And does not the present disposition to inter 
vene in American affairs, bear the aspect of an 
arbitration a grand committee a body of repre 
sentatives for the adjustment of difficulties. Let a 
star for old England, one for France, Eussia, 
Prussia, &c., be planted on the blue, and a con 
gress of the whole earth may settle all controversies 
by the arbitrament of reason and the ballot box. 

Highly conducive to permanency and peace 
will be found the amazing displays of energy and 
power presented by this civil strife to the aston- 


ished gaze of mankind. Such armies were never 
poured forth upon the ensanguined plain. Such 
desperate courage, such indomitable resolution, 
such strategetic skill, such profusion of men and 
money, such scientific energy in the construction 
of guns and ships, and all the appliances for de 
struction of life and property, the nations have 
never witnessed and history does not record. Now, 
when these stupendous powers shall have ceased 
their fratricidal direction ; when they shall have 
coalesced under the old Flag, and a few years rest 
shall have been taken to wear off acerbities and to 
heal all wounds ; when we shall have become 
again, in heart and soul, One People, will it not be 
said of us, " God brought him forth out of Egypt ; 
he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn ; he 
shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall 
break their bones, and pierce them through with 
his arrows. He couched, he lay down as a lion, 
and as a great lion : who shall stir him up ? " 
Add to this our national growth. At the be 
ginning of the twentieth century of our era, we 
shall count more than cne hundred millions, and 
should our general advancement continue should 
our resources run parallel with our population 
and I can see no reason to doubt it, who shall stir 
up the old lion and the young ? What nation 


will assault the stars and stripes ? In what part 
of the wide world will it not be adequate protec 
tion and secure respect to exclaim, I AM AN AMER 

The cause of evangelical religion and the 
churches of God in this land and in all lands, must 
receive an immense impulse in connection with 
this blessed restoration. I have before said, that 
good men and true devoted servants of the Most 
High zealous, humble, pious men in great num 
bers, are spread all over the South. They fill the 
legislative halls, the bench, the bar, the pulpit, 
the church, the prayer meeting yea, the army. 
As holy and as true and zealous men as can be 
found in the North, in Europe, or the world, are 
engaged in this rebellion. I have labored to show 
how they have been led into it by violence done 
to their reason, to their property, to their persons. 
Bad men, too, and in great numbers, are spread with 
equal diffuseness all over the South men as false 
and foul and fanatical as you can find in the 
North and this is saying a great deal. But the 
counsels of Ahitophel will not always prevail : 
the prayer has gone up from ten, fifteen, twenty 
millions of hearts, and millions of millions of times 
hearts too that have power with God " Lord, 
I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahitophel into 


foolishness." And it hath been heard, and it will 
be heard ; and his end, or rather the end of his 
disciples may be " and hanged himself." Such a 
fate, probably, awaits such counsellors, North and 
South. But the people the great body of the 
people, North and South, are not so, nor will they 
so end their career. They are true, sincere, and 
honest, and will lend all their energies to build 
again the walls of Zion which the Ahitophels 
have thrown down, and will restore the desolations 
of this generation. 

With me it has long been a fond idea, that the 
Christian churches in this western land are des 
tined of God to bear the banner of truth and 
righteousness over all the earth. Our civil institu 
tions are based on the leading principle of the 
gospel plan of redemption the principle of repre 
sentation: It is worked into the warp and woof of 
our whole web of state and national policy. Hav 
ing assumed as our fundamental principle that his 
Creator has vested in man the right and power of 
governing himself, we only need the idea of repre 
sentation to render the exercise of the power prac 
ticable. Accordingly it is seen everywhere in 
actual operation ; and thus our religion becomes 
our politics in the good sense our statesmanship ; 
and our statesmanship becomes our religion. This 


identity of principle and of its practical application 
in government, both in church and state, qualify 
this American people, above all on earth, to bear 
the Christian religion and the freedom its doctrines 
engender to all the families of the pagan nations. 
The influence of this religion, in meliorating the 
condition of society, in cultivating a peace policy, 
in proclaiming good will to man everywhere, has 
pervaded the entire mass of our population ; so 
that the war spirit seems like a foreign element a 
deadly virus injected by the evil one into the life 
circulation of our great body politic a dangerous 
disease gendered in the malaria of the Niger, 
Senegal, and Senegambia. This the vigor of the 
system will soon work out of the circulation and 
throw off, when the entire renovated life will recu 
perate and perform its functions with increased 

