& 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/republicofrepubl01sage_0 
 

“ This Union must be a voluntary one, and not compulsory. A Union upheld 
 by force would be a despotism.” — W. H. SEWARD, 1844. 
 
 “ The States were, before the Union was. * * Our federal Republic for- 
 ever must exist through the combination of these several free, self-existing, stubborn 
 States.”— W. H. SEWARD, 1865. 
 
 “The only parties to the Constitution, contemplated by it originally, were the 
 thirteen confederate States.” — D. WEBSTER, 1819. 
 
 “The States are united, confederated.” — D. WEBSTER, 1850. 
 
 “The States never conceived the idea of consolidating themselves into one 
 government,” or of “ceasing to be Maryland and Virginia, Massachusetts and Caro- 
 lina. * I hope never to see the original idea departed from.” — 
 
 D. WEBSTER, 1852. 
 
 “ A Union of co-equal sovereign States requires, as its basis, the harmony of 
 its members, and their voluntary co-operation in its organic functions.” — 
 
 E. EVERETT, i860. 
 
 “ The Constitution, in all of its provisions looks to an indestructible union of 
 indestructible States.” — S. P. CHASE « 
 
 “ In fact and in theory, the Union is an association of States, or a confederacy.” 
 The States are “ the parti.es to the compact.”— HAMILTON, Federalist. 
 
 " The States are regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns * * by 
 
 the constitution proposed.” — MADISON, Federalist, 1840. 
 
 “ The business of the federal convention * * comprehended the views and 
 establishments of thirteen independent sovereignties.” — JAMES WILSON. 
 
 “ The government of the United States was instituted by a number of sover- 
 eign States for the better security of their rights.” — ROGER SHERMAN. 
 
 “ The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this State extends to all places within the 
 boundaries thereof.”— CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK. 
 
 “ The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of gov- 
 erning themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State.” — 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 See also the testimony of the leading fathers, in Part I, Chapter VII. 
 
 “ The American Flag must wave over States — not over provinces.” — 
 
 RUTHERFORD B. HAYES. 
 
CorqrqeqdcitioqjT 
 
 “The whole protest [the first edition] is most admirable, 
 well-arranged and able. It should have an extensive reading 
 everywhere * * The work you propose [the present edi- 
 
 tion] should have a large sale here. It would not only be 
 useful as a lamp in the present, but as a standard reference in 
 the future, and the time must come when it will command a 
 prominent position in every library.” — From a prominent Gen- 
 tleman. 
 
 “ It is very able, exhaustive, and convincing.” — Henry May, 
 of Maryland, i86j. 
 
 “ If upon the numerous points that any lawyer can see in 
 the case, I had so admirably prepared, and overwhelmingly 
 conclusive a brief as the protest, my task [in defending Davis] 
 would be slight indeed.”—- Charles O' Conor, in 1865, to the 
 author in England. 
 
 “A most important argument has been received by the 
 President from London, in which are set forth the reasons why 
 Davis cannot be convicted of treason in any court,” &c., &c. — 
 Telegram from Washington to the “ Ledger ," Pldladelphia, 1865. 
 
 “It is historically correct and logical.” — Andrczu Johnson. 
 
 “This treatise is an extraordinary work, considering that it 
 was written by an English lawyer. It exhibits an acquaint- 
 ance with the history and philosophy of the late Federal con- 
 stitution and union, from which ninety-nine out of a hundred 
 of our Northern brethren, and not a few Southern people, 
 might derive information if they would.” — Mobile Register, 
 July 2fh, 1866. 
 
 “Should you be in this country before the trial, I would be 
 happy to confer with you on the subject, as your close atten- 
 tion to, and thorough understanding of, the leading topic in 
 the probable discussion, give you great facilities for useful- 
 ness.” — Charles O' Conor, June 28th, 1866. 
 
 The Round Table of March 27, 1869, introducing the series 
 of eighteen leading chapters it published, stated its “respect 
 for the candor, patriotism, and learning of the writer, who 
 having made his subject a long and anxious study, is well 
 qualified to interest and instruct, even in cases where he may 
 fail to convince.” 
 
William M. Randolph, one of the most eminent lawyers 
 of the South-west, wrote to the author in 1870: “ If you are 
 the author [of certain magazine and newspaper articles] pre- 
 sent them to the public in book form. The argument and 
 authorities are a complete vindication of the sovereignty of 
 the States.” 
 
 One of the most distinguished American clergymen wrote 
 the author in 1876: “Indeed, I could not lay the treatise 
 down, so greatly interested was I in the discussion.” 
 
 “In my judgment, your book will form an invaluable con- 
 tribution to American political literature, and I trust that 
 many readers will be as grateful to you as I am myself.” 
 
 “Thebook is dispassionate and philosophical ; butplain, lucid, 
 terse and incisive. Without any partisan spirit whatever, it 
 cuts into the heart of the subject, lays bare its principles, and 
 establishes the confederate character of the American union 
 ona foundation of impregnable reasoning .” — The Cycle, Mobile. 
 
 “ I return herewith the volume of proof-sheets of the forth- 
 coming ‘ Republic of Republics.’ I can scarcely find fit 
 terms in which to express my admiration for this great work. 
 Within the compass of about 500 pages, the author has con- 
 densed more and better facts and arguments on American 
 government, than can be found in any twenty other volumes 
 I have seen. 
 
 “ It is, in fact, a cyclopedia of political science, worthy to be 
 read and studied by juristsand statesmen, and equally worthy 
 to be made a text-book for colleges and universities. 
 
 “ It impresses me as being the results of the patient research 
 of many years, analyzed, collated, and methodized by a mind 
 naturally searching and logical. The author takes no position 
 which he does not fortify impregnably, and makes no asser- 
 tion which he does not fully prove. 
 
 “The volume is pervaded by the very spirit of truth, and a 
 devout reverence for human liberty. It is my belief that it is 
 the ablest work ever written in support of the right of self- 
 government, as well as the best of all treatises on our Ameri- 
 can federal system .” — From the editor of 07 ie of the leading con- 
 setvative journals of the country. 
 
THE 
 
 ✓ 
 
 Republic of Republics : 
 
 A. Retrospect of our Century of Federal Liberty, 
 
 An Attempt to ascertain from the Federal Constitution , from the Acts 
 of the pre-existent States, and from the contemporaneous Exposi- 
 tion of the Fathers, the Sovereignty, Citizenship, Allegiance 
 and Treason of the United States ; 
 the Obligation of the President's Constitutional Oath; 
 and the Reasons why the Trial of the Confederate Chiefs was evaded. 
 
 B Y 
 
 One of the Counsel in the Case of Jefferson Davis. 
 
 1%"^! ~(9C 
 
 THIRD EDITION , CAREFULLY REVISED AND GREATLY AMPLIFIED. 
 
 WITH 
 
 A VERY LARGE APPENDIX, 
 
 Containing much apposite Matter now out of print, and very instructive and valuable. 
 
 Printed, for the _A_ntlror. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 WILLIAM W. HARDING. 
 1878. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, 
 By ROBERT W. GREENE, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
f/t, 
 
 fi // 
 
 t,<Q, 
 
 1 1 3 , 7 / 
 
 S / 19 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The theory of this work is precisely that upon which the anti- 
 slavery sentiment of the country based itself, in opposing the 
 extension of slavery, the fugitive slave law, and, indeed, slavery 
 itself; while it supports the action (except nullifying), of those 
 states which have from time to time defended themselves against 
 federal excesses. 
 
 The author is one who never held or wished for office ; who 
 belongs to no party ; and who pleads to save the palladium of all 
 his blessings — his commonwealth. 
 
 In 1865, Andrew Johnson, filled with the motives and feelings 
 of the war, and surrounded by detectives, spies, Stantons and 
 Holts, believed Davis to be a traitor, who sought the destruction 
 of “ the government ”, starved federal prisoners at Andersonville 
 and elsewhere, and procured Lincoln’s death. 
 
 It was then that he uttered the celebrated threat of “ making 
 treason odious by hanging traitors and for a time, even if it was 
 not contemplated, it was feared that a military commission would 
 be used as the machinery of trial and punishment. But, as Davis 
 and the other leading confederates were prisoners of war, and 
 protected by the jus gentium , the policy seemed to be adopted of 
 turning them over to the civil authorities, for trial — if conviction 
 could be assured ; or for other disposal, as hereafter indicated. 
 
 The north was full of bitterness and vengeful spirit. Senti- 
 ments like the following, were heard from many leaders: “ Rebels 
 have no rights but to be hung “ The army has convicted — only 
 execution remains.” But the soberer judgment of predominant men 
 was more humane, and the moral sense of the country and the 
 
 in 
 
 260810 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 world favored a trial of some sort, though few comparatively could 
 patiently contemplate the chances of acquittal. The following 
 from the New York Times shows the prevailing views and feelings, 
 and, at the same time, the danger of losing the great principles 
 involved. Advocating civil trial, and presuming it would come, 
 that journal said: “We have no fear that Jeff Davis will be 
 acquitted on the merits of the case, as they will be expounded by 
 the chief justice, who will try him. * * If Davis is convicted, the 
 constitution, as understood by the loyal people of the land, will be 
 vindicated, and the supremacy of the national authority forever 
 established in law, as well as fact.” 
 
 Presuming that there must be a large class of Sewards, Chases, 
 Greeleys, Gerrit Smiths, Bateses, Everetts, Trumbulls, Staus- 
 berrys, &c., who, as peace grew older and reflection came, would 
 arise and influence public opinion, the author sent from London, 
 in the summer of 1865, the first edition of this work, in the shape 
 of a protest against the trial of the confederate chiefs by military 
 commission ; and an argument — which was really that of the 
 fathers, the author merely compiling — showing that the law and 
 the testimony were in their favor, and that they could not be 
 convicted even by a court and jury. It was sent to all the conspic- 
 uous men in and out of the administration. 
 
 The following telegram to the Philadelphia Ledger, is selected to 
 show the estimate in which the work was held by some in 
 Washington : “ A most important argument has been received by 
 
 the president from London, in which are set forth the reasons why 
 Davis cannot he convicted in any court, of the crime of treason,” 
 &c. &c. Concerning it, Mr. Charles O’Conor wrote the author, 
 December 10th, 1865: “If upon the numerous points that any 
 lawyer can readily see in the case, I had so admirably prepared 
 and overwhelmingly conclusive a brief as the protest, my task [of 
 defending Davis], would be slight indeed.” And the Mobile Begister 
 noticed it as follows: “This treatise is an extraordinary work, 
 considering that it is' written by an English lawyer. It exhibits 
 
PREFACE 
 
 V 
 
 profound acquaintance with, the history and philosophy of the 
 constitution.” 
 
 It should be explained, en passant, that the work purported to 
 he the monograph of P. C. Centz, Barrister. 
 
 Some have thought', perhaps erroneously, that the president and 
 his advisers were, by it, induced to pause, and convoke leading 
 jurisconsults, who actually met, and after much study and thought, 
 reported that Davis must be civilly tried if at all; but that prob- 
 ably he could not be convicted. Among the statements on this 
 subject, the following is selected from a most interesting letter, 
 written in Richmond to the Norfolk Virginian , and published in 
 1S73 : 
 
 “Another event of great historical interest, in which Judge 
 Clifford participated, was the solemn consultation of a small 
 number of the ablest lawyers of the north, at Washington, a few 
 months after the war, upon the momentous question as to whether’ 
 the federal government should commence a criminal prosecution 
 against Jefferson Davis for his participation and leadership in the 
 war of secession. In this council, which was surrounded at the 
 time with the utmost secrecy, and which has never yet been 
 described, were TJ. S. attorney-general Speed, Judge Clifford, 
 William M. Evarts, and perhaps half a dozen others, who had 
 been selected from the whole northern profession for their legal 
 ability and acumen ; and the result of their deliberation was the 
 sudden abandonment [of the idea of prosecution], in view of the 
 insurmountable difficulties in the way of getting a final conviction, 
 which were revealed by their patient study of the law bearing 
 upon the case.” 
 
 Notwithstanding the “sudden abandonment” in secret, change 
 of intention was not allowed to transpire ; and the defence were 
 compelled to keep in readiness until 1869. During all this pen- 
 dency of the case, President Johnson and his cabinet seemed to 
 evade a trial by jury, but meanwhile to aim at getting the states’ 
 supreme court to lay down a national law of treason, so as to have 
 
 2G0810 
 
 l 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 a national control, by a national government, of national citizens, 
 under the penalties of national treason ; thus establishing that 
 “ absolute supremacy,” of “the government ” over allegiant states 
 and citizens, which the Philadelphia convention of 1866 anticipa- 
 torily declared. Henry J. Raymond, the writer of the expression 
 quoted above from the New York Times , was the writer of the 
 address of the said convention. 
 
 In a letter from Mr. O’Conor to the author in London at the 
 close of 1865, is the following : “ To procure a forensic discussion 
 of the point so ably argued by you, and a pre-ari’anged judicial 
 determination of it by the supreme court, against the south, and in 
 favor of his national government, has long been a favorite project 
 with Mr. Johnson. He is persistently urged to it by his most 
 intimate adviser; and it is distinctly avowed in the message just 
 delivered. For a long time, those who possess means of knowing 
 + he intent of the president and his cabinet, have, almost without 
 exception, asserted very positively, that Mr. Davis would be tried 
 in a civil tribunal.” 
 
 In the course of time, Mr. Davis was turned over by the military 
 to the civil authority ; and, finally, under a habeas corpus, admitted 
 to bail, with Horace Greeley, Gerrit Smith, and others as bonds- 
 men, early in 1867 ; and thenceforward a show of desire and 
 readiness to try was kept up : insomuch that Mr. O’Conor did not 
 abate his preparedness till the fall of 1868 ; when, on a motion to 
 quash the indictment, the judges differed, and the case was certi- 
 fied up to the states’ supreme tribunal, where it was finally extin- 
 guished by President Johnson’s amnesty proclamation, without 
 any laying down (or prostrating?) of the law by the said tribunal. 
 
 To some, the prosecution seemed aiming to get around trial by 
 jury, and before the supreme court, in order to merge the case in 
 the aforesaid “pre-arranged” decision; but the author opines with 
 diffidence, that Seward and Chase secretly managed to prevent 
 that predetermined decree, which necessarily and fatally impugned 
 statehood ; they, if we judge from their history and declarations. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 VII 
 
 being nothing if not devotees of the sovereignty of the American 
 states. 
 
 These great men knew that commonwealths (New York and 
 Ohio for example), were the citizens thereof, and that the fealty 
 of the citizens was the life of the state ; and that a national law of 
 treason on national citizens, was absolute destruction of what they 
 themselves called “indestructible states.” Hence it is presumable 
 that they were opposed to the above-mentioned design of the 
 president. 
 
 The adverse sentiment was aided more or less by a large class of 
 northern minds, who steadily opposed, not merely the military 
 commission, but any trial. Conspicuous among them were Gerrit 
 Smith, Horace Greeley, and- ex-governor John A. Andrew — the 
 latter expressing himself as follows, as is stated in the letter to the 
 Norfolk Virginian, before mentioned : “ It cannot be done. The 
 
 criminal law has no application here. * * When a whole people 
 commit an act, rash, impolitic, and direful though it may be, * * 
 it is impossible to consider the criminal law as being framed to 
 meet the case.” Like Edmund Burke, these men “ knew of no 
 way to frame an indictment of a whole people.” 
 
 Meanwhile, time was healing hurts, assuaging sorrows, mollifying 
 • resentments, wearing away antipathies and prejudices; and for- 
 giveness and conciliation were copiously welling up from the 
 bottom of the people’s hearts, so that finally, in 1868, Mr. Davis’s 
 condemnation, once an easy task, became no longer possible ; and 
 the case, as heretofore stated, came to a happy end. 
 
 What a change! Underwood, a year or two before, had said to 
 a committee of congress, in reply to an inquiry if a jury could be 
 packed — “It would be difficult, but it could be done. I could 
 pack a jury to convict. I know very earnest, ardent union men 
 in Virginia.” Such sentiments did not, however, long or widely 
 prevail; and in December 1868, the New York Tribune doubted if 
 it was ever possible to convict Davis, “unless the jury had been 
 packed,” and “ every democrat excluded.” Peace, with benign 
 wings, was brooding over the land. 
 
Providence, time, the better feelings of men, their sober second 
 thoughts, and a myriad of moral forces, ever co-work to preserve 
 these glorious commonwealths; and they now stand in serene and 
 silent majesty, observed of every eye, and invoking the loyalty of 
 every heart. Seward and Chase both, after the war, with emphasis 
 proclaimed the states to be “ free,” “ stubborn,” “ indestructible.” 
 Their life is independent; above “government”; and they will 
 not “ down ” at the bidding of murderous usurpation, for their 
 being is that of the people ; and the self-defence of both — the first 
 law of nature — is identical. Perverters should cease to “wreck 
 themselves against necessity,” for, as long as freedom is a part 
 of God’s smile on this continent, the state will be the political 
 form of the people. Bryant’s apostrophe to liberty applies to the 
 commonwealth : 
 
 “* * Power at thee has launched his bolts, 
 
 And with his lightnings smitten thee: 
 
 They could not quench the life thou hast from heaven.” 
 ********** 
 
 In Conclusion, 
 
 wishing for criticism and correction of error, the author makes 
 no apology for the manner of performing his task; but takes 
 occasion to say, that, desiring everybody to read and believe, he 
 has aimed to use simple, direct, and untechnical language, intel- 
 ligible to all classes, and to pile up evidences on every contention 
 of the book, so as to make doubt impossible. Chapter YII. of 
 Part I.., for example, decisively proves what all the fathers con- 
 sidered, and the people intended, our polity to be. And for such 
 proofs the statements of the deputies who devised, and the people 
 who ordained it, are used, rather than the dicta of the adminis- 
 tering agents, who became interested alike in its success and in 
 their own further emoluments, and who began those assumptions 
 of ungranted powers, which have since wellnigh proved fatal. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 Publication in the centennial year was thought of, but the 
 general running to and fro, pleasure-seeking and elation, prevented 
 the masses from being in the mood for reflection on grave subjects ; 
 while the very class it was most desired to reach, was absorbed in 
 the excited and dangerous canvass of that year. 
 
 Moreover, a full retrospect of our departing century, as to its 
 results on our political institutions, could not then be had, especially 
 as several of the states were not yet — as they were likely to be — 
 restored to that equality, vital to a voluntary union of republics. 
 And besides, important issues were still pending, which the influ- 
 ences belonging to the old century were evidently bringing to the 
 Pappy settlement since realised. 
 
 The opening year of the new cycle is full of good auspices for 
 “ federal liberty.”* The President, under oath to support and 
 defend the constitution, declares that “ the American flag must wave 
 over states, and not over provinces,” which can only mean, that 
 the revolution from provinces to states is no. to be annulled; that 
 henceforth our union will be an association of equal common- 
 wealths, governing themselves through agencies with entrusted 
 powers; that the means of enforcing said authority is “the mild 
 and salutary coercion of the magistracy ” [Federalist] ; and that 
 the soldiery is no more a part of the government. than the switch 
 or ferule is a part of the parent or schoolmaster, but is an 
 instrument of the civil power to be used as a last resort. 
 
 It seems as if the American people have again come to know 
 and feel that they are, in form, and life, and action, an association 
 of republics ; and to recognise their duty of preserving their 
 sacred heritage and trust of liberty against centralisation. The 
 fundamental laws, which the states have severally and federally 
 [established, seem once more to be in accord with the tones of the 
 old bell which, on the 4th of July, 1776, “proclaimed liberty 
 throughout the land.” All patriotic hearts and hopes are in 
 
 *Thi8 phrase was used by James Wilson, to express the liberty that free states enjoy under 
 Jieir league. 
 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 harmony, and our only political discords are the usurpations and 
 excesses of those ephemeral creatures who fly, for a measured 
 while, with imparted strength, in the sunshine of popular favor — 
 creatures who, as subjects and chosen servants of the common- 
 wealths, are sworn to keep within those written limits which they 
 daily transcend. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PART L 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 CHAPTER I. — Introductory. 
 
 The separateness of the states from their origin. 
 
 Each body must, if independent, be sovereign 
 
 The constitution provides for a union of states. 
 
 It is a constitution of government by states 
 
 It is a part of the machinery of self-government. 
 
 The federal government is not over the states 
 
 The danger of giving it supreme power. .... 
 
 The character and purpose of suffrage 
 
 Solemn warning from Edmund Burke. .... 
 
 CHAPTER II. — Perversion. 
 
 All political power inherent in the people 
 
 The doctrine of the fathers. 
 
 The self-consolidation of the government. . 
 
 Ctesarism 
 
 “ Let us have peace.” ... 
 
 Will our peace be of contentment or force? .... 
 
 CHAPTER III. — History repeats itself. 
 
 Perversion has made a spurious constitution 
 
 Expounders using refuting charges as expositions. . . 
 
 Usurped control of suffrage. 
 
 The American “ divine right.” ...... 
 
 The imported theory of the social compact 
 
 A Roman chapter of American history. .... 
 
 CHAPTER IY. — Secession and Coercion. 
 
 No constitutional coercion of states 
 
 The only basis of coercion 
 
 Secession is an act under th ejus gentium 
 
 Coercion is justifiable under the same law. .... 
 
 Our system as thus modified. 
 
 Two important ideas 
 
 CHAPTER Y. — Rebellion or not. 
 
 Were the confederates rebels and traitors ? .... 
 
 The federal compact vindicates them. 
 
 Strong corroborations 
 
 Coercion of states is war against them 
 
 The nal ion is states — governments are creatures. 
 
 Uncle Sam taught Davis and Lee secession. .... 
 
 xl 
 
 Page 
 
 l 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 n 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 14 
 
 R 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 
XU 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER YI. — Rebellion or not. — (C ontinued). 
 
 Patriotism is love of one’s state. . . .... 34 
 
 The patriotism the fathers felt and taught. .... 34 
 
 ■> — Davis and Lee no traitors 36 
 
 Absurd views of sovereignty 37 
 
 States alone were responsible for secession and war. ... 37 
 
 And states alone were punishable. ...... 39 
 
 The atonement was complete. .39 
 
 Th ejus gentium protected confederates 40 
 
 The legitimate conclusions 40 
 
 CHAPTER YII. — The Architects’ Idea op the Edifice. 
 
 The perversion to be exposed. 43 
 
 The inquiry is one of fact 43 
 
 Testimony of the writers of “ The Federalist .” .... 44 
 
 The statements of Washington and Franklin 45 
 
 The testimony of the five next in rank 46 
 
 Another decade of witnesses 48 
 
 Only a federation of sovereignties was possible 50 
 
 Professors of fact, as well as of law, wanted 51 
 
 CHAPTER YIII. — The Subject is Facts. 
 
 Interpretation comes after establishment 52 
 
 So-called schools of interpretation 53 
 
 The chief expounders .... 54 
 
 The “school” was one of perversion. 54 
 
 “School ” is a misnomer except in- the sense of flock. ... 55 
 
 A passing tribute to the old Bay state. ..... 57 
 
 Averments of fact — skeleton of argument 58 
 
 The republic. 58 
 
 The republic of republics. 58 
 
 Citizenship and allegiance 59 
 
 Treason . 59 
 
 True patriotism is fidelity to the commonwealth. ... 60 
 
 Government is mental and functional action. .... 60 
 
 The minds of the political bodies still live. .... 61 
 
 CHAPTER IX. — Conclusive Evidence. 
 
 Webster’s statement in 1819 62 
 
 The testimony of Massachusetts. 63 
 
 The object of government .63 
 
 The social compact 63 
 
 No sovereignty in government — all functionaries agents. . . 64 
 
 The state can change government at will 64 
 
 The state to remain sovereign over government .... 64 
 
 New York testifies idem sonans 65 
 
 Lordship of the soil or eminent domain. 1 . . 66 
 
 Federal sites. 66 
 
 Summing up the testimony 67 
 
 The constitution is law in a state by her will 68 
 
 Exposure of the fallacy of a new social compact 68 
 
 Politically the people exist and act as a state 69 
 
 The stumbling-block of the expounders. ..... 70 
 
 The sacred ties according to Washington. .... 70 
 
 The sacred ties according to Jackson and Burke 71 
 
 The union is only voluntary engagements. .... 71 
 
 “ Union and liberty, now and forever.” 72 
 
CONTENTS. Xiil 
 
 Let us preserve the commonwealths 72 
 
 Let all declare the true principles of liberty .... 78 
 
 The states are now provincialised 78 
 
 Invocation. 74 
 
 PART II. 
 
 FEDERAL IS AT I ON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. — The Actors — their Motives and Purposes. 
 
 Statehood to remain intact 78 
 
 The chief aims of the states. . 79 
 
 The principal changes contemplated .80 
 
 Preliminary remarks on federalisation 81 
 
 CHAPTER II. — Massachusetts eederalises herself. 
 
 The substance of the objections .83 
 
 Her statesmen denounceconsolidation. ..... 84 
 
 The severalty and the sovereignty of the states 86 
 
 “We the people ” means Massachusetts 87 
 
 What her statesmen said “ we the people” meant. ... 88 
 
 The fear of losing statehood. . 90 
 
 She proposes the tenth amendment. 90 
 
 The amendment a truism though useful 91 
 
 The sole ordaining was by Massachusetts 93 
 
 Her ratification 93 
 
 CHAPTER III. — Connecticut federalises herself. 
 
 What her t atesmen said. 95 
 
 “ We the people” means Connecticut. 96 
 
 Her ratification. 97 
 
 CHAPTER IV.- -New York federalises herself. 
 
 What her statesmen thought of the system 98 
 
 Ratification in confidence of amendments. .... H00 
 
 Decisive proof that “ we the people ” means New York. . 101 
 
 Her ratificatioi 101 
 
 Her present autocratical declarations. ...... 102 
 
 CHAPTER Y. — New Jersey federalises herself. 
 
 The views of her statesmen. ' 104 
 
 “We the people ” of New Jersey 105 
 
 Her ratification 106 
 
 CHAPTER YI. — Pennsylvania federalises herself. 
 
 She associates as a sovereign 108 
 
 Views of her statesmen 108 
 
 Whom did she mean by “ we the people.” . . . . HO 
 
 Her ratification. Ill 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. — Delaware and Maryland pederalise 
 
 THEMSELVES. 
 
 “We the people ” of Delaware 112 
 
 Her ratification. 118 
 
 Maryland 113 
 
 “ We the people” of Maryland 114 
 
 Her ratification. . .- 114 
 
 Luther Martin's letter ' . . 114 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. — Virginia federalises herself. 
 
 Virginia to remain a sovereign . 117 
 
 Consolidation denounced. 119 
 
 What Virginia meant by “ we the people.” . . . 120 
 
 Her ratification. 121 
 
 Making assurance doubly sure 122 
 
 The nation resuming powers delegated by Virginia. . . . 122 
 
 CHAPTER IX. — South Carolina and Georgia federalise 
 
 THEMSELVES. 
 
 South Carolina. •. 124 
 
 An explanation of the system to her 124 
 
 Views of the Pinckneys and Rutledges. 124 
 
 “We the people ” of South Carolina 129 
 
 Her ratification 129 
 
 Georgia 130 
 
 Her ratification 130 
 
 CHAPTER X. — Hew Hampshire federalises herself. 
 
 New Hampshire’s assertion of her statehood 132 
 
 “ We the people ” of New Hampshire 133 
 
 Her ratification 133 
 
 Nine parties established the compact 134 
 
 * The putting of the agency at work • 135 
 
 The action of congress 137 
 
 CHAPTER XL — North Carolina federalises herself. 
 
 Her idea of the union expressed by Iredell and others. . . 139 
 
 The sovereign rejects the league 142 
 
 The sovereign ratifies the league. 143 
 
 » Her ratification. , . . . 143 
 
 Washington vs. Webster 144 
 
 CHAPTER XII. — Rhode Island federalises herself. 
 
 Her ratification 146 
 
 Washington’s view of the act. 147 
 
 Finis corona t opus. 147 
 
 The republic of republics. 148 
 
 CHAPTER XIH. — The “executed” “deed.” 
 
