Even Lord John Russell
confesses his inability to see any cause for the excessive indignation manifested in the North
at the crime of "rebellion." England
, he observes, rebelled against Charles I.; rebelled against James II.; and the people of New England
, not content with these two rebellions, rebelled against George III.
Without deciding whether those rebellions were justifiable, or whether they were wrong, or whether the Southern
rebellion is justifiable or not, Earl Russell says: ‘"The mere fact of rebellion is not, in my eyes, a crime of so deep a dye that we must renounce all fellowship and communion and relationship with those who have been guilty of it. I own I cannot but wonder to see the offspring of three rebellions really speaking like the Czar of Russia
, the Sultan of Turkey
, or Louis XIV.
himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of rebellion."’
What adds to the audacity of this outcry, is the simple fact that there has been no rebellion at all, unless it be that of the Black
Republican party against the American Constitution
There must be allegiance to a government acknowledged before resistance of its authority becomes rebellion.
The States never owed any such allegiance to their agency at Washington
They were the sovereigns, to whom, and to whom alone, the supreme allegiance of their respective inhabitants was due.