is most conclusive.  Having never been States, either in substance or name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State-Rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?  Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States; but the word is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions.  What is sovereignty in the political sense of the term?  Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior?” Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty.  And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the land.  The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status.  If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution.  The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty.  By conquest or purchase, the Union gave each of them whatever of independence or liberty it has.  The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States.  Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old dependence for them, and made them States, such as they are.  Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union.  Of course it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they entered the Union,—­nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.

Unquestionably the States have the powers and the rights reserved to them in and by the National Constitution; but among these, surely, are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive; but, at most, such only as were known in the world at the time, as governmental powers; and, certainly, a power to destroy the government itself had never been known as a governmental—­as a merely administrative power.  This relative matter of National power and States rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality.  Whatever concerns the whole world 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....  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.