 A fatal ad mission of Mr. Webster. 149 
 
 The complete federal system 149 
 
 Now let us see the “ deed ” as “executed.” 150 
 
 The ratifying words of the “ deed.” 152 
 
 Here then are the essentials of a federation 152 
 
 Gross pictorial deception 154 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 Exposure of the fallacy 154 
 
 The true presentation of the system — to face p. 155 . . . 155 
 
 The more perfect union of 1788 156 
 
 The identity of character of the two unions — diagram to face p. 156 156 
 
 Both systems federal unions 157 
 
 The separate wills of states made both systems. . . . 157 
 
 The later federation the more perfect 158 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. — The Testimony of the Constitution. 
 
 “ What does it say of itself? ” 159 
 
 The testimony of the title and preamble 160 
 
 All elections or powers are of states 161 
 
 The federal government always vicarious 163 
 
 All citizens and subjects are those of states. .... 163 
 
 The union was made to preserve the states 164 
 
 The wills of states must live to amend 164 
 
 The same states made both federal compacts. . . . .165 
 
 The instrument says the states are the parties 165 
 
 The “ executed deed.” 166 
 
 The compact was done only by states. ..... 167 
 
 Only a federation was possible / . . . 168 
 
 PART III. 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. v 
 
 CHAPTER I. — Charges and. Expositions identical. 
 Testimony of Washington, Hamilton and Madison. . 
 
 Comparison of charges and expoundings 
 
 The states made into one state. . . ... 
 
 The change from a federacy to a nation. . . . . 
 
 The general government a sovereignty. 
 
 The government the final judge of its authority. . 
 
 A state and a county equal in rights. .... 
 Opposition of Henry, Martin, Lowndes, et alii. 
 
 The federal simulacrum 
 
 Massachusetts as the Sheik ul Gebel 
 
 Judge Story’s relation to these perversions. 
 
 Probable reasons for Judge Story’s error 
 
 Were the motives worthy of the occasion ? ... 
 
 CHAPTER II. — Who makes “supreme law”? 
 Interpretation of the “ Massachusetts school.” . 
 
 “ What is our system ” is matter of fact. . . . . 
 
 How the public convictions were produced. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 1 — The Nation ordained. 
 Ignoring, or concealing facts, does not destroy them. 
 
 Did not the people, as states, ordain ? 
 
 The ordaining instruments. 
 
 The compact required the states to ordain 
 
 The states retained their sovereignty. .... 
 No “ people,” as such, were to ordain 
 
 173 
 
 173 
 
 174 
 174 
 
 174 
 
 175 
 
 175 
 
 176 
 176 
 
 176 
 
 177 
 
 178 
 
 179 
 
 180 
 
 181 
 
 181 
 
 182 
 
 182 
 
 183 
 
 183 
 
 184 
 
 185 
 185' 
 
 J 
 
X. V L 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. — False Evidence of establishment. 
 INTERPRETATION No. 2 — The Constitution national. 187 
 
 Fallacies of the “expounder?.” 187-8 
 
 The new system “ done ” only by states. 188 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 3 — Story’s new Article. 188 
 
 Sheep follow bell-wethers 189 
 
 The blind leading the blind 199 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 4 — “ The States not named.” 191 
 
 CHAPTER IV. — Some Samples of “ Sophismes.” 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 5 — The Supreme Law clause. 193 
 
 The fathers’ idea of the “ supreme law.” 194 
 
 Views of Madison, Randolph, Hamilton, Seward, Greeley, et alii. . 195 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 6 — Partly federal and partly 
 national. 
 
 Testimony of the Federalist. 196 
 
 The senate federal — the house national. 197 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 7 — “ Reserved to.” 198 
 
 CHAPTER V. — Garblings. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 8 — Garbling the ratification. 199 
 
 Deceptive quotations 200 
 
 The true versions 201 
 
 What was the motive of these garblings? 202 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 9 — Garbling the Federalist. 
 
 Justice Story’s effort 208 
 
 An. effort of Mr. Webster’s in this line 204 
 
 Testimony of the Federalist ; sophistry of the expounders. . 205' 
 
 CHAPTER VI. — Adroit Substitutions. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 10 — Changing terms and meanings. 206 
 
 Perversions of Everett and Curtis 206-7 
 
 “ Irrevocable conveyances.” 209 
 
 “ Delegate,” then, is the only correct word. .... 209 
 
 Further criticism on Mr. Curtis’s views. 211 
 
 CHAPTER VII. — Misstating History and Records. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 11 — Misstating the Views and 
 Acts of the Convention. 
 
 Reasons for making a new federation. .... 213 
 
 The “Mosaic dispensation” of centralism 214 
 
 The misstatement to be refuted 214 
 
 How the states instructed their deputies 215 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xvii 
 
 The expounders’ style of quoting. ..... 
 
 The “national” idea repudiated 
 
 More anti-national facts 
 
 The real preamble ... 
 
 Anti-national contemporaneous exposition. . . . 
 
 CHAPTER Till. — Webster’s Masterpiece op Criticism 
 
 210 
 
 217 
 
 218 
 
 219 
 
 220 
 
 INTERPRETATION Ho. 12 — “Constitutional Compact.” 
 
 222 
 
 “ Compact ” and “ accede ” are correct 222 
 
 Webster ignores constitutional history. 223 
 
 Neither disputant knew the facts of the case 225 
 
 Webster’s views later in life. 226 
 
 Attempts at explanation 227 
 
 Mr. Webster’s real views. 228 
 
 He defines compact, confederation, and league. . . . 229 
 
 Why was he on both sides? 230 
 
 CHAPTER IS. — Lincoln’s plain English. 
 
 Consequences of the “ expounders’ ” interpretations. . . 232 
 
 Lincoln’s views and teachers. . 233 
 
 Justice to Lincoln. 234 
 
 States and counties politically equal 235 
 
 Sovereignty, if not asserted, is lost 235 
 
 “The union created the states.” 237 
 
 The states became subject to their own union 237 
 
 Seeing things upside down . . 238 
 
 The worship of the god “ union.” 239 
 
 These are the reasons why. 240 
 
 Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty 240 
 
 CHAPTER X. — The anti-Lincolnism op Washington. 
 
 Political views of Washington — extracts. .... 242 
 
 CHAPTER XI. — The anti-Lincolnism op Washington. Con- 
 
 tinued. 
 
 Further extracts from his writings 252 
 
 Extracts from his farewell address. 255 
 
 Washington’s adoption of Wilson’s views. .... 258 
 
 His adoption of the views of “ Fabius” (John Dickinson). . . 259 
 His adoption of those of the Federalist, Hamilton, and others. 261 
 
 Comments on his political opinions 261 
 
 His statement of the objects of government 263 
 
 CHAPTER XII. — Verbal Jugglery. 
 
 Perversion of Noah Webster’s definitions. .... 264 
 
 Thimble-rigging exposition 264 
 
 The American “ old man of the mountain.” 265 
 
 Noah Webster’s real doctrines. 265 
 
 The states above constitutions of government 266 
 
 Tne aim is to preserve the states complete 267 
 
 Electees and agents 267 
 
 A compact and a constitution. 267 
 
 Noah Webster never changed 268 
 
 The “ adroit substitutions ” in Webster’s dictionary. . . . 268 
 Sovereignty. 268 
 
XVlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 “ State,” “ commonwealth,” and “ republic ” 5 — 0 . 0 269 
 
 “ Compact” and “constitution.” ....... 270 
 
 “ Delegation ” and “ delegate.” 271 
 
 “Union” and “epluribus unum.” 272 
 
 “ Federal,” “ federalise,” “ confederation.” .... 273 
 
 “ Congress.” 274 
 
 The sum of Noah Webster’s views 274 
 
 The falsehoods ascribed to him 275 
 
 Pro tanto t lie book is not Noah Webster’s. .... 275 
 
 Coutemporanea expositio. 276 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. — Conservative Errors. 
 
 “A republican form of government.” 278 
 
 The sovereign wills survived federation 279 
 
 “ Form” and soul are both meant. 279 
 
 Self-preservation the duty of a state 281 
 
 Voting in some states is a mere simulacrum ofliberty. . . 281 
 
 The guaranty is really one of sovereignty 282 
 
 The fourteenth party to the compact 282 
 
 The real fourteenth party, if any. 283 
 
 Nullification 283 
 
 South Carolina and the proclamation of force 284 
 
 A cardinal error and a plain distinction. 284 
 
 The “ plain distinction.” 286 
 
 “ The lost principle.” 286 
 
 W ebster and Curtis have the same idea 287 
 
 “ The consent ofthe governed.” ....... 288 
 
 “The will ofthe majority rules.” ...... 288 
 
 “ The charter of our liberties.” . 289 
 
 Social compact, constitution, bill of rights. .... 290 
 
 Secession. . 290 
 
 Why ignore nature and righteousness? 291 
 
 The late secessions unjustifiable 291 
 
 Some of the lessons this “ Part ” conveys. . . . ^ . . 292 
 
 PART IT. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. — The Genesis of a State. 
 
 The whole subject is one of facts. 296 
 
 The states themselves are the government 296 
 
 The states are so many republics. 297 
 
 The case exemplified by Pennsylvania. 297 
 
 The origin of Pennsylvania. 298 
 
 The first step of making the province a state. .... 298 
 
 The state or nation completed „ 300 
 
 CHAPTER II. — The republican social Compact. 
 
 Object of society. 303 
 
 The social compact of Pennsylvania 303 
 
 Contemporaneous expositions 304 
 
 Decisive testimony of Massachusetts 304 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xix 
 
 Sovereignty vs. government. . 305 
 
 The rationale of our social compact. 306 
 
 Authorities. 306 
 
 Government is mental and functional 307 
 
 Constituting the general government was functional. . . 308 
 
 A clear conception of the states 303 
 
 Divine right. 300 
 
 CHAPTER III. — Social Compact Fallacies. 
 
 The expounders on the social compact 
 
 Story, Webster and Curtis — society vs. government. . . . 310 
 
 A misstatement exposed ; Story’s garbling ; the real government. 311 
 Vagaries of the political pulpit a3 to secession. . . . 311 
 
 Specimens of expounding on this subject 311 
 
 Declaration of Jolm Quiucy Adams 313 
 
 Hume and expounders on the social compact. .... 313 
 
 The state rules in all things. . 314 
 
 The germ of the republic. . ...... 314 
 
 The society called Pennsylvania. 314 
 
 The polity is self-government of societies. ..... 315 
 
 CHAPTER IV. — Societies are sovereign. 
 
 What history and political philosophy teach 316 
 
 Grades of authority — illustrated '. 317 
 
 An amusing mistake 317 
 
 The people govern the people. 318 
 
 The people as sovereign communities — demonstration. . . 319 
 
 A further illustration showing perversion 320 
 
 Views of publicists idem sonant with this work. . . . 320 
 
 The states subjugated if this theory do not prevail. . . . 320 
 
 “National sovereignty ” no better 321 
 
 “ The government ” claims to be paramount. .... 
 
 The substance of the preamble and article VII. . . . 322 
 
 Societies of people unquestionably ratified 323 
 
 Experimentum crude — illustration 323 
 
 Complete corroborations. 325 
 
 A complete summing up by James Wilson. .... 826 
 
 CHAPTER V. — Sovereignty one and indivisible. 
 
 Sovereignty vs. powers. 328 
 
 Imagine Kaiser William’s authority divided. .... 328 
 
 What say the publicists? 329 
 
 Rights and powers are not sovereignty. 330 
 
 Sovereignty is not qualifiable or liraitable. .... 330 
 
 Only one sovereignty over persons and things — illustration. . 33 l 
 
 Sovereignty’s delegations — illustration 333 
 
 Corollaries. 334 
 
 CHAPTER VI. — Erroneous views of Sovereignty. 
 
 How the masses are misled. 337 
 
 That the states are mere counties 337 
 
 Defences changed to means of attack. 338 
 
 “ The states are sovereign, except,” &c.; exposure of error. . 338 
 
 Stephens, Webster, Pendleton, Greeley, Draper, and others. . 338 
 
 Delegating is irrevocably granting — exposure of the sophism. . 340 
 
 Arguing from false words 341 
 
 The fathers never held such dogmas 342 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 
 Politicians, like sheep, follow a bell. . 
 
 IIou. A. LL Stephens and others oil sovereignty. . 
 Sov 'reign American citizens. . . . . 
 
 Squatter sovereignty. . . . . . 
 
 Only in organisation have the people sovereignty. 
 Some decisive definitions. 
 
 342 
 
 343 
 
 345 
 
 346 
 
 346 
 
 347 
 
 CHAPTER VII. — Tiie United States are Sovereigns vet 
 
 States are the sovereign parties to the compact. . . . 349 
 
 The people, as states, have always amended. .... 350 
 
 The first twelve amendments 350 
 
 Adoption by separate states 351 
 
 The later amendments. 351 
 
 When and how did a state lose sovereignty ? .... 352 
 
 Admissions of Everett, J. Q. Adams and Webster, and others. 354 
 
 Sophists always stultify themselves. 856 
 
 The political philosophers. 356 
 
 Issues of fact tendered 357 
 
 “ Free, sovereign, and independent.” 357 
 
 The states not under the control of the government. . . . 358 
 
 But “change ” by usurpation threatens us. .... 358 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. — The States act as Sovereigns in the Union. 
 
 New York’s record on the subject . 359 
 
 New York now sovereign 361 
 
 What say Jay, Hamilton, and Livingston? .... 361 
 
 She now claims sovereignty over people and soil. . . . 362 
 
 Uncle Sam stands in New York ouly on her grant. . . . 363 
 
 New York on the lordship of the soil. ... . 364 
 
 The conditions federal foothold is granted on. " . . . 365 
 
 New York then is absolute on her soil. . ... 366 
 
 CHAPTER IX. — Other Sovereigns like Hew York. 
 
 Queen Massachusetts speaks idem sonans 
 
 r l lie voice of Pennsylvania on the subject. 
 
 Old Virginia acted in the same way 
 
 The understanding of South Carolina. .... 
 
 So say the new states. ....... 
 
 367 
 
 363 
 
 369 
 
 370 
 
 371 
 
 CHAPTER X. — The ultimate Arbiter. 
 
 No federal capacity, or duty, for direct local defence. . . 373 
 
 Who is to judge of broken conditions and forfeitures? . . 374 
 
 The pact itself agrees with the above philosophy. . . . 375 
 
 The expounders virtually admit the theory of this “ part.” . . 376 
 
 The guaranty of all to preserve each. 377 
 
 Expremo unius est exdusio ulterius. 378 
 
 “ The government” has no right to hold the states. . . . 378 
 
 CHAPTER XI. — The true Character of the Government. 
 
 Tripartite — illustrative diagram. 380 
 
 Unheeded form of consolidation the worst 381 
 
 Government cannot be a grantee — the reasons why. . . 381 
 
 A misleading misnomer. . 383 
 
 Let us symbolise the polity. 384 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xxi 
 
 CHAPTER XII. — Facts must prevail. 
 
 Let those who devised, describe the polity. .. .. 385 
 
 Statements of Hamilton, Livingston, Madison, Washington, and 
 
 others 385 
 
 The sons contradict the above statements. .... 380 
 
 The subject is exclusively one of fact 387 
 
 Construction or interpretation has here no place. . . . 387 
 
 The question Americans cannot evade. . . . . . 387 
 
 A hint to England and the American provinces. ***- , 388 
 
 PART Y. 
 
 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE, AND TREASON IN 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. — Fundamental Principles. 
 
 The states are the people and polity 391 
 
 Views of Webster, Curtis, and James Wilson. . . . 392 
 
 CHAPTER II. — Federal Usurpation to be feared and opposed. 
 
 Views of Ames, Pendleton, and others. 
 Carefully guarding against consolidation. 
 Massachusetts originated the tenth amendment. 
 This amendment a mere truism. 
 
 The grand result of the movement. 
 
 394 
 
 395 
 
 395 
 
 396 
 
 397 
 
 CHAPTER III. — Usurpations to be treated as nullities. 
 
 Views of Hamilton, Parsons, and Iredell 
 
 Views of Massachusetts and Connecticut 
 
 Views of Presidents Jefferson, Jackson, and Johnson. . . 
 
 CHAPTER IV.— No federal Coercion of States. 
 
 What say the fathers on federal coercion? 
 
 The fathers aimed to avoid coercing states. 
 
 Even judicial coercion of states not intended. 
 
 Massachusetts again in the lead. . . , 
 
 The grand result she led to. ... 
 
 Perjured usurpation and treason. . . . 
 
 CHAPTER V.— Self defence of States. 
 
 What the fathers say on self-defence of states. 
 
 The ancient faith of Massachusetts. 
 
 Similar treason from Virginia. 
 
 Hamilton’s testimony 
 
 The last reasoning of the states on the subject. . 
 
 
 \ • . i < 
 
 . . & 
 
 398 
 
 398 
 
 399 
 
 401 
 
 403 
 
 404 
 
 405 
 
 405 
 
 406 
 
 407 
 
 410 
 
 411 
 
 412 
 
 413 
 
 CHAPTER VI.— True Loyalty is Fidelity to the State. 
 
 Corollaries 414 
 
 A few explanatory remarks 414 
 
 The state is the sole object of patriotism 415 
 
 Expression of the sentiment by the fathers. . . _ . . . 415 
 
xxii 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII.— American Citizenship and Allegiance. 
 
 The federal constitution on citizenship 417 
 
 False naturalisation. 418 
 
 Let the states testify on citizenship 419 
 
 Testimony of the states on allegiance 420 
 
 Allegiance as to Davis and Lee 422 
 
 CHAPTER VIII.— The State is absolute over the Soldiery. 
 
 What does Massachusetts say ? 
 
 What her fundamental law declares. 
 Her political action in the union. 
 Her Hartford-conventionism. 
 
 423 
 
 424 
 
 425 
 
 426 
 
 CHAPTER IX.— Depending One’s State is Self defence. 
 
 The state is the citizens thereof. 428 
 
 It contains all powers of government 429 
 
 Defending one’s state is not treason 429 
 
 The error of the expounders on this subject. .... 430 
 
 CHAPTER X.— All Treason is against the State. 
 
 The treason clause is the law of the states. . . . . 432 
 
 The federal instrument itself proves this view 433 
 
 Inter-state faith is the sole basis. 434 
 
 Illustration by the case of Virginia. .... . 435 
 
 The transfer of allegiance an absurdity. . . ■ . 436 
 
 Let Massachusetts testify. 437 
 
 Vermont and Kentucky add decisive proof. / . . 438 
 
 Let us first take the case of Vermont. . . . . . . 438 
 
 Kentucky’s view on the subject. 439 
 
 The early faith on this vital subject. . .... 440 
 
 CHAPTER XI. — All Treason is against the State. 
 The crime is against society. 
 
 It is necessarily against the state 
 
 Naturally disunion ends federal treason. 
 
 Naturally states can undo what they do. 
 
 But the matter is on a higher plane. . 
 
 The real tie binding the citizen to obey. ^ y . 
 
 (Continued. 
 
 441 
 
 442 
 
 442 
 
 443 
 
 444 
 444 
 
 CHAPTER XII.— Conclusion. 
 
 Our whole system is states. 
 
 Why fight facts? .... 
 Men naturally associate. 
 
 Free states gravitate like free men. 
 Who saved the states ? ... 
 
 Civil rule and legal coercion still stand. 
 -- — Evasion of Jefferson Davis’s trial. 
 
 The true sanction of the union. 
 
 Inter state faith the only basis. 
 
 Hold sacred the muniments of liberty. 
 Constitutions harness power. 
 
 Our most dangerous perverters. , 
 Title by assertion. . 
 
 Anathema. .... 
 
 Let u 8 acknowledge our sovereigns. . 
 The palladium of all our blessings. 
 
 The people choose to be states. . . 
 
 446 
 
 446 
 
 447 
 447 
 447 
 
 447 
 
 448 
 
 448 
 
 449 
 449 
 449 
 
 449 
 
 450 
 450 
 
 450 
 
 451 
 451 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xxiii 
 
 The rightful central power 451 
 
 Plain common sense as to union. 453 
 
 Man — the sole object of institutions. 453 
 
 The Alpha and Omega of the book 453 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. The Union of States. 
 
 No. 1. — Extracts from the Massachusetts CentineL 
 No. 2. — Extracts from the Virginia Gazette. 
 
 No. 3. — Extracts from the American Museum. 
 
 No. 4. — Extracts from the American Magazine. 
 
 B. The Federal Constitution. 
 
 The parties and ordaining acts. 
 
 The changes made by the confederate states. 
 
 C. Federation always Intended. 
 
 1. Instructions to the delegates of 1787. 
 
 2. The acts of ratification. 
 
 3. The intent of the convention of 1787. 
 
 D. Bill of Rights. 
 
 The original forms of the tenth amendment. 
 
 E. Webster’s Report of 1819. 
 
 F. Extracts from “the Lost Principle ” by “ Barbarossa.” 
 
 G-. Review of “Justinian” on “the Federal Government and 
 the States.” 
 
 H. Review of Stephens and Jameson. 
 
 I. Review of a Passage in Rives’s Madison. 
 
CHAPTER I. — Introductory. 
 
 A ^0^ 
 
 e^^npfHE American colonies of England were, at first, so many little 
 Jcg f) | flecks of civilization shining on a pagan shore, like glow-worms 
 §<§L in the dark. These little societies were then separated, each 
 from the others, by hundreds of miles of unbroken forest. All 
 grew rapidly, spreading from their respective centres ; but there was no 
 political coalescence. The mental eye follows them in all their separate 
 histories, until they finally appear as stars grouped in a glorious constellation, 
 each shining with unborrowed light. 
 
 Each from the first was organized and governed by the sovereign power 
 of England, separately from the rest. Such organized colony or province 
 was a body, fit for the indwelling of a soul. To make a state, the peculiar 
 and essential characteristic was required, which in political philosophy is 
 recognized as distinguishing a state from a colony, province, county, or other 
 subdivision of a state — the absolute right of self-command or self-govern- 
 ment in all things ; so that when independence was consummated, the 
 aforesaid body became instinct with its own soul. In other words it became 
 a sovereign state. 
 
 We may compare these colonies to so many branches of a great and 
 vigorous tree, each with the vital energy to live and thrive independently, 
 if lopped off and planted in its own free soil. When severed by rebellious 
 swords, each “became a living soul,” and each necessarily possessed sovereign 
 political will over its own territory and people. Sovereignty could not be 
 out of it, for there was no political organism and no people, other than those 
 thirteen commonwealths. Each was untrammelled and free, like an eagle 
 that soars away from his broken bonds, and sees ho shadow of power 
 between him and the sun ! 
 
 The colonies associated themselves to effect their independence, and made 
 the celebrated declaration of July 4, 1776, as the thirteen united states of 
 
2 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 America; but, like thirteen persons united to effect some object, they 
 retained their respective individualities ; and George III, could but have 
 acknowledged, as he did in 1783, at the instance of the American Commis- 
 sioners, that each state was “free, giyvereign , and independent.” And it 
 it was quite natural, nay, unavoidable, that these states should all mutually 
 declare, covenant, pledge, and guaranty, as they did do, by their federation 
 or solemn league, subsisting at the moment each entered the present union, 
 that “each state retains its sovereignty and independence.” But it must be 
 noted, that sovereignty was not caused by the declaration, the acknowledg- 
 ment, or the compact, or all of them together, for these instruments merely 
 declared — and bound the declarants to respect — such entity or fact. In truth, 
 sovereignty only began to exist at the moment the power of the state 
 predominated over all opposing forces, and became supreme power; and the 
 precise time of its origin may be as difficult to determine, as is that of the 
 soul’s existence in the human child. Suffice it to say, it existed in the 
 state, or not at all ; for there was no other possible body for it to dwell in. 
 than the organized body of people called the state. 
 
 Each one of these states, thus originating and thus characterized, was a 
 republic, that is, a community of people, with the absolute right of self- 
 government in all things. This sovereignty of the state is indivisible, and 
 remains integral, even though all the powers of government be delegated. 
 A person may give a thousand commands, or delegate a thousand powers, 
 concerning what he owns, or of right governs, without diminishing his 
 ownership or right of control. So with a state. For instance, the agents 
 of’ the so vereignty of England exercise the powers of government throughout 
 her wcrld-wide dominions, while the sovereignty remains enthroned at home 
 — the absolute will of the state. 
 
 “ The constitution of the united states of America” was made or consti- 
 tuted by the concurrent action of the thirteen pre-existent states referred 
 to, each of which, during all the time of that action, “ retained its sove- 
 w ignty, freedom, and independence,” as was declared by all of them in their 
 solemn league and covenant- — the articles of confederation. The instrument 
 calls itself a “ constitution for” “ united states,” and characterizes the 
 arrangement made therein as a “union of states.” For instance, Article 
 I, section 2, speaks of “ the several states which may be included within 
 this union;” Article IV, section 3, declares that “new states may be 
 admitted into this union ;” and Article IV, section 4, includes the phrase, 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 3 
 
 “ every state in this union.” Moreover, the said constitution declares that 
 it was to be “established,” and take effect, “between the states so ratifying, 
 the same.” Nay, more; its powers were only delegated, and hence must 
 be wielded by trustees and agents, chosen by, and subordinate to, the 1 
 delegating states, while the “powers not delegated, are reserved to the states i 
 respectively, or to the people” of the same. There is no evidence, or even 
 hint, of any change of character of the states ; but, on the contrary, they 
 are named in the constitution as absolute and complete political bodies, 
 which are necessarily the parties to, and the actors under, the federal system. 
 And, finally, all elective power and right was inherent and absolute in the 
 people composing these states, as their constitutions show ; and moreover, 
 they declared in their federal constitution that they were, as states, to keep 
 and exercise the said elective power. It is provided in Article I, that “ the 
 people of the several states ” are to choose the “representatives;” and that 
 “each state” “by tbe legislature thereof,” is to elect senators. Article II, 
 provides that “each state shall appoint” Presidential electors. These con- 
 gressmen and presidential electors are citizens and subjects of their respective 
 states, and in their vicarious and representative character, they appoint all 
 other federal officers. So that here, in the constitution itself, we have the 
 most positive and absolute proofs that the states are sovereign over the 
 federal government, this being their mere agency, or, in other words, apart 
 of their machinery of self-government. 
 
 If the states are equal ; if the constitution and the resultant government 
 are made by their will; and if they elect their own subjects or citizens as 
 functionaries, there can be as little doubt of their sovereignty as there is 
 that God reigns supreme over His creations. And not a word of American 
 history, or a principle of governmental philosophy, is inconsistent with this 
 view. So plain are these facts to thoughtful and conscientious men, that 1 
 the government’s claim of “absolute supremacy” over allegiant states, 
 voiced in the thunders of the recent war, sounds like the knell of that 
 constitutional freedom of which the states were the very citadels. The 
 founders of American liberty taught the capacity of our people for self- 
 government, or, in other words, that all questions could be settled as they 
 arose, by reason, with justice, and without force. They said the system 
 they founded, was fraught with the blessings of peace; but while their 
 footsteps are yet echoing in “the corridors of Time,” and while we are 
 extolling their patriotic wisdom, boasting of the precious inheritance they 
 
4 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 have left us, and singing paeans to Freedom, the very constitution they 
 founded on these principles, is perverted from its purpose, and employed as 
 the means of destroying a million of our brethren, filling the land with 
 mourning, annihilating at least one-half of the property of the country, 
 creating an inextinguishable and crushing debt, depriving one-third of our 
 free and equal states of the last vestige of their equality and freedom, and 
 establishing a precedent which, if placed upon the generally assumed basis 
 and followed, subjugates all the states to the “ absolute supremacy” of a 
 central and irresponsible power, and destroys constitutional liberty. For if 
 “the government” has “absolute supremacy” over the states that made it, 
 as the Philadelphia Convention of 1866 declared, its unlimited right of 
 taxation, and of raising armaments, enable it to control all states and sections 
 of states at will, and, finally, to establish an empire. In truth, this has 
 already been done. Whenever there is “absolute supremacy” in “the 
 government,” there is no limit to its will or discretion. Unlimited power 
 in human hands, may become as gross a tyranny as could be exercised by a 
 monster, with the soul of Mephistoplieles in the body of a tiger ; for man 
 has the capacity, and only requires the downward training, practices, and 
 incentives, to become a devil. Satan was once an angel of light. Nero, 
 and other tyrants, and associations of tyrants, possessing absolute supremacy, 
 rivaled him as nearly as human infirmities and trammels would permit. It 
 is vain to talk of civilization and Christianity as restraints. Bad men use 
 these as the most potent means to their ends. It is vainer to talk of con- 
 stitutional restrictions, when rulers by perjured usurpation act — and glory 
 in acting — in the infinite field of discretion “outside of the constitution.” 
 And it is vainest to suppose that the phrase “ according to the constitution,” 
 is other than a meaningless one, as long as the phrases, “ absolute supremacy 
 in the government,” and “state sovereignty is effectually controlled,” are 
 recognized as constitutional ones; for “state sovereignty” is precisely “the 
 sovereignty of the people,” the said people having never been organized 
 for government, and having never exercised political authority except as 
 states ; so that if “ state sovereignty is effectually controlled,” the sovereignty 
 of the people is effectually controlled, and republican government is at an 
 end! It is simple mockery to reply that the “absolute supremacy” is, by 
 the nation, limited to the grants of the constitution, or, in other words, that 
 the states are sovereign, except as to the powers surrendered, when the twin 
 dogma is, that the federal government is the final judge of the extent of its 
 
INTR01/CCT0RY. 
 
