was willing to follow without question and
in faith, the teachings of Daniel Webster and
those of that school. But it has been my for-
tune or my misfortune to have come now to a
different conclusion. We have been told by
gentlemen of this Convention, that bad they
not entertained the doctrine alleged in this
fourth article, heretofore, the events of the
past three years, shedding their lurid glow
of blood and sorrow all around us, would
alone have brought home that conviction
to their minds, and led them to give to the
Federal Government that paramount allegi-
ance which is here declared to be due. It
may be my misfortune, but from the very
same ground, from this deep, dark scene of
sorrow and suffering, I have come to the very
opposite conclusion. I have looked at this
question with as calm and dispassionate a
view as I could command, I have looked as
I best could, into the history of the past, into
the history of the formation and true nature
of our government, and it seems to me that
if the history of the past points out any path
in the future that is bright and luminous, as
unmistakable as the light of the sun in its
course, at noon day, it is that the doctrine of
consolidation leads to despotism and blood-
shed. I believe there is no security in this
land except in the continuance of State gov-
ernments. I believe there is no security in
this broad country for life, liberty, property,
or anything that the individual holds dear,
except it be in a strict construction of the
powers of the Federal Government, and the
maintenance of the rights of the States.
it does seem to me, with all due deference
to gentlemen who have debated this question,
that they have not commenced at the begin-
ning. Gentlemen have told us about the
starry banner, about cannon loaded with
grape and canister, pointed down the streets
of Baltimore, and have paraded that before
this Convention as evidence that we have a
government. Sir, the robber who meets you
on the highway; the pirate, who, upon the
broad ocean seizes your ship, likewise exer-
cises a government over you. But is it a
government of right, of law, of reason? Is
it such a government as the people of these
States inaugurated and founded? Is it such
agovernment as rightfully wields the sceptre
over the land? I acknowledge that these
things were in the streets of Baltimore. I
acknowledge that the power of the Federal
Government has been felt far and near. It
is traced in characters of blood, it is traced
in acts outside of and in violation of the Con-
stitution. Its violations and usurpations
can be traced in the acts of Congress itself,
because Congress has attempted to legitimate
and make right that which in the very affort
they pronounce, to be wrong in the acts of this
administration. I said I did not think gentlemen
had commenced at the beginning.
Why? To tell me that the band of power is |
upon me, is that a reason that the hand of
power should be upon me? Is it proof of
right that there is an army bristling with
bayonets and with banners flaunting in the
sky? I see it; I know it; but does it there-
fore follow that they are there rightfully?
That is the issue, and that is the inquiry we
are called upon here this day to make.
It is whether the paramount allegiance of
the State of Maryland is due to the Federal
Government. It is whether the Federal arm
at Washington may be extended whenever
and wherever it may choose to be extended.
it is whether might may become right, it
is whether bayonets and cannon may be sub-
stituted for law. Because if the fundamental
law of the land does not authorize and justify
these things, then they are wrong. You may
call it government, if you choose; I call it
despotism. According to my idea of govern-
ment there is no government unless it be
rightful, lawful, legal government.
Now if this doctrine of paramount allegi-
ance be true, when did it become true? It
must have had a beginning. There must
have been a starting point at which it had an
existence. The existence of the thing now is
no proof of the rightful beginning of the
thing. When did it have a beginning?
When was it born? When did the para-
mount right and power given to the Govern-
ment of the United States to do what it
pleases, begin. Maryland stood one of the
sponsors at the birth and baptism of the Fed-
eral Government. There is not a gentleman
within the sound of my voice; there is not a
man within this broad land, who will deny
that at one period Maryland was a free, sov-
ereign and independent State. Go back to
the beginning of this thing. When did this
doctrine of paramount power and allegiance
begin? Was it when Maryland was a colony?
Was it when she stood, weak and feeble it
might be, but still sovereign and erect, among
the peers of the land? Was it when she was
a colony, with no bond of union connecting
her with her sister colonies, with no common
associations binding her to them, with no
common judiciary, no common treasury, no
common army, no President, no anything
binding her to the other colonies of America
—was it then? Unquestionably not.
She was at that early period a colony of
Great Britain. She had some relations with
the other colonies, not because of any con-
nection between them as colonies; not be-
cause she stood side by side with Pennsyl-
vania, or Delaware, or Virginia; but because
she and they were colonies of Great Britain,
and there was a necessary connection uniting
them, growing out of the common relation
which they held towards Great Britain as the
mother country. There was no paramount
allegiance to a Federal Government then,
that is clear.
Time went on. Causes that it is unneces- |
