by the opinions of Madison and Jefferson; but the North
may fairly adduce the opinions of those men, who were framers of the
Constitution, not as binding upon their descendants, but as serving to
explain the meaning of disputed provisions in that Constitution. The
Constitution binds us all, North and South: then recurs the question,
What is the meaning of its provisions? and _then_ the contemporaneous
opinions of its framers come legitimately into play as an argument.

Of the Missouri Compromise Mr. Fisher says,--

"It may be said that this law was a violation
of the equal rights of the Southern people,
by excluding them from a large portion
of the national domain. The answer is, not
merely that this was done with their consent,
their representatives having approved the law,
but that the law did recognize their rights,
by dividing between them and the Northern
people all the territory then possessed by the
Government."

We are surprised that upon his own presentation of the case this simple
question does not occur to Mr. Fisher: Supposing the South and the North
to have had equal and conflicting rights in the national domain, and
supposing that there was need of some arbiter, and remembering that
Congress undertook the duties of arbiter and decided that the
division under the Missouri Compromise gave each section its rightful
share,--then, with what propriety can the South, after occupying its own
share, call for a portion in the share allotted to the North?

The second essay, on "Popular Sovereignty in the Territories," presents
comparatively few salient points. A very spirited and just history of
the working of the Administration schemes in Kansas, a restating of
some of the arguments against the Kansas-Nebraska Act set forth in the
preceding essay, and a remonstrance against the headstrong course of
Southern politicians are its most noticeable features.

"The Union, the Constitution, and the
friendship of the North: these are the pillars
on which rest the peace, the safety, the
independence of the South. The extraordinary
thing is, that for some years past the South
has been, and now is, sedulously employed in
undermining this triple foundation of its power
and safety. Its extravagant pretensions,
its excesses, its crimes, are rapidly cooling
the friendship of the North,--converting it,
indeed, into positive enmity. Its leading politicians
are ever plotting and