Our inexhaustible physical and, of course, fis 
cal resources constitute also an important ele 
ment in the calculation of these forces. The 
agricultural capacity of our lands is illimitable. 
There is no possibility of exhausting our soil, under 
our improving system of culture. On the con 
trary, there is a constant increase. Lands scuffled 
over with the shallow-running old wooden plough, 
the shovel scraper and the hoe, for a hundred 


years, we are just beginning to discover, can be 
made to double or triple their product by kind 
and generous treatment. And when this triplicate 
ratio shall be reached, we shall discover that the 
process of improvement is but begun. It is no 
extravagance to suppose that our country will 
become thus adequate to a population of three 
hundred millions. In view of such resources, we 
cannot doubt the ability of this Christian nation 
to carry on the foreign wars foreign to our 
American Christendom, but not to the dominions 
of our Prince and to make the glad tidings of 
peace and salvation known to all the world. A 
tithe of the men and the money which we are now 
immolating at the altars of Mars, in consequence 
of the ungodly ambition of a few dozens of dema 
gogues, would suffice, under the blessing of the 
Most High, to send a missionary, with the Bible in 
his hand, to every five thousand heathens in the 
world. What an argument the friends of missions 
and of Bible distribution will derive from this 
war ! What member of the church, or of the 
civil community, will dare hereafter to excuse him 
self from a liberal contribution to the cause, on the 
ground of penury ? Who will dare to deny the 
ability of the American people to conquer the 
world for Irnmanuel our Prince ? 


But let us not forget that missionaries and 
Bibles are not all that are necessary to insure this 
conquest. Oh, no. " Not by might, nor by power ; 
but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." And here 
comes the solemn question : But will God give his 
Spirit, and thus insure the victory of truth and 
right ? Can a nation of Christians, who have ex 
pended so largely their blood and treasure and 
energy in self-destruction, expect the Divine bless 
ing in large measure ? Will God, in very deed, 
dwell with men upon the earth ? Will He, in 
very deed, make a suicidal nation the glorious 
instrument, in his own hand, of carrying out the 
purposes of his mercy to a lost world ? Will he 
pour upon the American churches the spiritual 
gifts necessary to accomplish these stupendous 
results ? 

What God will do, of course, we can only learn 
from his word and from past movements of his 
holy providence. From these sources judging, we 
should expect great things. His chastising rod 
can fall upon his own children only in this world : 
when they leave it, they enter upon a state where 
there is no sorrow and sighing, because no sinning. 
The recent bitter experiences of the church, we 
hope, have produced some of the peaceable fruits 
of righteousness, for many of his people have been 


exercised thereby. Some humiliation and much 
prayer have gone up, North and South ; mingled, 
I fear, with many feelings, indeed, calculated to 
neutralize their effects. Still, there has been 
much sincere humiliation and heart-felt sorrow for 
our national sins more supplication and inter 
cession than at any period of our history. Now it 
is a settled principle in the Divine government, to 
chastise the individual and the nation no more 
than is sufficient to bring about a proper state of 
feeling ; a nation on its knees is likely to receive 
forgiveness ; but the measure of true penitential 
feeling, and of mere legal repentance, so to speak, 
necessary to justify the Divine government in a 
return to favorable dealing with it, is in His own 
hands. But His anger will not burn always : we 
look for the light of His countenance. We feel a 
his;h confidence that " He will turn the heart of 


the fathers to the children, and the heart of the 
children to their fathers ; " and ere long, not 
" smite the earth with a curse," but " pour out a 
blessing that there shall not be room enough to 
receive it." Contemporaneous with the restoration, 
we look for an effusion of the Spirit, such as the 
churches in this land have never witnessed. "I 
will pour upon the house of David and upon the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and 


