think you do not. Where do you perceive these indications of calmness and tranquility? I look for them in vain. Are they to be found in the columns of our journals-in the language of our petitions, memorials and remonstrances in the toasts, addresses and harangues, at our public celebrations? Delightful and calm state of the public feeling, indeed! Calm it assuredly is not; nor do I see how it can be delightful to a reflecting man and a good citizen. It is the interest of all such, as it seems to me, that the Commonwealth be undisturbed. Violent animosities, bitter denunciations, local jealousies, the arraying of section against section, and class against class, appear to me neither indicative of present good, nor prophetic of future. And when did all these evil omens-for such I regard them-crowd on our observation more thickly than at present? When, in some sections of the country, men resort to the polls on days of public election, to act over all the violence and fury of a Westminster mob, and when peaceful citizens resort thither, at the manifest risk of their limbs and lives, it sounds strangely to hear one talk of " delightful tranquillity." If such be the calm, Heaven shield us from the storm. I have not been an indifferent or careless spectator of the course of events and the aspect of affairs; and to me it appears that the public mind has seldom been more agitated, or the tone of feeling fiercer or more reckless, than for some time past. Let dispassionate men judge between us.

But further, allow me to ask, whether such a state of the public mind as you describe, would, in your sober judgment, be favourable to your views? Designate these views by whatever term you please; allow them to be as honest, as patriotic, and as honourable as you doubtless suppose them; still it cannot be denied, that their tendency is to effect a mighty-I say a fearful, and ruinous-change in our political condition. Can you persuade yourself, that in a delightful and calm state of the pub lic feeling, such propositions, would, for a moment be entertained? Have you not an intimate consciousness, that the waters must first be disturbed, before the spirit you wish to raise, can be evoked from their depths? I will not do your understanding the discredit to suppose that you are not fully aware of this. What is it you propose to your fellowcitizens? It must be admitted, that you propose it as the less of two evils; the somewhat hard alternative, to which States, as well as individuals, are sometimes driven-But, it must likewise be admitted, on your part, that the scope of your reasoning and statements, goes to show, distinctly, that the alternative is no longer in our choice. What is it, I say, that you propose to us? Nothing less than a dissolution of the Union-nothing less than resistance to the laws. Now, I cannot for my life, perceive that this is either more or less, than what is called, in household phrase, rebellion against the government of our choice. You are of opinion, indeed, that "a state cannot be in rebellion." confess I do not see the ground of this opinion. To me it appears a distinction without a difference.

I

The same obligations of allegiance that bind the individuals of a state, bind also the whole state. Be this as it may-I mean only to say, that, so far as I can understand you, the measures you recommend are of such a character, that the persons found engaged in them -be their numbers greater or smaller, and pass by whatever general designation they might-would, in the ordinary popular acceptation of language, be considered as in a state of rebellion.

You, perhaps, would like the term "revolution" better. But you must recollect, that a great political change can be entitled to this appellation, only after it shall have been successfully achieved. In the beginning of our resistance to Great-Britain, we were denominated rebels; our title to the other designation had to be carved out for us with the sword.

Now it must, I think, appear singular, at least, to every one, that you should allege the tranquil state of the public feeling, and the palmy condition of affairs, as a reason for coming forward with projects of this sort, and call upon us to discuss them "rationally and dispassionately." This is not the temper of mind, surely, in which such designs are conceived, or matured. Like the stormy pettrell, they are not wont to be seen on the wing but when the winds are up, and the elements in commotion.

No, Sir, do not deceive yourself. Your essays, if they find men. cool, will, if they yield themselves to their influence, be little likely to leave them so.

You come into a house where a social party are assembled, and you say to them, "Gentlemen, I am happy to find you so pleasantly occupied. I congratulate you on the quiet and comfortable state of every thing about you-and I exhort you to be of good cheer. I regard this as a very favourable condition of affairs for the important annunciation I have to make. The house is on fire over your heads; and, therefore, I trust you will be quite cool and dispassionate. And, as a further reason for this, I have to inform you, that armed men have beset the premises; and that all escape is impossible. There is, indeed, one remedy, and I feel a pride and pleasure in proposing it. It is, that we blow up at once the whole concern."

