that she was a free, sovereign, political com-
munity; that she has never, either by the
articles of confederation, or by the Constitu-
tion of the United States, parted with one
item of her sovereignty; that she is as sov-
ereign this day as she was upon the day when
her independence was declared, and that she
also has all sovereign powers, because it is a
necessary incident of sovereignty that it
should possess all sovereign powers. She
has this day all the sovereign powers and
rights which, in common language, she is
paid to halve surrendered. She has the light
to declare war, to conclude treaties of peace,
to raise and maintain armies, to support na-
vies, &c. She has that power, because that
power is resident in sovereignty. But what
has she done? And this touches the very
bottom of the whole question. She has
agreed, in concert and co-operation with
other States, that for the general good she
will for the time being commit the exercise of
those powers—not these sovereign rights—
but the exercise of these sovereign powers to
the Federal Government. And that is all she
has done. Logic, history, the nature of the
case ilself, all preclude the idea that she as
sovereign should strip herself partially of her
sovereignty. That was never dreamed of.
But these sovereign States, uniting together,
agreed that it would be convenient that they
should strip themselves, for the time being,
of the mere right to exercise certain powers
which belonged to them then as sovereigns,
and which are theirs now, because they have
never surrendered them. But we can main-
tain ourselves upon a less extreme theory
than float. We can acknowledge that alle-
giance is due to the Federal Government
within the proper sphere of its power, and
still safely maintain our position in this
argument.
Now sir to meet this thing face to face, as
a matter of history. My position is very
clear. These colonies originally proceeded
from Great Britain. They were separately
founded. There is no fact in history which
can be adduced here which will have the
slightest tendency to show that the colonies
as such, belore the war of the Revolution,
ever were a united government or at united
people. They were all alike separately sub-
ject to a great many of the same laws. They
had pretty much the same rights, and were
subject to pretty much the same disabilities.
But it will be found that the circumstances
of being alike in so many re-peels did not
spring from the fact that there was any
connection between, that they were united at
all in relation to each other. They were dis-
tinct in every way, in their origin, in their
conduct, in their legislation, in the very form
of their government. Some were proprie-
tary; some were colonial; some were pro-
vincial; existing differently in every possible
respect, and you will find that the mere cir- |
cumstance of their being practically one people,
as Judge Story says, in many respects, arose
from the fact of the relation of each colony
to the mother country They all had the
same relation to the British monarchy, and in
reference lo certain great powers were practically
all governed in the same way. But no
man has lived, or now lives, who has main-
tained, or can maintain, that there is any-
thing in the history or position of these
States, when they were colonies, in the ante-constitutional
period, which can justly sup-
port the inference that they were united in
any such sense that they were or became one
people.
Now, if I am correct in that, then the ar-
gument is over; because these gentlemen
knew, us well as I, that there is the weak-
ness of their position. You talk of indepen-
dent colonies, as such, after their indepen-
dence was achieved. There was no nation
then; Maryland was asovereign, free, and in-
dependent State then. Admit that and you
admit the whole question; because I have
proved, if it is within the proper range of
parliamentary courtesy to say so. to gentle-
men of the opposition, what might have been
called a defiance to produce any record that
will show, upon any occasion, through any
act of her own, anywhere, that this State has
ever, since the revolution, purled with her
sovereignty in any way
Now tire colonies were separate before the
war. Were they united during the war? In
a manner, yes. And those expressions, "The
United States," 'The people of the United
State's," "The people of the United Colo-
nie's," ' 'The people of his Majesty's colonies,"
we're just as common before the war as after.
The very expression "People of the United
States," was as frequently and fully used before
the war of the revolution, as it has been used
since under the Constitution. They were
brought together, it is true, for the great pur-
pose of prosecuting the war; not for the pur-
pose of surrendering their liberties, or the
liberties of the one or the other of them. They
became united in that sense, and In, that sense
only.
Now, inregard to the confederation. Were
the articles of confederation such as to ope-
rate as a surrender of the rights of the States?
Did they operate as a denial of sovereignty
to those colonies? We will see what the ar-
ticles of confederation themselves say upon
that subject. It was expressly declared that—
" Each State retains its sovereignty, free-
dom and independence, and every power, ju-
risdiction, and right, which is not by this
confederation, expressly delegated to file Uni-
ted States in Congress assembled. The said
States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other * * * '*
And the articles of this confederation shall be
inviolably observed by every State, and the
Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any all. |
