spoken of our extremely progressive demo-
crats who in a great measure controlled the
former Convention; that they were disposed
to yield vital rights for the purpose of build-
ing up partizan power in the city of Balti-
more. In other words, they dug at pit into
which they supposed the whig party would
sink into oblivion, and fell into it themselves.
The same thing may occur in the other di-
rection. It is a dangerous experiment; it
is an unfair experiment. Although person-
ally and politically I say to gentlemen, with
perfect candor and sincerity, I do not care
three straws about it. I do not object to the
arrogation of any power to this. State, or to
any section of this State, and particularly
to that section of it. Because I know that
when things come to their last results, how
the people of this State will stand upon those
matters which are dearest to my heart, and
have best approved themselves lo my under-
standing.
Upon this doctrine of allegiance, which is
the second point to which I shall advert, it is
necessary, perhaps, that I should depart a lit-
tle from some gentlemen on both sides, I do
not know any form of words in which I could
define what I hold to be the exact meaning
of this power you call sovereignty. It does
not consist in the possession of powers, or
the exercise of them. It seems to me that
there is a thing which we may term ' sov-
ereign character "in reference to nations; a
character of sovereignty that is apart from
the mere right to exercise its incidental func-
tions. And that character is to be deter-
mined upon various considerations, among
which is the way in which a people originate.
What I would wish to get at is this: and I
wish I could adopt a form of words that
would carry the idea as clearly home to the
minds of members, as it exists in my own
mind—that any distinct community or po-
litical body that exists of right, of ilself pos-
sesses sovereignty—that excludes the idea
of confederate sovereignty; it excludes the
idea the one hand, that the people of a
community under our State system could be
sovereign, as well as the idea that a confed-
erated government, on the other hand, could
be sovereign. And that the only true sov-
ereignty, under our political theory, is that
unique, properly originated, political com-
munity—the only one of which you can pre-
dicate unity—the people of a State for them-
selves collectively. That, in my judgment,
constitutes a sovereignty; and of course allegiance
is due where sovereignty is, and
nowhere else. Because you cannot have al-
legiance lo mere powers; it is incompatible,
it is incongruous, it is illogical. Allegiance
follows sovereignty: obedience follows pow-
ers. My allegiance is due wherever I find
residing the sovereign character which over-
rules me.
I mean a full sovereignty. I have no time |
to enter info this abstract discussion as fully
as I would like. But I maintain that such a
thing as a division of sovereignty is an ab-
surdity in logic, as it would prove a source
of untold tumult in practical legislation.
And here I might stop for a considerable
time lo prove that. under my doctrine of al-
legiance, it cannot possibly be due lo the
Federal Government, because the Federal
Government affords no protection, except in
reference to foreign nations and foreign in-
tercourse. If I am assaulted by England, or
by France, my protector is the Federal Gov-
ernment. But if I am assaulted in my personal
rights, in my family lights, in all of
the best, highest and most glorious rights and
privileges which we enjoy at all, as men and
citizens, where is my redress? who protects
me? to whom do I look? whose arm do I
invoke? whose shield do I ask to cover me?
Why, sir, I ask that almost unknown, that
fragile power which the gentleman from Bal-
timore city (Mr. Cashing) yesterday said wag
too little to be heard of abroad.
I maintain, therefore, that allegiance, in
the first place, is not due to the Federal Gov-
ernment, because the Federal Government is
not a sovereign government. And here I
speak of my theory, as apart from that of
some gentlemen who in the general result
agree with me. I hold that the Federal Gov-
ernment is not sovereign, because there is
nothing in the process of its formation, in
the condition of the colonies before they
formed this Constitution, or what they have
surrendered since, which by any just con-
struction can be held to be a denial to the
States of the sovereign powers which they
had before. ' As colonies they were confess-
edly independent; they entered into the war
of the Revolution in conceit, but they de-
clared their independence and afterwards
achieved it, and then formed a confederation,
and afterwards formed a Constitution and
Union. And yet, as I hold, in all these
steps they have departed in not one single
instance from, but, quite the contrary, they
have held to, every element of their sov-
ereignty. There is a loose way of talking
about the State of Maryland being sovereign
in regard to the powers she has reserved,
while the Federal Government is sovereign
in reference to the powers granted to it; and,
therefore, ours is a divided allegiance, and
we are bound in our allegiance to the Fed-
eral Government to the extent of its powers,
just as we are bound to the State of Maryland
to the extent of her reserved powers.
Now, that is not so; you cannot divide allegiance
because you cannot divide sov-
ereignty; you cannot divide the sovereign
character.
And more than that—in order to make
myself understood—I hold that the State of
Maryland was free and independent, after she
made good her declaration of independence; |
