satisfied my conscience, and, I trust, my God,
I shall appeal to no other tribunal; nor do I
come a candidate for popularity; my manner
of life has never yet betrayed such a desire
The highest honors and emoluments of this
commonwealth are a poor compensation for
the surrender of personal independence. The
history of England, from the revolution, and
that of Virginia for more than twenty years
past, show the vanity of a hope that general
favor should ever follow the man who, with-
out partiality or prejudice, praises or disap-
proves the opinions of friends or of foes; nay,
I might enlarge the field, and declare, from
the great volume of human nature itself, that
to be moderate in politics forbids an ascent to
the summit of political fame. But I come
hither, regardless of allurements, to continue
as I have begun; to repeat my earnest endea-
vors for a firm, energetic government; to
enforce my objections to the Constitution and
to concur in any practical scheme of amend-
ments; but I never will assent to any scheme
that will operate a dissolution of the Union,
or any measure which may lead to it."
And then, further on, at pages 28 and 29,
he says:
"The gentleman then proceeds, and in-
quires why we assumed the language of ' We
the people.' I ask, why not? The govern-
ment is for the people, and the misfortune
was, that the people had no agency in the
government before. The Congress had pow-
er to make peace and war under the old con-
federation. Granting passports, by the law
of nations, is annexed to this power; yet
Congress was reduced to the humiliating con-
dition of being obliged to send deputies to
Virginia to solicit a passport. Notwithstand-
ing the exclusive power of war given to Con-
gress, the second article of the confederation
was interpreted to forbid that body to grant
a passport fur tobacco, which during the war
and in pursuance of engagements made at
Little York, was to have been sent into New
York. What harm is there in consulting the
people on the construction of a government
by which they ought to be bound I Is it un-
fair? Is it unjust? if the government is to
be binding on the people, are not the people
the proper persons to examine its merits or
defects? I take this to be one of the least
and most trivial objections that will be made
to the Constitution; it carries the answer
with itself. In the whole of this business, I
have acted in the strictest obedience to the
dictates of my conscience, in discharging
what I conceive to be my duty to my coun-
try. I refused my signature, and if the same
reasons operated on my mind, I would still
refuse; but as I think that those eight States
which have adopted the Constitution will
not recede, I am a friend to the Union."
Then, at page 33, are remarks of other gen-
tlemen, which I will not now read. The re-
marks of Mr. Lee, at page 33, of Mr'. Pendle- |
ton, at page 37, and farther remarks of Mr.
Lee, at page 42. And, by reference to the
debates of the Convention of Pennsylvania,
and indeed those of every other State that
adopted the Federal Constitution, it will be
found that every man who opposed that Con-
stitution upon the ground of State sover-
eignty, opposed it because it apoke in the name
of the people, because it said it had been ordain-
ed by the people, and it was the work of the
people and not of the States. Why, sir, it
will be found that that great and good pa-
triot, Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, spoke
in relation to the Constitution, in language
that could not be mistaken. In volume four,
of Elliott's Debates, he goes on to trace .this
subject, as I have traced it, from the time the
colonies were first instituted, down to the
Declaration of Independence. He says :
" In that declaration the States are not even
enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous
language, and with convincing arguments,
our right to) independence, and the tyranny
which compelled us to assert it, the Declara-
tion is made in the following words: "We,
therefore, the representatives of the United
States of America, in General Congress as-
sembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of
the world for the rectitude of our intentions,
do, in the name and by the authority of the
good people of these colonies, solemnly pub-
lish and declare, that these United Colonies
are, and of right ought to be, free and inde-
pendent States.' The separate independence
and individual sovereignty of the several
States were never thought of by the enlight-
ened band of patriots who framed this De-
claration; the several States are not even
mentioned by name in any part of it: as if it
was intended to impress this maxim on Amer-
ica, that our freedom and independence arose
from our union, and that without it, we could
neither be free nor independent. Let us,
then, consider all attempts to weaken this
Union, by maintaining that each State is
separately and independent, as a species of
political heresy, which can never benefit us,
but may bring on us the most serious dis-
tresses."
If the sons of the Revolutionary fathers, in
South Carolina, bad but followed the noble
sentiments Mr. Pinckney uttered on that oc-
casion, then there would have been no occasion
for a long and elaborate discussion of this
doctrine at this time, in the midst of this
great rebellion, brought on by his children,
because they did not advocate and live up to
the doctrines he there maintained. Yet, Mr.
Jefferson Davis says, with this authority be-
fore Him, that the Declarations of Independence
acknowledged the independence of eve-
ry separate State as asovereign State, and not
all the States as united colonies; and the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr. Belt)
has followed him. I consider that this au-
thority, if there were no others, would prove |
