Is Davis a traitor

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...so she could unmake it as to herself only. That is, she had no power to destroy the Federal Union, but only to withdraw from it, and let it move on in its own sphere. In the exercise of her original, inherent, indivisible, and inalienable sovereignty, she merely seceded from the Union to which hej had acceded, and asked to be let alone. But she could not escape the despotic, all-devouring Lie, by which her sovereignty had been denied, and her rights denounced as "a pestilential heresy." Nay, by which she had been stripped of her character as a State, and degraded to the rank of a county. Was that the purpose for which, as a sovereign State, she entered into "the more perfect Union?" See chap. xv.. "No man," says Mr. Webster, "makes a question that the people are the source of all political power There is no other doctrine of government here." This is conceded. The people make, and the people unmake, Constitutions. This is the universally received doctrine in America. It is asserted by Calhoun as strenuously as by Webster. But the Constitution was made by the people of the several States, each acting for itself, and bound by no action but its own. Hence, as each State acceded to the compact of the Constitution, so each State may, if it choose, Secede from that compact. If the premise is true, the conclusion is conceded; and the premise has been demonstrated. In acceding to the compact of the Constitution, each State made the Union as to itself; and, in seceding therefrom, it unmakes the Union only as to itself. And it does so by virtue of its own inherent, and inalienable sovereignty. If it should be said, that the people of the several States made, but.cannot unmake, the compact of the Constitution as to themselves; it would follow that...