of supplication : and they shall look upon me whom 
they have pierced [in the persons of my beloved 
children], and they shall mourn for Him as one 
mourneth for his only son ; and shall be in bitter 
ness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his 
firstborn. In that day shall there be a great 
mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadad 
Kimmon, in the valley of Megiddon." Oh yes ! 
" All the families that remain, every family apart, 
and their wives apart/ If such a day shall, 
through the united, earnest, and importunate 
prayers of his people, come upon the churches, then 
will Zion arise and shine, and the glory of the 
Lord shall be seen upon her : then shall this 
mighty people, with one heart and one soul, address 
themselves to the glorious work of evangelization, 
and distance all the nations in bearing the banner 
of the cross in triumph over all the legions of error 
and death. 

From this point it is easy to see that countless 
blessings must follow to all the world from this 
restoration. Under the resistless influence of a 
heaven-born charity, let the boundless resources of 
this united and happy people be called forth, and 
directed to the amelioration of human condition, 
and what may not be the glorious results ? We 
have already stationed our sentinels on some of the 


most prominent points on the whole line of de 
marcation between the lands of darkness and the 
shadow of death and the regions of light and 
Christian civilization. The watch fires glimmer 
amid the solitudes and spiritual desolations of 
pagan superstition and Mohammedan delusion, and 
already the darkness perceptibly recedes, and the 
light expands its radiant circle. Oh, how shall it 
be, when not a few hundreds of devoted men and 
women are seen feeling their way toward a few 
chosen spots ; but tens of thousands shall rush 
forth, with lamps trimmed and oil in their vessels, 
to enlighten the earth ! How will not the light 
flash forth when, like Gideon s three hundred, these 
tens of thousands shall break their pitchers and 
hold their lamps aloft, crying, " The sword of the 
Lord and of Jesus ! " Oh, how will not the dark 
ness flee away, and the Sun of Kighteousness illu 
mine the broad sky and awake the sleepers of earth 
to glory and immortality ! 

Then, the reflex influence of this spiritual illu 
mination upon the civil institutions of the nations 
must be immense ; in reforming and elevating the 
masses ; in bringing down the loftiness of despotic 
rule ; in breaking off the heavy yoke of govern 
ments whose principle is the iron bondage of that 
fear which hath torment, and substituting in its 


place the easy yoke of moral rule, under laws 
founded in love that lightens all labor ; in vindi 
cating to man the right of self-control, vested in 
him by the God who made him ; and in leading 
him to the enjoyment of a well-regulated liberty, 
founded on the Truth, and secured and promoted 
by the governing principle of Kepresentative De 


ME. JEFFEESON DAVIS, quite recently, demonstrated the 
separate independent sovereignties of the States, by the fact 
that the treaty of Paris, 1783, by which England acknowl 
edged the independence of the United States, recites the 
States by name. Surely this gossamer sophism can entangle 
the intellectual limbs of no sane man. The fact is so. See 
Marten s Recneil de Traites, v. iii, 553. The heading is, " In 
the name of the Most Holy and United Trinity." The pream 
ble recites the friendly disposition of the parties " the Most 
Serene and Most Potent Prince, George the Third" and 
" the United States of America." It sets forth the object 
"to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse 
between the two countries, upon the ground of reciprocal 
advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and 
secure to both perpetual peace and harmony." "Both par 
ties" not fourteen parties, as Mr. Davis reads it, but the 
two, viz., the King of England and the United States ; the very 
terms used in the treaty of Ghent in 1814. 

" Art. I. His Britannick Majesty acknowledges the said 
United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Ehode 
Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sov- 


ereign, and independent States ; that he treats with them as 
such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all 
claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of 
the same and every part thereof." Mr. Davis s blunder in 
tentional undoubtedly consists in assuming that the States 
are taken here severally and not jointly, as a unit. This is 
not true, for the preamble and the very words of this article 
calls them " the UNITED STATES," and a party to the treaty 
not thirteen parties. Obviously the naming of them severally 
was necessary to exclude the other and contiguous colonies of 
Great Britain New Brunswick, JSTova Scotia, and the two 
Canadas ; but all through they are considered as a unit as 
one people. This is demonstrably evident from the fact, that 
Article II " defines the boundaries of the said United States. 
This defining marks out the boundary of not one single State, 
but only those of the whole thirteen as a unit as one na 
tional territory one country. 