 5 
 
 powers. Our worst men often get the highest places, and exercise this final 
 judgment; their consciences are equal to any occasion; and they gain what 
 they wish, by ignoring, or rather violating, their oaths, and justifying 
 themselves by the tyrant’s plea — necessity. Indeed, we see at this moment 
 that the people’s “trustees and agents” call themselves “the Government;” 
 claim absolute supremacy and regal prerogatives ; dissolve states and make 
 new ones ; change the state governments ; remove the highest officers thereof ; 
 give, and take away, voting power; and, in short, do many revolutionary 
 enormities “outside of the constitution.” These things, which every officer 
 of the government is sworn not to do, are really treasonable to the last 
 degree, for they destroy the existence of the states, and dethrone the 
 sovereignty of the people who are the states, and who politically exist, and 
 politically act, only as states. Suffrage is — humanly speaking — “ the pearl 
 of great price” in republican freedom. It is vital to liberty, and must be 
 absolutely controlled by the people who own it, and not by any government. 
 The voting power belongs, of original and absolute right, to the community 
 called the state, who are the real government — what we call “government” 
 being the agency thereof; and a republic being a government of the people 
 by the people. Says Montesquieu [I. Esprit des Lois, p. 12]: “In a 
 democracy, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by the suffrages of 
 the people, which are their will. Now, the sovereign’s will is the sovereign 
 himself ; the laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are 
 fundamental to this government. In fact, it is as important to regulate, in 
 a republic, in what manner, by whom, and concerning what, suffrages are 
 to be given, as it is in a monarchy to know who is the prince, and after 
 what manner he is to govern.” 
 
 The original voting power is the people composing the society or state, in 
 whom, as every state constitution declares or implies, “ all political power is 
 inherent.” The derivative or delegative voting power is an endowment* by 
 society or the state, of individual members designated and described as 
 voters, in the constitution of the state. As Montesquieu says, “the laws 
 which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to the government,” 
 and hence they are found only in the fundamental laws of the states, 
 established, of original right, by sovereign power. It is plain, then, that if 
 the government (whether state or federal) controls or disposes of suffrage, 
 without warrant in the constitution, it strikes at the very vitals of the 
 republic, from which it derives its entire existence and power, and commits 
 
c 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 perjured usurpation, as well as flagrant treason. It is equally plain that an 
 insidious and fraudulent revolution is now going on, tending to subjugate 
 the people of this country — just as all other free peoples have been — to the 
 “absolute supremacy of the government!” 
 
 Would to God that I could sear upon the brain and heart of each quondam 
 state and quondam citizen, the words of that immortal statesman, that best 
 English friend of American liberty, Edmund Burke. “This change,” said 
 he, “ from an immediate state of procuration and delegation, to a course of 
 acting as from original power, is the way in which all the popular magistracies 
 of the world have been perverted from their purposes.” 
 
 Oh ! that our people may heed the warning, and stay the hand of Fate, 
 which is even now engraving upon the walls of time, that 
 
 “our own, 
 
 Like free states foregone, is but a bright leaf torn 
 From Time’s dark forest, and on the wild gust thrown, 
 
 To float awhile, by varying oddies borne j 
 And sink at last for ever I” % 
 
CHAPTER II. — Perversion 
 
 the government” now claims “absolute supremacy,” ami 
 3rcises and enforces the same, whenever it thinks “necessity,” 
 he safety of the republic,” or even “good policy” requires 
 “ we, the people,” have obviously lost our freedom. And we 
 can only retake and enjoy it, in its active sense of self-government, by 
 re-asserting and re-establishing the original federal plan, and henceforth 
 keeping our general government within our “supreme law” establishing it, 
 and compelling the said government to work, as our agency, under our 
 sovereignty, with the legal force originally contemplated — the same that the 
 state governments work with — and that needs no military force, except to 
 aid the civil authority, and put down any banded criminal opposition 
 thereto. The states being the sole sources of all power, federal military 
 force against any of the people, without, or against, state authority, is 
 treasonable. 
 
 1 To impress upon the reader at this point, the absolute sovereignty of the 
 people, and the subordination of their governments, as well as the perfect 
 similarity, in created existence, character, and vicarious authority, of the 
 federal and state governments; and, moreover, to get an absolute and 
 unquestionable basis for further exposition, let us have the sacred testimony 
 of the fathers, as to the seat or residence of original, absolute, and uncon- 
 trollable authority, i. e. sovereignty. It is well to observe here,] that every 
 state constitution or bill of rights, expressed or implied that “ all political 
 power IS inherent in the people,” so that the fathers did not, in the 
 following extracts, express their opinions merely, but truths — the very 
 institutes of freedom. 
 
 TOE DOCTRINE of the fathers. 
 
 Said Hamilton in the convention of New York, in lTSS, speaking of 
 the proposed system ■. “ What is the structure of this government? * * 
 
8 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 The people govern. They act by their immediate representatives.” He 
 evidently knew of no “absolute supremacy” in “the government.” John 
 Jay, of New York, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote as 
 follows, in his “address to the people” of that state, in favor of the federal 
 constitution : “ The proposed government is to be the government of the 
 people. All its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but 
 such as the people commit to them. The constitution only serves to point 
 out that part of the people’s business, which they think proper by it to 
 refer to the management of the persons therein designated.” Does not 
 that mean the constitution of an agency? Judge Parsons, one of the 
 greatest statesmen and jurists of Massachusetts, in the ratifying convention 
 of that state, characterized the federal government as “ a government to be 
 administered for the common good , by the servants of the [people, vested 
 with delegated powers, by popular election, at stated periods. “The federal 
 constitution,” continued he, “establishes a government of this description, 
 and, in this case, the people divest themselves of nothing; the government 
 and powers which the congress can administer, are the mere result of a 
 compact made by the people.” “ The people divest themselves of nothing,” 
 said Judge Parsons ; that is to say, they govern themselves, using an agency 
 for that purpose — Qui fucit per alium, facit per se. But our modern 
 interpreters say that “the government” has “absolute supremacy,” and can 
 enforce “the allegiance” of the very states that gave it existence. Said 
 Gen. C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, in the ratifying convention of 
 that state : “ The sovereign or supreme power of the state, with us, resides 
 in the people.”- “The general government has no powers but what are 
 expressly granted to it.” “By delegating express powers, we certainly 
 reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution.” 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton, the president of the ratifying convention 
 of Virginia: “The people are the fountain of all power. They must, 
 however, delegate it to agents, because from their number, etc., * * * 
 
 they cannot exercise it in person.” * * * When we were forming our 
 
 state constitution, we were confined to local circumstances. In forming a 
 government for the union, we must consider our situation as connected with 
 our neighboring states. Said John Marshall, afterwards the great judge? 
 in the same convention: “Those who give, may take away. It is the 
 people that give power, and can take it back; what shall restrain them? 
 They are the masters who gave it. and of whom the servants hold it. * * 
 
PERVERSION. 
 
 9 
 
 Arc not Congress and the state legislatures the agents of the people?” 
 Said CnANCELLOR Livingston in the ratifying convention of New York: 
 “ They, the people, acknowledge the same great principle of government, 
 * * that all power is derived from the people. They consider the state 
 
 and general governments as different deposits of that power.” In this view, 
 it is of little moment to them, whether that portion of it which they must, 
 for their own happiness, lodge in their rulers, be invested in the state 
 governments only, or shared between them and the councils of the union. 
 The rights they reserve are not diminished, and probably their liberty 
 acquires additional security from the division. Said James AVilson, who 
 was the leading statesman of Pennsylvania in both the federal and state 
 conventions: “The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power is in the 
 people before they make a constitution, and remains in them after it is 
 made.” “The absolute sovereignty never goes from the people.” The 
 Father of his Country wrote to his nephew. Bushrod Washington, 
 Nov. 10, 1787, as follows: “The power, under the constitution, will always 
 be in the people. It is entrusted to their representatives, * * * their 
 
 servants. * * * They are no more than the creatures of the people.” 
 
 Said Madison, (who is often called the “Father of the Constitution,” and 
 who certainly was “its ablest expounder”) in article 46 of the Federalist: 
 “The federal and state governments are, in fact, but different agents and 
 trustees of the people, instituted with different powers. * * The 
 
 ultimate authority [?'. e., the “ absolute supremacy’ ] wherever the derivative 
 may be found, resides in the people alone'' And he said, in the convention 
 of Virginia, in reference to the parties to the union, that the phrase “the 
 people” did not mean “the people as composing one great society, but the 
 people as composing thirteen sovereignties.” And it may be stated here 
 that generally when the fathers used the phrase “the people,” constitu- 
 tionally, they meant the people of the sovereign states, that were the actors 
 in making the federative union. They could not have meant otherwise, for 
 the simple reason that the people were the states, and the states were the 
 people. In his speech of 1833, Mr. Webster, the head of the Massachu- 
 setts school, decisively admits the above, and destroys the basis of himself 
 and school as follows : “ The sovereignty of, government is an idea belong- 
 ing to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North 
 America : * * with us all power is with the people. They alone are 
 
 sovereign; and they erect what governments they please and confer on 
 
10 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 them such power as they please. None of these governments is sovereign.” 
 
 No framer of the constitution ever did, or could, characterize the federal 
 functionaries they were providing for, otherwise than as the states them- 
 selves did, as “ substitutes and agents,” who were to be and remain as 
 “citizens” and “subjects” of the states, being elected by these to execute 
 their will. They considered “ the people ” to be absolutely sovereign ; the 
 states to be “the people;” all governments to be created, derivative, and 
 vicarious ; and all of such agencies to be endowed only with trusts of power, 
 and to possess, by virtue of imparted authority alone, a coercive jurisdiction 
 over the individual members and subjects of the states. No one ever 
 hinted that these governments would or could have any original or inherent 
 power, or sovereignty, i. e. “ absolute supremacy ” over states and people- 
 And yet, as has been shown, the so-called statesmen and expounders of the 
 day, venture to assert that the government is “ absolutely supreme and 
 holds the states in “ allegiance." 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERVEETERS. 
 
 For immediate and direct contrast, let us here note the leading dogmas 
 of the Massachusetts school of so-called expounders. Pretending to cite 
 the fathers in proof, they teach that oneness of will and action, and not a 
 concurrence of wills, caused the constitution; that thereby the American 
 people, though once states, have become a national unity — an undivided 
 nation, the apparent subdivisions of which are provinces or counties — mere 
 fractions and not constituents of the nation ; that the constitution being 
 “supreme law of the land,” “the government” has “absolute supremacy,” 
 and a right to exact and enforce “ the allegiance of the states” to it ; and 
 fir;ally, that tiie commonwealths of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
 Yirginia, et als. have no status or rights except such as are reserved and 
 assigned to them in the constitution ; or, in other words, that they are 
 reduced to counties or provinces. These ideas are expressed in Lincoln’s 
 first inaugural: in the address of the Philadelphia Convention of 18G6 ; 
 in Professor Jameson’s work, called The Constitutional Convention ; in 
 the New York Times and New York World, and substantially in Webster’s 
 speech of 1833. It wi'l be duly seen that all history, all the words of the 
 fathers, all the records of the states, and all the archives of the country 
 show that these statements are absolutely untrue! Such teaching assumes 
 that we have no political beings called states; no u federal constitution;” 
 
PERVERSION. 
 
 11 
 
 no “united states;” no “union of states;” and no “citizens of states,” as 
 the constitution itself teaches ; but that the states are consolidated into one 
 state , and “the government,” having “absolute supremacy,” is to control 
 and protect not merely the people, but the states they compose, as subjects. 
 In other words, we have an empire of which “ the government" is a corporate 
 sovereign. The action of “the government,” has been precisely in accord- 
 ance with these ideas. It has vindicated its “absolute supremacy” vi et 
 armis, and coerced the states to yield their wills, and consider themselves 
 in the future as aggregations of subjects, whose only rights are “reserved” 
 in “the great charter” — the constitution; and who are privileged, as 
 “groups of voters” to express their wishes for the consideration of “the 
 government.” In truth, if the people “accept the situation” the states are 
 no more ! 
 
 THE SELF-CONSOLIDATION OF “ THE GOVERNMENT.” 
 
 While this fraudulent and treasonable destruction of states, and consolida- 
 tion of their people into an undivided nation is going on, another radical and 
 corresponding change is being wrought in the character and theory of “the 
 government.” Originally a “senator” was a citizen and subject of a state, 
 elected by her to execute her will; the “representatives” were such sub- 
 jects, elected for such purpose by the people of the state ; the senators and 
 representatives were the delegation of a state to the congress of states ; and 
 they, with the executive and judicial officers,) these also being elected or 
 appointed by or for the states), constituted the general government. Thus 
 we see that our states were a federation, and our general government purely 
 a federal one. These separately elected, separately sworn, and separately 
 responsible functionaries were sent by each state to act as individuals, with 
 her authority for the good of all, i. e., to “ provide for the common defence 
 and promote the general welfare,” and to be checks on all the other func- 
 tionaries — the whole system being one of checks and balances, to prevent 
 consolidation and tyranny. But these separately elected and vicarious 
 creatures have effected the worst form of consolidation, for they now claim 
 corporate capacity, independent existence, original right and authority, dis- 
 cretion outside of the constitution, regal prerogatives, and in short, all the 
 essentials of sovereignty. This self-formed corporate body has not merely 
 an esprit de corps, but a oneness of will and purpose characteristic alike of 
 a corporation, an oligarchy , or an autocrat ; and the federal legislature, 
 
12 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 executive and judiciary, which were established as three absolutely inde- 
 pendent institutions, to watch, and, if necessary, check one another, are 
 now so unified as to act with one mind and will : thus practically changing 
 them into a vast and chronic conspiracy against the people’s liberty, as any 
 gang of men, acting with one mind in the hiding places of the constitution 
 and government, and constantly influenced by power and money, will grad- 
 ually become. 
 
 C2ESARISM. 
 
 Under the forms of a republican federation, then, we have a consolidated 
 empire, and a corporate despot, just as the Romans had “an absolute 
 monarchy disguised in the form of a commonwealth” (Gibbon.) The 
 parallelism will hereafter more fully appear. 
 
 The military trained and military-souled war-secretary of the aforesaid 
 corporate despot, Gen. Schofield, said in 1868: “In the Old World, it is 
 said that the army is the safety of the empire ; with equal truth we may 
 say that the army is the safety of the republic.” Explained by the events 
 of the last ten years, this means that what any army-hacked despot or 
 despotism chooses to style the republic, is to be preserved by the army, 
 even against the people that compose such republic. It means that “ the 
 government” has the right to enforce its “absolute supremacy, ’ met armis, 
 in and against the will of a state, and that “so far state sovereignty,” to 
 use the words of Webster, “ is to be effectually controlled.” All this has the 
 full and clear ring of Caesarism, aud it is consonant with Seward’s phrase, 
 “If they don’t keep the peace, we must keep it for them.” Both are 
 symphonious with the “little bell,” and seem to harmonize with a certain 
 noted phrase of the imperative mood,. “Let us have peace.” 
 
 WILL OUR PEACE BE OF CONTENTMENT OR FORCE? 
 
 A military man can he satisfied with the “order” that “reigns in War- 
 saw but it was hoped that when President Grant came to realize that he 
 was a civilian, instead of a soldier ; that he must act by the written discre- 
 tion of his sovereigns, instead of his own ; that his duty was to execute 
 ready-made civil laws for all the people, instead of enforcing peace with the 
 bayonet in a discontented section ; that our government is republican and 
 not despotic; and, above all, that the President’s judgment and conscience 
 are under oath “ to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution,” and not 
 
PERVERSION. 
 
 13 
 
 under a mere partisan pledge to observe an electioneering platform ;• he 
 would give to his ejaculation a hortative, or precatory, instead of an 
 imperative sense ; and that his peace signified the disestablishment of the 
 army, and the restoration of the absolute autonomy of the states, so that 
 they, as the fathers intended, should govern themselves — locally by their 
 home agencies, and federally by their federal one. Grant’s constitutional 
 oath — like that of every officer of “the government” — requires him to 
 treat the states as sovereigns, and to consider armies and the commanders 
 thereof, as not only subjects of the states, but raised and supported by their 
 means, and moved solely by their authority. Nay more, he was and is 
 oath-bound to see that such army is employed for defence , and not for 
 attack of states; and that no federal soldier ever crosses a state boundary 
 except by her command, permission or call. 
 
 President Grant can but see and know and remember, that the states are 
 equal bodies. No power can be above them, because the constitution is 
 their law, and the government is provided for in, and controlled by, the 
 constitution. That instrument says, “ each state shall appoint ” presidential 
 electors. For the said state, these electors chose General Grant. He is 
 sworn “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.” To keep lira 
 oath, then, he should regard and obey the states as his sovereigns, and deal 
 with Louisiana just as with Massachusetts and New York. 
 
CHAPTER III. — History repeats itself. 
 
 <1 
 
 W. BOUT forty years after the federal constitution went into effect, 
 the perverters of the instrument began to teach, as the true 
 ‘i i'oJS meaning of it, the identical assertions made originally by its 
 enemies to prevent its adoption. These charges were, that the constitution 
 purported to be made by the whole people ; that it consolidated all the 
 states into one; and that, so far as its provisions went, “so far state 
 sovereignty was effectually controlled” by “ the government.” Such was 
 the fear that these charges were true among the people of the several states, 
 that it was with the utmost difficulty that the friends of the system saved 
 it from defeat. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, Dickinson, Coxe, 
 Sherman, Ellsworth, Adams, Ames, Parsons, Patterson, Livingston, Pendle- 
 ton, Marshall, and many others now immortal, met and triumphantly 
 refuted them, asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of the states, 
 and the vicarious, delegative, and subordinate character of the federal 
 government. Even then the system barely escaped defeat in the larger 
 states, Massachusetts adopting it by a majority of 1ft in a convention of 
 355 members; New Hampshire by a majority of 11 in 103 members; 
 New York by a majority of 3 in 57 ; and Virginia by a majority of 10 in 
 1G8 ; while North Carolina and Rhode Island rejected it by overwhelming 
 majorities, though they subsequently joined the union. Indeed, Hildreth, 
 the Massachusetts historian, thinks a majority of all the people of the 
 states were opposed to the constitution. 
 
 Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, one of the original enemies of the 
 federal system, seems to be entitled to the honor of originating this fraudu- 
 lent exposition of the same. He was the Gamaliel of Story and Webster, 
 and they were his faithful disciples. The three may be considered as 
 the founders of the Massachusetts school, which has given ideas and 
 
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. 
 
 15 
 
 arguments to what was first a faction, then an enterprising minority, 
 and, finallv, a victorious party, engaged in overthrowing constitutional 
 liberty. The interpretations, commentaries, platforms, obiter dicta , etc., of 
 this school, have finally given existence to a sham or simulacrum , which 
 is administered in place of the real constitution, and serves alike to mask 
 usurpation and tyranny and conceal from the people the lifeless remains 
 of Freedom, » 
 
 H * * * For vampire-like fair freedom’^ foeo. 
 
 Have, in her slumber, sucked her life away. 
 
 And left her throbless corse to carrion birds a prey ! M 
 
 Such teachings legitimately produced the traitorous claim by the general 
 government to the “ allegiance” of, and “the absolute supremacy” over, 
 “the united states,” though the said government is a creation of the said 
 states, and is personally composed of their citizens and subjects. And this 
 theory was put in practice in the recent war, for the government subjugated 
 the states, with the very existence, powers, and war-means it held from 
 them, as a sacred trust, and which it was bound by solemn oath to use only 
 for their “defence ” and “ welfare.” In this we have, par excellence , the 
 crimen laesee majestatis. 
 
 USURPED CONTROL OF SUFFRAGE. 
 
 Yotes are franchises, given, of original right, by the people of a state, as 
 a body politic, to themselves as individuals, or such of themselves as they 
 think fit. Such votes are franchises, created by original inherent power, 
 and are instruments for, and the only means of, expressing the people’s will. 
 By and through them, the people give existence to the constitutions and 
 so-called governments, these being personally composed of the citizens and 
 subjects of the states. Hence a governmental right to control suffrage is 
 absurd. As Montesquieu says : “ The laws establishing the right of suffrage” 
 are “ fundamental” to the republic; and, consistently, we find all voting 
 rights fixed originally, absolutely, and without appeal, in the organic laws 
 of the states, by the sovereign people thereof. 
 
 But the federal agency now makes revolutionary claim to the “ absolute 
 supremacy” of the country, and to the “allegiance of the states.” Its 
 dogma is that of Lincoln, namely, that the former sovereigns of the country 
 have no status or rights except those reserved in the national constitution. 
 Of course the insignificant monads called -votes are deep down in the 
 all-swallowing maw. The people may still imagine their voting power to 
 
16 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 be above the government, but they will soon realize that they are merely to 
 elect the directory of a corporate monarchy, and that they have about the 
 same amount of self-government the English voters enjoy in electing their 
 members of parliament, and barely more than the mockery which until 
 recently amused, if it did not content, the suffragists of France. It is only 
 a mockery of self-government, where any other authority than the people 
 themselves can appoint or control the voters. Despotism can always find 
 tools enough to play the republic before the people, while imperial polity is 
 being insidiously fastened upon them. The retention by the people 
 themselves of this control is, ipso facto, the absolute autonomy of the 
 original sovereigns of the country under which the federal and state 
 governments arc alike agents. 
 
 TIIE AMERICAN “DIVINE RIGHT." 
 
 In addition to the misteac-hing of the people above mentioned, the same 
 pious fraud has deluded them, that ever was used in the Old World to 
 reconcile the people to the rule of kings. It is taught that our constitu- 
 tion. instead of being merely an earthly instrument, involving the political 
 and business relations of states, is heaven-inspired, perfect, and to last for- 
 ever. Buchanan and others asserted its divine origin, and its “essential 
 attribute of perpetuity.” It reasonably follows from such premises that 
 “the government,’ — as such divine institution ought to — possesses “abso- 
 lute supremacy that “the states are bound in allegiance” to the govern- 
 ment,” and that “state sovereignty is effectually controlled” — the “states 
 having no statvs or rights but such as the nation, in its “supreme law,” 
 gives them. No stronger terms than these of Lincoln, Webster, and the 
 Philadelphia Convention, could possibly be used to express the sovereignty 
 of the British, French, or Prussian governments over their provinces and 
 people ; and they are utterly baseless, and absurdly inconsistent with repub- 
 lican ideas, 
 
 THE IMPORTED THEORY OF THE SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 The perverters try to delude the people into ignoring the real social 
 compact which constitutes an American state, and unwittingly adopting the 
 exploded European theory of the social compact, wherein the people are 
 said to agree to pay taxes and supply “the government,” or monarch, with 
 purple, fine linen, and sumptuous lare, while it or he is to govern and pro- 
 
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF. 
 
 1? 
 
 tect the people.* And wc have militarily educated and trained our Grants, 
 McClellans, Shermans, Hancocks, Schofields, Blairs, and Sheridan-, so as 
 to- have them ready to maintain by force this social compact, and show 
 that “the army is the safety of the republic” thus formed. And these 
 pseudo-republicans all contend that “the allegiance” both of citizens and 
 states is due to “ the government” which hires them, and is to be enforced 
 by arms, if not voluntarily yielded. And “conservative” Liebers, Curtises, 
 Johnsons, Jamesons, Intelligencers , TTcn'frfe, et als., all over the country, 
 stand ready to justify by argument these outrageous perversions of consti- 
 tutional republicanism. Starting with the postulate of a social compact 
 forming a nation, the argument of the perverters is easy, compendious and 
 practical. The “national constitution” is “the supreme law of the land.” 
 This gives “ the government ” “ absolute supremacy.” The duty to protect, 
 which devolves on the government, is coupled with the right of control, 
 and this extends to the effectual control of state sovereignty, as well as of 
 all the civil and political rights of the people. And though there are limits 
 to the authority of the government which are admitted, it is claimed that 
 these are to be determined by itself. Said Webster : “ It rightfully belongs 
 to congress, and the courts of the united states, to settle the. construction 
 of this supreme law in doubtful cases that is to say, the government is 
 (as Jefferson phrased the claim) “the exclusive and final judge as to the 
 extent of the powers delegated to itself.” And finally, “ the government” 
 has the inherent right to preserve its existence and its powers. 
 
 Here is exhibited the precise change Burke refers to, as the one whereby 
 “ all the popular magistracies in the world have been perverted from their 
 purposes,” namely, “ the change from an immediate state of procuration 
 and delegation, to a course of acting as from original power.” We have, 
 as had the Bomans in the time of Augustus and his successors, imperialism 
 “ disguised by the forms of a commonwealth.” 
 
 * These perverters say, that Hume and others exploded this theory, and that^ therefore, the idea 
 of a social compact in America must be discarded, except as regards the compact, by which they say 
 a nation was formed. They ignore the fact that society was already formed and complete (as indeed 
 it had been for generations) when the federal system was adopted, and the so-called nation made '» 
 and that societies, each acting for itself, with its own mind and will, made that system, and endowed 
 it with its only existence and force. Nay more, they conceal the fact that Hume did not discuss 
 the idea of the republican social compact, but expressly said — writing before the independence of 
 ourstates: “My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just 
 foundation of government, where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only 
 pretend that it has very >eldom had place in any degree, and that therefore some other foundation 
 of government must also be admitted.” [Hume’s Essay’s No. xii]. 
 
18 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 A ROMAN CHAPTER OF AMERICAN HISTORY. 
 
 A few extracts from the third chapter of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall are 
 apposite, instructive and warning : “ The tender respect of Augustus for a 
 free constitution which he had destroyed, can only be explained by an 
 attentive consideration of the character of that subtle tyrant. A cool 
 head, an unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition prompted him, at the 
 age of nineteen, to assume the mask of hypocrisy, which he never afterwards 
 laid aside.” 
 
 “When he framed the artful system of imperial authority, his moderation 
 was inspired by his fears. He wished to deceive the people by an image 
 of civil liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government.” “ The 
 names and forms of the ancient administration were preserved by him with 
 anxious care. The usual number of consuls, praetors, and tribunes were 
 annually invested with their respective signs of office, and continued to 
 discharge some of their least important functions.” “Caesar,” continues 
 Gibbon, “had provoked his fate by ostentatiously taking the title of king, 
 while he might have reigned as such under the title of consul or tribune. 
 Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names ; nor was he 
 deceived in his expectation that the. senate and people would submit to 
 slavery , provided that they were respectfully assured that they enjoyed 
 their ancient freedom “To explain, in a few words, the system of the 
 imperial government, as it was instituted by Augustus, and maintained by 
 those princes who understood tbeil own interest and that of the people, it 
 may be defined as an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a com- 
 monwealth. The masters of the Roman world environed their throne with 
 darkness, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of ' 
 the senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed. The face of 
 the court corresponded with the forms of the administration. The empe- 
 rors, if we except those tyrants whose capricious folly violated every law 
 of nature and decency, disdained that pomp and ceremony which might 
 offend their countrymen, but -could add nothing to their real power. A 
 feeble t enate and enervated people cheerfully acquiesced in the pleasing 
 illusion, as Ion-' as it was supported by the virtue, or even by the prudence, 
 of the successors of Augustus. It was a motive of self-preservation, not 
 » principle of liberty, that animated the conspirators against Caligula, Nero, 
 
HISTORY REPEATS ITSEI.P. 
 
