sary for me to enumerate led to difficulties.
The colonies then stood side by side, ac-
knowledging their allegiance to Great Britain;
for as late as 1776, in the beginning of that
year, the colonies, although then in arms, had
no idea of final separation from Great Britain.
Separation had not entered into their ideas,
The Declaration of Independence came in
1776, and that severed the connection with
Great Britain. The colonies waged war to
resist aggressions, to repel the exercise of
powers which the mother country attempted
to assume over them; among other things to
resist the payment of taxes without repre-
sentation. Although they were separate and
distinct colonies, when the war of the Revo-
lution broke out, they recognized the common
bond that bound them to her, and side by
side they stood up in defence of their rights,
as they had stood side by side in defence of
the rights of the mother country, as was evi-
denced by the commingled blood and efforts
of all who fell in the old French and Indian
wars. And when blood flowed at Lexington
and Concord, then indeed the hearts of this
great people beat in sympathetic response. Be-
cause Massachusetts, a sister colony, had been
attacked, it was felt from one end of the coun-
try to the other, that the wrongs of a sister
colony was the wrong of all the colonies;
and they sprang to arms and resisted the at-
tempt to injure that sister colony. The op-
pression of one led to the resistance of all.
Delegates were sent to a Congress which
met in this very city. And another Congress
was called in 1775. What did they propose
to do? Why were they called together ?
Let us read some of the declarations made by
the colonies, when they sent their delegates
to the Congress of 1774.
New Hampshire—"To devise, consult and
adopt such measures as may have the most
likely tendency to extricate the colonies from
their present difficulties; to secure and per-
petuate their rights, liberties and privileges,
and to restore that peace, harmony and mu-
tual confidence, which once happily subsisted
between the parent country and her colo-
nies."
Massachusetts—'' To consult on the present
state of the colonies, and the miseries to
which they are, and must be reduced, by the
operation of certain acts of Parliament re-
specting America; and to deliberate and de-
termine upon wise and proper measures to be
by them recommended to all the colonies, for
the recovery and establishment of their just
rights and liberties, civil and religious, and
the restoration of union and harmony be-
tween Great Britain and the colonies, most
ardently desired by all good men."
Virginia—" To consider of the most proper
and effectual manner of so operating on the
commercial connection of the colonies with
the mother country, as to procure redress for
the much injured province of Massachusetts |
Bay, to secure British America from the rav-
age and ruin of arbitrary taxes, and speedily
to procure the return of that harmony and
union so-beneficial to the whole empire, and
so ardently desired by all British America."
South Carolina—"To consider the acts
lately passed and bills depending in Parlia-
ment with regard to the port of Boston and
colony of Massachusetts Bay. which acts and
bilk, in the precedent and consequences,
affect the whole continent of America, also
the grievances under which America, labors,
by reason of the several acts of Parliament
that impose taxes or duties for raising a rev-
enae, and lay unnecessary restraints and bur-
dens on trade," &c.
I will not read them all. These are enough
to show that at that early day, although
there was no common bond or ligament bind-
ing the colonies together, further than that
which grew out of their common relation to
Great Britain as the mother country, yet we
find that Virginia and South Carolina—those
States now so devastated, whose mountains
and rivers are running with blood—met to-
gether in Congress to aid Massachusetts. A
sweet return they have bad for it I
But it is not necessary to dwell upon this
point. There can be no sort of pretence that
before the Declaration of Independence there
was any such thing as this paramount alle-
giance. Where then does it come from? Am
I pointed to the Declaration of Independence,
or to the articles of confederation, and told
that those articles made them one nation,
and bound them together as one people? I
answer, no, sir; because the articles them-
selves, upon their very face, in all their length
and breadth, negative such an idea. The
preamble is, "Articles of confederation and
perpetual union between the States"—not be-
tween the Union, not of a nation, but " be-
tween the States of New Hampshire, Massa-
chusetts Bay, Rhode island and Providence
Plantations," &c., naming the original thir-
teen States The very first article says, " The
style of this confederacy shall be ' The Uni-
ted States of America."'
Now, for fear I may forget it, I will say
that is the very language used in the federal
compact upon which this consolidation idea
is founded, and from which it is derived. If
I have time I will show this Convention that
the Congress which framed these articles of
confederation was the very same Congress
which was in session when the Declaration of
Independence was made and adopted. And
this language being used by the same Con-
vention, under the same circumstance's, under
the same instructions from their several con-
stituencies, we are bound to put the same in-
terpretation upon it. The articles of confed-
eration then are between the several States,
and the confederacy is termed " The United
States of America." Those articles were
adopted, not by the votes of a majority of |
