This usurpation of right, privilege, or power was not only unconstitutional but revolutionary, and involved the destruction of the absolute sovereignties of all the States which were the basis on which both the old "Confederation," and more "perfect Union" were formed, and constituted the safeguard or bulwark of American constitutional freedom.

STATE-SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS.

THESE are traditionary in America, and have ever been guarded with jealous care.

"In the history of the anti-slavery struggle, let us never forget," exclaims Wendell Phillips, "what it taught us of the limited authority and influence of the Federal government. In 1831 the strongest power of the nation grappled with the State of Georgia and was defeated. Georgia seized a converted Cherokee in 1831, and said, I will hang him. Chief Justice Marshall said, "you cannot, it is unconstitutional." Orthodoxy rallied from Massachusetts Bay to the Mississippi, and said you shall not. It is infamous. Where is there a stronger power than the orthodox sects of the North for an army, and the Supreme Court for a General? Congress denied the legality of the proceeding. The press of the country, ignorant and exultant, said, it cannot be done. See if it can't, said Georgia, and hung him up. Then they took Samuel Worcester

and put him in jail. Behind him stood the American Board for Foreign and Domestic Missions. In front of him the chief justice, but Georgia turned the key on him, and there he lay until in her sovereign will she chose to open it."

South Carolina took our black seamen out of ships and put them in jail. Winthrop was lifted to manhood enough to prove that it was illegal. The Secretary of State said it was unconstitutional. Massachusetts protested. Congress did the same. We sent Samuel Hoar to say, "Wayward sister, why do you so? Go home, or I will put you in, was the answer." Texas took six of our black men and sold them ten years ago, and we do not know where they are to-day. Unconstitutional all of it. Public opinion on our side largely at the North, but Congress said, "we know of no means by which to check a State." This history might be extended to the Northern States, also, to shew the limited authority and influence of the Federal government, and their utter inability to restrain the powers of the States, or to prevent them from adopting any measures in the State legislatures which conflicted with the Federal Executive at Washington, since five of the Northern States at the outbreak of the war had adopted Personal Liberty Bills in open defiance of the laws of Congress, shewing their utter contempt of the binding power of the Union and of its representatives. Unconstitutional all of it, on the basis of absolute power being vested in the Federal government.

THE EUREKA, OR GREAT DISCOVERY OF

THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATORS.

THIS was that they were the Constitution, and not the written parchment. They were doubtless aware that "Big Jobs" of jugglery and fraud were performed by their predecessors in office in the previous history of America; and not wishing to be outdone they shouted, "we are the law," and therefore have the "means" at our command, not only to “ check a State," but to preserve the old "Union Concern," and to change it from a 'Limited Liability Company," to an Unlimited one. When, therefore, the Southern States seceded, and set up a rival establishment, they denounced it as unconstitutional, and determined to contest their claims by force of arms. Hence the war to subdue and coerce sovereign States-which were never subjects, but always free and equal partners, that they might retain the people which compose those states in unwilling subjection, and bend them to their own iron will. Unconstitutional all of it. But stress is laid on the more "perfect Union" that was formed. This, however, left the Union as before, with the foundation of the government of the United States resting on the sovereignty of the States as its instrument to do their will more perfectly and harmoniously in connexion with the commercial necessities of the times. When the United States government was formed, each State had the power

to adopt or reject for itself the Constitution submitted to it; which was drawn up in the name of the people of the United States. No number of States adopting the Constitution could lay its bonds on another State without its consent. This was conceded. On forming the more "perfect Union," the little State of Rhode Island stood aloof; and though her conduct was reprobated, no one denied her right, or presumed to question her right to decide for herself. This right then was as clear as the sun. All the States recognised it, and no power dared to touch the priceless pearl of her sovereignty in the affair. But it is claimed that when the more "perfect Union" was formed, State sovereignties were abolished. By what act? When and where did they terminate their existence ? And who were the parties that achieved the work? Who does not see, therefore, that State sovereignties lay at the foundation of the government of the United States; and as they came into the Union of their own free and independent choice; even so, they have a right, if they will it, to pass acts of nullification and secession despite the manifestos of General Jackson, the charms of Webster's eloquence, or the assumption of extraordinary power claimed by the Federal government and States, which remain in the Union. With deep solicitude, therefore Horace Greeley, the Federal historian, in an article published in the Independent, New York, August 18, 1864, asks the folowing questions :

Is

"Are we, in truth, or are we not, a Nation? there, or is there not, such a thing as allegiance due to, and treason possible against, the Union? Suppose the legislature or convention of any state to pass an ordinance of nullification or secession, are the citizens of that state absolved thereby from their obligations and oaths of fidelity to the Union? It is very late now to ask these and kindred questions; but, after spending half a million lives and untold millions of property on the problem, there should be an American answer to these questions -specific, unambiguous, decisive. We cannot afford to have lavished all this blood and treasure in vain.

"If to secede from the Union at pleasure is the constitutional or reserved right of every State, then the war for the Union is aggressive, iniquitous, unjustifiable. If, on the other hand, there be no such right, then the war against the Union is the most atrocious rebellion and treason."

The above questions are of vital moment, and admit of an easy solution. There can be no allegiance due to, or treason possible against the United States Government, except in the states or territory comprised in the Union. When the legislature or convention of any state passes an ordinance of nullification or secession, that state and the territory originally belonging to, or claimed by it revert to the condition they were in prior to their connection with the Union; and all obligations