 19 
 
 and Domitian. They attacked the person of the tyrant, without aiming 
 their blows at the authority of the emperor.” 
 
 In the reign succeeding that of Augustus, “the assemblies of the people 
 were forever abolished, and the emperors were delivered from a dangerous 
 multitude, who, without restoring liberty, might have disturbed and perhaps 
 endangered the established government.” And some of the successors of 
 Augustus, “scrupulously observed his constitutional fictions.” As late as 
 the age of the Antonines the Greek historians say, that “ although the 
 sovereign of Rome, in compliance with an obsolete prejudice, abstained 
 from the name of king, he possessed the full measure of regal power.” As 
 imperialism became more fully established, the forms and shams were dis- 
 pensed with. “ The fine theory of a republic,” says Gibbon, “ insensibly 
 vanished.” 
 
 History has repeated itself; republicanism has perished in America, as 
 it did in Rome. The form is left, but the soul is wanting. “ Absolute 
 supremacy” in “the government” and republican freedom cannot co-exist, 
 for the reason that the latter is the absolute right of the people to govern 
 themselves, and to make and unmake all governments at will. If the 
 people would enjoy freedom again, they must retake sovereignty — “peace- 
 ably if they can, forcibly if they must.” 
 
 “ Who would he freo 
 Themselves must strike the blow.” 
 
 “ Philosophy teaches us specially, by the examples of Roman history. 
 We find there the same perversions and usurpations, and the same destruc- 
 tion of liberty, in the name of liberty, that we have experienced. “ Marius 
 and Caesar,” says Gibbon, “subverted the constitution of their country, by 
 declaring themselves the protectors of the people and Augustus pre- 
 tended to be a servant of the people, while destroying their liberty, and 
 making himself a dictator. He established “ an absolute monarchy, dis- 
 guised by the forms of a commonwealth.” “ His successors for a while 
 observed his constitutional fictions,” but the “ republic insensibly vanished.” 
 Like ours, the representatives of the Roman people ignored their dclegative 
 capacity and acted “as from original power.” Those perverters and 
 usurpers, like ours, pleaded necessity ; the welfare of the people ; the public 
 safety ; the life of the nation, and the inherent right to preserve their own 
 existence. With them, too, “ the army was the safety of the republic” I 
 
20 
 
 f A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 This institution, composed of hirelings, as time advanced, became more 
 and more recruited from foreign sources, and more and more depraved in 
 materials. It acted long as an efficient instrument of tyranny, and finally 
 set up the business for itself, and sold the empire at auction I 
 
CHAPTER IY. — Secession and coercion. 
 
 rT is incontrovertible that the federal system is states united, and 
 r that these must always be sovereign, and superior to the govern - 
 ' i- ; ments they create. It is equally plain that the “national unity,” 
 the “absolute supremacy ” of “the government,” and the allegiance of the 
 states thereto, which are asserted by the Massachusetts school, are absurd 
 and pernicious, as well as traitorous falsehoods. 
 
 This “ federal system ” is precisely what Montesquieu and other publicists 
 happily call a “republic of republics.” Natural persons by social compact 
 form the society called the state, which is a republic. Such state is a moral 
 or political person, as contra-distinguished from a natural one. For mutual 
 protection, and general government, it joins other such political persons in 
 federal compact, thus forming the “republic of republics,” or “union of 
 states,” as the federal instrument characterizes the system formed by it. 
 “Community of communities,” “confederation of republics,” “united 
 states,” etc., etc., are other phrases of public writers, signifying the same 
 political system. 
 
 Natural persons, then, form states, while these, as political persons, form 
 the federation called “the United States.” The constitution contemplates 
 these political bodies as solely the sources of power, and of elective right. 
 Every voter acts for the state, and gets his special endowment of authority 
 to vote from her alone. She settles the matter, as a sovereign, in her 
 organic law. Hence we see that the representatives are elected by the 
 states, as are the senators and the president ; and that all of these, together 
 with the officers they appoint, ar & “the government of the. * * states" 
 
 under 11 the constitution of the * * states.” 
 
 Omitting from the above constitutional phrases the participial adjective 
 which, with the sense of joined, or associated , qualifies or describes states, 
 
22 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 we easily distinguish between the political entities that form the federal 
 system, and their mere qualities ; and see that the only nation we have, or 
 can have, is self-united or associated states — the system being properly des- 
 cribed as a “republic of republics,” or a “union of states.” 
 
 NO CONSTITUTIONAL COERCION OF STATES. 
 
 Our states being equal and voluntarily joined, the constitution being the 
 expression of their will, and the federal government being their agency, in 
 the very nature of things no coercive power over them could be derived 
 from the constitution. Moreover, if they were once voluntary parties, they 
 could not have become involuntary ones, without their own action ; for 
 they have the sole power of amendment [see Art. V.,] and, to cap the 
 climax, the fathers were unanimous in excluding the power of coercion 
 from the federal compact, and, out of abundance of caution, guarding 
 against it by amendment, all of which will be hereafter fully shown. 
 Buchanan, Lincoln, and others argued that the recent exertion of federal 
 ! force against certain states was not coercion of states, but was military 
 I coercion of persons, banded to oppose the federal laws, or, in other words, 
 the putting down of a rebellion; but such views are dignified by calling 
 them weak sophistry. For the said states acted as bodies in making the 
 constitution ; they moved as such in seceding ; and they warred as such in 
 resisting coercion. And, in each case, they respectively exercised that right 
 of command over the citizens which results from the social compact, binding 
 each to obey the collective will ; and which is sovereignty itself. On the 
 other hand, the federal functionaries were fighting to enforce an ordinance 
 which the state had originally ordained, but had repealed, and made it 
 treasonable to obey, namely, the ordinance of ratification, which, as to the 
 said state and her citizens, gave to the said constitution, and the resultant 
 government, their only possible validity and warrant. 
 
 THE ONLY BASIS OF COERCION. 
 
 To coerce a state is unconstitutional; but it is equally true that the 
 precedent of coercing states is established, and that it is defensible under 
 the law of nations. If this be correct, all will agree that such ultima ratio 
 should be placed at once on its own ground, and its limits defined, so that 
 our constitution may be vindicated and held sacred in the future, and the 
 conscience of the people of the victorious states be relieved of the charge 
 
SECESSION AND COERCION. 
 
 23 
 
 of violating tlie “ supreme law of the land,” in coercing the states that 
 ordained it, apd killing their people for defending them ; for nothing can 
 more demoralize, and finally demonize, the people, individually and collec- 
 tively, than the consciousness of having committed such crimes, the deter- 
 mined enjoyment of the fruits thereof, and the constant making of false 
 excuses to their consciences and to the world. 
 
 Where the constitution does not provide a treaty stipulation or conven- 
 tional rule, by which to settle a question arising among or between our 
 states, the law of nations is to be resorted to, for the constitution only 
 displaces such law pro tanto. This law would, if the federal compact were 
 annulled, at once govern all questions among our states, just as it now does 
 those arising among the states of Europe. The truth is, the purpose of the 
 federal compact was the settlement of such international questions as it 
 provides for and closes, such questions having been, as long as they were 
 open and debatable, international ones. And it may he well to observe 
 here, that the word “states,” used in the constitution to designate the 
 contracting powers that ratify and make it, is used in juxtaposition with, 
 and has the identical meaning of, the word “ states ” that signifies the powers 
 of Europe [see Art. III., sec. 2; Art. XI, amendments]; and it is absurd 
 to suppose that Massachusetts, New York, or Virginia, in making a consti- 
 tution of government, deprived herself of statehood or nationality, when 
 she merely declared her icill which remained in her, and parted with no 
 portion of her own being; and when her name, description and essentials 
 were, after associating, entirely unchanged; neither the constitution nor 
 history warrants the restricted meaning vulgarly given in our country to 
 the word “ states.” Accurately speaking, it was nations or states that 
 federated, and thereby formed our “community of communities,” or 
 “republic of republics.” 
 
 In seceding, the Southern commonwealths exercised an indisputable right, 
 though they acted with impolicy, and erred in ignoring the operation of 
 international law. In higher politics — those of nations in their dealings 
 with one another — acts become precedents, and make rules of law. So, in 
 the case before us, the successful coercion of states made a precedent, and 
 established a law. As secession affected the interest of the adhering states, 
 questions arose for them to consider; and, treating the matter as one in 
 foro conscientise, they could cogently reason that the case of a seceding 
 state, to make her secession justifiable under the jus gentium , should contain 
 
24 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 the same ingredient that makes a homicide one of self-defence — the previous 
 “ retreat to the wall.” 
 
 The Southern commonwealths were really fighting for constitutional 
 liberty, which, under the circumstances, they thought seriously imperiled, 
 and likely to be preserved by secession. Karl Russell’s assertion was true, 
 that “the South fought for independence, the North for empire. The wish 
 of the former for constitutional liberty and independence was manifested by 
 their adopting the federal constitution, with scarcely a change. Secession 
 was justifiable if there was no other mode of self-preservat'on, or remedy 
 for wrongs ; for self-preservation was the first law of nature to states as well 
 as persons. But they had not properly come to this last resort, as we shall 
 see, by noting the unpleaded pleas of the states that remained united — 
 pleas under the jus gentium. 
 
 1st. These had the right to assume that Providence intended, as our 
 fathers did, that all the territory between British America and Mexico 
 should be under one political system, and they had a right [not under the 
 constitution, which the state voluntarily made, and could voluntarily abandon, 
 but] under the jus gentium to prevent or to cure disruption. 
 
 2d. They had the right to object to the establishment of a contiguous 
 foreign state or federation, with its necessary rivalry, and antagonistic 
 interests and policy, and the inevitable and ever- recurring international 
 troubles. 
 
 3d. They could complain that, in spite of constitutional engagements, 
 as well as in disregard of the respect due to the fathers, secession should be 
 resorted to before exhausting all the remedies contemplated and provided 
 for in the constitution, or ariring out of the circumstances; especially as 
 Congress, the Supreme Court, and a numerical majority of about 1,000,000 
 popular votes were on the side of conservatism against a weak president, 
 and could make the remedies efficient. This alone was justification enough 
 under the jus gentium for the adhering states to coerce back the seceding 
 ones. 
 
 And other pleas might have been made — as to the territory occupied by 
 the new states, as to forts, armaments, public property, etc., as well as the 
 federal debt. In all these cases precision of pleading, and absolute suffi- 
 ciency, were unnecessary, for states are to judge for themselves, in the last 
 resort, as to subjects of complaint and cases of war ; and our states in their 
 
SECESSION AND COERCION. 
 
 25 
 
 federal constitution, provided no mode of settlement or tribunal for such 
 matters, so that the law of nations was the only resort for rules of action. 
 
 And here it is well to observe that while the seceding states acted with 
 impolicy, and were wrong in the respects and to the degree mentioned, the 
 coercing ones were gravely to blame for the original causes of the trouble — 
 for constant and manifold aggressions and acts of injustice; and, finally, for 
 their non-conciliatory and uncompromising spirit, and their disinclination 
 to resort to diplomatic expedients under the law of nations to avoid so 
 awful a recourse as war, which, if it can be avoided with honor and integrity, 
 is a most heinous crime. And, moreover, a party demanding justice before 
 any tribunal, must himself have sought to do justice. 
 
 OUR SYSTEM AS THUS MODIFIED. 
 
 The precedent, then, may be considered as established (not in the consti- 
 tutional, but) in the international part of our law and politics, that all 
 other means of getting justice and preserving self-government and statehood 
 must be exhausted before secession is allowable. But it is as republics 
 that states are to be held in, or coerced back to, the union ; for the great 
 end always in view is the preservation of constitutional liberty, as estab- 
 lished in the states, under the guidance of the fathers ; and this necessitates 
 absolute self-government of the people as organized. 
 
 These then, may be considered as the cardinal principles of our system, 
 as it stands at present : 1. We have states self-associated for their self-pro- 
 tection and self-government. 2. Their status is that of sovereign political 
 bodies, known to the law of nations, and described in the constitution as 
 states. 3. Being republics or self-governing peoples , they must, according 
 to the law of their nature, govern themselves, not in any qualified sense, 
 but absolutely. 4. Their governments, state and federal, are agencies, and 
 subordinate to them. 5. The federal agency has the joint authority of the 
 states to govern their citizens within certain limits, and wield the coercive 
 means entrusted to it ; but there is but one rule of duty for it, i. e., the 
 constitution, which each member of the agency is sworn strictly to observe, 
 and which cannot he disregarded without perjured usurpation. 6. The 
 states must remain in the union, till the last remedy the constitution affords 
 against injustice and loss of self-government and statehood, has been resorted 
 to. 7. When constitutional means are exhausted, or show themselves to 
 be vain, any means of self-preservation is justifiable to a state, for it is 
 
26 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 according to the first law of nature. 8. If secession be the remedy a state 
 finally determines on, it affords the occasion for diplomacy or war, as among 
 other nations. 
 
 TWO IMPORTANT IDEAS. 
 
 1. Suppose given states, then, to have gone through the forms of seces- 
 sion : the adhering ones, without denying either the fact or the right of 
 secession, may, for the sake of the argument, (i. e., the ultima ratio ) 
 concede that the former are out of the union, proceed to fight them as 
 foreign states amenable to the jus gentium, , and enforce their return to the 
 union ; while, on the other hand, the coerced states cannot invoke, as against 
 such coercion, the constitution they have abandoned. 
 
 2. Upon such basis, the coercion of states is not inconsistent with the 
 federal compact. But the states victorious in the recent war claimed that 
 the acts of secession were null ; and that they resorted to constitutional 
 coercion. By these pleas they simply convicted themselves of warring upon 
 states in the union, of violating the constitution, and of causing flagrant 
 usurpation and perjury on the part of their rulers. Nay, more, they have 
 done the infinite mischief of making these high crimes precedents for the 
 future ; of justifying pleas of necessity for arbitrary acts — the very things 
 constitutions were established to prevent ; of introducing and vindicating 
 unlimited discretion and 'regal prerogatives in the federal agency ; and, 
 finally, of showing the states that, if aggrieved, their only alternatives are 
 submission or war. Such were not the ideas of the fathers 1 
 
 As to the right of secession, it will hereafter be shown, by authorities 
 that no one will venture to gainsay, that it is (not constitutional but) inhe- 
 rent and inalienable : that it is absolutely essential to, and pro tanto identical 
 with, freedom ; and that it was taken for granted, or expressly stated by 
 the fathers as indispensable to preserve statehood and liberty. It is, indeed, 
 a right as absolute and indestructible as the state itself. Without it sove- 
 reignty cannot exist, and there can be no self-preservation of the original 
 and only constituents of our “ republic of republics.”* 
 
 * Every American ought to read Ts DaW« a Traitor? by Professor Bledsoe. Most conclusively does 
 it vindicate the right of secession ; and it forms the best criticism ever written of the constitutional 
 expositions of Story and Webster. With great deference, however, I object to his implication that 
 secession is a constitutional right So with the assumption of Mr. A. H. Stephens and others, in 
 18G8, at the White Sulphur Springs, that the right of secession can be abandoned. Self-preservation 
 is the fisrt law of nature — most especially to commonwealths ; and God designs a state to secede, if 
 her “ defence ” and “ welfare,” which He has charged her with preserving and promoting, raquire it. 
 
CHAPTER Y. — Rebellion or not. 
 
 SSUMINGr it to be a principle or rule established by the war, 
 Y^>rvV that if one of our sovereign states secedes from the union with- 
 °l out first exhausting all the means of justice the constitution 
 affords, she is to be forced back into the union, to govern herself therein, 
 let us look introductorily, at another intensely interesting and vital ques- 
 tion, which recent events have forced upon the American people, and which 
 the perverters have made every possible effort to dodge, and prevent inves- 
 tigation and decision upon. 
 
 WERE THE CONFEDERATES REBELS AND TRAITORS? 
 
 It is anxiously asked by all thoughtful and conscientious men, who seek 
 for constitutional truth and know its value : What law, divine, international 
 or civil, consigned Davis, Lee, and the other confederates to death (for all 
 alike are guilty or not guilty), when states, as political bodies, or vehicles, 
 carried them — without their volition— from the union, and constrained 
 them to obedience and military service ; and when this obedience ran on all 
 fours with the noblest impulses of the human heart, and with the first, best, 
 and most imperative law of nature— self-preservation ? for every member or 
 citizen of such state, who obeyed her, was defending his home, his family 
 and kindred, his friends, his neighbors and fellow-citizens, and the common- 
 wealth which involved and protected them all — in short, everything for 
 which a man wishes to live. In truth, vindicating the action of Davis and 
 Lee is vindicating American institutional liberty, or the right of the 
 American commonwealths to exist, and to exercise free will in self-govern- 
 ment, whenever and however they please. 
 
 A state is the citizens thereof. She is a complete political body, formed 
 as Massachusetts, in her organic law, declares, by “ a social compact, in 
 which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with 
 
23 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common 
 good.” Collectively, therefore, the citizens govern, while individually they 
 obey, each citizen having two capacities — the one as a voter or governor, 
 and the other as a subject. It is obvious, then, that each citizen must 
 obey the body, she having, by immediate grant in the social compact, actual 
 possession of him, and full power to coerce and punish him. So that while, 
 on the one hand, the citizens must absolutely obey all her political determi- 
 nations, on the other, it must be right, and not treasonable, for them to 
 disobey any counter authority. She must be solely and always the supreme 
 power. 
 
 This commonwealth of citizens, in her organic law, endows fit members 
 with suffrage, thus by virtue of original, absolute, and inherent right, 
 ordaining the actual and efficient governing power, which is a deiegative 
 trust. This electoral body is the real government, and it, in turn, gives 
 existence and authority to all constitutions, so-called governments, and 
 officials, state or federal. This exhibits our representative republicanism, 
 or self-government. 
 
 The citizen votes for the safety and welfare of the state, under her 
 authority ; and, when votes fail, he fights for the same object, under the 
 same authority, against all foes, whether external or internal. Voting and 
 fighting are correlatives, and both are done in obedience to the instinct of 
 self-preservation — the first law of nature — the same instinct that prompted 
 men to form the societies called states, and these to form the federation called 
 “the United States.” The only possible original and ultimate judgment 
 and will to decide when the occasion for fighting or voting arises, and to 
 direct the mode and means, are those of the state. And as the federal 
 agents are not only citizens and subjects of the state, but are chosen for 
 her, by her electors, to do her will, it is obviously in the nature of rebellion 
 and treason for them to oppose her will by force. If they do so, her voters 
 must become her soldiers, to fight such perfidious agents ; and defending 
 her is defending themselves, and vindicating their own collective will, as 
 well as preserving republican liberty, or the right of the people to organize 
 themselves, and govern themselves. In conformity with these principles 
 the Southern patriots acted, and hence were not rebels and traitors. 
 
 THE FEDERAL COMPACT VINDICATES THEM. 
 
 In a striking manner does the federal compact support these views, for it 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 29 
 
 shows that the only parties to, and the only actors under it, are the states ; 
 and that these are the only sources of elective power — all the officials being- 
 citizens of states, elected or appointed by and for them. Indeed, these 
 officials belong to states as much as ever slaves did to their owners ; and 
 their power or discretion is only that of their masters, and is strictly confined 
 to the delegations in the compact. And the said compact acknowledges 
 and declares that every citizen is a citizen of a state, or, in other words, 
 that he is “bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh owes allegiance to hex 
 alone ; and is compellable to obey the federal agency solely by virtue of her 
 command. Article IV, sec. 2, shows all citizens to be citizens of states; 
 and Article II, sec. 1, shows that the President must be chosen by the 
 states, while the delegations of states that compose Congress are elected and 
 empowered solely by them. So that, in collegio, these officials, and the 
 citizens and subjects of the states which they appoint to federal offices, 
 constitute “the government of [t. e., belonging to] the United States,” or, 
 in other words, the agency of self-government of the states which are 
 united. The simple phrases of the constitution, “ the united states,” and 
 “the states in this union,” should end controversy, as the states were pre- 
 existent, and associated themselves to form the union. It is obvious, then, 
 that the ultimate authority for the citizens to obey is the state , and not the 
 government. 
 
 The treason-clause itself supports this view. It declares that “ treason 
 against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or 
 in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The objects 
 of this treason, then, are (not “ the government,” “the nation,” or “the 
 people,” but) the states, or, to use Madison’s phrase, “ the people as com- 
 posing thirteen sovereignties,” each of these sovereignties having its own 
 subjects, which owe allegiance to it, and are liable to the penalties of treason 
 for violating that allegiance. And “ the government ” itself, created as it 
 is by, and subject to, the supreme law of the said states, may, by such 
 “levying war against them,” commit treason against “them.” Nay, more, 
 it might with “ their ” army and navy become “ their enemies,” and subjugate 
 “them” one after another to its central despotism, as it has already done to 
 ten of “them,” and as it may, on new pretexts, do to the rest. For a 
 citizen to fight against his state is treason, while his fighting against “ the 
 government,” by command of the state, is patriotic duty! 
 
30 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 STRONG CORROBORATIONS. 
 
 The guilty perverters, and those who are to profit by centralization, hate 
 these truths ; but it will be seen that the constitution, the records of the 
 country, and the contemporaneous exposition of the fathers, are univocal in 
 support of them. It is well here to give a slight forestate. Madison wrote 
 in article 46 of the Federalist: “The federal and stale governments are, 
 in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people. * * * The 
 
 ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the 
 people alone.” In the Virginia Convention he explained that “ the people” 
 meant “the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.” In article 40 of 
 the Federalist he said : “ The states are regarded as distinct and independent 
 sovereignties * * * by the constitution proposed.” Nay, more, every 
 
 idea herein expressed is to be found in the federal history and the present 
 constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, as will hereafter be fully 
 shown. These constitutions describe the citizen as a “ member ” and “ citi- 
 zen ” of the state — the latter calling him a “subject of this state;” and 
 they declare “sovereignty” eo nomine, to be in the states respectively, and 
 no “powers” to be out of them except entrusted ones ; and their history is 
 full of proofs that the federal government has no shadow of right to exist 
 and hold jurisdiction within their borders, except by and under their 
 sovereign will. 
 
 As the confederates acted in precise accordance with these principles, it is 
 absurd to call them rebels or traitors. They, as individuals, obeyed them- 
 selves as states. This is self-government. It is republican freedom. Our 
 states, then, which were the first dwelling-places of Liberty, are her last 
 retreats, her final citadels, in her contests with power ! 
 
 COERCION OF STATES IS WAR AGAINST THEM. 
 
 By all the fathers, as will be hereafter shown, coercion of states by the 
 government, was considered to be war. Those waging this, no matter what 
 they are called, must be “enemies;” and if the citizens and subjects of the 
 states attacked, wage this war, or give “aid and comfort” to others who do 
 so, they commit treason. Not only was no provision made for the federal 
 authorities to coerce the states (their only coercive authority affcc;ing 
 citizens, and being enforced by courts), but when the thoughtless proposition 
 was made, in the federal convention, to give the general government this 
 coercive power, it was unanimously rejected, Madison and Hamilton stig- 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 31 
 
 matizing it as “visionary and fallacious,” and “the maddest project ever 
 devised.” They also declared that it was war, and was entirely incompa- 
 tible with the plan of union, which was a voluntary association of states, 
 the sole purpose of which was “ the security of the rights and the advance- 
 ment of the interests ” of the associates. If the people, as states, possess 
 original and absolute power, while the federal government has purely 
 derivative, and necessarily subordinate, authority, coercion of states by the 
 said government is not only unconstitutional, but, as the fathers declared, 
 it is war against them, and is, in its very nature, treasonable. And the 
 citizens “levying” the “war,” or giving aid and comfort to the enemy — if 
 they are citizens of the state which is the object of the “ war ” — directly 
 violate their allegiance, and commit treason. 
 
 THE NATION IS STATES— GOVERNMENTS ARE CREATURES. 
 
 There is no doubt that all the architects of American constitutional 
 liberty, and all the master workmen who built the temple, all the presidents 
 who left any record down to 1860, with, perhaps a single exception, and 
 all the respectable statesmen, except a few who were more partisans and 
 advocates than statesmen, regarded the union as a federation of self-governing 
 sovereignties. 
 
 These sovereignties ratified the constitutional compact separately, just as 
 European sovereignties would ratify a treaty. They thereby created the 
 federal government, and “ delegated ” to it the only power it ever held or 
 could hold. 
 
 All ideas of state subordination are alike false, mischievous and absurd. 
 If thirteen sovereignties of Europe, in order to join their strength in 
 defence, to lessen the trouble and cost of government, and to lighten the 
 people’s taxes and other burdens, were to unite themselves, no one would 
 contend that the common agency — that is, the congress of commissioners 
 and ambassadors charged with the duties of such general government — 
 could by any possibility become sovereign over the said sovereigns. Equally 
 false and absurd it is to say that the government of our country can have 
 sovereign or controlling authority over the states that created it. Govern- 
 mental sovereignty in a republic is a solecism. That cannot be sovereign 
 which is subject to control and abolition. The government provided for 
 in, is necessarily under and controlled by, the constitution. And this 
 instrument is necessarily subject to the commonwealths of people that made 
 
32 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 and ordained it as their law. It follows, of course, that the states are 
 sovereign, and the government is their subject. This relation having been 
 once established, only treasonable revolution can change it. 
 
 UNCLE SAM TAUGHT DAVIS AND LEE SECESSION. 
 
 Andrew Johnson, Salmon Chase, Jefferson Davis and Robert Lee, were 
 young men acquiring their political knowledge about the same time. They 
 were taught that the states were (to use Hamilton’s phrase) “ the essential 
 component parts ” of the federal system ; or, in other words, that there 
 was no nation, but states ; that they, as their parents had been, were citizens 
 of states, and owed allegiance thereto ; and that they were entirely subject 
 to the will and coercive authority of their respective states. Moreover, 
 they knew from history that the federal convention, at the instance of 
 Madison and Hamilton, excluded the power to coerce states from the federal 
 compact as an absurdity. And furthermore, the federal system had been 
 in operation for about forty years, and yet state sovereignty, and the included 
 and essential right of secession, were taken for granted. The only books 
 in which they could study constitutional law laid down these doctrines as 
 unquestionable. Said St. George Tucker, in his commentaries, published 
 in 1802: “Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, 
 and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its 
 functions as such, in the most unlimited extent.” Said William Rawle, in 
 his commentaries [see edition of 1829] : “ The states, then, may wholly 
 withdraw from the union ; but while they continue, they must retain the 
 character of representative republics. The secession of a state from the 
 union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, 
 as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” The 
 above authors — one from the North and the other from the South — were 
 among the ablest of the early American jurists, and their statement was 
 taken as truth. It was an essential and indisputable truth, and not a mere 
 opinion. And it will be shown fully hereafter that this right of secession 
 was considered by the fathers unquestionable — too much so, indeed, for 
 discus ion. The above works were text-books at West Point when Davis 
 and Lee were cadets there. Was it not rather wicked for Uncle Samuel to 
 think of hanging his pupils for practising the precepts he specially taught 
 them ? 
 
 Thus it was that these four distinguished personages were educated and 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 33 
 
 impressed; and it is probable that the views of all of them remained 
 unchanged during thirty years of their manhood till 1860 — the great epoch 
 of change. Before that they would have deemed it a monstrous idea that the 
 federal government could lawfully hang them because the state irresistibly 
 carried them out of the union, and compelled them to defend her, while, at 
 the same time, the state could have hung them if they had opposed her ; 
 and they could but believe that when the state repealed its ordinance of 
 “ ratification,” it was no longer lawful for the citizens to obey the federal 
 authorities, as ratification was the only cause of federal jurisdiction, and 
 as the power of repeal was, by all law and common sense, exactly commen- 
 surate with that of enactment. Would it not have sounded like a horrible 
 romance for two of these men, after passing to the evening of life in ardent 
 devotion to these principles, to have had the power, and to have exercised 
 it, of hanging the other two — also become old, and among the most distin- 
 guished men in the world — for honorable consistency to these same principles, 
 and for obeying and defending their states, where were concentrated all the 
 objects of a true heart’s devotion — those objects which noble and brave 
 souls are wont to prefer to all the rest of earth, and to defend even to the 
 last drop of blood — neighbors, friends, kindred, birthplace, hearthstones 
 and altars, and the “green graves of their sires?” 
 
