we want to know what those States actually did, must Mr. Madison's wish pass for everything, and their solemnly recorded acts for nothing?

Mr. Madison, as his correspondence shows, was extremely anxious to prevent a conditional ratification of the Constitution in New York, as well as in Virginia. He even went so far as to advance the extraordinary proposition, that a conditional ratification would be "no ratification at all," and would "not make New York a member of the new Union." But after Virginia had ratified the Constitution on the express condition, that its powers should not be perverted to her injury or oppression, and had reserved the right to resume the delegated powers in case that condition should be violated; Mr. Madison retraced his steps, and freely admitted that Virginia was really in the Union! He writes to Hamilton at once, and to Washington, in order to do away with the impression, that a conditional ratification is "no ratification at all," and would not make any State a "member of the new Union." In regard to the conditional ratification of Virginia, he says: it contains "some plain and general truths, that do not impair the validity of the act."

Now from these words of Mr. Madison, it has been strenuously argued, that Virginia did not reserve the right to resume the powers she had delegated to the Federal Government! It is true, as Mr. Madison said, that the plain truths referred to, did not impair the validity of the Virginia act of ratification. No one has ever doubted the validity of that act; or that it made Virginia a member of the new Union. Nor could any one ever dream of doubting such a thing; unless he had previously embraced Mr. Madison's most extraordinary proposition, that a conditional ratification is no ratification at all. But, while there is no question whatever as to the validity of the act, it is denied, that it was unconditionally and eternally binding on the State of Virginia, or that it could never be repealed by

the sovereign power by which it was enacted. Is it not wonderful, then, that Mr. Madison's words merely asserting the validity of the act in question, which no one has ever denied, should be so confidently quoted to prove, that the act must, in any event, stand forever, unrepealed and unrepealable, by the power by which it was ordained?

Now what is "the plain and general truth" to which Mr. Madison refers as contained in the Virginia ordinance of ratification? It is the truth, that the powers delegated to the Federal Government may be resumed in case of their perversion; and that they may be resumed by the authority which delegated them. This was a plain truth then, and this is a plain truth now. It is indeed universally conceded. Neither Story, nor Webster, nor Everett, nor Motley, has one syllable to say against this plain and incontestable truth. Hence, if Virginia delegated powers to the Federal Government; then Virginia, and Virginia alone, had the right to resume those powers. This would have been the case, even if no express reservation of that right had been contained in her ordinance of ratification. But did Mr. Madison deny, that the powers in question were delegated by the State of Virginia? If so, then he denied a plain fact; and a fact, too, which he invariably and earnestly proclaimed from the beginning to the end of his career. Even if he denied that fact by implication, this would have proved only his inconsistency, and furnished another instance of the blinding influence of his extreme desire to veil the right of secession.

Argument from the opinion of Hamilton.

"However gross a heresy," says Hamilton, "it may be to maintain, that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates." This, it should be observed, is said in relation to the old Articles of Confederation, which are universally * Federalist, No. xxii.

admitted to have formed a compact between sovereign States. It was, then, the opinion of Hamilton, that a State had no right to secede from a confederacy of States, or from the compact by which they are united. If he means to assert, that it has no natural or moral right to secede at pleasure from a compact, I have at present no controversy with him. But if he means that it has no legal, or constitutional right to do so, then his own opinion is "a gross heresy," which has but few respectable advocates at the present day.

For, as we have already seen, both Story and Webster concede, that the constitutional right of secession belongs to States, which are united by a compact. Now, after such a concession, is it not too late to quote the opinion of Hamilton to prove, that the very inference conceded is “a gross heresy"? Yet this is done by Mr. Justice Story. In one paragraph, he admits that if the Constitution is a compact between the States, then each State may secede from that compact at pleasure; and yet, in the very next paragraph, he proves out of the Federalist, that *"even under the confederation," which is admitted to have been founded on a compact between the States, † "it was deemed a gross heresy to maintain, that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact;"‡ or to set it aside at pleasure. Thus the very inference which he admits in one breath, he pronounces a gross heresy in the next, and proves it to be such by the authority of Hamilton!

The doctrine which both Story and Webster have been constrained to admit, is no doubt entitled to more consideration than the naked and unsupported opinion of Hamilton. This opinion seems, indeed, to have grown out of his deep and intense desire to consolidate the Union, rather than form his legal studies and knowledge. He was only thirty years of age when the Federalist was written; and his life, with the exception of four years, had been * Vol. i, p. 288. † No. xxii. ‡ Vol. i, p. 290.

passed in the active duties of the camp, or in his college studies. Hence, however great his powers, his knowledge of jurisprudence, and of the opinions of the learned, must have been exceedingly limited, when compared with those who have devoted their lives to this study. If, then, Story and Webster are constrained to admit the right of a State to secede from a confederacy bound by a mutual compact; this may surely be taken as an indication of the real teachings of the law on the point in question, and regarded as a higher authority, than the bare opinion of Hamilton. This would be so, even if no progress had been made in the science of international law since the time of Hamilton; but, in fact, there has been great progress in this science during the present century; especially in regard to the doctrine of compacts between States. Enlightened by the principles of that doctrine, Mr. Justice Story could not deny the right of one of the parties to secede from such "a compact." Hence, he attempted the more than herculean labor of recasting the whole political history of his country, and moulding it into conformity with his wonderful hypothesis, that the Constitution of the United States is not a compact between States at all. He first asserts truly, that a State may secede from such a compact, and then proves out of Hamilton that his own assertion is " a gross heresy"! "That gross heresy," says Hamilton, "has had respectable advocates." Mr. Justice Story himself is one of those advocates. Nor is this all. The Convention of 1787 advocated the same heresy; and, moreover, embodied it in their legislation. Hamilton insisted in that Convention, that the States had no right to revoke the existing compact between them, or to secede from it in order to form another, without the consent of each and every State in the Union. But his opinion was overruled by the Convention; and the States did, in pursuance of the decision of the Convention, withdraw from the existing compact to form a new one.

Mr. Hamilton may have been right, and the States may have been wrong; but, however this may be, their decision established the supreme law of the land. The advocates of the right of some of the parties to a compact between States to revoke that compact, or to withdraw from it, may not have been as respectable as the opponents of this doctrine; it is certain that they prevailed in the Convention of 1787, and embodied their own views in the legislation of the United States. That legislation should be our guide, not the defeated opinion of Mr. Hamilton. Or, at least if we happen to believe that legislation to have been right, and if in conformity with the opinion of Mr. Justice Story, we happen also to believe that a State may secede from a compact between States; may we not humbly hope, that this will not be deemed so "gross a heresy" as to be treated as treason and rebellion?

Argument from the very Idea of a Nation.

The "very idea of a nation," it is said, is utterly incon-sistent with the right of secession. But what is a nation? "It is a body politic," we are told, "independent of all others, and indissolubly one. That is, indissoluble at the mere option of its constituent pars."* Thus, the whole question is begged, and the whole controversy completely settled, by the definition of the very idea of a nation."

How great the triumphs of such logic, and how wonderful the displays of such genius! Setting out from "the very idea of a nation" in the abstract, and, absolutely unembarrassed by any other idea or knowledge in the wide world, this argument just reaches, at one simple bound, the conclusion, that "as the Abberville district cannot secede from South Carolina; so South Carolina cannot secede from the United States;" a profound view and striking illustration which the President from Illinois borrowed from the Preacher of Princeton.t

*Rev. Dr. Hodge on the State of the Country, p. 24.

Enlightened by the profound view of his reverend guide, Mr.