'' This was done because it was necessary to
settle which of the twenty-six Anglo-Ameri-
can colonies—of which thirteen only were
included in the treaties—were referred to, but
it was the independence of the United States
as one power, not that of the States sepa-
rately, which was acknowledged. France and
the United States, in the French treaty, are
spoken of as the two parties to its stipula-
tions, and Great Britain, in like manner,
treats with the United States as the only party
recognized by her in the negotiation. The
American negotiators received their appoint-
ment and credentials, not from the separate
States, but from the Congress. They had no
commissions from the separate States, and
they were not in any way deputed or in-
structed by them, nor by any one of them;
nor was any one of the separate States in any
way, directly or indirectly, represented in the
negotiations. Neither of these treaties was
referred to the separate States for ratification,
as of course they would have been if their
separate and independent sovereignty had
been recognized; but like all other treaties
under the old Confederation, they required
not even the unanimous ratification of the
States in Congress. The concurrence of nine
States only was necessary for the ratification
of a treaty, a circumstance which of itself
shows that their separate and independent
sovereignty could not have been recognized.
What sort of a separate and independent sov-
ereignty is a member of a Confederation,
which is not only declared by its articles in-
competent to send an embassy or enter
into any treaty with a foreign power without
the consent of Congress, but upon which any
treaty with a foreign power might be imposed
against its consent by nine out of thirteen
States?"
I have read from an article recently contri-
buted by Edward Everett to the New York
Ledger.
Now, what becomes of the sovereignty of
the States, according to this high commen-
tary, according to the definition which I have
read from a conceded law authority, and ac-
cording to the ordinary understanding of the
word "sovereignty? " What becomes of the
sovereignty of the State, thus shorn of the
greatest possible attribute of sovereignty
which it could enjoy, the power of being re-
cognized as a nation by another nation? A
nation to exist, a sovereignty to exist, which
has no reputation, no character, no status
among the family of nations of the earth? I
cannot believe that such a doctrine can be se-
riously entertained, although I have no doubt
that gentlemen who advance it do so in all
earnestness.
This is a sort of skirmish in which I
am engaged, for I have not formed any gen-
eral plan of argument. I pass to the gen-
tleman from Somerset, (Mr. Jones,) who in-
dulged in the same course of argument; and |
what I have already said will apply to the
view which he presented upon this same point.
But the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr.
Jones,) if I correctly understood him in the
course of his argument, went a little further
upon another branch of the subject. He
boldly challenged the House to produce the
authority of any living statesman, of any
statesman of the past, of any statesman co-
temporaneous with the ratification of the
Constitution, who had pretended to dispute
the doctrine of State rights.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, I said, who had
asserted the doctrine of paramount allegiance
to the Federal Government.
Mr. RIDGELY. The one is a sequitur of the
other; they are inseparably connected with
each other. National sovereignty involves
paramount allegiance: State sovereignty
rejects it. I was prepared at the time,
but did not propose to interrupt my hon-
orable friend in the course of his argu-
ment, to refer him to various authorities
upon the subject. But I have one at hand in
this same paper, from this same author; one
that covers the whole of that ground. I
think I can refer the gentleman to one of the
brightest lights of his day; I think I can re-
fer him to a man in South Carolina, greater
than whom South Carolina has not produced
a son, who in the State Convention of South
Carolina about to pass upon this very Con-
stitution, replied to this very same theory of
State sovereignty. I refer to General Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney, the one name that stands
by all confession at the bead of the statesmen
of that State of his day. He avowed ''that the
Declaration of Independence itself sufficiently
refuted the doctrine of the individual sov-
ereignty and independence of the several
States." He goes on to say that, ''in that de-
claration the States are not even enumerated.
* * * The separate independence and indi-
vidual sovereignty of the several States were
never thought of by the enlightened band of
patriots who framed this declaration; the
several States are not even mentioned by
name in any part, as if it were intended to
impress this maxim on America, that our
freedom and independence arose from our
Union, and that without it we could neither be
free nor independent."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will the gentleman allow
me to interrupt him?
Mr. RIDGELY. Certainly, with pleasure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Does not the Declaration
of Independence say—"We, therefore, the
representatives of America in General Con-
gress assembled, * * * solemnly pub-
lish and declare, that these united colonies"
—these colonies—"are, and of right ought
to be, free and independent States?"
Mr. RIDGELY. That is true. And the in-
terpretation of the commentator from whom
I am reading is that the term "united col-
onies" is a collective word, used to designate |
