Why have not the masters the same right to secede from their government as the negro from his ?" "Well, husband," said his wife, "I think that you are getting on fast." "Why," said I, "Mr.North, is not slavery 'the sum of all villanies ?' Did the negro ever consent to his form of government ?" "Well," said he, "I never consented to be born; I find myself in existence; I have no more consented to the government of the United States than I suppose the negroes, generally, have submitted to their civil condition.

My question is, Who shall decide when the Southern masters say, We are intolerably oppressed; we are under a yoke; 'break every yoke!' 'let the oppressed go free!' If I interpose and say, 'You are not oppressed; you are better off as you now are,' is not this the reply of the masters when we seek to free their slaves?
Do we not say that the oppressed must be the judges of their necessity?
And why may I coerce the master, if it be wrong for him to coerce the negro ?" "I must let you, work out that question at your leisure, and on your own principles," said I.--"We were speaking of seizing and holding the forts and arsenals.

The French proverb says, 'It is the first step that costs.' Seceding involves the necessity of seizing the forts.

If they who do this embarrass other persons in their lawful rights, they must risk the consequences; but if they secede from the government, the question is, Do circumstances justify a revolution?
for secession is revolution.

Is revolution justifiable in the present case?
"But not to discuss that question," said I, "all that I wished to say was this, that our government seems admirably suited for a people who will behave well under it.