its authority? What is its ability to pro-
tect itself from invasion from abroad? No
State can possess the power of nationality
unless it has the element of strength to main-
tain it. The colonies were different from
each other in character. We had a proprie-
tary system, a charter system, and a provin-
cial system, and they all differed. We were
all, as has been said, under the control of the
British crown. But the people of each colony
had peculiarities, which naturally inclined
them to be sectional and exclusive, to claim
certain rights and to desire to maintain them
within their jurisdiction. But the necessity
arose afterward for them to unite their
strength in 'one common warfare in their
common defence. There was a natural ten-
dency on the part of the people, from neces-
sity and from the character of their govern-
ments, to become a united people, furnishing
in the early history of the colonies the germ
of the nationality which has been maintained
down to the present day.
I therefore insist that States, exclusively as
such, dependent upon themselves, in the ab-
sence of the authority of the General Gov-
ernment, could not long maintain themselves
as States, Virginia was larger than she is
now. A State may be a lesser unit than it is
now, or it may be a greater unit; but its ex-
istence depends upon its power, its ability to
protect itself and maintain itself independent
of other powers adjacent to it. These neces-
sities were manifest to our people from the
beginning. They were manifest through all
the changes through which they passed as a
people down to the time when they adopted
the Constitution of the United States as it
now exists. In reference to that Constitution
there have been various speculations and the-
ories, growing out of the traditions and feel-
ings banded down from our fathers, which
have had an importance given to them which
they did not possess within themselves.
Other interests have arisen since, within the
States, and men have availed themselves of
the States' rights theory for the purpose of
pressing these interests upon the minds of
the people of the country. Other causes
have arisen. Demagogues, seeking to avail
themselves of these pretexts that might be
popular with the people of certain sections
of the country, have urged these questions
and agitated them before the people. Never-
theless, this same germ of nationality exists,
and must be maintained by the people if they
want safety, peace and happiness. Let me
here give the views of Daniel Webster, which
I will read as my own views in support of
the article under consideration :
" 1. That the Constitution of the United
States is not a league, confederacy, or com-
pact, between the people of the sovereign ca-
pacities; but a government proper; founded
on the adoption of the people, and creating
direct relations between itself and individuals. |
" 2. That no State authority has power to
dissolve these relations; that nothing can
dissolve them but revolution; and that, con-
sequently, there can be no such thing as se-
cession without revolution.
"3. That there is supreme law, consisting
of the Constitution of the United States, acts
of Congress passed in pursuance of it, and
treaties; and that in cases not capable of as-
suming the character of a suit in law or
equity, Congress must judge of, and finally
interpret the supreme law, so often as it has
occasioned past acts of legislation; and, in
cases capable of assuming, and actually as-
suming, the character of ft suit, the Supreme
Court of the United States is the final inter-
preter.
"4. That an attempt by a State to abro-
gate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or
to arrest its operation within her limits, on
the ground that, in her opinion, such law is
unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on
the just powers of the General Government,
and on the equal rights of other States; a
plain violation of the Constitution, and a
proceeding essentially revolutionary in its
character and tendency."
Upon the question that has been mooted
here, whether the people who framed the
Government of the United States and the
Constitution of the United States ignored
the idea of nationality, Mr. Webster says :
" Finally, sir, how can any man get over
the words' of the Constitution itself? 'We
the people of the United States do ordain and
establish this Constitution.' These words
must cease to be a part of the Constitution ;
they must be obliterated from the parchment
on which they are written, before any human
ingenuity or human argument can remove
the popular basis on which that Constitution
rests, and turn the instrument into a mere
compact between the sovereign States.
" But, sir, let us go to the actual formation
of the Constitution; let is open the journal of
the Convention itself, and we shall see that
the very first resolution which the Conven-
tion adopted, was "that a national govern-
ment ought to be established, consisting of a
supreme legislature, judiciary and executive.
" This itself completely negatives all idea
of league, and compact, and confederation.
Terms could not be chosen more fit to express
an intention to establish a national govern-
ment, and to banish forever all notion of a
compact between sovereign States.
"This resolution was adopted on the 30th
of May. Afterwards the style was altered.
and instead of being called a national gov-
ernment, it was called the Government of the
United States; but the substance of this reso-
lution was retained, and was at the head of
that list of resolutions which was afterwards
sent to the committee who were to frame the
instrument.
" It is true, there were gentlemen in the |
