so notoriously infamous as Jeffreys? By a rule not more strained than that which would make out treason in the act itself! But I do not admit the rule in its application either to the accessory or the principal.

Now in relation to Mr. Lincoln. He himself, in 1848, announced the same general principles as above announced by Mr. Greeley in 1860. On the 12th day of January, 1848, Mr. Lincoln, in the House of Represenatives, made a speech which I heard. Here is that speech. In it he used this language. I read from the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, First Session, Thirtieth Congress, page 94

"Any people any where, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a sacred right-a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing Government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

Even if Secession was but a revolutionary right, and did not spring at all from the nature of the Compact between the States, Mr. Lincoln here distinctly admits the right,-a "most valuable and sacred right"-as one of a revolutionary character. If this be a sacred right, even in uns view, how, in the language of Mr. Greeley, can

there exist any legal or moral right anywhere else to prevent its exercise? There cannot be two antagonistic rights! Rights, like truths, always fit as between themselves! They never jar, impinge, or collide!

Thus the moral and political worlds, when rightly administered, present the same beauty and symmetry which pervade the physical in all its parts, extending throughout creation; and in the practical workings of all their parts, produce a perfect concord and harmony, not unlike that symphony of the spheres in the material universe which has gone forth from the time the most distant stars iaised the grand chorus in the morning of their birth!

You thus have, gentlemen, a very full review of the grounds upon which my convictions of duty, in regard to the right of Secession, were founded. They arose from my understanding of the nature of the Government of the United States, and where, under the system, that Paramount authority resides, to which ultimate allegiance is due. The conclusion to which I came was, that this ultimate Paramount authority had never been parted with by the States-that, from the nature of the Federal Government, and from the very terms of the Compact between the States, this Sovereign power was reserved to them, severally. If I erred in that conclusion, you see I erred with many of the brightest intellects, ablest statesmen, and purest patriots of this as well as other countries.

But even if I erred with them on this point, we see it fully and clearly admitted, by very high authority in the ranks of modern Republicanism, that it does nevertheless still there reside, according to the great fundamental principles of the American Revolution! In either view, was I not fully justified in the course I took?

I will not ask your judgment upon the matter, how

ever clearly I may think that this exposition of my course shows that I acted rightly and patriotically. I know full well that you have been too thoroughly schooled in different opinions for any one reasonably to expect so radical a change of them in so short a time. Men's opinions or convictions upon such questions do not so readily or easily change. Truths of this character do not bring forth their fruits in a day. They must have time to germinate, grow, and develop, first.

It is better, therefore, to leave these questions for the ver diet of posterity-for the enlightened and unimpassioned judgment of mankind. By this, we or our memories must all abide. All that any of us can do in the premises is, to see to it that all the facts, as well as a true account of our actions, shall be transmitted to that august tribunal. This is the work of history. The only anxiety I have on the matter is, that this work shall be faithfully performed that the record shall be rightly put up. This being done, I entertain no apprehensions as to the verdict and judgment upon it hereafter to be rendered. From these opposing and conflicting priciples, however, as I said in the beginning, the war sprung. These were the latent but real causes.

Now, then, if it is agreeable, we will proceed to consider that immediate and exciting question which brought these organic principles into such terrible physical conflict in the inauguration of the war.

COLLOQUY XII.

CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT-IS A CONFEDERATED GOVERNMENT TOO WEAK TO SECURE ITS OBJECTS-ON THE CONTRARY, IS IT NOT THE STRONGEST OF ALL GOVERNMENTS-THE OPINIONS OF MR JOHN QUINCY ADAMS AND MR. JEFFERSON-IN SECESSION WAS INVOLVED THIS GREAT RIGHT, WHICH LIES AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERATIVE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT-IT WAS OF INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANCE TO THE SOUTH ERN STATES THAN SLAVERY, SO-CALLED, WITH ITS TWO THOUSAND MIL LIONS OF CAPITAL INVESTED IN THAT INSTITUTION.

JUDGE BYNUM. Before proceeding further, I wish briefly to say, at this point, that we have no disposition, or at least I have none, to pronounce judgment in the matter under consideration, so far as it relates to your course, or that of others. It was with no such views or feelings, the subject was at first introduced. We all know full well, that whatever opinion we entertain, or might be inclined to express upon it, if expressed, would have but little weight with that great arbiter, by whom the future judgment to which you refer will be rendered.

But you will allow me to say, that I do not see how you, with your ideas of its nature, could consider the Government of the United States "the best the world ever saw." To me it seems very much, as it did to Judge Story, that such an association of States, bound by nothing stronger than their own will and pleasure, would be no Government at all. It would have no adhesive quality between its parts or members. It would have no stability, no durability, no strength; the bonds of union, in that view, it does seem to me, would be no better, as is often said, than a rope of sand. A Govern

ment, to be worth any thing, must be strong; it must be held together by force. It must be clothed with power, not only to pass laws, but to command obedience. What would become of the public faith, of the public credit, of the public property? What Nation would put any confidence in such a Government, if its nature and organic structure were so understood abroad? Who would treat with such a country, or enter into any agreements, or conventions, with a Government so constructed, upon any matters of trade, commerce, finance, or any thing else? It would be virtually treating with an ideal power that had no real existence! The solemn agreements entered into one day, by what you call the bare agent of a number of separate Sovereignties, might be annulled the next, by any one of these Sovereigns. Such a Government, it seems to me, you will excuse me for saying it, so far from being entitled to the respect even, of any one, would deserve and receive nothing but the contempt of mankind!

MR. STEPHENS. Do not be so quick and broad in your conclusion. Just such Governments, founded upon just such principles, have existed, and have received, "you must upon reflection admit, not the contempt but the admiration of mankind! What think you of the Confederations of Greece? They were just such Governments. To whom is the world so much indebted for European civilization at this time, as to the little Republics upon the Archipelago, held together by no other bonds than their own consent? By whom were the battles of Marathon, and Salamis, and Platæa, fought? By whom was the progress of Asiatic Empire stayed in its westward march, but by States so united? What people on earth have left more enduring monuments of their greatness in the defence and maintenance of liberty, or the develop