ate Rights_.

But in the autumn of 1860, on the election of Mr. Lincoln, the case
became much worse. Scarcely was the result of this election known by
telegraph before the country was startled by other intelligence, to the
effect that certain States at the South were about to put in execution
the long-pending threat of Secession, of course _in the name of State
Rights_. First came South Carolina, which, by an ordinance adopted in a
State convention, undertook to repeal the original act by which the
Constitution was adopted in this State, and to declare that the State
had ceased to be one of the States of the Union. At the same time a
Declaration of Independence was put forth by this State, which proceeded
to organize itself as an independent community. This example was
followed successively by other States, which, by formal acts of
Secession, undertook to dissolve their relations with the Union, always,
be it understood, _in the name of State Rights_. A new Confederation was
formed by these States, with a new Constitution, and Jefferson Davis at
its head; and the same oaths of loyalty by which the local functionaries
of all these States had been bound to the Union were now transferred to
this new Confederation,--of course, in utter violation of the
Constitution of the United States, but always _in the name of State
Rights_. The ordinances of Secession were next maintained by war, which,
beginning with the assault upon Fort Sumter, convulsed the whole
country, till, at last, all the States of the new Confederation are in
open rebellion, which the Government of the United States is now
exerting its energies, mustering its forces, and taxing its people to
suppress. The original claim, _in the name of State Rights_, has swollen
to all the proportions of an unparalleled war, which, _in the name of
State Rights_, now menaces the national life.

But the pretensions in the name of State Rights are not all told. While
the ordinances of Secession were maturing, and before they were yet
consummated, Mr. Buchanan, who was then President, declined to
interfere, on the ground that what had been done was done by States, and
that it was contrary to the theory of our government "to coerce a
State." Thus was the pretension of State Rights made the apology for
imbecility. Had this President then interfered promptly and loyally, it
cannot be doubted that this whole intolerable crime might have been
trampled out forever. And now, when it i