roy the government itself had never been
known as a governmental, as a merely administrative power. This relative
matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other
than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole
should be confided to the whole--to the General Government; while whatever
concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This
is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the national
Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the
principle with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all bound
by that defining, without question.

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the
Constitution--is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is
any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law which
leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased with money
the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just
that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The nation
paid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred
millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she
shall now be off without consent or without making any return? The
nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called
seceding States in common with the rest. Is it just either that creditors
shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of the
present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it
just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?

Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have
seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just for creditors?
Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money?
If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace,
it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go or to extort
terms upon which they will promise to remain.

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They
have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which of
necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession
as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby
admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained
it, by their own construction of our