States united—precisely the same thing
In this condition they remained, there was
not a particle of change, until the change that
was accomplished by the confederacy. Be-
fore that they were not united together as a
government; for they had no President, no
Congress, no Court, nor anything else, but
this assemblage of delegates of the separate
States which they called a Congress, to trans-
act their business. I read from the Ar-
ticles of Confederation:
"In Congress, July 8, 1778. Articles of
Confederation anal Perpetual Union between
the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts
Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Planta-
tions, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia
" Art. 1. The style of this confederacy shall
be 'The United States of America.' "
That is the first time there was ever a pre-
tence of a government formed for these States.
There never was a nation before. There
never was a people before that who had such
an appellation Here, they have baptized
these thirteen equal and independent States
by that name. Gentlemen have said that the
sovereignty was first in King George, and
then in Congress, in Congress prior to the
formation of the confederacy? Sovereignty
in that? It was a Congress to carry on the
war, and for nothing else upon the face of the
earth. A sovereign with no power of re-
dress? No, no. It had no powers of gov-
ernment, except the right to instruct General
Washington, and to receive, as they did, the
resignation of his sword.
" Art. 2. Each State retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction and right, which is not by this
confederation expressly delegated to the Uni-
ted States in Congress assembled."
" Bach State retains"—to retain is to keep
what you have already; it is not to receive
something you never had before. Then the
articles of confederation go on and create a
sort of government to be conducted by this
Congress;—1 suppose the Congress the gen-
tleman alluded to as having the sovereignty
after the Declaration of independence. Every-
body admits that this is a compact made be-
tween the State's, because here is the state-
ment on the face of it. What sort of a sov-
ereignty is that? A government with no
power to enforce it; a "rope of sand," as
it has been properly termed.
Then came the treaty of peace, acknowl-
edging the independence, not of an indepen-
dent nation, or sovereign nation, but of a
nation, if you choose so to call it, created by
the powers named in the confederacy; and
the treaty expressly declares the independence
of the several States, the colonies belore,
thereafter separate States.
In 1778 they formed this Union. It was
avowedly a Union of sovereign States, as sov- |
ereign States, Finding that it did not ac-
complish the purpose, it was proposed that a
new Constitution should be formed, granting
further power. By whom? By the States.
To whom? Nobody ever heard that there
was a proposition made to the people of the
United States as a mass. Certainly not.
The proposition was nude to the States.
How was it acted upon? It was acted upon.
by the States. The people met in the States.
My friend from Baltimore, to whom I have
just made a reference, I think most mis-
takenly applied Judge Marshall's remark.
Does he suppose Judge Marshall to have
meant that the people of the United States
could not. have met at some capital? They
have been meeting ever since the Constitu-
tion was formed. Does Judge Marshall mean
to say that the people of the United States by
their delegates could not meet in Washing-
ton, Philadelphia, or Annapolis? Not at
all. Chief Justice Marshall's meaning is very
obvious, "Where else could they meet?"
The proposition was made to the States, every
State acting as the equal of every other State.
Rhode island was just as emphatically an
equal Stile as New York was. if Rhode
Island choose not to say—aye, and if there
were only eight others, the Constitution
would not have gone into effect
Suppose that one or two of the States had
refused to enter into the new arrangement;
and it will be recollected that two of them
did not for some time; where was, then,
the supreme sovereignty of these States?
Suppose that instead of the whole thirteen
adopting the new Constitution, there bad
been but nine or ten. They would have been
the United States, and others would have
been left out. What condition would these
remaining States have been in? Where was
the sovereignty over them? Is it not evident
that the people had it? The Constitution
was submitted to the people in the several
States, and the people of the States acted
upon it. The people of the States confirmed
it. It then became binding; and by one of
its provisions expressly says that it shall not
only be bioding, but wherever binding it
shall be supreme over any law of any State
which contains anything in contradiction to
its authorized enactments. The people have
adopted it—the people of the several States,
as members of States perfectly sovereignty, ex-
cept in so far as it is stated in the instrument
that they surrender a portion of their sov-
ereignty.
No man ever heard at that time that those
States were not sovereign. Look at the dis-
cussions pending the adoption of the Consti-
tution of the United States. You will not
find any such language as has been used here.
You will not find the language that the
county represents in reference to the State,
what the State represents in reference to the
United States. No, sir; exactly the reverse. |
