1777 but not adopted until 1781, upon
their face declare that they are a league, a
covenant, a compact between separate, sov-
ereign and independent States. They de-
clare in the second article :
" Each State retains its sovereignty, free-
dom, independence, and every power, ju-
risdiction and right which is not by this
confederation expressly delegated to the
United States in Congress assembled."
How could the States retain what they
never had? How could they delegate that
over which they had no control? If the
States were not sovereign then, how could
they undertake to retain sovereignty, or to
delegate sovereignty to anybody? That
one proposition, and that one consideration,
is a conclusive answer to the whole argu-
ment of the gentleman from Baltimore
city, (Mr. Thomas,) upon this proposition.
Again, the Treaty of Peace between
Great Britain and the United States de-
clares :
" His Britannic Majesty acknowledges
the said United States, viz: New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign,
and independent States; that he treats with
them as such, and for himself, his heirs,
and successors, relinquishes all claims to
the government, proprietary and territorial
rights of the same, and every part thereof."
Not only that, but immediately after the
Declaration of Independence, each State
adopted laws in which they claimed to be
sovereign and independent, and in which
they claim the allegiance of every citizen
residing within their BORDER=0s. I hold in my
hand the Besolutions of the Convention of
New York, of July 16th, 1776, similar to
those adopted by New Jersey and all the
other States, in which it was declared " that
all persons abiding within the State of
New York, and desiring protection from the
laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said
laws, and are members of the State."
Maryland did the same thing. If other
proof were wanting upon this subject. I
would refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States upon the effect
of these laws. I refer to the decision in the
case of Mcllvaine vs. Cox's lessee, in 4
Crouch, where the Court says :
"It is a principle believed to be unde-
niable that the several States which com-
pose this Union became entitled, from the |
time when they declared themselves inde-
pendent, to all the rights and powers of
sovereign States, and that they did not de-
rive them from concessions oils made by the
British King. The treaty of peace was a
recognition of their independence, not a
grant of it. From hence it results that the
laws of the several State governments
were the laws of sovereign States, and as
such were obligatory upon the people of
such State, from the time they were enacted."
I shall now pass from the consideration
of this first preposition with the single re-
mark, that unless it is true that the States
were sovereign and independent after the
Declaration of Independence, then these
acts of the States, the articles of confeder-
ation, and the treaty of peace, are broad
lies spread upon the pages of history. If
they are not lies, but truths, then the
opposite doctrine that the States never had
any existence prior to the adoption of the
Constitution of the United States, but were
the creatures of that instrument cannot be
true, but must be false.
The second position is sustained by author-
ities equally unquestioned. Authentic his-
tory here also gives the same undoubted tes-
timony. But this and the third position, I
am admonished by the time limited for my
remarks, must be considered together, and
in connection with the theory of a consol-
idated national government so strenuously
and boldly contended for by gentlemen oil.
the other side And in this part of the ar-
gument I shall reverse the order of proof,
and call the attention of the Convention.
first to the opinions and doctrines of mod-
ern statesmen and politicians, and show that
this idea of subordinating, belittling, sub-
verting, and destroying the State govern-
ments and State rights is of more recent or-
igin than many suppose.
Let me first refer to the last authentic
declaration of what the Whig party held
upon this subject. I refer to their resolu-
tions adopted in 1862, in the Convention
when General Scott was nominated for the
Presidency, and before which the great
name of Daniel Webster was presented as
a candidate for that high office. What did
they say upon this doctrine ?
" That the Government of the United
States is of a limited character, and it is
confined to the exercise of powers expressly
granted by the Constitution, and such as
may be necessary and proper for carrying
the granted powers into full execution; and
that all powers not thus granted or neces- |
