, contend that they are
strictly constitutional.

The first of these theories supposes that the States included in the
rebellion have, by the fact of rebellion, forfeited all rights as
States. It is argued that States, like individuals, forfeit their rights
by rebellion.

The other theory supposes that the States having rebelled, may be dealt
with as foreign States; so that, according to the laws of war, the
nation may treat them altogether as alien enemies, and in the event of
the Nation's triumph, the States will be in all respects like conquered
provinces.

It will be observed that each of these theories ignores the principle of
the indivisibility of the Union, and presupposes a dismemberment of it
on the part of every rebellious State.

I. THEORY OF STATE SUICIDE.

Probably no one will deny that rebellion works a forfeiture of all
political rights to those engaged in it. The subject who renounces his
allegiance can claim no protection: just as the Government that should
fail to protect its subjects, could not claim their allegiance.
Allegiance and protection are reciprocal and interdependent duties, and
the failure of one involves and works the failure of the other. So that
it might be quite correct to declare, in reference to the Southern
rebellion, that a rebel has no rights which the United States is bound
to respect. It will be perceived that the question of _right_ is here
spoken of, and not the question of _policy_. No feeling of sympathy with
a defeated people, not the thousand-fold natural ties that bind the
North and the South, should blind our eyes to the main question of
right. Any policy toward repentant rebels that is not magnanimous and
honorably befitting our complete triumph, can never find favor with the
American people, nor ought to; but the incalculably precious interests
of the Nation will not admit of any uncertain precedents in regard to
secession. The precedent must be perfectly clear. It must be established
unqualifiedly and unalterably that secession is treason, and that
whoever is concerned in it is a traitor and must expect a traitor's
punishment. It has been common to call secession a political heresy. The
rebellion, the fruit of secession, stamps it as more and worse than
simply a heresy. It is inchoate treason, and only awaits the favorable
conditions to become open and flagrant. The patriotism, therefore, of
any man may fairly be suspected, who, refusing to be taught by the
ex