because the agent has obligated that princi-
pal by oath to support it. And not only the
principal itself, but all its officers, all the
creatures of its government are under obliga-
tion of oath to support the agent. It is true,
they are to support it in the exercise of its
constitutional powers. But if it had no sov-
ereignty it could have no constitutional pow-
ers to exercise, being a mere agent, the con-
stitutional power would necessarily reside in
the principal.
Now, what are other attributes of sover-
eignty? Will the State of Virginia contend
that it has the right under the Constitution
to enter into and form alliances with foreign
nations? Will it contend that it has a right
to enter into it treaty of peace with foreign
nations? to emit bills of credit? to coin mo-
ney? or to exercise any of those ordinary at-
tributes which belong to a sovereign power ?
On the contrary, has it not surrendered the
right to do so to this very metaphysical entity,
which gentlemen here allege they have cre-
ated and baptized as a mere agency ?
Sir, whence is all the prestige of this coun-
try derived? How became we a member of
the great family of nations? Did anybody
ever hear abroad of the State of South Caro-
lina, in its independent, sovereign capacity,
as forming that nation which clothed us with
so much prestige and so much renown? Did
any government upon the face of the earth
ever care for, consider, know, or recognize
any of these States of which you speak as
sovereigns, in their dealings and intercourse
by treaties with this country? The United
States of America is an entity, as distinctly
defined and known, and with as much preci-
sion as a mathematical problem or proposi-
tion; it is known as a nation, and a great
nation. It is described as such and with a
power and vigor of language, with a force
and grandeur of eloquence and moral sub-
limity, which has never been surpassed, in a
speech with which all are .familiar, made
against the heresy of secession during its agi-
tation in Georgia, by no less a person than
the present so-called Vice-President of the so-
called Southern Confederacy. It is a nation
which, as such, has given to you all the glory
you possess. Created, it is true, as my friend
from Prince George's (Mr. Berry) has said,
by the States.
It is true the States existed before the Con-
stitution, but they never could have made the
Constitution except by the surrender of the
sovereignty which my friend calls the exclu-
sive prerogative of the States. They never
could have created a nation, which should
occupy a position among the family of na-
tions, but by the surrender of their sover-
eignty—except perhaps one that would have
been held up by foreign nations to ridicule
and mockery, as a government claiming to
act as a nation, with the powers and preroga-
tives of sovereignty, when in point of fact it |
was merely a shadow. Do you suppose any
nation upon the face of the earth would deal
with an agent, though claiming to be one of
the family of nations of the earth—that any
nation would enter into treaties of alliance
and commerce with a mere agent? No, that
does not belong to any theory of diplomacy
which we have yet learned. The nations of
the earth deal with principals only, like them-
selves, not with agents.
But my friend, (Mr. Berry, of Prince
George's,) has said that evidence of this State
sovereignty is found in the fact that the inde-
pendence of these States as States was recog-
nized in the treaty with Great Britain; that
inpoint of fact, "The United States" so-
called, in the Articles of Confederation, was
ignored; that the parties to that treaty were
the several States in their individual capacity,
and that the Government of the United States,
in its entity, not metaphysical, but real and
substantial, was ignored. Now, I cannot say
anything better on that subject than is said
in a newspaper which I hold in my hand, and
which I quote and make part of my argu-
ment. It so happens that Mr. Jefferson Davis
uttered just such a sentiment a few weeks
ago, in an address made by him to the Con-
federate Congress, and when I beard the same
sentiments gravely uttered here, it almost
seemed to me that by some extraordinary
means I had been transplanted into the Con-
federate Congress. I do not mean to say that
the honorable gentleman borrowed his argu-
ment from this source, but there is a remark-
able coincidence between the two.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I never
saw the message,
Mr. RIDGELY. In his message of the 2d of
May last, Mr. Davis speaks of the States in
rebellion as " States whose separate and in-
dependent sovereignty was recognized by
treaty with France and England in the last
century, and remained unquestioned for
nearly three generations." Now the com-
mentator upon this declaration uses these
words, which I will read to the Convention,
and adopt as my reply to that position :
" Mr. Davis has not condescended to name
the treaties by which France and England,
nearly ninety years ago, recognized the sepa-
rate and independent sovereignty of the seve-
ral States. As is well known, there were no
treaties negotiated by those powers with the
United States or any of them three genera-
tions ago, but the treaties of alliance and
commerce in 1778 with France, and of inde-
pendence with England in 1782 and 1783.
Neither of these treaties was negotiated by or
on behalf of the separate States, or any of
them, nor is there in either of them the slight-
est recognition of their separate indepen-
dence. The only possible foundation for
Mr. Davis's strange statement is, that the
States are mentioned by their names in those
treaties. |
