Justice of the cause will be found to be on the side of those with whom my fortunes were cast, and with whom, in all their heroic struggles and unparalleled sacrifices, my feelings and sympathies were ever thoroughly enlisted, and my utmost exertions put forth for their success. Whatever errors in policy they may have committed, either in the inception of the difficulties or in their subsequent management, the real object of those who resorted to Secession, as well as those who sustained it, was not to overthrow the Government of the United States; but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution. The form of Government therein embodied, I did think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the world will never see its like again.

JUDGE BYNUM. Be assured I should like very much to hear you, otherwise I should not have introduced the subject as I have. The same I feel warranted

in saying for my friends. We came to spend a few days with you, not only to see you, and to revive the friendship of former years, but to talk with you, and to hear your views generally upon the present state of public affairs. We know your opinions on some matters differ widely from ours. But we cheerfully accord to you perfect sincerity in your convictions. You must not, though, indulge the hope or expectation of producing such a change in ours as you seem to think you can. That, indeed, would be a Herculean undertaking.

MR. STEPHENS. You mean simply to verify what is said in the old quaint lines:

"Convince a man against his will,

He's of the same opinion still.”

Or, as Butler, in Hudibras, has it:

"He that complies against his will,

Is of his own opinion still."

PROF. NORTON. He rather intimates, one might infer, that the roots of his Radicalism would be more difficult to exterminate than were the roots of the hundred heads of the Lernæan Hydra, which even Hercules was unable to destroy without the assistance of Iolas. Is that your idea, Judge?

JUDGE BYNUM. No. I was not thinking of the Hydra, its heads or their roots. I was only giving utterance to the consciousness I feel of the impregnable position of Truth, Justice and Right, upon which my principles are founded; and, these being so founded, I meant only to say that I did not think that either they or my opinions in regard to them can possibly be changed.

MR. STEPHENS. Well, be that as it may. I did not mean to say that I thought that I could change your opinions on these subjects, but only that I could make it appear clearly to you, why I, with my convictions, acted as I did, under the circumstances. Our ideas of Truth, Justice and Right, in political as well as social matters, and all the relations of life, depend very much upon cir. cumstances. This seems to be owing partly to the infirmities of human nature. There ought, however, to be no difference between intelligent minds as to Truth, which rests simply and entirely upon matters of fact; but, in practical life, there are great and wide differences, even on this, owing to a disagreement or a different understanding as to the facts merely. Justice and Right depending on the Truth of the facts, must, of course, be the subjects of much wider differences in all cases where the facts are not first settled, or where the Truth is not admitted by both sides. Men's convictions as to Truth,

or what they receive as the Truth, depend entirely upon their understanding of facts. Convictions are always sincere. There may be insincere professions of opinions, but there can be no insincere convictions, as to Truth, Justice, or Right, in any matter relating to human conduct. These depend upon laws of mind, over which voli tion has no control. There is as much sound, genuine Philosophy, as wit, in the couplets quoted. There is no such thing as convincing a man against his will. Galileo complied with the exactions of torture, by renouncing his belief in the rotatory motion of the earth; but his convictions of this great truth remained as firm as ever, notwithstanding. Belief and conviction are results with which the will has nothing to do, except in collecting and ascertaining the facts upon which depend the truth, or what is considered the truth, to which alone the mind yields its assent. Hence, the necessity of a very liberal charity in all discussions of this nature.

The question you submit relates to Government- one of the most intricate, as well as interesting, subjects that can engage the attention of reflecting minds. Cicero maintains, that nothing connected with human affairs can more properly or profitably occupy the attention of thinking men, in their moments of leisure, or periods of holiday, than matters concerning the good of the Commonwealth. Your question opens a wide field for interchange of views upon topics of this kind, and it will be quite as agreeable to me, with the qualification before stated, as it can be to you, to have a full, free and social talk on these and kindred matters, whether for bare entertainment only, and nothing else, or whether with a view to the chances of mutual profit, each agreeing to disagree throughout, where our convictions differ, or where, to state it differently, our understanding of the

facts differ. Is it agreeable all round, that we should have such a talk, upon these terms and conditions?

JUDGE BYNUM. Perfectly so, to me; and I will undertake to vouch for the others. You see the Professor and the Major both nod their assent.

MR. STEPHENS. Well, then, before undertaking to answer your question, Judge, "how I could reconcile it with my sense of duty, to go with my State against the Union," which opens such a field of inquiry, allow me to premise, by making an observation or two on your remark about my being a citizen of the United States, and, as such, being bound by allegiance, as a loyal citizen (to use a popular phrase, so current just now), to obey the acts of that Government, as the supreme law of the land.

I agree with you in this, that allegiance and Paramount authority go together; that the first follows the latter. We shall have much to say on that, hereafter.

But, first, as to citizenship. Is there any such thing as citizenship of the United States, apart from citizenship of a particular State or Territory of the United States? To me it seems most clearly that there is not. We are all citizens of particular States, Territories, or Districts of the United States, and thereby only, citizens of the United States. I was a citizen of Georgia; being a citizen of Georgia, I became, thereby, a citizen of the United States, only because Georgia was one of the United States. under the Constitution, which was the bond, or compact, of the Union between the States thus united. Had Georgia never united with the other States, her people would never have been, in any sense of the word, citizens of the United States.

JUDGE BYNUM. You do not mean to say that there is no such thing as being a citizen of the United States, except as a citizen of some 'one of the States or Territories?

MR. STEPHENS. Yes; that is exactly what I mean

to say.

JUDGE BYNUM. That is, certainly, a strange idea. What do you do with naturalized foreigners, who are, by the laws, made citizens of the United States?

MR. STEPHENS. They are, as you and I are, citizens of the United States, because of their being, under the laws, admitted to citizenship of some one of the States or Territories of the United States. The only power Congress has, under the Constitution, on this subject, is to make uniform rules of naturalization. That is, to prescribe uniform rules, which are to be the same in all of the States, by which foreigners may be permitted to become citizens of the several States or Territories. Before this power was delegated to Congress, each State, as all other Sovereign, independent nations, had the uncontrolled right to admit foreigners to citizenship, upon such terms as each, for itself, saw fit. In order that the same terms or conditions might exist in all the States, each State, in the Constitution, agreed to delegate the power to Congress, to make the rules on the subject of naturalization uniform in all of the States. This is the view of all writers upon the subject.

Mr. Rawle, in his admirable treatise on the Constitution of the United States, has well said, on the subject of citizenship, generally: "It cannot escape notice that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution." And then, on the subject of naturalization, and the reason of giving power to Congress over the subject, he says: "In the second section of the fourth article, it is provided that the citi zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges

*Rawle on the Constitution, p. 85.

† Id., p. 84.