Art. Ill guarantees the right to take fish of every kind 
* * "to the inhabitants of both countries " only two coun 
tries, not fourteen, are known. 

Art. VII says, " all prisoners on both sides shall be set 
at liberty." It also binds England to "leaving in all fortifica 
tions the American artillery that may be therein ; and shall 
also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers 
belonging to any of the said States or their citizens, * * * to 
be forthwith restored, and delivered to the proper States and 
persons to whom they belong." " Both sides" two parties 
only: and " the American artillery" not the South Carolina, 
the Pennsylvania, &c., artillery. 

Art. X. " The solemn ratification of the present treaty 
* * * shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in 
the space of six months." Exactly so, in the treaty of Ghent, 


the same phraseology occurs His Britannic Majesty and the 
United States of America : " Immediately after the ratification 
of the present treaty by the two parties " " all prisoners of 
war taken on the one side or the other." And Art. VIII 
speaks of the two parties : so X and XI speak of two sides 
and the two parties. 

The assumption of Mr. Davis that the States are severally 
each is acknowledged as a sovereign and independent pow 
er is utterly groundless. England never treated any one of 
them as a sovereign power ; and General C. 0. Pinckney, of 
South Carolina, correctly flouts the idea " as a species of po 
litical heresy which can never benefit us, but may bring on us 
the most serious distresses." See arate, p. 58. 



Abolition predicted as cause of war, 
276 ; a pretext by South, 280. 

Agricultural industry not all a nation 
needs, 55. 

Albany convention, 60. 

Allegiance defined, first due to my 
State, 240 ; fallacy, 242. 

American colonies, history, 51 ; orig 
inated from religious intolerance, 
52 ; crown monopolies England s 
policy, 55 ; diplomatists of the quo 
rum, in moulding international law, 

Articles of Confederation and Perpet 
ual Union, 103 ; a league, a confed 
eracy for sake of union, 106 ; too 
feeble a bond, 106. 

Author s removal to and from Vir 
ginia, 8-10. 


Barnwell, Robert, South Carolina, 
says the Xorth helped sustain the 
South, 87. 

Blackstone errs as to social compact, 
22 ; on rights, 30 ; defines law, 32 ; 
on sovereignty, 44 ; says the king 
reigns by general consent of the 
people, 48. 

Breckinridge, R. J., D. D., heroic 
conduct, 190 ; his paper adopted by 
General Assembly of the Presby 
terian church, 204. 

Buchanan, President, avers the United 
States never failed to execute the 
rendition law, 280. 


Calhoun, John C., sophistries, 9 ; as- 
eerta the whole sovereignty rests in 

each State, 17 ; too far north to raise 
cotton, 267. 

Church and State, intermeddling 
with politics, 172. 

Colonization, God s plan for Chris 
tianizing Africa, 300. 

Coercion of a sovereign State a falla 
cy, 151. 

Colonies, state of, before Declaration 
of 1776, 94. 

Compact, social, a figment and false 
hood, 22. 

Congress of 1774, 75 ; United Colo 
nies, 1775, 77 ; elect a general, 78 ; 
continental a provisional power, 
residuary legatee of a defunct sov 
ereign, 99. 

Constitution, 109 ; Union, its basis and 
prime design, 112 ; mode of ex 
pounding, 11 ; excludes the word 
and the idea of confederation, 115 ; 
adopted by the people as a supreme 
national government, 126, 135, 139 : 
amendment proposed, 301 j God 
needed in it, 305. 


Davip ; Jefferson, says the notion of a 
national government is new, and of 
northern invention, 118 ; refuted by 
Governor Randolph, Madison, and 
others, 118, &c. ; false views of tho 
confederation, 138 ; false assump 
tions, 156, 187 ; appendix, 326 ; extols 
the prosperity of the South, and so 
really denies the oppression by the 
United States, 231. 

