a state, had no right to exclude therefrom slave property then and there existing. He avowed himself favourable to the fugitive slave laws, and the doctrines of free trade.— 3rd. Mr. Douglas, the democratic candidate of the squatter sovereignty doctrine, was in favour of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, declaring that the constitution carried slavery into the territories. He held that Congress had no power to prohibit its introduction therein; and that a majority of the people, on the formation of a state out of a territory, had the right to permit or prohibit slavery; and advocated the legality of the fugitive slave laws. 4th. Mr. Bell, the constitutional Union candidate, was opposed to the agitation of the slavery question; was in favour of the fugitive slave laws; the decision of the Supreme Court; and a protective tariff.

The campaign was conducted with great excitement; and the thousands of speeches made, north and south, were principally confined to the slavery question. The cotton states saw that it was impossible to elect Mr. Breckenridge, and they commenced preparations for the contingency of Mr. Lincoln's election. Secession was the watch-word; it was uttered in nearly every speech; and the warnings were heralded from state to state, county to county, and fireside to fireside. "The irrepressible conflict" was near at hand, and politicians argued that disunion was the only possible remedy for the safety of the property, and even the lives of the southern people. Passion swayed over the country, north and south.

CHAPTER XXII.

The Legality and Illegality of Secession.

THE LEGALITY OF SECESSION.

THE right of secession is a question upon which there seems to be a diversity of opinion. In the southern seceding states, the people have been, for a long time, determined to perform that responsible act, whenever, in their judgment, the time for it should arrive.

The confederation, formed during the revolutionary war in 1781, was intended to be as perpetual and permanent as it was possible to form a government. The document thus organising the states, was styled, "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States," under the name of "the United States of America." In the second article it was declared, that "each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States." From this clause, it is clear that the powers thereafter to be exercised by the United States, were delegated, and were not vested. The term recognises the existence and continuance of the sovereignty of the states over the general government. But while the states were the principals, and the confederation but the mere agent, exercising only delegated powers, it was intended to form

a perpetual Union. A body, whether aggregate or sole, exercising delegated powers, is an agent, and subject to be dismissed at the pleasure of the principal or creating power. In cases, however, where powers are delegated irrevocably to an agent, the act cannot be cancelled; and the agent becomes, practically, a principal with vested powers. The term "perpetual," in the articles of confederation, was equivalent to an irrevocable clause; and hence the government, thus formed, did not contemplate any power in a state to annul the articles of Union. There was no tribunal fixed upon to adjust differences of opinion or questions of power between the states and the confederation. The ninth article declared, that

"The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever."

Then follows the mode of arbitrament. By this tribunal the states agreed to have their questions of difference adjusted. It would seem that the government, thus organised, did form a Union, intended to be perpetual, permanent, and binding; and although the term "delegated" was used, yet there were conditions embraced in the agreement, or articles of confederation, which legally gave to the agent vested and irrevocable powers. It is evident, from the document itself, and the circumstances of the states, that such were the objects and purposes of all the parties concerned. There was, however, an omission of the greatest importance in the articles. No mode of enforcement of the decisions of the high court of arbitrament was prescribed. A coercive doctrine would have defeated

any kind of union. It was agreed to abide by the judgment of Congress on questions of difference arising between the states; but there was no power given to Congress to enforce its decisions. In reference to arbitration between man and man, the judicial tribunals can render judgment; and the officers of the government, under prescribed laws, can enforce the decisions of the arbitrament. The cases, therefore, are not parallel; because, in the one case, there is no agreement as to the mode of enforcement; and, in the other, the law prescribes the means of coercion. Notwithstanding the confederation was organised with the view of permanency, and declared to be "perpetual," it did not exist ten years before eleven of the states seceded from it, and formed a constitutional government. Some of the states failed to carry out the conditions stipulated in the articles; and there were no powers to coerce the fulfilment of the obligations disregarded. Washington and others saw the impossibility of maintaining the federal government; and a convention was called in 1786, not to construct a new government, but to remedy the deficiencies of the then existing articles. For want of representation, the convention did nothing more than propose another, which met the next year (1787) in Philadelphia, when the present constitution was framed. This organic instrument was submitted to the states for ratification; with an article, declaring, that "the ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." The article did not require the thirteen states to ratify it, because the convention knew,

or had sufficient evidence to justify the belief, that New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island would not ratify it. The latter was not represented at the convention. In 1788, ten of the states ratified the constitution of 1787, and thus agreed to abandon their first national government. On Wednesday, the 7th of January, 1789, the electors were chosen in the respective states. On Wednesday, the 4th of February, they assembled in the states for the election of a president; and on Wednesday, the 4th of March, the constitution was declared by Congress to be in force. On that day was completed the secession of eleven states from the confederation! Washington was inaugurated president on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789; and thus was fully organised the constitutional government of the eleven seceding states.

The constitution does not declare the new government to be a perpetual Union. The failure of the confederation had removed from the minds of the delegates all expectation of ever obtaining such a state of perfection; and they evidently contemplated a change of the organic law from time to time, as the nation progressed. Their object was, "to form a more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquillity; provide for the common defence; promote the general welfare; and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The last clause of this preamble is of import. To secure liberty to "our posterity," contemplates time in the far distancewithout end, or so long as the nation existed. This was for ever; or for such time as the Creator, in his beneficence and infinite wisdom, should allow the people to have