CHAPTER VI. — Rebellion or not? (Continued.; 
 
 PATRIOTISM IS LOVE OF ONE’S STATE. 
 
 ^ HE commonwealth, the cherishing mother, was belligerently 
 
 attacked for exercising the same political will in withdrawing 
 
 
 ? % tr from, that she had done in adopting, the constitution — attacked 
 too, by the subjects of herself and her sister sovereigns, who were temporarily 
 entrusted with federal power, and who had perverted the government from 
 its uses, to do so. Then went forth her summons to all her sons to defend 
 her with arms. “Breathes there a man with soul so dead” that he will 
 not, in such a crisis, stand hy and defend his family, neighbors, fellow- 
 citizens, and his state, against all or any part of the outside world? He 
 who is not for his state is against her, and in such an emergency, he must 
 obey her call, unless, like a recreant, he fly abroad, or, like a traitor, go 
 outside and turn the weapons of war against her breast, against his own 
 kindred, against even the mother that bore him ! As for me, if there must 
 be conflict, I would rather sink with the commonwealth containing these 
 dearest treasures of earth, than swim with the concentrated excellence of a 
 thousand unions! Let me, for them, rather be broken on the wheel, than 
 live for one moment with the infamy of deserting them in the hour of their 
 need. I merely mention, but do not dishonor myself by contending for, : o 
 sacred a sentiment. Of every good man, and true statesman, it is the very 
 soul of his heart ! On questions of patriotism and honor, “ reasoning is 
 sometimes useless, and worse. It is too cold, and its processes are too slow. 
 I feel the decision in my pulse. If it throws no light on the brain, it 
 kindles a fire at the heart ! ” [Fisher Ames, on the Jay treaty, 1796]. 
 
 THE PATRIOTISM THE FATHERS FELT AND TAUGHT. 
 
 The states, as sovereign political bodies, existed before the constitution 
 did. Each was made up of its members or citizens, these being bound, in 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 35 
 
 the social compact, as individuals, to obey the law of all. To protect them- 
 selves and preserve their blessings, was the object of the people in forming 
 such state. Necessarily all the heart’s treasures are there, and these are 
 the “blessings of liberty,” of which the federal preamble speaks. It was 
 solely to increase the security of the same people and their “ blessings ” 
 that the federal system was formed. The state, then, is the sole object of 
 patriotic devotion — of the heart’s allegiance ; while the general government 
 is simply entitled to obedience, because the state commands it. And honor 
 here concurs with patriotism ; for while the latter is devotion to one’s 
 country, and to the society that involves his membership and all his 
 blessings, the former prompts him to comply with the social compact, and 
 obey that society’s commands, and to defend her. Moreover, self-protection 
 aud duty to neighbors and fellow-citizens, are accomplished by such obedience 
 and defence. 
 
 On this sacred subject listen to the voice of the fathers. Samuel Adams, 
 of Massachusetts, called “the sovereign authority of the state,” “the 
 palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens” [III Life of 
 S. Adams, 273]. John Dickinson, of Delaware, spoke of “the independent 
 sovereignty of the respective states ” as “ that justly darling object of 
 American affections,” to which the federal agents are responsible [II Political 
 writings of Dickinson, 99]. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, looked “for 
 the preservation of his rights to the state governments.” “ His happiness 
 depended on their existence, as much as did a new-born infant on its mother 
 for nourishment” [I. Ell. Deb., 474; V. Ibid., 268], Said Alexander 
 Hamilton, of New York, who considered “the states” to be “the essential 
 component parts of the new system “ We love our families more than 
 our neighbors ; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. 
 The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart 
 from the centre, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the 
 circle on which they act. On these principles the attachment of the 
 individual will be first and for ever secured by the state governmeats” 
 [II Ell. Deb. 354]. Many kindred expressions of the fathers might be here 
 given, but I presume these will suffice. Not an opposing line can be found 
 in all our history. 
 
 The letter containing the sentiment of Dickinson, met the express and 
 emphatic approval of the great and good Washington. Indeed, none dis- 
 sented in those earlier and better days. All felt the holy flame. But 
 
36 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 since then, political tricksters, perverters of constitutions, corrupters of 
 public sentiment, and violators alike of sacred faith and common decency, 
 have compelled the patriots and statesmen of the country to retire, and 
 have, for selfish and partisan purposes, introduced a false worship, which 
 may be called unionolatry, the poor pagans of which, in their fanaticism 
 or moral obliquity, ignore the dear objects and institutions of home, and — 
 like the pilgrims to Mecca or Lassa— wander off and bow the knee, and 
 submit the neck to their idol, which, in this case, is a mere political arrange- 
 ment — an agency or commission, that is only entitled to regard and devotion 
 just so far as it affords the 1 designed safety to the aforesaid commonwealth 
 and its associates, and all the rights which they involve ; and gives to 
 citizens a sense of present justice, and a satisfactory prospect for their future 
 safety and happiness. 
 
 DAVIS AND LEE NO TRAITORS. 
 
 Such was the teaching of the fathers as to patriotism and its object, and 
 thus thought and acted Davis, Lee, and every other patriot who defended 
 his state against federal attack. Each one knew of the old ordinance or 
 law of his state, “ ratifying ” her federal compact, and commanding him to 
 obey her federal government, and he had long obeyed it ; but a later act 
 repealed the former, and commanded him not to obey the said government ; 
 and he knew the power to repeal to be precisely commensurate with that to 
 enact. Why should the citizen heed and obey the state’s command, con- 
 tained in her ordinance of ratification, and disobey her countermand? And 
 how could there be rebellion and treason in obeying the authority which 
 had habitually commanded him, and which he had habitually obeyed — the 
 authority of the self-governing body he belonged to ? 
 
 Again, it was not alleged that Davis, Lee, or any other confederate chief 
 induced the states to secede ; or that any of them seceded individually, and 
 of their own motion, or, indeed, that they acted in the premises at all, 
 before secession had become un fait accompli , and hostilities had been 
 commenced. Hence the will, the act , and the criminal intent, which must 
 concur to make up the crime, could not be proved against them. 
 
 Moreover, the only semblance of individual responsibility for these things 
 must have been in the members of the convention, by virtue of whose act 
 all citizens (including Davis and Lee) were alienated from the union, made 
 belligerent, and forced, as well as commissioned, to fight the federal govern- 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 37 
 
 ment. No one hinted at prosecuting them ; nobler blood was wanted — 
 guilty or not guilty ! 
 
 ABSURD VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 These conventions, endowed with plenary authority by the states, were 
 unlimited in their power ; had actual control of all citizens ; made it treason 
 to oppose secession; and were able, ready and w lling to hang too trouble- 
 some opponents. Delightful country to live in, where one authority can, 
 hang you for doing what another authority can hang you for not doing ! 
 
 Such constitutional law is that of Bedlamites, and to enforce it would 
 soon depopulate the country ! Yet it is a legitimate sequence of the 
 doctrines of the Massachusetts school, which have pro luced all our confused 
 notions and loose talk about “delegated sovereignty;” “divided sove- 
 reignty ;” “ two sovereignties ;” “ federal sovereignty and state sovereignty, 
 each supreme in its own sphere ;” “ the sovereign powers distributed 
 between the state and the general governments;” “the absolute supremacy 
 of the government,” etc., etc. Never has there been, in the land now called 
 “ the United States of America,” a sovereign government, or a sovereign 
 power in government, since the British monarchy was displaced, in each and 
 every colony, by a republic ; for ever since that, the sovereignty has neces- 
 sarily been in the people ; and it is now the fundamental principle, that the 
 absolute right is inherent in the people, of instituting, altering or abolishing 
 government at will. There can be no republic, unless the people continue 
 to have sovereignty, or the right of self-government. And as sovereignty 
 is only predicable of organization, and as the people were never organized 
 except in states, it is certain that the sovereignty of our country must ever 
 have dwelt in the said bodies of people — each for herself being sovereign ; 
 and that the federal and state governments are both, as Madison declared, 
 the agencies of this sovereignty, and necessarily subordinate to it. “ The 
 sovereignty of government ,” says Daniel Webster, “is an idea belonging 
 to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North 
 America.” [Speech of 1833]. 
 
 STATES ALONE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR SECESSION AND WAR. 
 
 How absurd it is to hold individual citizens responsible for secession, they 
 having no more volition or power to stop the state, than the man in the moon 
 has to stop that orb ! In Virginia, for instance, 150,000 voters, including 
 General Lee, sent delegates to a convention, which duly deliberated, and 
 
38 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 ultimately voted the state out of the union. As a citizen he was compelled 
 to obey, and finally defend the state. Opposition, after the convention had 
 acted, would have been punishable enmity to his commonwealth, she having- 
 possession of him and his family and estate, and the fullest possible power 
 of punishment. It must strike every one, then, that states having seceded 
 as bodies, and ipso facto carried all the citizens out of the union, Davis, 
 Lee and others, cannot be held responsible as individuals for secession , or 
 for the war which the said states waged against the federal government. 
 Regardless of the condition, position, wishes or acts of any citizen, the 
 state took the deliberate and solemn step of seceding from the union, and 
 the further step of federating with other states, which had seceded for the 
 same eauses and about the same time. The important act of secession was 
 done in precisely the form, and with the solemnities observed by the original 
 states, in their corporate act of “ assenting to ” and “ ratifying ” [the instru- 
 ment of union called the federal constitution — that is to say, a convention 
 of each state, elected and empowered by the sovereign people thereof, after 
 due deliberation, declared the will of that political entity or “moral person” 
 called -‘the state” to be — withdrawal of the consent, and the “delegated” 
 authority, of said state from the federal constitution. This is secession. 
 Now, this commonwealth, which had actual possession of, and jurisdiction 
 over, her members, and which no citizen could escape from without running 
 away from home, estate, family, and everything dear, and becoming an 
 outlaw or an emigrant — this great repository of everything that mortal 
 heart-strings entwine themselves around, having, of its own motion, with- 
 drawn from the federation, Davis, Lee, or any other given citizen was 
 departed, as it were, from the union, having as little practical volition in 
 the matter as an infant of emigrating parents. Nay, more ; the state, 
 with her hand actually upon him, exacted his submission and obedience 
 under penalties which could have been enforced. And every one knows 
 that such penalties did exist, and were enforced, and that malcontents were 
 persecuted and driven out of their respective states. Whether a state, 
 acting thus, did right or wrong, is not now the question ; citizens had no 
 choice. And furthermore, as to Mr. Davis, he did not vote for secession, and 
 did not even favor the policy, though he had no doubt as to the right.* If 
 General Lee voted at all, he voted against secession. 
 
 * Hon. 0. R. Singleton, who was for many years afoi influential member of the Federal Congress, 
 from Mississippi, and who was subsequently in the Confederate Congress, wrote to the author 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 
 
 39 
 
 AND STATES ALONE WERE PUNISHABLE. 
 
 He is dull that does not perceive, and uncandid that does not acknowl- 
 edge, that, as it was the people as a commonwealth that seceded, and com- 
 mitted the acts of hostility complained of, the said political body was the 
 proper subject of punishment, if this was due ; and that such body must 
 he reached by the ultima ratio , or not at all ; for, as was said by Burke, 
 “ you cannot frame a bill of indictment against a people.” The will, inten- 
 tion, and act, the ingredients of the offence charged, having been solely 
 those of the state, it is common sense, and requires no argument, that the 
 state alone is punishable. That the states fought as such, against coercion, 
 is a fact which the federal agency could no more prevent or undo, than it 
 could change the principles of law applicable to such facts. And those 
 judges — some of them “ pigmies perched on Alps” — whose wishes upon 
 these subjects father their thoughts, simply achieve falsehood, and attract 
 derision, by attempting to decree the non-existence of facts which God 
 Himself could not destroy. It is simple and palpable untruth to say that 
 there was no secession de facto — no state fighting de facto against the 
 federal agency — no confederate government de facto. They might as well 
 say there was no war de facto. 
 
 THE ATONEMENT WAS COMPLETE. 
 
 And supposing the states to have been guilty, were they not punished 
 enough ? Multitudes of their children were slain, and their whole people 
 long mourned in bitter anguish. They were reduced to unmitigated ruin 
 and wretchedness. Aud, worse than all, they lost completely their freedom 
 of will, and were degraded and humiliated as were never states before. 
 
 substantially as follows: “Near the close of I860, a short time before South Carolina seceded, a 
 conference of our delegation in Congress was held in Jackson, Mississippi, at the instance of Gov. 
 Pettus. The main question propounded for discussion was, whether, in case South Carolina seceded 
 Mississippi should do likewise, or wait and endeavor to secure the co-operation of the Southern 
 States. Senator Jefferson Davis declared emphatically against separate state action, arguing that 
 secession was an unquestionable right belonging to every state, but that it was not to be resorted 
 to, until every other peaceful means of securing redress had been exhausted. He gave cogent 
 reasons why Mississippi should not secede at that time, and expressed the hope that by some means 
 the necessity of her seceding at all might be averted. His views were such that I, with others, 
 thought him altogether behind the people. In conclusion, he said his allegiance was due to his 
 state, and that her choice, as well as her fate, should be his.” 
 
 A private letter from Mr. Davis himself to the author contains the following : “A dissolution of 
 the Union was with me always the last resort,” “a very great, though not the greatest of evils.” He 
 considered that, a shite had necessarily an unlimited right of self-preservation, and could but be the 
 final judge of the means; and that the right of secession was one of the absolute rights involved in 
 the nature of sovereignty — a right inherent, essential and inalienable. 
 
40 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 And now they have less freedom and protection than had Southern slaves. 
 And monstrous as it may seem, “ the iron enters the soul” of these stricken 
 and sorrowing commonwealths insufficiently to sate the devilishness of some 
 of their native sons. These are even now aiding the perverters and revo- 
 lutionists to place and keep the brave and noble hearts of Anglo-Saxon 
 commonwealths under the heel of God’s fore-ordained and unchangeable 
 barbarian 1 
 
 THE JUS GENTIUM PROTECTED CON FEDERATES!. 
 
 The belligerent character of the Southern States, recognized, as it was, 
 by foreign nations, and by the federal government, was, under the jus gentium 
 an ample shield to their citizens, no matter whether the recent conflict was 
 a “ civil war,” or a “ war between the states.” Says Yattel [pp. 425-7] : 
 “A civil war breaks the bonds of society and government, or at least 
 suspends their force and effect ; it produces in the nation two independent 
 parties, who consider each other as enemies, and acknowledge no common 
 judge. * * * They stand, therefore, in precisely the same predicament 
 as two nations who engage in a contest, and, being unable to come to an 
 agreement, have recourse to arms.” * * * “ The obligation to observe 
 
 the common laws of war toward each other is, therefore, absolute — indis- 
 pensably binding on both parties.” And as to Davis, Lee, and the officers 
 and soldiers of such belligerent, their status cf prisoners of war precluded 
 all questions of civil punishment. Indeed, by hesitating on such a subject^ 
 the federal agents courted the world’s contempt. And those who persisted 
 in prosecuting Davis, either knew not the law of the case, or knowingly 
 conspired to effect an unlawful purpose — evincing that “ malice prepense ’ 
 which makes homicide murder. What, then, shall we say of those human 
 wolves, who raged and ravened for years against the fold of the law which 
 protected Davis, Lee, and their compatriots, howling the while — “ Rebels 
 have no rights except to be hung?” * 
 
 THE LEGITIMATE CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that the confederates observed the obligation of the 
 social compact — the highest of all political obligations in a republic — and 
 were true to their allegiance, and to the requirements of patriotism, as well 
 
 * Is this a fulfilment of. the prophecy in Genesis xlix, 27 : “ Benjamin shall raven as a wolf? The 
 truculent phrase is Gen. Benjamin F. Butler’s. 
 
REBELLION OR NOT. 41 
 
 as to the instinct of self-preservation ; and that if in the history of the last 
 decade of years, any rebels and traitors appear, they are those who , being 
 citizens and subjects of states , used federal force in '■'■levying war against 
 them,” or adhered to their enemies, “ giving them aid and comfort 
 Those who wage war against states, must be “ their enemies ,” and the citizens 
 of states, who assist such enemies, must be traitors 1 
 
CHAPTER VII. — The architects’ idea of the edifice. 
 
 (I 
 
 1®W AS our federal system several distinct and sovereign political 
 (OTq bodies, self-united, and consequently superior to tlie voluntary 
 ? bonds ; or were these pre-existent bodies reduced from states 
 
 to provinces, and consolidated into one commonwealth or nation ? This is 
 a simple inquiry of fact, as free from intrinsic difficulty as is such question 
 concerning thirteen complete buildings, which the thirteen separate propri- 
 etors have united under a single all-sheltering roof, and provided with com- 
 mon corridors, walks, kitchen, back-yard, stable, pig-pen, hen-roost and 
 garden ; or concerning thirteen pre-existent colleges, self-united in a univer- 
 sity ; or concerning thirteen neighboring proprietors who establish a common 
 agency for their common concerns ; or concerning thirteen associated com- 
 monwealths, whose “ U. S.” means “ united sisters” instead of “ united 
 states.” In all such cases, the individuals are facts or entities, unchanged 
 by association, and the thing formed by such association, is technically 
 named and described in legal and political terminology. 
 
 Now, if Inigo Jones, Sir Christopher Wren, Brunei, Michael Angelo, 
 or Cheops had contemporaneously spoken or written of the structure he 
 was building, that it was a palace, a church, a pyramid, or a tunnel, it 
 would be laughable, if some one, whether architect or not — were to say, in 
 after years, “ No, it is a wharf,” “ an obelisk,” “ a bridge,” or “ a steamship 
 and if the latter were to argue on it, he would be derided, especially as the 
 matter is one of fact, and not of interpretation — of technical description, 
 and not of argument. The object of this chapter is to present the positive 
 and unambiguous statements of the great architects of the federal edifice, 
 in direct contrast with the utterances of Dane, Story and Webster, and 
 their perverting followers. 
 
THE ARCHITECTS IDEA OF THE EDIFICE. 
 
 43 
 
 THE PERVERSION TO BE EXPOSED. 
 
 In chapter II. I showed, by quotations, that the fathers considered sove- 
 reignty to remain in the people, and the so-called governments to be mere 
 agencies with delegated powers. Of course this proved the falsity of the 
 assumed “absolute supremacy” of “the government” over the states and 
 their people. This chapter will prove the following cognate assertions to 
 be not merely mistaken opinions, but entire, though perhaps unintentional, 
 untruths. They are to be found in Mr. Webster’s great speech of 1833. 
 He asserted that “ contemporary history,” The Federalist, “ the debates in 
 the conventions of states,” and “the writings of fiiends and toes,” all 
 agreed that “a change had been made, from a confederacy of states, to a 
 different system that the constitution was made by “ the people of the 
 united states in the aggregate that therein they, the said people or nation, 
 “ distributed their powers between their general governments and their 
 several state governments that this was their “ supreme law,” and that 
 by it “ state sovereignty was effectually controlled or, as the Philadelphia 
 Convention more recently but as correctly worded it — “ the government ” 
 has “ absolute supremacy,” and the states are bound “ in a’legiance” thereto ! 
 It is plain that these are assertions of fact. They are either true or false. 
 I shall prove them herein to be entirely and absurdly untrue. 
 
 THE INQUIRY IS ONE OF FACT. 
 
 We are necessarily dealing with facts, or inferences therefrom, when we 
 attempt to ascertain from the constitution and history, what the consti- 
 tution and government under it are. When the states (or the people) 
 acted, what, in point of fact, did they make? Was it a federation of states, 
 or was it a single state, divided into counties or provinces ? I shall duly 
 prove herein the following facts: 1st. That the states existed, as separate 
 and independent sovereign states, before the federal constitution. 2nd. 
 That they, as commonwealths, alone acted in establishing that constitution 
 and the government under it. 3d. That the entire existence and powers 
 of the said government are from and under them. 4th. That each and 
 every federal functionary is a citizen and subject of a state, elected by, and 
 acting for, such state. 5th. That our “ united states,” or “ union of 
 states” — as these phrases indicate — is a federation of sovereignties. Now, 
 these are facts or falsehoods. I shall prove them to be facts beyond con- 
 
44 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 troversy, and show that the federal constitution, the history of its formation, 
 and all the acts and records of the states concur in proving them. This 
 chapter is devoted to showing that the fathers unqualifiedly asserted the 
 union to be a federation of sovereign states ; and that they considered the 
 federal government to be alike the creation, the agency, and the subject of 
 the states. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE WRITERS OF “THE FEDERALIST.’ 
 
 The statements of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Washington, and Fran ml m are 
 of more weight than all other authorities, on questions involving the origin 
 and nature of the constitution ; and they fully and precisely support all the 
 above assertions of fact. The three first mentioned are the great triumvirate, 
 who wrote the series of papers in 1788, afterwards collected in a volume, 
 and ca led The Federalist. This is universa'ly considered to be the most 
 authoritative of all commentaries on the federal constitution, as it was written 
 by the very ablest of the framers, at the time that the states were in process 
 of deciding upon it, and as it powerfully aided in overcoming the charges 
 against, and the apprehensions concerning, the proposed system. I wish it 
 particularly noted that all the extracts contradict Messrs. Dane, Story, and 
 Webster — whose dogmas are above stated in the language of the last — in 
 the most positive manner ; and they decisively refute the numerous Curtises, 
 Mansfields, Jamesons, Parkers, Brownson’s, Greeleys, Raymonds and other 
 “ professors of constitutional law,” politicians, so-called statesmen, and 
 newspaper editors, who nowadays habitually reiterate the assertions of the 
 aforesaid great men, and voluminously sophisticate to support the same. 
 
 Said Alexander Hamilton, in articles 9 and 85 of The Federalist : 
 “ If the new plan be adopted, the union will still be, in fact and in theory, 
 an association of states or a confederacy .” “ Every constitution for the 
 
 united states must inevitably consi t of a great variety of particulars, in 
 which tlrirteen independent states are to be acco.i.modatcd in their interests, 
 or opinions of interest. * * * Hence the necessity of making such a 
 
 system as will satisfy all the parties to the compact." He also said the 
 states are “ essential component parts of the union,’ 1 ’ [II. Ell. Deb., 304J. 
 In an address, dated February 18, 1789, to the people of New York, he 
 said : “ The people of this state are the sovereigns of it." The whole 
 federal history, and the present constitution of New York, precisely quadrate 
 with these principles. 
 
THE A R 0 H I T E C T s’ IDEA 0 E TUI EDIFICE. 
 
 45 
 
 ’ James Madison, in articles 39 and 40 of The Federalist , said : “Each 
 state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, 
 independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. 
 In this relation, then, the new constitution will be a federal , and not a 
 national, constitution.” “ The states are regarded as distinct and indepen- 
 dent sovereigns * * by the constitution proposed.” His speeches 
 in the Virginia convention set forth the same views. [See III. Ell. Deb. 
 381, especially]. 
 
 John Jay argued in favor of the states “ continuing united under one 
 federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national 
 purposes;” and opposed the idea of “forming three or four confederacies 
 instead of one.” He further said : “ Some time must yet elapse before all 
 the states will have decided on the present plan.” This he characterized 
 as a “ union of states." I quote partly from The Federalist, and partly 
 from his “address to the people of New York.” [I. Ell. Deb. 496.] In 
 the last he described the general goverment as the agents and overseers for 
 the people, by whom they are to be appointed.” 
 
 So we find Mr. Webster’s citation of the Federalist to be without warrant, 
 and his assertions to be decisively contradicted by that great authority. 
 
 THE STATEMENTS OF WASHINGTON AND FRANKLIN. 
 
 General Washington has left on record numerous evidences that he 
 precisely agreed with the statesmen heretofore quoted, as well as with Wil- 
 son and Dickinson, to be quoted presently. He always assented to the idea 
 that a confederacy of sovereign states was being formed. And the proof is 
 direct, positive and abundant, that he recognized the states as sovereign 
 parties to, and sovereign actors under, the new system. In a letter to 
 Lafayette, dated June 17, 1788, he said : “ I mentioned the accession of 
 Maryland to the proposed government. * * * The accession of one 
 
 state more will complete the number (nine) needed to establish it.” 
 
 To General Pinckney, June 28, 1788, he writes of the Virginia convention 
 having adopted the constitution by 89 to 79 ; of the people of Alexandria 
 rejoicing; of their enjoyment being heightened by the news that “ New 
 Hampshire had, on the 21st instant, acceded to the new confederacy by a 
 majority of eleven voices ;” and of “ pouring a libation to the prosperity of 
 the ten states that had actually adopted ” the constitution. 
 
 To Governor Johnston, of North Carolina, June 19, 1789, be writes of 
 
46 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 “ the political relation which is to subsist hereafter between the state of 
 North Carolina and the states now in union." 
 
 To Madison, Aug. 3, 1*788, he writes of the time when “ the states begin 
 to act under the new form and to General Lincoln, Oct. 26, 1788, that 
 whoever shall be found to “ enjoy the confidence of the states so far as to 
 be elected Vice-President ” will be acceptable to him should he be Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 It is well also to note here his endorsement of the expressions of James 
 Wilson and John Dickinson, given below. 
 
 These and numerous other expressions, not incompatible with his wish 
 for a strong and efficient federal government, and a lasting union, settle 
 beyond doubt Washington’s view that the states acceded to the federal 
 system as parties to a compact, and were to act as sovereigns “ under the 
 new form.” It will be shown in a subsequent chapter, by abundance of 
 proof, that state sovereignty in the union was an essential part of Washington’s 
 political creed. 
 
 Dr. Franklin considered the constitution to be a compact between 
 sovereign states ; and he proposed, in the convention of 1787, the second 
 branch of the federal congress, wherein “ each state should have equal 
 suffrage,” to secure “the sovereignties of the individual states ” and “their 
 authority over their own citizens." [V. Ell. Deb., 266]. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE FIVE NEXT IN RANK; 
 
 John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Tench Coxe, and 
 Samuel Adams, may be regarded as the five next in rank — if not equal — to 
 those quoted, in efficiency and influence, and fully their peers in patriotism, 
 ability and zeal, in striving for “ a more perfect union,” and “ a more efficient 
 government.” 
 
 John Dickinson, who was at one time president of Delaware, and at 
 another of Pennsylvania, was a leading statesman and political writer of 
 that period, and a most influential member of the federal convention. In 
 one of his remarkable letters, he characterizes the new political system as 
 “a confederacy of republics,” “in which the sovereignty of each state 
 is represented with equal suffrage in one legislative body, the people of each 
 state * * * in another, and the sovereignties and people * * * 
 
 conjointly represented in a president.” [II. Writings of Dickinson 107.] 
 
THE ARCHITECTS’ IDEA OF THE EDIFICE. 47 
 
 The views of Dickinson were those of Washington, as appears from a 
 letter of the latter to John Vaughan, dated April 27, 1788. 
 
 Gouverneur Morris, afterward minister to France, and United States 
 senator from New York, the accomplished statesman to whom, in the federal 
 convention, in which he was a delegate from Pennsylvania, was entrusted 
 the re-writing of the constitution, who, having changed these words, “ We 
 the people of the states,” etc., as adopted by the convention, to “ We, the 
 paople of the united states,” must he supposed to know their meaning, 
 declared, years afterward, that “ the constitution was a compact, not between 
 individuals, but between political societies, * * * each enjoying 
 
 sovereign power, and, of course, equal rights.” [III. Life of G. Morris , 
 p. 193]. 
 