This seems to me no unfair interpretation of the oracles you have uttered in the numbers of the Crisis; so far, I mean, as their practical results are concerned. I must be allowed to doubt, whether my fellowcitizens are altogether prepared for the experiment. Perhaps, however, you intended all this only as a kind of philosophical drapery thrown, like the "eternal Toga," round your purposes, to render their figure more imposing and Roman-like.

But, enough of this. I have dwelt on it, perhaps, too long. More important topics are before us.

In my next number, I propose to consider your remarks on the tendency-especially the modern tendency-of our government to consolidation. I hope to make it apparent, that your argument, however ably conducted, rests on no solid foundation; and that the dangers which, to your apprehension, threaten the Southern States from this quarter, are chimerical.

NO. III.

Consolidation seems to be the mighty phantom which broods forever over your faculties. One would think there was no little magic in the Yet the word is a harmless one. A patriot familiar with the early history of our Government might even associate the expression,

term.

naturally enough, with all that is grand and beneficent in our institutions. Instead of exciting images of terror in his mind, it might carry back his thoughts to one of the most venerable assemblies, and most imposing transactions, which the world has witnessed, when patriots and sages united their exertions not merely to protect from external violence the separate and independent States, but to make them ONE NATION in the bonds of a more perfect union;" that distant nations might behold the imposing spectacle of many so firmly and happily consolidated in ONE mighty empire, as to forbid aggression, and to command respect. How little did the framers of our great system dream, that in a few short years, men, calling themselves patriots and Americans, would arise, and point to "usurpation" and "consolidation" as the menacing tyrants of the land. Far, very far, different were the apprehensions of these gifted spirits. They knew that in the complex government, formed by the people of these States, there would always be enough of local interest and jealousy to embarrass and perplex the operations of the National Legislature that State Rights would be the theme of perpetual debate and irritation; and that nothing but a spirit of generous and manly compromise could ever avail to check the out-breakings of this paltry and radical tendency. Happy is it for many of them, who toiled so earnestly to lay the foundations of our republic, that they lived just long enough to see how glorious the march of their country began; and departed just before the foul spirit of division and disorganization emerged from its gloomy abode, to darken the air, and corrupt the waters of liberty. Let it be the duty of every citizen, who values the blessed work of our fathers, to make a vigorous defence against this disturber of our prosperity; and to convince all who endeavour to shake our attachment to the Union, that we have not forgotten the lessons they have left, of patriotic devotion to the Nation.

propose, Sir, in the first place, to show, how utterly you deceive yourself, and all others who throw themselves open to your influence, when you attempt to prove, that there is any such departure from the spirit of our National Government, since the commencement of Mr. MONROE'S Administration, as would lead to the conclusion that a dangerous consolidation must ensue. Perhaps the most triumphant way of defeating your statements on this point will be, to select some prominent acts of the National Government, from the time when WASHINGTON entered on his high duties as President of these United States, to that when your bitter animadversions began. And lest there should be any lingering prejudices attached to the term "consolidation," about which you have succeeded, in your own apprehension at least, in gathering so many frightful images, I must be permitted to refer to a document, in which the word is used, to say the least, in an innocent sense, and by one whose name never salutes our ears, without stirring in our souls all emotions of veneration and gratitude. I allude to the letter written by the Father of his Country to the Congress, in which was enclosed that great charter of our rights, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. These are his memorable words-" In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in 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.' To the mind of WASHINGTON and his associates, therefore, the term seems to have been fraught with no such odious and alarming import. On the contrary, it was the object (to many of the most enlightened among them, at least,) of their earnest and devoted endeavours. They laboured assiduously to effect a consolidation more entire, you must yourself admit, than the usurping Administration, either of MONROE or ADAMS, has, so far as appears, ever dreamed of accomplishing.

