retained its sovereignty." I deny the fact;
I assert that all the State of Maryland retained
was the right to regulate its own internal
government and polity. The Declaration of
Independence spoke in the name of the good
people of the colonies, and says that the
" United Colonies were free and independent,"
and that as independent States—not that
each State acting independently for itself had
the power—but that all together had the
power to declare war, make treaties of peace,
&c.
I admit that under the articles of confeder-
ation, by its second section, each State re-
tained that portion of its sovereignty, freedom
and independence which was not by those
articles expressly delegated to the Congress
of the United States. But that sovereignty
was the sovereignty of the people; it was
expressly so stated; and the delegates of the
States that ratified that instrument were elect-
ed and appointed by the people of the State,
and spoke in the name and on behalf of their
constituents. I refer to I Elliot's Constitu-
tion, page 84; to John Adam's speech page
76, and Dr. Rush's speech, page 77. I will
read a short extract from the speech of John
Adams, at page 76,
" John Adams advocated the voting in
proportion to members. He said that we
stand here as the representatives of the peo-
ple; that in some States the people are many,
in others they are few, that therefore their
vote here should be proportioned to the num-
bers from whom it conies."
On page 77, Dr. Rush says :
''Were it possible to collect the whole body
of the people together, they would determine
the questions submitted lo them by their ma-
jority. Why should not the same majority
decide when hen voting by their representatives ?' '
And then look at these articles of confeder-
ation and see what they were, and tell me if
even under them the States were the sover-
eigns' of the confederation they made. So far
from this being the case, we all know that
all the powers exercised by the sovereign
States were expressly given to the United
States in Congress assembled, and prohibited
to the States. No State under the articles of
confederation could send or receive an em-
bassy, or make a treaty, or lay imposts or
duties, or keep any vessel of war or army in
time of peace. The United States had the
sole and exclusive power to determine on
peace or war; to regulate the value of coin,
the standard of weights and measures; and
by the 13th section of the articles of confed-
eration, each State was to abide by the de-
termination of the United States; and the
union thus formed was to be perpetual. And
yet, gentlemen tell us that the States retained
their sovereignty, when it is plain that they
parted with all the attributes of sovereignty,
even under the articles of confederation.
This I think disposes of my first proposition. |
I shall now attempt to show that the Con-
stitution of the United States is not a compact
between the States, but the fundamental law
of the whole people of the United States and
made by them as such. It is a well established
fact that the articles of confederation were
defective. And accordingly on the 11th of
December, 1786, there was a meeting of the
delegates from New York, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, and Delaware, at Annapolis,
to devise and propose the best method of
establishing a more perfect union. In the
report made by them to be found on page
118, 1 Elliott's Debates, is the following :
"That there are important defects in the
system of the Federal Government is acknow-
ledged by the acts of all those States which
have concurred in the present meeting; that
the defects, upon a closer examination, may
be found greater and more numerous than
even these acts imply, is at least so far proba-
ble from the embarrassments which charac-
terize the present state of our national affairs,
foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be
supposed to merit a deliberate and candid
discussion, in some mode which will unite the
sentiments and councils of all the States, In
the choice of the mode, your commissioners
are of opinion that a Convention of deputies
from the different States, for. the special and
sole purpose of entering into this negotiation,
and digesting a plan tor supplying such de-
fects as may be discovered to exist, will be enti-
tled to a preference, from considerations which
will occur without being particularized."
And Congress, accordingly, on the 21st of
February, 1787, adopted the following reso-
lution, I Elliott, 120:
" Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress
it is expedient that, on the second Monday in
May next, a Convention of Delegates, who
shall have been appointed by the several States,
be held at Philadelphia for the sole and ex-
press purpose of revising the articles of con-
federation, and reporting to Congress and the
several Legislatures such alterations and pro-
visions therein as shall, when agreed to in
Congress, and confirmed by the States, ren-
der the Federal Constitution adequate to the
exigencies of Government and the preserva-
tion of the Union."
The object then, as will be seen, in calling
a Convention, was, not to frame a new Con-
stitution, but to remodel the old articles of
confederation, to supply its defects, and to
render the Constitution adequate to the exi-
gencies of the Government, and the preserva-
tion, not the destruction, of the Union. That
this is true, can be seen by reference to the
credentials of the members or delegates elected
to the Federal Convention, which may be
found at page 125, I Elliott, And gentle-
men will there see that the credentials of the
different members sent to that Convention goes
on to say, in substance, (I select Vermont as
an instance): |