 James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, a member of both the federal and 
 state conventions, a strenuous advocate for a strong government, and after- 
 ward one of the ablest of the federal supreme judges, called the general 
 government “ a federal body of our own creation,” using “ our ” to designate 
 the people of Pennsylvania, whom he was addressing, and whose ratification 
 he was advocating; he stated the object of the convention of 1787, to be 
 to induce the states “to confederate anew on better principles,” [V. Ell. 
 Deb., 158] ; and he said, in an address early in October, 1787, which was 
 published generally in the papers of that day, “ Let it be remembered that 
 the business of the federal convention was not local, but general ; not 
 limited to the views and establishments of a single state, but co-extensive 
 with the continent, and comprehending the views and establishments of 
 thirteen independent sovereignties.” [II. American Museum, 379; Mass. 
 Centinel, Oct. 24, 1787]. This very address was emphatically approved 
 by General Washington in a letter to David Stuart, dated October 17, 1787. 
 
 Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading statesmen, and most 
 lucid political writers of that period, said that though the federal consti- 
 tution was to be adopted by the people, “ yet it was to be done in their 
 capacities as citizens of the several members of our confederacy. * * 
 
 Had the federal convention meant to exclude the idea of union, that is, of 
 several and separate sovereignties joining in a confederacy , they would 
 have said, ‘We, the people of America,’ for union necessarily involves the 
 idea of competent states, which complete consolidation excludes. But the 
 severalty of the states is frequently recognised in the most distinct manner, 
 in the course of the constitution.” [III. American Museum, 160, 244]. j 
 
48 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, than whom 
 none was more patriotic and zealous, or more active, influential, and able in 
 establishing the federal polity, declared, in the convention of Massachusetts, 
 that the amendment proposed by her (and afterwards adopted by the states,) 
 that “ all powers not expressly delegated by the constitution were reserved 
 to the several states,” was “ consonant with the second article of the present 
 confederation, that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and inde- 
 pendence, and every power * * * not expressly delegated to the 
 united states.” [II. Ell. Deb., p. 131]. And he wrote to Eldridge Gerry, 
 in congress, that this amendment, which he urged the adoption of, would 
 be “a line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal powers vested in 
 Congress, and the distinct sovereignty of the several states , upon which 
 the private and personal rights of the (izens depend.” [III. Life of 
 Samuel Adams' Letter to It. H. Lee, Jn 4, 1789 ; also letter to Eldridge 
 Gerry,] 
 
 ANOTHER DECADE 0? TNESSES. 
 
 r! 
 
 The mass of evidence is already overwlu.. A-.ig, but for the purpose of 
 grouping, for general use, the principal C( temporaneous statements of what 
 our system of government is, and likewise of showing how studious the 
 expositors of the Massachusetts school must have been, to avoid citing and 
 fairly presenting the real authorities on this momentous subject, I will 
 add the testimony of ten more of 
 
 « * * * the few, the immortal names 
 That were not born to die.” 
 
 Roger Sherman, one of the committee to draw up the Declaration of 
 Independence, and a signer of the same, a member of the federal convention, 
 and of the ratifying convention of Connecticut, declared that “ the govern- 
 ment of the United States was instituted by a number of sovereign states 
 for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their 
 interests.” * 
 
 The Shermans of to-day have “ swapped ” their grandsire for Story, and 
 having turned away from the steady light of the old beacon, their eyes are 
 dancing after will-o’-the-wisps. 
 
 Oliver Ellsworth, who was afterward chief-justice of the United 
 States, spoke of the union as a “ confederation,” and said: “the constitution 
 
 * The citation for.this is misplaced ; but in VI. Life and Times of John Adams, 440, will be found 
 the same statement of Sherman’s views, with but slight verbal changes. 
 
THE ARCHITECTS’ IDEA OF TIIE EDIFICE. 
 
 49 
 
 does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies — states in their political capa- 
 city,” but only provides for legal coercion of individual citizens. [II. Ell. 
 Deb., 197], 
 
 Chancellor Pendleton, the president of the ratifying convention of 
 Virginia, spoke of the people of Virginia as “ the fountain of all power,’* 
 and said : “ If we [Virginia], find it to our interest to be intimately connected 
 with the other twelve states, to establish one common government, and bind 
 in one ligament the strength of the thirteen states, we shall find it necessary 
 to delegate powers proportionate to that end ; for the delegation of adequate 
 powers in this government, is no less necessary than in our state government. 
 [III. Ell. Deb., 297]. 
 
 John Marshall, afterwards e celebrated chief-justice of the United 
 States, said, in the same convex in reference to the fear expressed by 
 Henry and Mason, that “a sta light be called at the bar of the federal 
 court,” and judicial coercion bt attempted: “ it is not rational to suppose 
 that THE SOVEREIGN POWER si \ild be dragged before a court” [Ibid., 
 
 555]. 
 
 James Iredell, one of the aief statesman of North Carolina, after- 
 wards on the supreme bench of ti_ union, expressed similar views, and said 
 he thought the federal senate “ necessary to preserve completely the SOVE- 
 REIGNTY of the states.” [IV. Ell. Deb., 133]. 
 
 FrSHER Ames, the great orator of Massachusetts, afterwards her senator 
 in Congress, and one of her most eminent statesmen, said in her convention : 
 “ the senators represent the SOVEREIGNTY of the states * * * in the 
 
 qualities of ambassadors.” [II. Ell. Deb., 4G]. 
 
 Theophilus Parsons, “ the celebrated chief-justice ” of Massachusetts, 
 one of the ablest and most influential members of her convention, said that 
 the senate was designed “ to preserve the sovereignty of the states.” 
 [See Memoirs of P., p. 98]. 
 
 Christopher G-ore, also one of her leading statesmen, said on the 
 same occasion: “ The senate represents the SOVEREIGNTY of the states.” 
 
 [II. Ell. Deb., 18]. 
 
 Governor James Bowdoin, sa ! d in the same convention, in advocacy 
 of the new system, that “ without a confederacy the several states, being 
 distinct sovereignties, * * * would determine the disputes that 
 
 might arise, * * * by the law of na.ure, which is the right of the 
 
 strongest.” [II. Ell. Deb., 129j. 
 
50 
 
 A G E N E II A L VIEW. 
 
 George Cabot, another statesmen of high rank in Massachusetts, said 
 in his argument for the constitution : “ The senate is a representation of 
 the sovereignty of the individual states.” [Ibid. 26 ; see also Memoirs 
 of Parsons]. 
 
 ONLY A FEDERATION OF SOVEREIGNTIES WAS POSSIBLE. 
 
 Many more such extracts might be presented, but these will suffice ; for 
 among the leading fathers, there was no dissent. Indeed there could be, 
 on this subject, no difference of opinion, since the states were equal ; no 
 authority was above them ; sovereignty belonged to each commonwealth as 
 an essential part of her nature ; every organic law expressed or implied it ; 
 and the solemn league between the states declared that each retained her 
 sovereignty. This all-comprehensive right must have remained in her till 
 she completed the work, a id, of course, afterwards. The established status 
 of these commonwealths, and the law of their beings, absolutely controlled 
 the action of the fathers. Moreover, these were members, citizens, subjects 
 and servants of their respective states, and had no authority whatever to 
 hind them, and a fortiori none to impair their integrity and sovereignty. 
 The said states associated, and bound themselves by name, as distinct and 
 complete political bodies, [art. I, § 2, and art. VII] ; declared their compact 
 of association to be established “ between the states so [i. e. by their respec- 
 tive conventions] ratifying the same,” [art. VII.] ; and provided for 
 governing themselves in federal matters, by electing and empowering their 
 own citizens and subjects, as their servants and agents, to perform govern- 
 mental duties. [Art. I, §§ 2, 3; art. II, § 1]. 
 
 I show, then, in this chapter, not only that the fathers declared the union 
 to be a federation of sovereignties ; but that equal, distinct and sovereign 
 states, could not combine for general government, by any other system. 
 And we shall see that all federal history supports me. The views of the 
 great architects will be hereinafter given more at length. 
 
 | The very authors of the great movement for “ a more perfect union,” and 
 “ a more efficient general government,” were the men that made the above 
 utterances. They were the very men who laboriously matured each and all 
 of the provisions of the constitution ; who represented the people, knew 
 their will, and tried to do it ; whose every explanation was corroborated, 
 and position sustained, by the final sovereign acts of their respective states, 
 ns will be quoted and shown; and who were all selected afterward by the 
 )! 
 
THE ARCHITECTS' IDEA OF THE EDIFICE. 
 
 01 
 
 people, to carry the organized system into effect. Not a molehill can be 
 built up opposite to this mountain of testimony. 
 
 PROFESSORS OF FACT, AS WELL AS LAW, WANTED. 
 
 In conclusion of this chapter, I must express the hope that certain of 
 our professors of constitutional law, will become professors of constitutional 
 facts, and in future editions of The History of the Constitution , The 
 Constitutional Convention , The Political Grammar , etc., etc., quote and 
 comment on the foregoing, and numerous other kindred passages, which 
 the records of the country contain, and which must appear in any true 
 history, or unsophistical exposition of our federal system ; also that our 
 lawyers, editors, politicians, and so-called statesmen, may learn from the 
 above and subsequent extracts, what few of them seem to know, namely , 
 that state sovereignty is not a mere deduction, made by Jefferson and others, 
 after the federal compact was formed, and expressed originally in the Reso- 
 lutions of 1798 and 1799; but is a great and indestructible fact or entity, 
 which was recognized by all the fathers, as essential and vital to each com- 
 monwealth of the federalised states, as an integral part of such state's being. 
 Jefferson only bore the relation to state sovereignty, that the advocate does 
 to the pre-existent truth he utters or expounds. 
 
 \ 
 
CHAPTER VIII. — The subject is facts. 
 
 
 c&i 
 
 1 £ 
 
 N an exposition of our general polity, we have mainly to do with 
 pre-existent sovereign states, and their actions, as facts ; with 
 their general constitution as a fact ; with testimonies as to its 
 character, derived from public records and historic statements ; with contem- 
 poraneous explanations of meanings and understandings, by statesmen and 
 states; and, finally, with technical definitions by publicists. These are all 
 matters of fact, and our system — fully evidenced by them— is itself a 
 stupendous fact or entity to be described. 
 
 INTERPRETATION COMES AFTER ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 After the constitution was established and completed, as a political entity, 
 and was susceptible of being characterized, and technically named, the 
 congress of the states, on the 13th of September, 1788, recommended to 
 the several commonwealths, that they should proceed to appoint electors of 
 President, and elect their delegations to the congress ; and that on the Alh 
 March , 1789 , “the Congress, together with the President , should, without 
 delay , proceed to execute this constitution.’’ 
 
 When they “proceeded to execute” their duties, these sworn officials, 
 upon finding some word, phrase, sentence or clause, that was ambiguous, or 
 otherwise doubtful, reached, for the first time, the field of interpretation. 
 But this could have nothing to do with the pre-established system, in which 
 they were to work. A law under a monarchy, aristocracy or republic, 
 would require one and the same construction, to determine its meaning, if 
 couched in the same terms ; and the ascertaining of duty or rights from 
 doubtful words and phrases, is a. very different thing from describing and 
 characterising the political system or form of government, by the func- 
 tionaries of which the said language may be used. The essentials and the 
 
THE SUBJECT IS FACTS. 
 
 62 
 
 character of the system were fixed and passed in the beginning, as facts or 
 truths ; but interpretation will go on to the last syllable oi language, and of 
 recorded time. 
 
 SO-CALLED SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 "While commenting on this subject, I will use as a text, an erroneous 
 statement of Hon. George T. Curtis, especially as he is now considered the 
 best representative — if not the chief teacher, of the so-called “ Massachu- 
 setts School.” In a letter dated July 25th, 1868, is the following passage: 
 
 “ There have always been, in this country, two schools of interpretation, 
 taking opposite views of the constitution of the united states,” etc. 
 
 I shall now try to show that this assertion is incorrect, and likely to 
 mislead. Whether the constitution is a compact or not ; and whether it 
 makes a federation of the states, or nationalizes them into one state — are 
 questions of fact to be settled by the instrument and historical evidences. 
 Look at the map, and reflect a moment upon the states there represented ; 
 we see communities — each thoroughly organized and capacitated to do every 
 possible act of a nation. They are political entities — established facts, as ? 
 palpable and distinct as the stones of a pavement or the pillars of a colonnade. 
 We find, in the historical records, that each state, at the very time that all 
 were framing, discussing, and ratifying the constitution, was sovereign, and 
 was so described by herself in her organic law, and by all the states in the 
 federal compact, just as George III. had done by treaty. We find also, in 
 the same reeords, that each of the states, in ratifying the constitution, did 
 it in her own time, place, and convention, and by her own absolute vote — 
 the first state ratifying December 7, 1787, and the last, May 20, 1790. 
 And, lastly, we find from article VII. that the constitution was to be 
 “ established between the states so [i. e. by convention] ratifying.” These 
 are facts which even Deity cannot destroy or impair ; and they, according 
 to all publicists, precisely fill up the definition of a league or union of states, 
 just as, according to all lawyers, certain facts fill the definition of murder or 
 larceny.* « 
 
 Now, a class of persons in our country have persistently asserted these 
 
 • Jeremy Bentham in liis Fragment on Government, [p. 12,] says that any one who speaks or writes 
 on the subject of law, takes on himself two charact rs, that of expositor, and that of t ensor. “ It 
 belongs to the former to explain what he supposes the law is ; to the latter to tell us what he th'nks 
 it oug.it to be. The former, therefore, is principally occupied in stating, or in inquiring alter, ja&s, 
 the latter in discussing reasons. 
 
54 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW 
 
 facts in political writings, speeches, state papers, commentaries, party plat’ 
 forms, and law books. They recognize as so many absolute political entities 
 the united republics of America— in other words, “the United States of 
 America” — this being the descriptive phrase of the constitution, the title 
 of the federation. They simply repeat the truth. They neither form nor 
 belong to any “school of interpretation.” 
 
 But after forty years had passed over our federal system, during which 
 all its friends held the idea of associated states, and the kindred idea that the 
 people were sovereign commonwealths which, in self-government, separately 
 attended to all home affairs, and jointly to a few general and all foreign 
 affairs, there arose and grew, under the auspices of Nathan Dane, Joseph 
 Story and Daniel Webster, what is called “ the Massachusetts school.” 
 
 THE CHIEF EXPOUNDERS. 
 
 Dane was an original enemy of the constitution, and he probably wished 
 his strictures to pass as expositions : Story, broad-minded, thought a grand 
 nation, and power among nations, might, could, would and should grow 
 from construction, and he was in the potential mood ; and moreover, his 
 construction meant fabrication : while Webster, as the advocate, aimed at 
 the triumph and pecuniary advantage of his state and section ; and directed 
 his great intellect, and luminous logic, to the sophistical disproof of his 
 own principles, viz : that “ the original parties to the constitution were the 
 thirteen confederated states,” and that their constitutional obligations “ rest 
 on compact and plighted faith.” These are his very words, which, when he 
 approached his final account, he substantially reiterated — but alas ! too late; 
 for he had then produced those “public convictions,” as Mr. Curtis calls 
 them, which brought war and wo ! As to Mr. Curtis, he seems merely to 
 repeat and amplify what the others have written or said. 
 
 THE “ SCHOOL ” WAS ONE OF PERVERSION. 
 
 Even this was not a “school of interpretation,” as Mr. Curt's would fain 
 have us believe, for its dogmas were not the result of interpretation, but 
 were assertions of fact which were true or false, and which, at the time the 
 constitution was being established “ between the states ratifying the same,’ 
 were charged upon the federal system by its enemies, and disproved by its 
 friends. 
 
 Mr. Webster taught the said dogmas in 1830-33, substantially as follows : 
 
THE SUBJECT IS FACTS. 
 
 55 
 
 that the constitution was made by the people of all the states, acting as one 
 state or nation ; that they therein divided the powers they chose to grant, 
 between their general and local governments ; that their said constitution, 
 is far as it went, “ effectually controlled state sovereignty ” — thus reducing 
 states to provinces, or counties, but “expressly leserving” to them such 
 political rights and powers ” as it wished them to possess ; and that the 
 right of determining the extent of its powers, belonged to the government 
 .tself. Story’s teachings were similar. Lincoln substantially repeated 
 :hese ideas in 1861, as did the Philadelphia conveution of 1866, and the 
 New York World, in its issue of June 3d, 1868 ! 
 
 All these expounders assert, that the constitution contains these ideas, 
 though in fact, no words of it express or imply them. Nor can they be 
 evolved by construction. They were, as facts, true or untrue, when the 
 3onstitution was discussed by the states, and, a fortiori , when it was ratified 
 by nine of them, and thereby established. Hence the proof of the action 
 bf the commonwealths, and the solemn statements of the fathers, herein 
 faithfully given, and to be presented, are of infinite importance, for they 
 end doubt, and the pseudo “ school of interpretation,” at the same time. 
 
 In 1787-8, these very ideas were unavai.ingly urged as charges against 
 the federal system by Lowndes, Henry, Martin, Yates, Lansing, and other 
 enemies thereof ; and but for the disproof of them by Hamilton, Madison, 
 Wilson, Dickinson and others, the said system would have been overwhelm- 
 ingly defeated. The constitution was fully established, and it formed a 
 federation or not, in July, 1788. Such a thing as practical interpretation 
 could not then arise, for it was thereafter that the government provided for 
 had to be elected, organized, installed, and set to work under the constitu- 
 tion; and it was only after these things were done, that, in congress and 
 the courts, interpretations to find the in'ent of specific articles or clauses 
 could be had, or were needed. Hence the peculiar views concerning our 
 polity, which distinguish “the Massachusetts school,” do not entitle it to be 
 called a “school of interpreta ion.” It asserts as a fact, that our federal 
 instrument constitutes a state or nation , when the truth is, it constitutes a 
 union of states or federation. Should we not call it a school of fiction, or 
 school of perversion ? 
 
 “SCHOOL” IS A MISNOMER, EXCEPT IN THE SENSE OF FLOCK. 
 
 Nor do the professed exegetieal efforts of the faculty on leading questions 
 seem to entitle them to be called a “school,” in any sense, for, 
 
A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 56 
 
 1st. They assert, as a fact, that the united states are a national unity 
 or state, because the preamble says : “ ‘ We, the people of the United States, 
 do ordain and establish this constitution;’ ’’ when the phrase itself disproves 
 the assertion, necessitating, as it does, pre-existent commonwealths, which, 
 being independent, must voluntarily have come together, as thirteen persons 
 would, for a common purpose, without the associates losing their indivi- 
 duality. This alone is decisive ; and the phrases “ united states,” “ union 
 of states,” “citizens of states;” the fact that the states are named in the 
 instrument; the seventh and characterizing article, and the numerous 
 historical proofs of the falsity of the assertion, need not be adduced. 2d. 
 They assert that the article declaring the constitution to be “the supreme 
 law of the land,” makes the government which springs from the law, and 
 is subject to the law, supreme over the law-maker. Stating their contention, 
 is the reductio ad absurdum. 3d. They say that while the “ constitution ” 
 created a national sovereignty for certain “ specified purposes, it expressly 
 reserved to the states all other political rights and powers.” [ World. June 
 3, 1868; Lincoln, 1861]. As to the “national sovereignty,” see the last 
 point. A government in a republic cannot be a sovereignty at all. It can 
 only have delegated powers, and be the creature and subordinate of the 
 delegators. It (the constitution) reserves nothing ; but the states that 
 made it, “reserved” all they did not delegate. 4th. They speak of the 
 “constitution prohibiting” states from “laying duties,” “keeping troops 
 without consent of Congress,” “coining money,” etc., etc. [See Mr. 
 Curtis’s letter to The Round Table, July 25, 1868]; whereas these 
 so-called prohibitions are self-imposed restrictions upon the states, which 
 the constitution merely evidences. 
 
 These few of the numerous “ interpretations ” show what sort of a school 
 the so-called interpreters of Massachusetts keep. If the word simply 
 implies gregariousness, its propriety cannot be questioned, for the gather- 
 ing and following have been large. But aside from interest, 'the only reason 
 for the following is best given by Jeremy Bentham, in his Fragment on 
 Government , [page 25.] 
 
 “Under the sanction of a great name, every string of words, however 
 unmeaning, will have a certain currency. Reputation adds weight to sen- 
 timents which, had they stood alone, might have drawn nothing, perhaps, 
 but contempt. * * * Wonderful is that influence which is gained over 
 
 young minds by the man who, on account of whatever class of merit, 
 
THE SUBJECT IS FACTS. 
 
 57 
 
 is esteemed in tlie character of a preceptor. Those who have derived, or 
 fancy they have derived, knowledge from what he knows, or appears to 
 know, will naturally be for judging as he judges, reasoning as he reasons, 
 approving as he approves, and condemning as he condemns.” 
 
 It is surprising, and indeed humiliating, to see how dependent and gre- 
 garious the most of our learned commentators, critics, editors, and statesmen 
 are, even in matters of high and momentous duty, requiring independent 
 and conscientious judgment. All must follow some bell. For instance, in 
 our day we have numerous expositors getting an idea or prejudice from 
 Webster or Story, and never looking at the basis of it, but spending the 
 rest of their lives in obtaining sustenance for it, and passing by, in the 
 grop’ng and culling search, innumerable shining, aye, almost dazzling gems 
 of couilter-truth, without noticing them. 
 
 A PASSING TRIBUTB TO THE OLD BAY STATE 
 
 In proceeding to show that the whole ground of controversy between the 
 federal and the national theories, is covered by averments of fact, or 
 inferences therefrom ; and that, as the one theory is plain truth, ar.d the 
 other plain untruth, the American people should stop the controversy at 
 once, by branding as falsifiers one or the other of the two sets of dogmatists ; 
 it is but fair and dutiful to distinguish between the commonwealth of Mas- 
 sachusetts, and those unworthy sons, who call themselves, or are called “ the 
 Massachusetts school ” of interpretation, while they sap her statehood, per- 
 vert her faith, and tarnish her name. 
 
 In history, she is the most conspicuous of the authors, vindicators, and 
 examplars of American institutional liberty. Her principles, firmly estab- 
 lished, and indelibly written by herself are set forth in the preceding chap- 
 ters; and the dogmas of the so-called “Massachusetts school” not only find 
 no sanction in her early and genuine history, but are decisively refute 1 and 
 belied thereby. And though her record may now be suppressed, her wis- 
 dom silenced, and her patriotism lulled to sleep, by sophists and scheming 
 politicians, yet her heart is the heart of humanity, whose impulses are pure 
 and just; and it will finally prove to be as true to liberty, as the needle to 
 the pole : 
 
 * Compulsion, from its destined coimbo, 
 
 The magnet may awhile detain ; 
 
 But, when no more with eld by force. 
 
 It trembles to its aorth’ again.” 
 
53 
 
 A fiEXE R A Tj VIEW. 
 
 AVERMENTS OF FACT— SKELETON OF ARGUMENT. 
 
 The following propositions will show the subject to be exclusively one of 
 fact, while they exhibit the scope of the present work. The nerves, sinews, 
 veins, flesh and blood, wdl grow upon the skeleton in the subsequent pages, 
 and, perhaps make of it “ a form of life and light.” 
 
 . THE REPUBLIC. 
 
 1. The state is people thereof : they are the state. 
 
 2. No other organization of self-governing' people exists. 
 
 3. Such societies alone are “the people of the united states.” 
 
 4. “ All political power is inherent” in such societies. 
 
 5. So the state constitutions declare or imply. 
 
 6. Hence each state is sovereign, i. e. has the “ all-power.” 
 
 7. It is a completely organized, self-governing body. 
 
 8. The people fre not sovereign as individuals. 
 
 9. Sovereignty is only predicable of the organized people. 
 
 10. Societal organization was completed, in forming the state. 
 
 11. Hence, the alleged national society was impossible. 
 
 12. All the states have agreed that each is sovereign. 
 
 13. That is to say, each has the right of self-government. 
 
 14. The voting citizens hold and wield the governing power. 
 
 15. The voter’s authority is an endowment by the state. 
 
 16. With it the voters express the sovereign will. 
 
 17. Such state is the republic, or self-governing people. 
 
 18. It is the only possible dwelling of sovereign mind. 
 
 19. Making constitutions and governing, are functional acts. 
 
 20. The state’s mind is intact after, as before such action. 
 
 THE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS. 
 
 21. The states in union are the republic of republics. 
 
 22. If nation there be, they arc the integers — not fractions. 
 
 23. Hamilton called them the “ essential component parts.” 
 
 24. Joel Barlow called the states in union fbderalised states. 
 
 25. The fathers all similarly characterised the system. 
 
 26. It answers to Montesquieu’s “republic of republics.” 
 
 27. Its members are moral or corporate, not natural persons. 
 
 28. The general sovereignty is that of the states allied. 
 
THE SUBJECT IS FACTS. 
 
 59 
 
 29. They severally delegate “ powers,” not sovereignty. 
 
 30. Their constitution only contains de’egations. 
 
 31. The convention of ’87 called it a “delegation” and a “trust.” 
 
 32. So Washington wrote, by their “unanimous order.” 
 
 33. The constitution itself fully sustains the averment. 
 
 34. All not delegated are reserved — kept out of the pact. 
 
 35. These delegations cannot belong to “ trustees ” or “ agents.” 
 
 36. Such powers must belong to the delegating states. 
 
 37. Hence, the federal government cannot be sovereign 
 
 38. Hence, too, each ratifying and delegating state is so. 
 
 39. Each state ratified by exerting her mind and will. 
 
 40. This alone subjected her people to the constitution. 
 
 41. Hence, 13 states “ ordained and established ” the compact. 
 
 CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 42. Citizens remained “ citizens of different states.” 
 
 43. So the federal compact declares and implies. 
 
 44. The state alone has authority to govern her citizens. 
 
 45. The federal powers they obey, are delegated by her. 
 
 46. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal obligations. 
 
 47. Protection is due from the society to the member. 
 
 48. Allegiance is due from the said citizen to society. 
 
 49. The tie of allegiance, then, is the social compact. 
 
 50. By this compact, the will of all wholly governs each. 
 
 51. This is the sole cohesive force of a republic. 
 
 52. All citizens are members and sub ects of states. 
 
 53. The transfer of citizenship would dissolve the state. 
 
 54. Citizenship or allegiance was never transferred. 
 
 55. President Jackson greatly erred in saying it was.* 
 
 * TREASON. 
 
 56. Treason is a citizen’s breach of allegiance to his sovereign. 
 
 57. The society is the sovereign, and object of the crime. 
 
 58. “Treason against the U. S.” is “levying war against them. 
 
 59. It is not “levying war against” the nation or government. 
 
 60. Nor is it “levying war against” the union or association. 
 
 61. But it is “levying war against” the described “ states." 
 
GO 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 62. A co-action of state wills established and defined the crime. 
 
 63. The power to try and to punish it, is delegated by each state. 
 
 64. Obviously the crime is against the guilty citizen’s state. 
 
 65. Davis and Lee were true to their respective states. 
 
 66. Hence they were patriots and not traitors. 
 
 TRUE PATP.IOTISM IS FIDELITY TO TIIE COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 True patriotism must be devotion and fidelity to one’s commonwealth. 
 Her institutes or laws, whether federal or domestic, must be obeyed b.y him, 
 because she commands it. The state, voluntarily joined in defining the 
 crime of treason against the united states, and punishing it. If one of 
 them reverse her will, and disjoin herself, the duty and the crime cease, for 
 cessante ratione legis cessat lex. 
 
 GOVERNMENT IS MENTAL AND FUNCTIONAL ACTION. 
 
 The only mind exercised was that of the commonwealth Such acts are 
 natural, being just what society was formed for, and being just as little 
 calculated to destroy, or, in any wise impair, the “ moral person,” i. e. the 
 body-politic, as the functional action of the brain, heart, lungs, or stomach 
 are to do so to the natural person. A republican commonwealth’s acts of 
 self-government, whether m making constitutions or government, or acting 
 under them, are entirely functional, and not self-destructive or revolu- 
 tionary , and the mistake of supposing the states were resolved into a new 
 state by the voluntary and separate action of the thirteen, is alike pitiable 
 and pernicious. If the “public conviction” that this was done, was as Mr. 
 Curtis claims, brought about by Daniel Webster, that great man is to be 
 credited with hav.ng produced our “abomination of desolati n'’ — the war 
 against statehood, resulting in the destruction of our glorious common- 
 wealths ! 
 