"It is improper," says one, "that the State Legislatures should have the power contemplated to be given them'-" We must forget our local habits and attachments." "I apprehend," says Mr. MADISON, who, by the way, displayed in the Convention a ripeness of intellect, a vigour and reach of thought, which he has never since surpassed; "I apprehend the greatest danger is from the encroachment of the States on the National Government." Again, he uses language much stronger even than this-language, I should think, not a little startling to the champions of State Rights, who have so often endeavoured to ensconce themselves behind his shield. "If it were the case, that the National Government usurped the State Government, if such usurpation was for the good of the whole, no evil could arise." "To draw the line between the two, is a difficult task. I believe it cannot be done." Meaning, with entire precision,' doubtless. Is it credible, that men, who could hold such a language as this, could ever give the weight of their authority to that construction of the Constitution, which it is the object of your reasonings to enforce? A construction, which ties up the hands of the Government from the use of any discretion whatever, either in its objects, or the means of effecting them? I should think not. I verily believe it was the intention of the Convention-I mean, rather, of the leading men, the master spirits-to organize a Government of greater vigour, and powers less circumscribed, than any of us would now be disposed to claim for the National Government. Their deepest apprehension seems to have been, that they should fail in imparting to the new system the requisite compressive, and consolidating

energy.

"Even with corporate rights," says another, "the States will be dangerous to the National Government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale." "The National Government ought to be able to support itself without the aid, or interference of the State Governments." These are characterised throughout the debates, as "subordinate jurisdictions," which ought to be subjected to the full control of the General Government. It was even proposed to vest the appointment of the supreme executive of the States respectively in the President of the United States, or in the National Legislature. "If we do not," says Mr. MADISON, again, radically depart from a federal plan, we shall share the fate of ancient and modern confederacies.' "Not a State Government," says Mr. RANDOLPH, "but its officers will infringe on the rights of the National Government. We are erecting a supreme National Governmentought it not to be supported, and can we give it too many sinews."

Let me not be told, that these strong expressions of opinion are unimportant. I regard them as very important. They bear directly on the question between is. They show most distinctly which way the

fears and apprehensions of those dispassionate, and strong-sighted men pointed. They had no fears that the system would be bound, by their labors, too firmly and compactly together. The centrifugal force was the object of their dread. In this state of mind, were they likely, I put it to your judgment, to interweave into the fabric of the Constitution, phrases, in their obvious and popular acceptation, fraught with a broad and liberal import, which yet, in practical construction, are to be regarded as having no meaning; or rather, according to your doctrine, a great deal less than none?-which are to operate in fact, only to limit, and restrict-only to narrow, if not to nullify, the grants of other powers? To me it appears that this proposition is one of those that even proof cannot make credible.

NO. IV.

You have given us largely of what you denominate " contemporanéous construction" of the great charter of our hopes. I admit that it is valuable and important, though hardly as much so, as you seem to regard it. It must not claim to be received as conclusive and paramount authority, perhaps, on any point. I am willing to avail myself of it, as a collateral light, to guide me to the true interpretation of the instrument and nothing more. I will never admit, that it can, in any case whatever, throw open again a question closed and settled, in the forms, and by the tribunals, which the Constitution has itself prescribed. I mean that this principle shall apply both to my own authorities, and to yours. In my last number, I introduced several remarks of Mr. MADISON, and other prominent members of the Convention, for the purpose of showing what were their views and feelings, on the subject of consolidation. These extracts might be multiplied almost ad libitum. I shall content myself with one or two more. The first, is from the pen of him who was pre-eminently distinguished above all other men, perhaps, that ever lived, for the perfect balance and har mony of all the powers of his mind, and all the ingredients of his moral being-whom no passions seem ever to have disturbed, no pres judices clouded, no selfish considerations drawn, for a single moment, from the straight and lofty course of patriotic devotion. "For my own part, I have no fears arising from this source, (too great an extension of federal powers,) but I have many, and powerful ones, indeed, which predict the worst consequences from a half-starved, limping government, that appears to be always moving upon crutches, and tottering at every step. What follows, tends to show that WASHINGTON, at least, was little haunted with the terrors of usurpation from this quarter, which seem to present themselves to your imagination, in so dreadful a form.

"Men chosen as the Delegates in Congress, cannot, officially, be dangerous; they depend upon the breath-nay, they are so much the creatures of the people, that they can have no views, which could possibly be carried into execution, nor any interests distinct from those of their constituents." That the opinions of Col. HAMILTON inclined to a very strong and consolidated government, is well known. His