Convention who were for retaining the con-
federation and amending its articles; but the
majority was against this, and was for a na-
tional government. Mr. Patterson's propo-
sitions, which were for continuing the arti-
cles of confederation with additional powers,
were submitted to the Convention of the 5th
of June, and referred to the committee of the
whole. And the resolutions forming the ba-
sis of a national government, which bad once
been agreed to in the committee of the
whole, and reported, were re-committed to
the same committee on the same day. The
Convention, then, in committee of the whole,
on the 19th of June, had both these plans be-
fore them; that is to say, the plan of a con-
federacy or compact between States, and the
plan of a national government. Both these
plans were considered and debated, and the
committee reported, ' that they do not agree
to the propositions offered by the Hon. Mr.
Patterson, but that they again submit the
resolutions formerly reported.' If, sir, any
historical fact in the world be plain and un-
deniable, it is that the Convention deliberated
on the expediency of continuing the confed-
eration with some amendments, and rejected
that scheme, and adopted the plan of a na-
tional government, with a legislature, an ex-
ecutive, and a judiciary of its own. They
were asked to preserve the league; they re-
jected the proposition. They were asked to
continue the existing compact between States;
they rejected it. They rejected compact,
league and confederation, and set themselves
about framing the Constitution of a national
government; and they accomplished what
they undertook."
I do not intend to introduce any more
authorities upon that. I think the House
has heard enough. But I wish to reply to
the remarks of the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Miller,) upon the subject of
naturalization. He said that when aliens
were naturalized they were required to take
the oath of allegiance to the State where they
were naturalized, but only the oath to sup-
port the Constitution of the United States so
far as allegiance to the General Government
is concerned. I had had occasion to admin-
ister the oath of naturalization to foreigners,
and my memory did not serve me that such
was the fact So I have taken occasion to
procure the form of the certificate, which is
this:
" Be it remembered, that on the day
of, in the year aforesaid, N. N., a native
of , and at present residing in the
of , appeared in open court here, and
applied to be admitted to become a citizen of
the United States. And it appearing to the
satisfaction of the court here, that the said
N. N. had declared on oath, taken in the
-, on the day of , in the year
, two years at least before his admission,
that it was bona fide his intention to become |
a citizen of the United States. And it also
appearing to the satisfaction of the court
here, upon the testimony of W. W. and T. T.,
citizens of the United States, that the said
N. N, hath continued to reside within the
limits and under the jurisdiction of the United
State?, five years at least, and one year at
least, immediately preceding this application,
within the State of Maryland; that during
the said term of five years he hath resided in
, and hath conducted himself as & man
of good moral character, attached to the prin-
ciples of the Constitution of the United States,
and well disposed to the good order and hap-
piness; and the said N, N. having declared on
oath, taken in open court here, that be will
support the Constitution of the United States,
and that be doth absolutely and entirely re-
nounce all allegiance and fidelity to every
foreign prince, potentate, state and sover-
eignty whatever, and particularly all alle-
giance and fidelity to the . The court
here, thereupon admits the said N. N. to be-
come a citizen of the United States."
There is not a word said with reference to
allegiance to the State of Maryland, but only
that he shall reside one year in the State
prior to his being naturalized.
Instances might be multiplied; but I do
not regard it necessary; and I think the
Convention has been amply entertained in
that respect. What is the use of speculating
in reference to this question? What does it
all amount to? What does it prove? What
are the facts now ?
Whether State rights are right or wrong,
whether State sovereignty is right or wrong,
It has resulted in a strife of arms between the
Government of the United States and those
who have availed themselves of the pretext of
the State rights idea. Then what does it be-
come us as wise men to do? Are we to stand
here on the margin of the stream and trifle
in reference to this thing? We must do one
of two things. We must ally or range our-
selves on the side of the American Republic,
in which our common destiny is wound up
and involved, or we must combat that gov-
ernment, and range ourselves on the side of
the rebels against the government. I submit
to the gentlemen of this House, how is the
States rights idea to be carried out, if it were
to be allowed to be the true idea? Are we
in Maryland to come up here and call upon
the federal arms, or the national authority,
to protect us in our rights, and privileges,
and immunities, and subjugate the States
rights men of the State of Maryland, or are
they to subjugate us? That is the question
to be determined. If we have the majority
and the power we can put them down, and if
they have the majority and the power they
can put us down. They have not the power
to-day, even if they had the will, to enforce
the States rights idea in the State of Mary-
land. This is, in my opinion, no time to |