 TIIE MINDS OF THE POLITICAL BODIES STILL LIVE. 
 
 As the establishment of the federal system was an act of mind, the 
 acting wills must have lasted through the work they begun, because they 
 had to complete it, and afterwards cause obedience to it ; and because the 
 future duty of amendment, by the same wi Is, was contemplated and pro- 
 vided for: and accordingly it lias been since done several times. 
 
 The same mental organism now exists in working order, with complete 
 
THE SUBJECT IS FACTS. 
 
 01 
 
 individuality, and separate mind and will. The states are not nationalised 
 or consolidated into one. Nor are they in any respect changed either in 
 form or substance. They still are the “ union of states,” or “ united states : ” 
 but their wills are enslaved — deprived of volition ! so that the union, once 
 voluntary — is now constrained ; and once “ free, sovereign and independent 
 sates” are shackled! — the once proud commonwealths of America are 
 remanded to their old provincialism ! and brought under the most heartless' 
 and unconscionable of all despotisms — a corporate monarchy 1 
 
CHAPTER IX. — Conclusive Evidence. 
 
 3 [ 0 quote Massachusetts and New York, .on the vital points pro- 
 
 P ounc ^ herein, will astonish and instruct the most of our 
 1 people, while it will show an ample and solid basis for the 
 foregoing theory, and mark a decisive step in the great argument. And 
 their august testimony is all the more fit and forcible, from their being 
 the main sources of perverting exposition, or so-called interpretation. 
 
 As the people, in the functional performance of self-government, must 
 act as they are organized and capacitated to do, and govern through agents, 
 the security of their statehood and freedom must mainly be the honor and 
 ability of their functionaries. And “ the constitution,” as Daniel Webster 
 said, “lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty,” for its 
 “ preservation,” requiring solemn oaths from its officials ; so that one of 
 them, who “ acts outside of the constitution ,” and uses powers not delegated, 
 i. e. powers retained or kept, by the states, out of the constitution, is a 
 perjured usurper, as well as a traitor. 
 
 So, as to the preservation of the union by the commonwealths. They 
 must observe and act on the terms, through oath-bound agents or represen- 
 tatives ; and the sacred faith of each is pledged ; so that, if the terms be 
 violated, we have not only official perjury, but an exhibition of Punic faith 
 which should subject the violators to outlawry under the jus gentium. 
 
 In a most studied report on the Missouri question, made to the people 
 ef Boston, in 1819, by Webster and others, as a committee, [see Appendix 
 E], he says that “ the only •parties to the constitution, contemplated by it 
 originally, were the thirteen confederated states;” and that the terms of 
 their union “ rest on compact and plighted faith.” The above expressions 
 show that the hold, and perhaps the only hold, on rulers and states, is on 
 their morality, honor, good faith and conscience — these, in fact, from the 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 03 
 
 nature of the case, being the main securities of either republican or federal 
 liberty. 
 
 Now, let Freedom “ lay her hand on the individual conscience, and the 
 individual duty” of Massachusetts and New York, for a statement of then 
 record as to what our polity is. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 .si 
 
 Assuming her to be what all publicists say a state is — “a moral person ; 
 crediting her with mind and moral sense ; and appealing to her honor, 
 plighted faith and conscience, she is respectfully asked wh it status and 
 condition a state has in the union ? She answers with her solemn record, 
 made up most deliberately before the world, and under the eye of God, in 
 the terms now to be given. 
 
 In 17S0. her people, through a convention, and under the inspiration of 
 Freedom, made the declarations now to be quoted; and, decennially, ever 
 since, they have re-declared the same great truths — the very institutes of 
 Freedom ! — all to be found in her present constitution, which supports, in 
 all respects, as will be seen, the idea of the absolute sovereignty of the 
 states in the union, association, or federation — whichever the sy. tern may be 
 called. 
 
 THE OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 “ The end of the institution, maintenance and administration of govern- 
 ment, is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to 
 furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying, in 
 safety and tranquillity, their natural rights, and the blessings of life.” 
 
 TIIE SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 “ The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. 
 It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each 
 citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed 
 by certain laws for the common good.” 
 
 “ We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts,” acknowledging the 
 goodness of God, “ in affording us ” “ an opportunity ” “of entering into 
 an original, explicit and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a 
 new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity, * * 
 
 do agree upon, ordain and establish the following declaration of rights, and 
 
64 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 frame of government, as the constitution of the commonwealth of Massa- 
 chusetts.” 
 
 A constituting or establishing of the body-politic, more formal and 
 explicit, if possible, is the following, in part second of the constitution : 
 
 “ r l he people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of 
 Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree witb eaeh other, 
 to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent lody-politic, or 
 state, by the name of — the commonwealth of Massachusetts.” 
 
 This great exemplar of liberty here declares most emphatically, that the 
 phrases “the people,” “ the body-politic,” “ the state,” and “ the common- 
 wealth,” mean the same, as to political existence, and capacity for self- 
 government. It should be ever kept in mind that “ the people” are “the 
 state,” and “ the state ” “ the people.” 
 
 NO SOVEREIGNTY IN GOVERNMENT— ALL FUNCTIONARIES AGENTS. 
 
 “All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from 
 them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with autho- 
 rity whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and 
 AGENTS, and are at all times accountable to them.” 
 
 THE STATE CAN CHANGE GOVERNMENT AT WILL. 
 
 “Government is instituted for the common good: for the protection, 
 safety, prosperity and happiness of the people. Therefore the people alone 
 have an ineontestible, inalienable, and indefeasible right to institute govern- 
 ment, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protec- 
 tion, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” 
 
 THE STATE TO REMAIN SOVEREIGN OVER GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Upon declaring the above, she seemed to stop — deeply reflect — gather 
 strength of will and expression — and imperially declare ; as if to prevent 
 forever the possibility of agency swelling to sovereignty, and lising above 
 the states that establish it : “ that the people of this commonwealth have 
 the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, SOVEREIGN 
 and independent state , and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and 
 enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not here- 
 after be, by them, expressly delegated to the united states of America, in 
 Congress assembled.” 
 
 « 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 rs 
 
 In conformity with this declaration that “the people of this common- 
 wealth" have the “exclusive right cf governing themselves” “as a sove- 
 reign state;" and that they “will forever exercise” every power whi h is 
 not “by them delegated ” to the associated states ; Massachusetts most care- 
 fully puts her whole adult male population on a war footing ; and commands 
 her governor to use them, to “kill, slay, and destroy,” all such persons 
 (including of course federal ones) as “shall attempt the destruction, inva- 
 sion, detriment, or annoyance of this commonwealth ; ” she exacts an oath 
 of allegiance from all offic als, military or other ; and punishes a violation 
 of the same, or treason, with death — all of which will be fully shown 
 further along. 
 
 NEW YORK TESTIFIES IDEM SONANS. 
 
 In 1776, she, as a provincial body-politic, joined twelve others, in declar- 
 ing their independence. Each was represented by her own deputies, and 
 they were thus able to coaet in congress. Whatever was done, was by 
 a concurrence of individual wills. 
 
 In 1777, her first constitution was established, containing the following 
 absolute declarations of sovereign right — principles essential to liberty, and 
 the same yesterday, to-day, and forever ! 
 
 Considering herself to be the supplanter of British sovereignty, she 
 declared as follows : “ All power whatever therein, [i. e. in the state of 
 New York] hath reverted to the people thereof ; and this convention hath, 
 by their suffrages and free choice, been appointed and authorized to institute 
 and establish a government, * * calculated to secure the rights and 
 
 liberties of the good people of this state. * * 
 
 1st. This convention, therefore, in the name, and by the authority of 
 the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine, and declare : that “ no 
 authority shall , on any pretence whatever , he exercised over the people or 
 members of this state, hut such as shall he derived from , or granted hy 
 them" 
 
 She began the century now closing, with this declaration ; and, though 
 her fundamental law has been several times reconstructed, this declaration 
 stands now ! and it will stand forever ! for no authority but hers is ever to 
 be exercised on her soil ! 
 
 She further declares, in her present organic law of government, that “ the 
 sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the 
 
66 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 boundary thereof, * * but the extent of such jurisdiction, over places 
 
 that have been or may be ceded to the united states, shall be qualified by 
 the terms of such cession.” [Const. N. Y.] * 
 
 She also declares it to be “the duty of the Governor, and all subordinate 
 officers, to maintain and defend her sovereignty and jurisdiction.” [N. Y. 
 Rev. Stat. Ch. I„ Tit. 2.] 
 
 She also declares as follows, concerning the 
 
 LORDSHIP OF THE SOIL, OR EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 “ The people of this state, in their right of sovereignty, are deemed to 
 possess the original and ultimate property in, and to, all lands within the 
 jurisdiction of this state ; and all lands, the title of which shall fail from a 
 defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the people.” [Const’n. N. Y., 
 Art. I., Sec. 2.] 
 
 Virginia expresses it as follows : 
 
 “ All escheats, penalties, and forfeitures, heretofore going to the king, 
 shall go to the commonwealth,” [Const’n Va.] ; and Judge Kent states the 
 American doctrine to be, that “ the state steps in place of the feudal lord, 
 by virtue of its sovereignty , as the original and ultimate proprietor of all 
 the lands within its jurisdiction.” 
 
 FEDERAL SITES. 
 
 The treatment of Uncle Sam by these high and mighty potentates, is 
 quite consistent with their imperial words. 
 
 Massachusetts and New York grant to the united states (not to the 
 nation or government, but to the said states,) sites for arsenals, forts, navy- 
 yards, light-houses, post-offices, etc., relying ou their solemnly plighted faith , 
 not only to guaranty and secure the states, in being and acting as republics, 
 or absolutely self-governing peoples, but to use the said sites solely for the 
 defence “and welfare” of said states. The sites of forts Warren, Lafayette, 
 Delaware, Monroe, Moultrie, and others, are acquired and held by the 
 united states from the respective states, in which they are situated, on con- 
 ditions such as the following, in the act ceding the use and jurisdiction of 
 the site of the Brooklyn Navy-yard : “ The united states are to retain such 
 
 On this sub ect, Massachusetts declares as follows: “ The sovereignty aud jurisdiction of the com- 
 monwealth, extend to all places within the boundaries thereof; subject only to such rights of con- 
 current jurisdiction, as have been, or may be granted over any places ceded by the commonwealth to 
 the united s.ates.” [See Rev. Stat. of Mass., ed. 1836, p. 56.] 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 67 
 
 use and jurisdiction so long as said tract shall be applied to the defence and 
 safety of the city and port of New York, and no longer, [“ defence and 
 safety of the said state, and no longer,” are the words in the Watervleit 
 arsenal cession.] * * But the jurisdiction hereby ceded, and the exemp- 
 
 tion from taxation herein granted, shall continue in respect to said property, 
 and to each portion thereof, so long as the same shall remain the property 
 of the united states, and be used for the purposes aforesaid, and no longer ;” 
 [see also statutes of Mass., June 17, 1800 ; June 2.0, 1816 ; April 23, 
 1847; April 21, 1848; May 4, 1853: Stat. Pa., April 18, 1795; Feb. 
 1, 1796 : Stat: Va., March, 1, 1821 ; and Stat. S. C., December 19, 1805. 
 There are over 50 of these acts in the statutes of Massachusetts, and over 
 150 in those of New York.] 
 
 SUMMING UP THE TESTIMONY; 
 
 Let us now analyse and reduce to avermenfts of fact, the statement of 
 these august witnesses. They show conclusively : 
 
 1. That “all power is inherent in the people ” of the state; and that 
 the phrases: “the sovereign and independent body-politic,” “the common- 
 wealth,” “the state,” and “the people,” are all used in one and the same 
 declaration as synonymous. And, to preclude doubt, Massachusetts redeclares 
 her sovereignty with still greater emphasis, as follows : “ The people of this 
 commonwealth have the sole add exclusive right of governing themselves as 
 a free, sovereign , and independent state." 
 
 2 . That no power ever goes out of the state, except by delegation ; that 
 all power belongs to the state as much after delegation as before ; and that 
 delegated power’s must necessarily be used, for the state , hy her “ substitute's 
 and agents." 
 
 3. That all the powers in the general government are delegated by, and 
 derived from, “ the sovereign and independent bodies-politie,” — that is to 
 say, “the commonwealths” or “the states” — “the people having no polit- 
 ical existence, and capacity for political action, except -as such “bodies 
 politic,” or “states,” Said Mr. Webster : “No such thing as sovereignty of 
 government,” “is known in North America.” “ With us, all power is with 
 the people.” [Speech of 1833.] 
 
 4. That the said “ people,” “ body-politic,” “ commonwealth,” or “ state ” 
 have an ft inalienable and indefeasible right to institute, reform, alter, or 
 totally change government,” whenever they think proper. 
 
68 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 5. That no authority can be exercised in the state but that derived from 
 the people thereof, i. e. “the sovereign body-politic,” “the commonwealth,” 
 “ the state.” 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW IN A STATE BY HER WILL. 
 
 It follows, as will be shown more fully hereafter, that the general govern- 
 ment or its functionaries enter Massachusetts or New York solely by her 
 permission ; that they command or control persons or things in her territory 
 solely for her, and by virtue of her authority]; and that “the united states,’ 
 (net the government, except as an agent or instrument of the united states,) 
 hold use and jurisdiction of sites for forts, navy-yards, etc. from her, for the 
 6ole purpose of her and her sisters’ defence and safety, under her grant, 
 and subject to her conditions. 
 
 The fact ot state supremacy will be more plain, if we note and weigh 
 the only act which makes the federal constitution law in Massachusetts. 
 These are the ordaining words : “ The convention, in behalf of the people 
 of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, do assent to, and ratify the consti- 
 tution.” Now York ordained the supreme law in the same way. 
 
 The truth is the states are sovereign, and all the institutions and rulers 
 of the union arc subordinate. The states are as Hamilton said, “ the essen- 
 tial component parts of the union ” of states, or “ the united states ; ” and 
 the federal government is merely the creation, the instrument, and the sub- 
 ject of the states — the declaration of the Philadelphia Convention of 1366, 
 that “the Government” has absolute supremacy,” and that both people and 
 states are alike allegiant to it, being only worthy of derision and contempt. 
 Equally unworthy of respect is that queer figment or fabrication of Webster 
 and Curtis, as to the social compact forming the people of the united states 
 into a state. 
 
 EXPOSE JE OF THE FALLACY OF A NEW SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 Nay more, this theory is so egregious a blunder, that ridicule is only 
 disarmed by pity, while argument turns away with scorn. The very object 
 of forming men into society, and giving them a collective capacity to act f 
 is government. Hence, in sending deputies to devise, in holding conven- 
 tions to consider and ratify, and in electing agents to administer, the general 
 constitution, the states were exercising the God-given right of self-govern- 
 ment, and doing only natural and functional acts ; and were not dissolving 
 themselves, or yielding their sovereignty. Accordingly, we find no hint in 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 C9 
 
 all American history, tending to show that the people, or the states, were 
 in 1787 and 1788, forming society ; while all history, and all the records of 
 the country show that they were establishing government for preformed and 
 preexistent societies. So much for the Webster and Curtis social compact, 
 and involuntary union ! 
 
 Again, these societies had, by successful revolt, changed themselves from 
 provinces to “free, sovereign, and independent states ,’ — that is to say, they 
 had gained the right of self-government — that peculiar thing that alone dis- 
 tinguishes a state from a province or county. These states had this right 
 in 1787, and then voluntarily acted with, and according to it, each with her 
 own separate will, in her own separate time, and through her own separate 
 convention, ratifying, and, as to herself, ordaining the constitution. When 
 did each state lose the great right referred to ? When did the voluntary 
 union become an involuntary one ? 
 
 POLITICALLY, THE PEOPLE EXIST AND ACT AS A STATE. 
 
 The states, and their absolute individuality, being stubborn facts that will 
 not “down” at any “bidding” whatever, no one can argue correctly on 
 these subjects, who does not start with a conception of them as “ moral 
 persons,” each with mind and will, and only capacitated to act on political 
 matters, as such persons , and through such minds. 
 
 Says Yattel, [p. 14.] A state, or “political society, is a moral person, 
 inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will, of which it makes use for 
 the conduct of its affairs ; and is capable of obligations and rights.” Again, 
 [p. 1.] “ The authority of all over each member, essentially belongs to 
 
 the body-politic or state.” Blackstone and Montesquieu teach the same 
 idea. 
 
 Said Wm. H. Seward, at Auburn, New York, October 20, 1865: “This 
 absolute existence of the states which constitute the republic, is the most 
 palpable of all the facts which the American statesman has to deal with. 
 * * The states were, before the American union was. * * * Our 
 
 federal republic forever must exist, through — not the creation, but — the com- 
 bination of these several free , self -existing, stubborn states. * * They 
 
 are living, growing, majestic trees, whose roots are widely spread, and inter- 
 laced within the soil, and whose shade covers the earth.” 
 
 As will be seen, all history, and all the fathers show that the common- 
 wealths must be kept in mind in all reasoning on political subjects, as “ the 
 
70 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 most palpable of all the facts the American statesman has to deal with.” 
 They must be kept in mind as “ the parties to the compact ; ” the members 
 of “the confederacy the “essential component parts of the union and 
 “the sovereigns” of their respective territories. These are the phrases of 
 that other great son of New York, Alexander Hamilton, used in reference 
 to the present system. 
 
 THE STUMBLING BLOCK OF THE “ EXPOUNDERS.” 
 
 The Massachusetts school are loth to admit “the people,” and “the 
 sovereign body-politic or state,” to be one and the same ; and that the 
 collective people in question, form a “ moral person,” and must act as such 
 in government. They seem to think that the existence and action of dis- 
 tinct and free political minds, make the union “ a rope of sand ; ” and they 
 are unwilling to admit that the said association depends on moral cohesive 
 force, instead of coercive power. They simply fail to “ rise to the height of 
 the great argument” of God and our lathers — that the people are capable 
 of' self-government, and that the union is one of pre-existent and absolutely 
 distinct commonwealths, uniting themselves voluntarily, on the grounds 
 dlone of amity and mutual interest. 
 
 THE “SACRED TIES” ACCORDING TO WASHINGTON 
 
 George Washington, in his letter to R. H. Lee, August 22, 1785, 
 says: “There is nothing which binds one country or state to another, but 
 interest: without this cement, the Western inhabitants can have no predi- 
 lection for us ; and a commercial connection is the only tie we can have 
 upon them.” 
 
 Two years afterwards, viz : July 19, 1787, he wrote to the same : “ Till 
 you get low down the Ohio, I conceive that it would be to the interest of 
 the inhabitants thereof, to bring their produce to our ports : and sure I am, 
 there is no other tie by which they will long form a link in the chain of 
 federal union.” 
 
 About five years afterward, and about three years after the federal system 
 had gone into effect, viz: August 26, 1792, he wrote to Hamilton, counsel- 
 ling mutual forbearance, conciliation and accommodation, and such healing 
 measures as may restore harmony to the discordant members of the union.” 
 “ Without these,” continued he, “ I do not see how the union of the states 
 can much longer be preserved.” 
 
 These extracts, and the whole Farewell Address, promulgated in 1796, 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 71 
 
 show his idea to have been, that amicable feeling and mutual interest were 
 principal among “the sacred ties that bind together the various parts.” After 
 showing the sentimental basis, he speaks thus : “ But these considerations) 
 however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibilities, are greatly 
 outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest;” 
 and then he goes on to enumerate the many grounds of interest, which 
 should motive the people to preserve the union. [See Farewell Address.] 
 
 It is well here to say, that in all Washington’s political writings — the 
 pith of which will be found in a subsequent chapter, he nowhere hints at 
 that coercive preservation of the union, which the expounders of to-day 
 claim to be the duty of “ the government,” but which the framers of the 
 constitution carefully considered, severely reprobated, and rigidly excluded, 
 as will hereafter be most conclusively shown. 
 
 THE SACRED TIES ” ACCORDING TO JACKSON AND BURKE. 
 
 Instead of saying, as by some he is quoted — “ The union must and shall 
 be preserved,” Andrew Jackson says : “But the constitution cannot be 
 maintained, nor the union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the 
 mere exertion of the coercive powers of government : the foundations must 
 be laid on the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty 
 and property, in every quarter of the country, and in the fraternal attach- 
 ments which the citizens of the several states bear to one another, as 
 members of one political family.” 
 
 Edmund Burke’s grand voice sounded consonantly and appositely in 
 the British Parliament: “ My hold on the colonies,” said he, “is the close 
 affection that grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar 
 privileges, and equal protection. These are ties, which though light as 
 air, are strong as iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil 
 rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, 
 and no power under heaven will be able to tear them from your allegiance.” 
 But continued he, “ the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and every 
 thing hastens to decay and dissolution,” if they are deprived of their privi- 
 leges, and subjected to wrong and oppression. 
 
 THE UNION IS ONLY VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENTS. 
 
 These great men do but express the truth, that none but voluntary ties 
 of union can exist among associate republics; for when involuntariness 
 
72 
 
 A GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 supervc lies, the republic ceases. Iu the case before us, the associates guar- 
 anty to each commonwealth, that she shall continue to be, and act as a 
 republic , i. e. govern herself. [Const’n. Art. IV, See. 4.] If she be kept 
 tied to any thing, be it tree, wall, or union, against her will, she is not free, 
 or republican. 
 
 If the safety and interest of the parties be secured, and justice done to 
 them in the union, contentment and amity, the elements of “ domestic 
 tranquillity,” are sure to follow. And if the American republics remain, 
 as they were — the prim um mobile of all government, ruling collectively in 
 federal matters, and severally in local ; if the idea of an involuntary union 
 be abandoned ; if mutual good-will and mutual justice prevail, so that the 
 commonwealths desire to remain united ; and, finally, if the general govern- 
 ing authority faithfully do that — and no more — which the functionaries of 
 it are all sworn to do; the “essential component parts of the union,” as 
 Hamilton called them, will never wish to be sundered, but will remain 
 united by ties, which are “strong as iron,” “though light as air 1” 
 
 “UNION AND LIBERTY, NOW AND FOREVER!” 
 
 In beginning the second century of “union and liberty,” which means 
 federal liberty , we should take a new — or rather retake the old departure. 
 Liberty dwells, and must ever dwell, not in the league or union, and not in 
 the constitution of government, but — in the republics ; and the people, col- 
 lectively and individually, must feel , use , and enjoy it. . This is what God 
 and our fathers intended ; what Massachusetts and New York so imperially 
 declare ; and what, under their lead, we should patriotically stave for, now, 
 henceforth, and forever ! 
 
 LET US PRESERVE THE COMMONWEALTHS.' 
 
 Self-preservation is alike the first law of nature, and the first duty of 
 those to whom the Almighty has given a sentient existence. Men have 
 an individual being, and, in society, a corporate one— both of God. And 
 when the commonwealth exercises its mind, or, in the last resort, its physical 
 force, in preserving itself and its freedom, it is acting precisely according 
 to the above law and duty, and the members are bound by the social com- 
 pact to obey her. They thus individually and collectively exercise the 
 right, and discharge the duty of self-preservation ; and at this ever-to-be- 
 remembered epoch, the highest moral obligation devolves on Massachusetts, 
 
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 73 
 
 to say nothing of New York, to take the lead again, and promulgate her 
 sacred and glorious principles of liberty. And henceforth, every new state, 
 or old one, requiring a new constitution, should copy that of Massachu- 
 setts, as to social compact, bill of rights, and even form of government. 
 Fs pounders can then no longer dispute, hide, or pervert the tiuth. 
 
 LET ALL DECLARE THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY. 
 
 And let all the commonwealths determine to be such, from this year for- 
 ward ; and let them respectively declare in the language of the great 
 exemplar — the Old Bay State : 
 
 That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right 
 of governing themselves , as a free, sovereign , and independent state ; and 
 they will forever exercise every power and right, which may not be by 
 them expressly delegated t o the united states, assembled in congress ; 
 
 That all power , residing originally in the people , and being derived from 
 them, all officers of government are their substitutes and agents , and are at 
 all times accountable to them ; 
 
 And, finally, that the people of the commonwealth alone, have an in- 
 alienable and indefeasible right to institute government , and to reform, alter 
 or totally change the same, whenever they think their safety and happiness 
 require it. 
 
 THE STATES ARE NOW PROVINCIALISED. 
 
 Before July 4, 1776, the nascent states were provinces, their wills being 
 controlled, and they kept in dominion, by a power exterior to themselves, 
 and over their wills. At that time, they became “ free, sovereign, and 
 independent” parties to a voluntary and a happy union. In 1876, we find 
 them again subject to an exterior will, in all matters deemed by that will 
 necessary and proper. The mind and power that rule at Washington, 
 claim and enforce “ absolute supremacy.” Sovereign wills in states did 
 exist , and act , in forming the present union : they exist no more ! In what, 
 said Lincoln, are our states better than counties? He knew they were 
 subjugated, and that “ the government" had changed itself from agency 
 to sovereignty — “ the very way," said Burke — and it cannot be quoted too 
 often — “ in which all the free magistracies of the world have been perverted 
 from their purposes." 
 
74 
 
 A GENERAL VIE AV . 
 
 INVOCATION. 
 
 People of the united states ! let us begin the new century by close adher- 
 ence to the union of our fathers; the union of sovereign and independent 
 
 commonwealths ; the voluntary union that Lee and Davis, and Seward and 
 Chase, were educated to believe in, and revere ! Let the fasces be always 
 lowered before the supreme sovereignty of the people. Spurn the idea 
 of <£ absolute supremacy of government" in a republic ! Ever regard your 
 general constitution of it, as federal, and based on the commonwealths — the 
 rock of original power. If you leave it on the shifting sands, “ great 
 will be the fall of it !” and in the ensuing night and sorrow of despotism, 
 you will come 
 
 “ To think, as the damned haply think of the heaven 
 They once had in their reach, that you might have been free." ' 
 
 May God preserve and bless the American commonwealths, and may 
 their motto ever be : “ union and liberty ! now and forever 1 one and 
 inseparable 1” 
 
 * 
 
PART II. 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
CHAPTER I. — The actors — their motives and purposes. 
 
 HE thirteen states or commonwealths of America that united 
 their strength to achieve independence ; and afterwards federated 
 *1 to establish a general government, and secure their statehood and 
 freedom; were so many “moral persons,” (as Yattel calls them) distinct in 
 existence — distinct in body — and distinct in mind and will. Each had its 
 own name, geography, people, social organization and political authority. 
 
 When in 1787, these bodies proposed to associate themselves in a “more 
 perfect union,” and to establish a “ more efficient general government,” it was 
 perfectly obvious that they could only act, in doing [so, through their res- 
 pective wills, as they had done in their previous association. 
 
 By their successful revolt, they became sovereigns in place of Great 
 Britain, ipso facto, changing themselves from provinces to states, or com- 
 monwealths. 
 
 These bodies of people were organized and capacitated to act, politically, 
 as individuals. Each had its own mind, with the characteristics and modes 
 of action that the mind of the natural person has, to-wit : perceptive 
 faculties, reasoning powers, judgment and will — a convention being the 
 organ for ascertaining and expressing such will. This governing will must 
 survive its making of a constitution ; as otherwise it cannot command and 
 enforce obedience on its subjects, or reform, change or abolish its works, if 
 subsequent experience show it to be defective, harmful or unpromotive of 
 the desired ends. These political beings act, each with its own mind, and, 
 of right, consider and decide all governmental questions ; for each is a 
 republic or self-governing people, which must provide for its own defence 
 and welfare, and settle for itself, directly or indirectly, all questions of 
 interest, policy, or principle, as well as of right and duty. 
 
 At the epoch mentioned, these states were considering the subject of a 
 
78 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 permanent federal system, which should “provide for the common defence 
 and promote the general welfare” of themselves — that is to say, of “the 
 people” that constituted them. 
 
 In September, 1786, in pursuance of a call upon the states, “commis- 
 sioners ” from the commonwealths of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware and Virginia, met at Annapolis, to consider a commercial policy 
 for the union ; but as only five of the thirteen states appeared, they con- 
 tented themselves with a recommendation that a convention of commissioners 
 of states should be held at Philadelphia, in May, 1787, “ to devise such 
 further provisions, as shall * * render the constitution of the federal 
 
 government adequate to the exigencies of the union.'' [I. Eli. Deb. 116]. 
 
