served than constituted authority, but cannot be justified otherwise.  Now and again it may happen that rebellion’s cause is so good that constituted authority will fall to the ground at the first glance of her sword.  This was so the other day in Naples, when Garibaldi blew away the king’s armies with a breath.  But this is not so often.  Rebellion knows that it must fight, and the legalized power against which rebels rise must of necessity fight also.

I cannot see at what point the North first sinned; nor do I think that had the North yielded, England would have honored her for her meekness.  Had she yielded without striking a blow, she would have been told that she had suffered the Union to drop asunder by her supineness.  She would have been twitted with cowardice, and told that she was no match for Southern energy.  It would then have seemed to those who sat in judgment on her that she might have righted everything by that one blow from which she had abstained.  But having struck that one blow, and having found that it did not suffice, could she then withdraw, give way, and own herself beaten?  Has it been so usually with Anglo-Saxon pluck?  In such case as that, would there have been no mention of those two dogs, Brag and Holdfast?  The man of the Northern States knows that he has bragged—­bragged as loudly as his English forefathers.  In that matter of bragging, the British lion and the star-spangled banner may abstain from throwing mud at each other.  And now the Northern man wishes to show that he can hold fast also.  Looking at all this I cannot see that peace has been possible to the North.

As to the question of secession and rebellion being one and the same thing, the point to me does not seem to bear an argument.  The confederation of States had a common army, a common policy, a common capital, a common government, and a common debt.  If one might secede, any or all might secede, and where then would be their property, their debt, and their servants?  A confederation with such a license attached to it would have been simply playing at national power.  If New York had seceded—­a State which stretches from the Atlantic to British North America—­it would have cut New England off from the rest of the Union.  Was it legally within the power of New York to place the six States of New England in such a position?  And why should it be assumed that so suicidal a power of destroying a nationality should be inherent in every portion of the nation?  The Slates are bound together by a written compact, but that compact gives each State no such power.  Surely such a power would have been specified had it been intended that it should be given.  But there are axioms in politics as in mathematics, which recommend themselves to the mind at once, and require no argument for their proof.  Men who are not argumentative perceive at once that they are true.  A part cannot be greater than the whole.