nities. A single State is now far more populous and powerful than were together the thirteen for which the Constitution was framed. Would it not be wise to adopt an entirely new system-in harmony, not with the past, but the present--not with the childhood of the people, but the vigorous manhood of the present day? No one will deny the value of experience either to men or nations. Of what value can it be, unless it produce fruit in decision, or in action? The United States have now had eighty years of experience; and in view of the dangers they have encountered, of the disastrous events occurring now, and of the altered condition of all the facts, to return, of their own act, to the old starting-point, would be no decision of mature wisdom and experience; but would rather resemble that return to second childhood which we sometimes behold with regret as the result of fourscore years.

If, however, a Union must exist, then it would appear an unwise, although it might be a convenient course, to slur over and evade this doctrine of secession. There are two ways in which to deal with it. One, to form, what has never hitherto existed-a consolidated State. This it may be in the power, either of the North or the South, to do separately; conjoined, it would be idle to attempt it. Whenever it can be accomplished, the doctrine of secession dies at once.

If, however, it be impracticable to form consolidated States, and a Union or confederation

must still continue, then whatever its boundaries, there will exist within them this principle, inherent in the Federal system. It would appear the true policy of such a confederation to remove all doubt, and carry out clearly the principles of its origin, by openly declaring the right of secession. Had this been done from the first, there would probably have been no secession this day. The surest way to end the desire for any object, is to give unlimited command of it. Secession has mainly occurred because it was denied. How beneficial the consequence, had it been an admitted right for the last forty years! In place of the despotic use of political power, in contempt of the feelings or interests of other portions of the country, whether at the hands of slave-owners or monopolists-there would have been all along a tempering, moderating influence. Abolitionism, in all its extremes of virulence, has been permitted by the North because the South was considered to be fast. It might writhe under it, but it must abide. But for this unfortunate belief, the intelligence of the North would have said, "If to gratify your passionate opinions, you indulge in such language as this, addressed to your fellow-citizens, they will separate from us; we will not have the Union destroyed at your bidding and pleasure." In like manner, when the manufacturers desired to increase ample protection to outrageous monopoly, that intelligence of the North would have said to them, "Our sister States shall not be driven from

The

this Union in order to increase your profits." The same rule will apply to external affairs. Texas would not have been annexed and be-slaved, no Mexican spoliations-no war of 1813—no Ostend manifestoes need have defaced the history of the country. Throughout the range of political affairs there would have been present that influence-so constantly absent-consideration for others. sovereignty of the people is a despotism untempered by division or check. The denial of secession has invited it to act despotically-to do simply as it listed, regardless of those supposed to have no escape from endurance. The more the subject is examined, the more plainly it will appear that under an admitted right of secession there would never have grown up to dangerous magnitude those causes which now produce—and that in so terrible a form-the disruption of the Union. Without those causes, had the feelings and interests of others been fairly and temperately considered, the Union might have existed as firmly this day as at any former period of its history.

Thus we arrive at the same conclusions as the authorities first quoted-that secession is a just and clear constitutional right of the States, and no violation of any enactment of the Federal compact. Admitting, therefore, that the people of the South had a perfect right to exercise this power, it remains to consider whether the circumstances in which they were placed enabled them to act upon it with prudence.

CHAPTER VII.

THE STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN THE UNION.

WHATEVER be the conclusion formed by the reader of the preceding chapter, whether in accordance with our own, that secession is a clear right based on the constitutional principles of the United States, or that the present movement must be regarded simply as a revolution, in either case a requirement existed of the first importance that power to maintain independence, without which its declaration might be futile. It is true that the leaders of the movement had little cause to anticipate civil war as a result. When carrying out the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, and the teaching of the New England States, they could not expect that an act so thoroughly in accordance with principles the triumph of which was the glory of American history, and the inexhaustible theme of her oratory-would bring down such a consequence. To the people of the South, acquainted with the enormous extent of the country and its well-proved obstacles to invasion, nothing could appear more incredible than a serious attempt to invade and subdue them.

Their leaders are also well read in the history of the early days of the Constitution, a subject which the Northern people prefer to ignore, and they could not anticipate that recourse would be had to "coercion," which Hamilton, the idol of the Northern Unionists, had stigmatised as "madness." They knew that one of the chief objects for which the Constitution was framed, was to avert the impending danger of civil war; possessed of this knowledge, they could hardly anticipate that civil war would be invoked to maintain it.

Indeed, on

turning to peruse it they would find announced as one of its objects, "to insure domestic tranquillity." Strange indeed it were to expect that such an object would be sought with fire and sword. They knew also that no military force existed at the command of the Government, with which such an undertaking could be attempted. Not easily would any mind be brought to believe that the sister States would volunteer on such a service, least of all of them the people of the metropolis, New York-a city grown great upon their trade, and long united in bonds of the warmest alliance. It was the member for that State, who, as one of the founders of the Republic, had discarded with repugnance the idea that any State would ever be sunk so low as to be employed in coercing a sister State.

But although the people of the South, thoroughly convinced of their constitutional right to secede, had also these reasons to expect that the separation might be peacefully effected-still more