gaged in the election of a chief magistrate for the United 
States, and did not dispute the legal and constitutioual vali- 
dity of the return of Mr. Lincoln. They set upa new and 
distinct Government, and they raised armies to defend the 
new Confederation, yet we were told that this Confedera- 
tion, eighty days old, which had seceded from a Federation 
more than eighty years old, was not a revolutionary Go- 
vernment. The Confederate leaders shrunk from the word 
revolution as from a hell-blast, at the time they were en- 
gaged in the greatest revolution of the century. They 
asserted that the Constitution of the United States did not 
forbid secession. Perhaps not. They asserted that the 
Federal Government could not oppose secession without 
violating the constitution. Letthat be granted. Suppose, 
for arguments’ sake, we admit that the Southern seces- 
sion was constitutional, and that the opposition of the North 
was unconstitutional, still it was a revolution for the South 
to leave the North, and to set up a new and independent Go- 
vernment. Admitting for a moment that secession did not 
violate, but was sanctioned by the letter of the Constitution, 
it does not render secession less revolutionary, though it ren- 
ders the revolution constitutional. The great revolutions 
that the English race have been engaged in, were consti- 
tutional revolutions. We suppose the movement that 
made Oliver Cromwell Protector of England, wzce Charles I. 
beheaded, was a revolution; yet it must be confessed that, 
during the first years of the struggle at all events, the 
revolutionary Roundheads were defending, and the Royal 
cavaliers were violating the tenets of the Constitution. 
The movement that drove James II. into exile was a revo- 
lution; yet the revolutionists were very particular in ad- 
hering to the Constitution. So, when the Thirteen Colonies 
revolted, the movement was at first in strict accordance 
with the letter, and, we may add, with the spirit, of the Con- 
stitution. Herein is the radical difference between a con- 
stitutional and a despotic government. Under the latter, 
a people have no political rights, and therefore resist- 
‘ance to tyranny, no matter how needful, is unconstitu- 
tional. Now, constitutional government is in theory based 
on the consent of the governed, and, in theory, so much 
power is vested in the people, that'a revolution, whether 
justified or not, may be constitutional, or, at least, it may 
not violate the letter of the constitution. For all practical 
purposes, the Constitution of England as broadly sanctions 
the right of revolution as does the Constitution of the United 
534 The Fall of the Confederacy. 