Design of this book, 7. 

Division of labor in the colonies dis 
couraged by England, 56. 

Dray ton, Judge Henry, views of the 
great work of forming a constitu 
tion, 104. 

Duties denned, 30, 33. 



Empires perish by extension, 94. 

Ellsworth moves to reject the term 
national as the epithet of our gov 
ernment, 119 ; E Pluribus Uuum 
indispensable to our being a great j 
people, 95 ; God s revelation to 
America, 96, 97. 

Everett, Hon. Edward, history of 
King Cotton, 269 ; states small pro 
portion of slaves escape annually, 
280 ; difficulty 1 285. 

Expatriation, a sin or a duty, 27. 


Fallacy, doctrine explained, 140 ; 
State independence, 146 ; State sov 
ereignty, 151 ; exposed, 154 ; the 
two united, 156 ; politico-ecclesias 
tical discussion, 163 ; religion noth 
ing to do with politics, exposed, 172; 
groundless assumption in regard to 
the Spring resolutions, 179. 

Forfeiture of sovereignty justifies re 
bellion, but not proved by the 
South, 234. 

Franklin, Benjamin, plans a union of 
colonies, 60. 

Fugitives from labor to be returned 
by the State authority, 268, 276 ; few 
in number, 281; after secession to 
be secured by treaty, 283. 


Gasparin, Count de, views on seces 
sion, 261. 

Generous conduct in a foe softens 
feeling, 291. 

Government, 36; civil and ecclesias 
tical, 38 ; ordained of God, 39 ; 
formed by the United States Con 
stitution, and not a league, 159 ; de 
facto, fallacy from, 213. 

Henry, Patrick, opposes the Consti 
tution, and especially the words 
" We, the people " a mere dema 
gogue, 122. 

Independence of the States severally 
never admitted, 91 ; nor supposed 
by the States themselves, 92 ; dou 
ble meaning, viz., independence, on 
Britain on one another, 148. 


Jackson, President, on Union, 12 ; on 
nullification and State sovereignty, 

Janney, Hon. John, on allegiance, 

Jeroboam s secession, 223. 


King Cotton a pensioner on the tariff, 

Knights of the Golden Circle not 
bound really by their oath to kill 
Lincoln and dissolve the Union, 26. 


Law defined, 32. 

Lee, R. H., writes to Madison, sug 
gesting a convention to amend the 
articles, 110. 


Madison holds to an aggregate sov 
ereignty, a united people, 85 ; opin 
ion as to danger to the Union, and 
nted of a convention, 110 ; for a 
strong national government, 118 ; 
States not separately independent, 

Martin, of Maryland, on State inde 
pendence, 148. 

Mason, George, of Virginia, for a 
strong national government, 119 ; 
for ratification by the people, 133. 

Missions and Bible cause, how af 
fected by the rebellion and war, 

Morgan, General Daniel, a strong and 
bold pugilist Bill Davis and he 
friends after the fight, 288. 


National animosities often abated by 
war, 290 ; government contended 
for, 119, 138, 148. 

" National Position " extract from 

speech, 297 ; policy, 298. 
Nature of anything defined, 19. 
North and South whip each other 

into mutual self-respect, 290. 


Oath createa not moral obligation, 24 




Palmer, Rev. Dr., a leader in seces 
sion, 189. 

Palmetto flagon Washington college, 
12; burnt, 13. 

Patterson, of New Jersey, for a mod 
ification only of the old articles, 120. 

Pendleton, Virginia, refutes Henry s 
arguments against the words " We, 
the people," 125 ; double meaning 
and fallacy, 236. 

Personal liberty laws, 283. 

Presbyterian ministers fomented dis- 
union in the youth, 189. 

Pinckney, General C. C. and Hon. C., 
base independence on union, and 
repudiate strongly separate State 
sovereignty, 85, 86, 88 ; go for a 
strong national government, 119. 

