constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless dependent
upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.

Unquestionably the States have the powers and 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 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