"I do not think the Federal government would have had any; but the people would have had some claim--what, I cannot say. I do not think that Rhode Island had the moral right to endanger the new republic by refusing to enter it. But there may have been something peculiar in Rhode Island's situation; I do not remember. I should say that the question should have been settled by compromise. Rhode Island's objections should have been considered and removed. A forced agreement would be no agreement." "When the States formed the government, did they surrender all their rights?" "I think not." "What rights did they retain?" "They retained everything they did not surrender." "Well, then, what did they surrender? Did they become provinces? Did they surrender the right of resistance to usurpation?" "I think not." "Would you think that the States had formed a partnership for the general good of all?" "Of course, Doctor; but I am not quite sure that the word 'partnership' is the correct term." "Shall we call it a league? A compact? A federation? A confederacy?" "I should prefer the word 'union' to any of those," I said. "The title of the republic means a union." "What is the difference between a union and a confederacy?" "I don't know that there is any great difference; but the word 'union' seems to me to imply greater permanence." "You think, then, that the United States must exist always?" "I think that our fathers believed that they were acting for all time--so far as they could," said I; "but, of course, there were differences, even among the framers of the constitution." "Suppose that at some time a State or several States should believe that their interests were being destroyed and that injustice was being done." "The several branches of government should prevent that," said I. "But suppose they knew that all the branches of the government were united in perpetrating this injustice." "Then I do not know what such States ought to do," said I. "Suppose Congress was against them; that the majority in Congress had been elected by their opponents; that the President and the judges were all against them." "The will of the majority should rule," said I. "Even in cases where not only life and liberty but honour itself must be given up or defended?" "Then I don't know what they ought to do," I repeated. "Ought they to endure tamely?" "No; but what their recourse would be I cannot justly see; it seems that the constitution should have provided some remedy." "You believe in the right to revolt against tyranny?" "Yes." "Well, suppose your State and other States, her neighbours, should conclude that there was no remedy against injustice except in withdrawing from the partnership, or union." "I should say that would be a very serious step to take, perhaps a dangerous step, perhaps a wrong step," said I. "But I am no judge of such things. It seems to me that my mind is almost blank concerning politics."