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 combatted,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 whole?A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas.Is it just that she shall leave,and pay no part of this herself? Again,if one State may secede,so may another;and when all shall have seceded,none is left to pay the debts.Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours,when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine,by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do,if others choose to go,or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain. The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession.They have assumed to make a National Constitution of their own,in which,of necessity,they have either discarded,or retained,the right of secession, as they insist,it exists in ours.If they have discarded it,they thereby admit that,on principle,it ought not to be in ours.If they have retained it,by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another,whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts,or effecting any other selfish,or unjust object.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 combatted, 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 whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, and pay no part of this herself? Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours, when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain. The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a National Constitution of their own, in which, of necessity, they have either discarded, or retained, the right of secession, as they insist, it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that, on principle, it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another, whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts, or effecting any other selfish, or unjust object