election of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally,and thereby legally,elected to the executive office.There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and,likewise,there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words,no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule.What was challenged was the principle of majority rule.And in a republic,where majority rule is denied,there will also be found a denial of popular government."The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government."5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln,they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists.They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it.Immediately following the 1860 election,two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield.The Northern banner would read,"Majority rule."The Southern banner would read,"Consent of the governed."What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct.Both represent a vital component to the American experiment.What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words,the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government.They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty,but both did not mean the same thing.Thomas Jefferson,in his First Inaugural Address,said,"[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle."6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle.In April,1864,as the Civil War was in its third year,Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty,and the American people,just now,are much in want of one.We all declare for liberty;but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself,and the product of his labor;while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men,and the product of other men's labor.Here are two,not only different,but incompatable [sic]things,called by the same name-liberty.And it follows that each of the things is,by the respective parties,called by two different and incompatable [sic]names-liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat,for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator,while the wolf denounces him for theelection of 1860 had elected Lincoln president of the United States. Lincoln was constitutionally, and thereby legally, elected to the executive office. There was no squabble as to what the Constitution meant, and, likewise, there was no perversion of where the public mind rested. In other words, no one denied that Lincoln was the next American president. What was denied was the rightness of his rule. What was challenged was the principle of majority rule. And in a republic, where majority rule is denied, there will also be found a denial of popular government. "The right of the people to act by means of such a majority was itself grounded in the principle of all popular government." 5 When the secessionists rejected Lincoln, they consequentially and unequivocally rejected the principle of popular government itself. But this was no accident on the part of the secessionists. They understood this notion just as Lincoln understood it. Immediately following the 1860 election, two opposing banners would have stood on the political battlefield. The Northern banner would read, "Majority rule." The Southern banner would read, "Consent of the governed." What is interesting to any student of politics is that both axioms are correct. Both represent a vital component to the American experiment. What is even more interesting is that they are both an expression of the same principle, yet it is the understanding of that principle which makes them different. In other words, the Northerners and the Southerners had a different understanding of good government. They both claimed to be lovers and defenders of liberty, but both did not mean the same thing. Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said, "[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." 6 But certainly some differences of opinion are differences of principle. In April, 1864, as the Civil War was in its third year, Lincoln spoke at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore on the consequences of a difference of opinion becoming a difference of principle: The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable [sic] things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable [sic] names—liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the