as there is no common superior it can not be enforced.  A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and in our case it is both necessarily implied and expressly given.  An attempt, by force of arms, to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right by the law of self-defense to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act.  In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws.

It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which connects us, but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject.  No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the States than the Magistrate who now addresses you.  No one would make greater personal sacrifices or official exertions to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with or resumption of the rights they have vested in the nation.  The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power.  Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt.  Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession.  It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede.  Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty.  It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty.  The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all of them functions of sovereign power.  The States, then, for all these important purposes were no longer sovereign.  The allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the Government of the United States; they became American citizens and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress.  This last position has not been and can not be denied.  How, then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it