Princeton Review vs. the Spring reso 
lutions, 180, 185, 187 ; admit the in 
dependent de facto government of 
the Confederate States of America, 
192 ; decide a purely political ques 
tion, 201. 

Promise creates not moral obliga 
tion, 24. 


Randolph, Governor Edmund, Va., 
for Union, 89 ; resolutions, basis of 
convention s action, 114 ; opposes 
Henry s tirade of demagoguism 
about "We, the people," 123; on 
coercing a State, 151. 

Rebel States not a government, but a 
conspiracy to overturn a govern 
ment, 193. 

Rebellion may eventuate in a legiti 
mate government, 220. 

Religion has nothing to do with poli 
tics, a fallacy, exposed, 172 ; will be 
revived after the rebellion shall 
have been suppressed, 318. 

Restoration of the Union, 287 ; basis, 
304, 309 ; happy effects on families, 
States, social prosperity, 311. 

Rights defined, 31, and duties recipro 
cal, 33. 


Savage state not man s natural state, 
31. ( 

Secession the essence of all immoral 
ity. 12 ; denies nationality, 159 ; not 
aYeserved right, 256 ; subverts all 
society, 262 ; claims to be judge in 
its ow n case, 263. 

Slave trade extended by the Northern 
vote, 275. 

Social compact a fiction, 22, 135 ; na 
ture of man, 19. 

Society not a creature of man, but of 
God, 22. 

Sovereignty, 43 ; not a unit, 45 ; God s 
gift to man, and so, by consent of 
men, to kings, 48 ; supreme in 
United States Government, 82, 117, 

Spring resolutions, 163-165, &c. ; their 
meaning, 168 ; strange misappre 
hension, 171. 

Statesmen few, politicians multitudi 
nous, 307. 

Syllogism explained, 140. 


Thompson, Hon. Jacob, Miss., mis 
takes his allegiance, 248. 

Thornwell, Rev. James H.,D.D., ead 
error, 265. 


Union, preceded independence (as the 
foundation the building), the Arti 
cles of Confederation, and the Con 
stitution of the colonies, 58; its im 
portance proved by the plan of 1754, 
62-73; do., by various meetings, 
73-75 ; Union toast at Philadelphia 
dinner, 77 ; united colonies, 81 ; by 
the Declaration of Independence, 
82 ; Union its basis, C. C. Pinck 
ney, 85 ; " the rock of our salva 
tion," General Pinckney, 89 ; with 
out it, no State supposed itself a 
nation, and no nation recognized it 
as such, 91 ; against Union there 
never was, prior to the insurrection, 
a majority of people in any State, 
294 ; restored, secures prosperity, 
and all nations may rally under the 
Stars and Stripes, 315. 


Veto power claimed over State laws, 
by Madison, Randolph, and Pinck 
ney, 151. 

Virginia convention dragged the 
State out of the Union, 295. 

Virginia s act adopting the Constitu 
tion of the United States is in the 
name of the people, arid claims the 
right for the people of the United 
States, not Virginia, to alter or 
abolish it. 125. 




"Walker, R. J., about frost and ne 
groes in Kansas, 266. 

War, this, displays the power and re- 
Bources of the Unied States, and 
tends to settle the matter for ages. 

Washington, a member of congress, 
in 1774, 75 ; and 1775, 77 ; elected 
general, 78 ; his speech and com 
mission recognizes Union, 79, 80 ; 
his patriotism not confined to Vir 
ginia, 249. 

Washington College, Va., and its 
Faculty sustain the students in tho 

. matter of the flag, 15. 

Whitney s, Eli, cotton gin made ne 
groes valuable, 273. 

Will of God alone creates moral 
obligation, 26. 

Wilson, James, Penn., compares tho 
two plans, viz., the Virginia doc 
trine of a strong national govern 
ment, and the New Jersey doctrine 
of amending the articles of confed 
eration, 120 ; on State independ 
ence, 148. 





This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 

on the date to which renewed. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 

. GV181968 76 


RFC Din 

APR 1 1981 

i37n-8flM2 2 

LD 21A-60m-7, 66 

General Library 

University of California