evous, and the more dangerous to the
welfare of the country and the liberties of mankind on account of the
signal ability and magnificent eloquence with which they were argued.

[Footnote 80: Elliott's "Debates," vol. i, p. 239; "Madison Papers," pp.
1119-1124.]

[Footnote 81: "Madison Papers," p. 1184.]

[Footnote 82: "Federalist," No. lxxxi.]

[Footnote 83: "Federalist," No. lxxxiv.]

[Footnote 84: Ibid., No. lxxxv.]

[Footnote 85: Elliott's "Debates," vol. iii, pp. 389-391.]

[Footnote 86: Elliott's "Debates," vol. iii, p. 503.]

[Footnote 87: Curtis's "Life of Webster," chap. xxxvii, vol. ii, pp.
518, 519.]

CHAPTER XI.

The Right of Secession.--The Law of Unlimited Partnerships.--The
"Perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation and the "More
Perfect Union" of the Constitution.--The Important Powers
conferred upon the Federal Government and the Fundamental
Principles of the Compact the same in both Systems.--The Right
to resume Grants, when failing to fulfill their Purposes,
expressly and distinctly asserted in the Adoption of the
Constitution.

The Right of Secession--that subject which, beyond all others,
ignorance, prejudice, and political rancor have combined to cloud with
misstatements and misapprehensions--is a question easily to be
determined in the light of what has already been established with regard
to the history and principles of the Constitution. It is not something
standing apart by itself--a factious creation, outside of and
antagonistic to the Constitution--as might be imagined by one deriving
his ideas from the political literature most current of late years. So
far from being against the Constitution or incompatible with it, we
contend that, if the right to secede is not prohibited to the States,
and no power to prevent it expressly delegated to the United States, it
remains as reserved to the States or the people, from whom all the
powers of the General Government were derived.

The compact between the States which formed the Union was in the nature
of a partnership between individuals without limitation of time, and the
recognized law of such partnerships is thus stated by an eminent lawyer
of Massachusetts in a work intended for popular use:

"If the articles between the partners do not contain an
agreement that the partnership shall continue for a specified
time, it may be dissolved at the pleasure of either partner.