between the shape which revolution may here
assume, and the shapes which it assumes un-
der those forms of government where the whole
sovereignty is vested in a single bead, and
where the government is formed exclusively
by, and operates solely on individuals. The peo-
ple, acting in their individual capacity some
in one State and some in another without
reference to sectional lines, may undertake to
remodel or change the government, contrary
to the forms of the Constitution, instead of
a revolution marked by sectional lines, a por-
tion of the people of Maryland may be dis-
satisfied with their form of government. A
portion of the people of Massachuesettes, and
a portion of the people of New Hampshire
may also be dissatisfied, and may try to over-
turn the Federal Government; and we may
have in either one or all of these States, a
portion of the people standing by the Federal
Government, and a portion aiming at its
overthrow, the result being this: that one
State will be with the Federal Government,
and another against it, accordingly as the
numerical majority or State authority may
incline. Massachusetts may be with it, and
Maryland may be against it; and the revolu-
tion wilt go on in that shape or form. This
would be revolution as commonly understood
and treated of by writers on government.
But the people acting through organized
communities, through the States, may at-
tempt the same thing. They may by sectional
lines gain the power and authority over the
State Governments, and act in the revolution
just as we see that revolution is now going on
in the Southern States; a sectional line
drawn, and those within that line waging
war against the Government, through the ac-
tion of the States at first, and afterwards,
under the direction of an authority created by
the States. This is still revolution. But a
new form of revolution developed by our
American theory of government, and not
known to, or at least distinguished plainly
by European, or even American writers,
who have treated upon the subject. Vattel
Laws of nations, book 3, ch. 18, page 424
contains the germ of the idea. but does not
plainly devolope it.
" When a party is formed in a State, who
no longer obey the sovereign, and are pos-
sessed of sufficient strength to oppose him,—
or when in a republic, the nation is divided
into two opposite factions, and both sides take
up arms,—this is called a civil war. Some
writers confine this term to a just insurrec-
tion of the subjects against their sovereign, to
distinguish it from that unlawful resistance, rebellion.
which is an open and unjust resistance.
But what appellation will they give to a war
which arises in a republic torn by two fac-
tions; or in a monarchy, between two com-
petitors tor the crown? Custom appropriates
the term of ' civil war ' to every war between
the members of one and the same political so- |
ciety. If it be between part of the citizens
on the one side, and the sovereign and those
who continue in obedience to him on the
other, provided the malcontents have any
reason tor taking up arms, nothing further is
required to entitle such disturbance to the
name of civil war, and not rebellion. This
latter term is applied only to such an insur-
rection against lawful authority as is void of
all appearance of justice. The sovereign, in-
deed, never fails to beslow the appellation of
rebels on all such of his subjects as openly re-
sist him; but when the latter have acquired
sufficient strength to give him effectual oppo-
sition, and to oblige him to carry on the war
against them according to the established
rules, he must necessarily submit to the use
of the term 'civil war.'
"A civil war breaks the bonds of society
and government, or at least suspends their
force and effect; it produces in the nation two
independent parties, who consider each other
as enemies, and acknowledge no common
judge. These two parlies, therefore, must
necessarily be considered as thenceforward
constituting, at least for a time, two separate
bodies, two distinct societies. Though on«
of the parties may have been to blame in
breaking the unity of the State and resisting
the lawful authority, they are not the less
divided in fact. Besides, who shall judge
them? Who shall pronounce on which side
the right or the wrong lies? On earth they
have no common superior. They stand there-
fore in precisely the same predicament as two
nations, who engage in acontest, and being
unable to come to an agreement, have re-
course to arms."
Hon. James A. Bayard, in his speech delivered in the Senate on the ________day of
March, 1861 (Congressional Globe, volume
-—, page —, — session of Con-
gress,) has more fully argued with masterly
ability the theory of secession as being revo-
lution by States than I have ever known
the subject to be discussed. He there takes
the ground that secession is revolution by
States—admits the right of the General Gov-
ernment to deal with the seceded States
through a resort to negotiation, by measures
of conciliation, or to make the act of secession
a casus belli, and concludes his argument by
maintaining the power of the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Sen-
ate, to recognize the independence of the
Southern States.
To go one step further, I. will refer again to
2 Black's Supreme Court Reports, 636; and I
would ask the gentleman from Baltimore
city (Mr. Stirling) whether he recognizes that
decision as authority, or whether that is also
a case where he will only submit to the exe-
cution issued thereon; a doctrine as subver-
sive of law and order, and constitutional
principles and as direct a denial of the au-
thority of the Supreme Court, whose de- |
