Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 14.djvu/507

 Address of Hon. B. H. Hill. 501

very stipulations which made the Union, secession finds a justifica- tion, and coercion none.

From 1787 to i860, the ablest statesmen in America, both in the North and in the South, conceded the right of secession to the States. Some insisted it was a constitutional right, inhering in the sovereignty of the States, and conditioned in the terms of the com- pact. Others denied it was a constitutional right, but said it was only a revolutionary right, to be exercised for cause, and that infidelity to the terms, or the purposes of Union, would be sufficient cause to justify the act. But no accepted statesman. North or South, Whig or Democrat, ever contended or claimed that coercion was a right, either constitutional or revolutionary, during all that period. So, upon the authority of all our great statesmen, including the very framers of the Constitution, secession will stand in history acquitted and justified, while coercion, upon the same authority, must be con- demned as criminal and without excuse.

Secession, consummated, would have divided the Union; the seced- ing States forming a new Union, and leaving the old Union in undis- turbed enjoyment of the States remaining. Coercion, consummated, would first destroy the chief character of the Union, by making it a Union of force, instead of a Union of consent. In the next place, coercion, consummated, would destroy the Union and substitute con- solidation instead. The very word, union, implies the combination of separate wholes for a common purpose. The moment you destroy the separate identity of the members, that moment Union ceases, and unity — consolidation — is accomplished. To destroy, is a greater crime than to separate or divide, and therefore, coercion is a greater crime against the Union than secession.

Again: Secession did not interfere with the rights, or attack the sovereignty, or lessen the dignity or importance of the States. Its real great purpose was to rescue all these from the consequences of threatened consolidation. But coercion, in its very nature, asserts dominion over the States, and must destroy them. Suppose we con- cede that secession would destroy the Union. Which is the greater crime, to destroy the Union, the creature of the States, or the States which created the Union ? But I have shown that coercion destroyed the Union as well as the States. Then, again, the Union of the States was formed to secure the blessings of liberty. Secession could not even impair the liberties of the people. It interfered, in no way whatever, with the rights or privileges of the Northern States and people. It sought only to make more secure the rights, liberties and