this important subject of State rights and
State sovereignty, and the relations which
the State and Federal Governments bear to
each other in this our American system of
republican government, and I shall endeavor
to establish these three propositions :
1st. That the several Colonies, from the
date of the Declaration of Independence,
became, and were sovereign and independ-
ent States, and their several and separate
independence was recognized not granted by
the treaty of peace between them and the
British King, of the 3d of September, 1783.
2d. That the Constitution of the United
States was adopted by the people, nut as in-
dividuals composing one entire nation, but
as composing the distinct and independent
States to which they separately belonged:
and that, in this sense, each, State ratifying
the Constitution, was considered as a sove-
reign body, independent of all others, and
only bound by its own voluntary act, and
in this sense, when adopted, it became the
government of the people of the United
States.
3d. That the Government of the United
States thus created by the adoption of this
Constitution, is of a limited character, con-
fined to the exercise of powers expressly
granted, and such as may be necessary
and proper for carrying the granted pow-
ers into full execution; and that all pow-
ers not thus granted or necessarily implied,
are expressly reserved to the States respec-
tively or to the people.
The conclusions which I deduce from these
propositions, are opposed both to the doc-
trine of secession as a constitutional or re-
served right in a State or the people of a
State, and to that other doctrine which I
regard as equally dangerous to the consti-
tutional liberty, viz., that we are a people
consolidated into one nation, with a national
government having an indefinite supremacy
over all persons and things, a doctrine, the
tendency of which is " to establish that legis-
lative omnipotence in Congress, and that
uncontrolled discretion in the President
which renders every form of written Con-
stitution idle and useless." I infer from
these propositions that our " Federal and
State Governments, are parts of one sys-
tem alike necessary for the common pros-
perity, peace and security, and ought to
be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual
and immovable attachment," that " respect
for the authority of each, and acquiescence
in the just constitutional measures of each,
are duties required by the plainest consid- |
erations of national, of State, and of indi-
vidual welfare," that " the State govern-
ments should be held secure in their reserved
rights, and the General Government sus-
tained in its constitutional powers." I
hold, sir, that the States form distinct and
independent portions of the general suprem-
acy, in our system of government, and that
the States within their respective spheres
are no more subject to the authority of the
General Government, than that govern-
ment is subject to the States within its own
sphere. I admit to the fullest extent, that
the Constitution of the United States and
the laws of Congress passed in pursuance
thereof, are the supreme laws of the land,
and that any law or ordinance of any State
in contravention or subversion thereof, is
null and void, and no citizen of any State
is bound thereby. This is a position that
would have been equally true if no such
express declaration had been made in the
Constitution itself, for it would have re-
sulted necessarily from the institution of a
federal government. But I also hold that
the Constitutions of the several States and
the laws of their several Legislatures passed
in pursuance of their legitamate powers, are
equally the supreme law of the several
States, and that any law or ordinance of
Congress, or of the President, in contraven-
tion or subversion thereof, is null and void,
and that the citizen of the State is not
bound by it. The laws of the United States
are supreme as to their proper constitutional
objects. The laws of the States are supreme
in the same way. .Neither is paramount or
subordinate to the other, but each is para-
mount and supreme within its appropriate
and constitutional sphere of action. And
hence I hold that paramount allegiance
cannot be claimed from the citizen to the
one more than the other. And that it is
no more Ins paramount duty to sustain the
Federal Government in the exercise of its
constitutional powers as against his State,
than it is to sustain his State in the exer-
cise of her reserved rights as against the
Federal Government when that government
shall attempt to invade them.
But then the question at once arises in
every intelligent mind, suppose the case of
conflict between these two jurisdictions,
what then? I answer, 1st, that such con-
flicts have frequently arisen in the history
of our country since the adoption of the
Constitution of the United States. Laws
have been passed by the States and by Con-
gress, in which each overstepped the limits |