 In the appendix hereof, will be found extracts from all the commissions 
 of the deputies of the states to the convention of 1787, showing the 
 universal idea to be, the “ uniting of the sentiments and councils of all the 
 states,” in changing the old “ federal constitution,” as it was called, into 
 such new one, as “will be adequate to the exigencies of the federal govern- 
 ment, and the preservation of the union, when “ agreed to in congress, and 
 confirmed by the several states.” [For full credentials see I. Ell. Deb., 
 126 ]. 
 
 STATEHOOD TO REMAIN INTACT. 
 
 It will be seen that, throughout all the deliberations up to the adoption, 
 the prevailing aim and understanding was, that the states should keep their 
 statehood and sovereignty intact, and should accomplish their purpose by 
 delegating, but not surrendering or alienating powers. 
 
 William Patterson, of New Jersey, made a statement in the convention 
 of 1787, that shows most clearly the principle that finally prevailed. After 
 saying that all the commissions of the delegates required them to revise, 
 alter, and amend the articles of union, he proceeded as follows : “ Can we, 
 on this ground, form a national government? I fancy not. Our commis- 
 sions give a complexion to the business ; and we cannot suppose that when 
 we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings. 
 .We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent sovereign states, 
 for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty, and form one 
 nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our states, who have sent us here 
 for other purposes ? * * * 
 
 But it is said that this national government is to act on individuals, and 
 
THE ACTORS— THEIR MOTIVES AND PURPOSES. 79 
 
 not on states ; and cannot a federal government be so framed as to operate 
 in the same way? It surely may. I, therefore, declare that 1 never will 
 consent to such a system. Myself or my state will never submit to tyranny 
 or despotism.” [I. Ell. Deb., 403]. 
 
 We shall see, in our progress, that both in the convention, and before the 
 people, the federalists completely overcame the nationalists. 
 
 We shall see statehood completely preserved — the pre-existent unchanged 
 states being named in the compact, and provided for, to act, with their 
 respective wills, in government, and future amendment. 
 
 W e shall see that the constitution was to be ratified, and thereby ordained 
 and established, by separate but associating commonwealths, acting through 
 their respective conventions ; all history and the solemn records proving 
 this action (and no other') to have given life and vigor to the constitution. 
 
 We shall see that the government was to be endowed with power solely * 
 by the states, not to act on and over the states, but on their citizens and 
 subjects; that coercion of states was considered as war, and prohibited; 
 and that the new plan was intended to be merely. “ the federal government 
 of these states,” and the “ delegation ” of an “ extensive trust”— as Wash- 
 ington wrote to the congress, “ by unanimous order of the convention,” 
 which had laboriously devised the plan, and must be supposed to have 
 thoroughly understood their own work. [See I. Ell. Deb., 305.] 
 
 In the next ensuing chapters, however, my purpose is to show that the 
 states in 1788, federalised themselves, “ to form a more perfect union” of 
 states than their previous one; and to institute a stronger and “more 
 efficient federal government” than the one of 1778; that they are the 
 be-all and the end-all of the system ; and that the second is a more pro- 
 nounced confederacy than the first. 
 
 THE CHIEF AIMS OF THE STATES. 
 
 They desired to be united, because they were neighbors, on the same 
 expanse of territory ; were of common origin, and similar political organi- 
 zation ; held the same principles and views of government; and finally had 
 the same needs — in considerable part, as to home, and altogether, as to 
 foreign policy. 
 
 Their leading aims and ideas were'. 
 
 1. “To unite in one ligament the strength of thirteen states ” — to use 
 the words of Chancellor Pendleton, in the Virginia ratifying convention. 
 
80 
 
 FEDERALISAT10N. 
 
 2. To enable themselves to act as one nation, or power, in foreign 
 affairs. 
 
 3. For economy, convenience, and good neighborhood, they sought to 
 establish an agency of governmental affairs that were common to all. 
 
 4. To close up as many as they could of possible points of controversy 
 among themselves, as neighboring powers or states. Those settled ceased 
 to be, while those unsettled remained international. 
 
 5. That each state should exclusively govern in home affairs. 
 
 6. That statehood, and the sovereignty of the states, should be preserved 
 unqualifiedly and forever ! 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL CHANGES CONTEMPLATED 
 
 were the following : 
 
 1. A complete government was to be provided for in the new plan; 
 while the old was only a legislature, without executive or judicial powers, 
 and without any power to effectuate its so-called laws. 
 
 2. The new government was to operate directly on the'individual sub- 
 jects, having authority delegated, by the sovereigns, for that purpose, while 
 the old could neither coerce states nor people. 
 
 3. The unlimited power to levy and collect taxes, for providing for the 
 common defence, etc., was to be in the new, but was not in the old govern- 
 ment. 
 
 4. Commerce, the currency, and some other subjects of less though 
 great importance, were to be put in the new project, though they were not 
 under the old government. 
 
 These were the most essential changes ; and they were devised with great 
 deliberation, study and care, by the most eminent and able citizens, sub- 
 jects, and deputies of the aforesaid commonwealths. And to give the new 
 institution a higher and more majestic sanction, than that of the old, the 
 communities of people themselves, through their conventions, and not their 
 agencies, were to adopt it, so as to have the fabric “ rest on the solid basis 
 of the consent of the people." [Federalist, 22.] 
 
 In fine, the states federalised, and did not nationalise themselves. The 
 former would necessarily be done by equal sovereigns, while the latter would 
 make them counties or provinces of a nation, remanding them to their 
 British condition. 
 
 All history shows that to each state the question was put : Will you 
 
THE ACTORS — T HEIR MOTIVES AND PURPOSES. 8! 
 
 adopt this instrument , and become a party ? Thirteen finally answered 
 yes — each expressing her own absolutely uncontrolled will — by ratifying 
 through their respective conventions ; and became the thirteen united states 
 — thirteen united sisters — thirteen united sovereigns — or thirteen united 
 eommonwealths. 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON FEDERALISATION. 
 
 I will now proceed to show how each state as a body-politic gave to the 
 federal compact i;s only validity within her borders ; how the thirteen states 
 devised and created the federal system as a mode and agency for exercising 
 their self-government in their general affairs, and considered the constitution 
 of it as an addition to their respective fundamental laws ; how the powers 
 delegated were trusts to be exercised by their elected subjects, who col- 
 lectively form the federal government ; and how the said compact, and the 
 government under it, were to be, and remain in necessary subordination to 
 the associated states.* 
 
 All this will be shown by a full and careful exhibition of the acts of the 
 states themselves, and the contemporaneous explanations of the fathers,, who 
 represented and acted for them. We shall see that the great design of the 
 states was, (as Joel Barlow expressed it) to “federalise” themselves, and 
 to avoid consolidation ; to make a federal and to avoid a consolidated 
 government; in other words, to remain in the necessary condition of allied 
 sovereigns, governing themselves — jointly by a federal government, and 
 severally by state governments. 
 
 It will be seen that each of all the thirteen states, of her own motion, 
 in her own time, by her own law, and in the plenitude of her own sovereign 
 will, held a convention, and therein carefully deliberated and finally decided 
 as a state, independently of the authority of the other states of the so-calle 1 
 nation, and of all the world, to “assent to and ratify” the federal constitu- 
 tion, i. e., to become a party thereto, and to give the said constitution, and 
 the government it provided for, existence and jurisdiction within her borders. 
 
 *The first edition of his work was publish® 1 ; n Engl -ud in the an mm r of ISO"), and largely circn** 
 lated in America ; md the seco id was issued in New York, early in 1866. So tar as the author knows 
 it was then t >e on y work e ;ta it, put ing the f»d *ril - onstituti *n, in a given state, on its actual fend 
 only legal basis, a» the offspring oi the wdl of that state, expressed by ratification, through a con- 
 vention. 
 
 Mr. H. Stephens’ valuable and instructive work entitled “ the War Between The States,” Vol. L 
 published n 1868, apparently adopts the same view, and gives mainly the same evidence and argu- 
 ments. But it must lie said, wit due de.eretice, that Mr. Stephens falls into the cardinal error of sup- 
 posing sovereignty to be divisib e into powers, and susceptible of delegation and reservation : and 
 moreover utters the glaring lallacy that sovereignty can befcubject to the powers it delegates, “so 
 long as the delegated power is imresumed.” These errors will be duly noticed . 
 
62 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 Infcrentially, article YII of the compact, conclusively proves all this, for it 
 declares that “the ratification” of nine states shall suffice for “the estab- 
 lishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same;” 
 but this is not enough, for I wish to show the perversions to be not only 
 baseless and base, but sins against light and knowledge. 
 
 In giving the history of each state’s action in ratifying the federal com- 
 pact, I shall quote her ordaining words, which are of infinite importance, 
 as the only expression of sovereign legislative will, that ever made the con- 
 stitution “ the supreme law,” or indeed, any law at all, in any state. It will 
 be found that the fake charges which well nigh defeated the system, are 
 identical with the fallacious expositions of “the Massachusetts school” in 
 later times. It will also be seen that though Dane, Story, Webster and 
 Curt’s now assert that a nation was formed, the s ates reduced to subjection, 
 and th government made sovereign, all the fathers are on record to the 
 contrary, in the most direct and positive manner. 
 
 With the name of each commonwealth will be given the order and date 
 of her ratification, as well as her vote in convention. Let us first take the 
 case of Massachusetts. 
 
CHAPTER II. — Massachusetts federalises herself. 
 
 THE SIXTH TO RATIFY— VOTE 187 TO 1G8— DATE FEB. 7, 1788. 
 
 Though Massachusetts was the sixth to ratify, her pre-eminence 
 in making; as well as the efficiency of her “school ” in afterwards 
 destroying, the constitution, and the richness of her record in 
 material for the purpose in hand, make it advisable to present her case first. 
 It will be seen that her record decisively refutes the many volumes of pre- 
 tended constitutional exposition, emanating from her sons and her press ; 
 and that all her history is opposed to the theory of the “ Massachusetts 
 school,” viz: that “the people of the united states,” are a nation i. e.., one 
 sovereign people, represented by a national government, which is possessed 
 of “absolute supremacy” so far as its vested powers go, and is the exclusive 
 judge of the extent of said authority. In those days, she was the stickler, 
 par excellence , fur state sovereignty ; took the lead in demanding amendments 
 to secure it, and had a boasted influence to that end, on the subsequently 
 ratifying states ; and she, as will be seen, was the very proposer of the 
 celebrated Tenth Amendment, which, as Samuel Adams explained in the 
 convention — with the assent of all — meant that “ each state retains her 
 sovereignty as well as “ all powers not delegated [II. Ell. Deb., 131]. 
 
 THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OBJECTIONS. 
 
 The opposition charged that the phrase in the preamble, “we the people 
 of the united states * * do ordain and establish this constitution,” 
 
 coupled with the powers given in the instrument, transmuted the preexistent 
 states to a nation, the said states becoming fractional parts, i. e., provinces 
 or counties; that, as the constitution was to be “the supreme law of the 
 land,” the government was to be a supreme power ; and th.it, as this 
 government was to have the unlimited right of taxation, and the control of 
 
84 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 the militia for all national purposes, and was itself to be the judge of the 
 extent of its powers, it followed that so far as the constitution went, “ so 
 far” (to borrow the subsequent phrase from Webster) “state sovereignty 
 was effectually controlled.” It was quite natural that the people should be 
 doubtful and apprehensive, and that much honest as well as wrongful oppo- 
 sition should be made, for the federal convention had de.iberated in secret 
 and the new system had transpired suddenly, wh le its seeming form was 
 unwarranted. The question was whether the sovereignty of the states 
 and the subordination of the government , were preserved in the new system ; 
 and the great fears were, that the instrument consolidated the states into a 
 nation ; or established a government that could ecntrol the states, and do 
 away with their statehood and sovereignty. 
 
 EVERYBODY OPPOSED TO CONSOLIDATION. 
 
 Washington, under “ the unanimous order of the convention,” reported 
 the new project to congress in a letter, dated September 17, 1787, which 
 contains the following little phrase: “ In all our deliberations on this sub- 
 ject, we kept steadily in our view * * the consolidation of our union.” 
 
 Literally this phrase does not speak of the states; but it is the union of 
 them that is to be consolidated, that is to say, increased in uriity, efficiency 
 and strength, made more solid and strong, and more likely to endure. 
 And, as will now be shown from her debates, this precisely accords with 
 what her statesmen said, in her ratifying convention, in defence of the pro- 
 posed system. One quotation will suffice to present the charge as made in 
 this convention. Hon. Mr. Dench thought “ the words, ‘ we the people,’ 
 in the first clause ordaining the constitution,” and the eighth section of the 
 first article, “ would produce a consolidation of the states, and the moment 
 it begins, a dissolution of the state governments commences.” [II. Ell. 
 Deb., 98, 99]. 
 
 General Brooks immediately replied that the idea that this constitution 
 would produce “consolidation” of the states, or “dissolution” of their 
 governments, was “ ill-founded — or rather, a loose idea. In the first place, 
 the congress under this constitution cannot be organized without repeated 
 acts of the legislatures of the several states ; and, therefore, if the creating 
 power is dissolved, the body to be created cannot exist. In the second 
 place, it is impossible that the general government can exist, unless the 
 governments of the several states are forever existing ; as the qualifications 
 
MASSACHUSETTS FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 85 
 
 of the electors of the federal representatives are to be the same as those of 
 the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. The 
 powers to be given to congress amount only to a consolidation of the 
 strength of the union.” [II. Ell. Deb., 93], This is the same idea that 
 was expressed by the president of the Virginia convention, as the object of 
 union, viz: “ to bind in one ligament the strength of thirteen states.” And 
 all the fathers constantly kept it in view, that the states were combining 
 their strength for defence, as well as joining for convenience, economy and 
 efficiency in the general government of their citizens. 
 
 Colonel Varnum said the purpose of the constitution “was only a 
 consolidation of strength and that the states were not to be consolidated 
 by it, and moreover that the congress provided for, had no right to affect 
 them. “It is,” said he, “the interest of the whole to confederate against 
 a foreign enemy.” [II. Ell. Deb., 78]. 
 
 Hon. James Bowdoin, not only denied that there was danger of con- 
 solidation in the system, but he spoke of it as “ a confederacy which would 
 give security and permanency to the several states that is to say, preserve 
 them. [II. Ell. Deb., 129]. Judge Sumner argued that there was no 
 danger that “ the delegation of these great powers would destroy the state 
 legislatures, * * for the general government depended on them for its 
 
 very existence.” [Ibid. 64]. IIon. Mr. Sedgwick said that “if he 
 thought this constitution consolidated the union of the states, he should be 
 the last man to vote for it.” [II. Ell. Deb., 77. See also Massachusetts 
 Centinel, Eeb. 2, 1788]. 
 
 In the small volume of “debates” of the ratifying convention, published 
 by the state early in the present century, at page 316, is to be found the 
 following account and extracts. Mr. Shurtleff, referring to General 
 Washington’s letter above mentioned, objected that “ the convention said 
 they aimed at a consolidation of the union.” Mr. Parsons, afterwards 
 the Chief Justice of Massachusetts, said there was “a distinction between 
 a consolidation of the states , and a consolidation of the union.” Mr. Jones 
 said that “ the word consolidation had different ideas.” “ Different metals 
 melted into one mass,” he said, illustrated one, and “ several twigs tied into 
 one bundle,” the other. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Dana, afterwards Chief Justice of Massachusetts, said, in 
 the same debate, that “ if this government was a consolidation instead of a 
 confederation, he should think the number [of representatives] too small. 
 
86 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 But, as it is federal , and we have our own governments to support, the 
 expense [of a larger number] would be too great.” [Memoirs of Chief 
 Justice Parsons, p. 93]. George Cabot, writing to Judge Parsons, 
 February 28, 1788, said that one of the great fears of the people was, that 
 the constitution makes “ such a consolidation of the states, as will dissolve 
 their governments,” but that the equal suffrage in the senate “ is security 
 that no measures will ever pass tending in the smallest degree to consolida- 
 tion.” [See Memoirs of Judge Parsons; see also Amory’s Life of Gover- 
 nor Sullivan, p. 534]. 
 
 Fisher Ames, the great Massachusetts statesman and orator, said ; “No 
 argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression than this, 
 that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an effect whLh 
 all good men deprecate. The state governments are essential parts of the 
 system. The senators represent the sovereignty of the states. They are 
 in the quality of ambassadors of the states. * * A consolidation of the 
 
 states * * would subvert the constitution. Too much provision cannot 
 
 be made against consolidation. The state governments represent the 
 wishes, and feelings, and local interests of the people.” He further said 
 that they would “ afford shelter against the abuse of federal power ; ” and 
 that “ the system would be, in practice, as in theory, a federal republic.’’ 
 [II. Ell. Deb. 46]. Though other extracts could be produced, these will 
 suffice. I have piled up this mass of proof to make Massachusetts crush 
 her own sons ; to expose their wickedness, in suppressing or garbling her 
 record, to get pretexts lor violating her sacred faith ; and to prevent further 
 confidence in them as to these subjects. But this is not all ; for the record 
 further shows the direct antithesis of consolidation to have been the solemn 
 understanding on which Massachusetts ratified. Let us see : 
 
 tiie severalty and sovereignty of the states. 
 
 Her wise men in the convention gave to her many and most emphatic 
 assurances on this point. I have just quoted Fisher Ames as saying, “the 
 senators represent the sovereignty of the states.” [II. Ell. Deb. 46]. 
 Judge Pais >ns said the senate was designed “to p eserve the sovereignty 
 of the states.” [See his Memoirs by his son, p. 98]. Christopher Gore, 
 for many years one of her 1 ading statesmen, said, “ the senate represents 
 the sovereignty of the states.” [II. Ell. Deb. 18]. Governor Bowdoin 
 said the states are “distinct sovereignties. [II. Ell. Deb. 129]. George 
 
MASSACHUSETTS FEDER ALISES HERSELF. 
 
 87 
 
 Cabot, afterwards one of ber federal senators, said the “senate is a repre- 
 sentation of the sovereignly of the “individual states.” [II. Ell. Deb. 2G]. 
 Mr. Th..cher said, “ the senate are elected by the legislatures of the different 
 states, and represent their sovereignty .” [II. Ell. Deb. 145]. Samuel 
 Adams said, that under the new constitution, “each state retains her sove- 
 reignty. ” [II. Ell. Deb. 131]. Other similar quotations might be given, 
 but it is not necessary, as none of the fathers dissented, and as the then 
 existing federal compact, and the constitution of Massachusetts, both con- 
 tained assertions of absolute state sovereignty, which the fathers neither 
 sought to. nor could, go behind. 
 
 ‘‘WE, TIIE PEOPLE,” MEANS MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The'phrase, “the people,” was then used in a general sense, as it is now ; 
 for the people of all the states were alike in political condition ; had com- 
 mon sentiments; and aimed at self-government, not only as societies, such 
 as they then were, but as united societies, which they were then seeking 
 to become. Their contemplated self-federalisaticn was for convenience, 
 economy, and united strength. “ The people,” then, only existed, and had 
 capacity for political action, as states; and, as these bodies were equal, they 
 must have been respectively sovereign. Consistently with this idea, the 
 organic laws of the states generally declared that “ all power is inherent in 
 the people — the state, making the declaration, referring to herself, of 
 course, for she made it independently, and had no right or reason to make 
 it for any other people. Wherefore, we shall find the phrase, ^ when techni- 
 cally and constitutionally used, to mean the people of a state, or the people 
 of the states, considered as sovereignties. The records of all the states 
 show this, as will be seen. I now proceed to give the conclusive proof 
 Massachusetts affords. Her own record shows her to be as autocratic as 
 the Czar, in decreeing her institutions, state and federal ; as well as in her 
 present political status. When her people, as a separately and thoroughly 
 organized colony, assumed independence, and “by asocial compact,'' to use 
 their own words, formed themselves into a state, they solemnly preambled 
 as iollows: Thanking God for the opportunity of deliberately entering into 
 “an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other,” and “forming 
 a new constitution of civil government for themselves and posterity,” they 
 declare that “ We, the people of Massachusetts, * * do agree upon» 
 
 ordain, and establish, the following declaration of rights, and frame of 
 
S3 
 
 FEDERAL IS A TION 
 
 government, as the constitution of the commonwealth of M issachusetts.” 
 And it in nowise qualifies the sovereign character of the said “ We-the- 
 people,”’ that they establish a federal government, for this must exist by 
 their creation — hold their powers in trust, — and hence remain subordinate 
 to them. Indeed, the same fundamental law that I have just quoted from 
 declares that “ the people of the commonwealth have the sole and exclu- 
 sive right of governing themselves as a free , sovereign and independent 
 state;" and that they “forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every 
 power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not * * by them expressly dele- 
 
 gated to the united states in congress assembled.” [See the present consti- 
 tution of Massachusetts, Part I, Art. 5]. 
 
 WHAT HER STATESMEN MEANT BY “WE, THE PEOPLE.” 
 
 We see, from the above fundamental law, that her delegates, agents and 
 servants, whether in the federal or state convention, were absolutely bound 
 to mean her alone, when they spoke, or wrote the phrase, “ We, the peo- 
 ple for, collectively, they were her mouth -piece, and were only authorized 
 to speak the voice of her power. Let us see what they say. I shall quote 
 somewhat copiously, as the debate is very instructive, and as Massachusetts 
 completely destroys the theory of “ the Massachusetts school.” 
 
 Dr. Charles Jarvis, an able member of the convention said: “Under 
 what authority are we acting? * * We are convened in right of the 
 
 people, as their immediate representatives, to execute the most important 
 trust which it is possible to receive.” “ He considered the constitution as 
 an elective democracy, in which the sovereignty still rested in the people ,” 
 i. e., remained where it had been — in the state. He further spoke of the 
 convention as 11 the whole people of M issachusetts, assembled ly their dele- 
 gates ,” and said: We are “at liberty to resolve in what form this trust 
 shall be executed.” “ We have a right to receive or reject the constitution.” 
 [II. Ell. Deb., 151]. 
 
 Samuel Stillman, a prominent member of the convention, after 
 showing that the president, the senate, and the house of representatives, 
 are to be elected by or for “ the people of the several states ,” continued: 
 “ It will be their own fault, then, if they,” [i. e., the people of a given 
 state] do not choose the best men in the commonwealth. Who are congress, 
 then ? They are ourselves — the men of our choice, in whom we confide ; 
 
MASSACHUSETTS FEDERALTSES HERSELF. 
 
 89 
 
 whrse interest is inseparably connected with our own.” [II. Ell. Deb., 
 167]. 
 
 Hos. Charles Turner said : “ I know great powers are necessary to 
 be given to congress, but 1 wish they may be well guarded.” I know not 
 whether this convention will vote a ratification of this constitution or not. 
 If they should do it, and have the concurrence of the other states ,” etc. 
 [II. Ell. Deb., 32, 171]. 
 
 James Bowdoin, afterwards governor, said: “All power is derived 
 mediately or immediately fiom the people , in all the constitutions. This is 
 the case with the federal constitution. The electors of representatives to 
 the state governments are electors of representatives to the federal govern- 
 ment.” Speaking of the power of imposing taxes, duties, etc., he said : 
 11 The states empower congress to raise money.” He further said : “ Shall 
 toe, then, toe of this state , who are so much interested in this matter, deny 
 them that power — a power so essential to our political happiness ? * * 
 
 Whether such power be given, by the proposed constitution, it is left with 
 the conventions of the several states , and with us, who compose one of them. 
 to determine.” [II. Ell. Deb., 81; see also Ibid. 125, et sef\. 
 
 Theophilus Parsons, afterwards the noted Chief Justice, characterised 
 the new political arrangement as “ a government, to be administered for the 
 common good, by the servants of the people, vested with delegated powers, 
 by popular elections, at stated periods. The federal constitution establishes 
 a government of this description, and in this case the people divest them- 
 selves of nothing; the government and the powers which congress can 
 adminLter, are the mere result of a compact made by the people with each 
 other for their common defence and general welfare.” He speaks of the 
 powers of government being taken by the people from their state govern- 
 ments, and put in the federal one. Of course the people of the state alone 
 could do this. [See IL. Ell. Deb., 8S, et seq~], 
 
 John Hancock, the president of the convention, as well as governor 
 of the state, spoke of “ the people of this commonwealth ,” as having the 
 absolute right to reject or ratify “ the proposed form of government.” And 
 he considered the federal constitufion as “ the delegating ” of power by 
 “ the people to men who were dependent on them frequently for election.” 
 [II. Ed. Deb., 175]. 
 
 We see, then, that by “ We, the people,” in the preamble of the federal 
 compact, the Massachusetts fathers meant, and could but mean, the people 
 
90 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 of the states as commonw alths ; and that they recognized the said states 
 as the sole sources of power, and as the compacting and ordaining parties 
 to a “ union of states,” formed for “ the common defeuce and general wel- 
 fare.” They unquestionably considered the states as sovereign republics, 
 or self-governing peoples, forming a federal system, or republic of repub- 
 lics.” 
 
 TIIE FEAR OF LOSING STATEHOOD. 
 
 The advocates of the new plan conclusively showed that the precious 
 integrity and sovereignty of the states were untouched by it ; but the 
 public fear could not be thus allayed. The fact was unappreciated, even if 
 known, that the federal convention had repudiated, and excluded from the 
 constitution, all ideas of controlling and coercing states ; and had only 
 given the federal agency legal jurisdiction, and power of coercion, over 
 citizens — such power, of course, coming from, belonging to, and being exer- 
 cised for the states. It was owing to the aforesaid vague and general fear, 
 that a bid of rights, and other limitations of, and safeguards against federal 
 power were generally demanded — with what result on Massachusetts, we 
 shall now sec. 
 
 SHE PROPOSES THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 
 
 Samuel Adams, one of the great revolution ary leaders of Massachu- 
 setts, had, with many others, gone into the convention evidently determined 
 to defeat the constitution — his unfavotable first impression of that instru- 
 ment being indicated by the following extract from a letter to Richard 
 Henry Lee, dated December 3, 1787: “I stumble at the threshold. I 
 meet with a national government, instead of a federal union of sovereign 
 states. * * If the several states are to become one entire nation, under 
 
 one legislature ; its powers to extend to all legislation, and its la vs to be 
 supreme, and control the whole, the idea of sovereignty in these states must 
 be lost.” If he and other leading men had remained under this imp.ession, 
 the federal plan would have been spurned with unanimity, for the ideas 
 which subsequently became Websterian dogmas, had, in those days, no 
 friends and advocates ; and the people of the country were all determined 
 that there should be no consolidation of the states, and that state integrity 
 and sovereignty should be absolutely preserved. 
 
 Late in the session, when everything foretokened overwhelming defeat, 
 
MASSACHUSETTS FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 01 
 
 G-ov. Hancock, representing the leading advocates of the system, came for- 
 ward with “conciliator/ proposition?,” the substance of which was, that 
 Massachusetts should, at the time of her ratification, propose to her sisters 
 several amendments, to secure the integrity of the states, and the subordi- 
 nation of the new government — the most impoi'tant of them being the one 
 which, on her motion, as it were, subsequently became the tenth. When 
 he proposed these amendments, he gave his assent to the constitution, “ in 
 full confidence that the said amendments would soon become a part of the 
 system and said, that as they were “calculated to give security and ease 
 alike to all the states , he thought all would agree to them.” [II. Ell. Deb- 
 175]. The effect of these “conciliatory propositions” can be best seen 
 from the response of Samuel Adams. Said he: “ Tour Excellency’s first 
 proposition is, ‘that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly 
 delegated to Congress, are reserved to the several states to be by them exer- 
 cised.’ This appears, to my mind to be a summary of a bill of rights, 
 which gentlemen are anxious to obtain. * * It is consonant with the 
 
 second article in the present confederation, that each state retains, its sove- 
 reignty * * and every power * * which is not * * expressly 
 
 delegated to the united states in congress assembled.” [II. Ell. Deb. 131]. 
 Confidence (afterwards just.fied by the event) being felt that these amend- 
 ments would be adopted ; and the great opposition leader expressing him- 
 self satisfied, and determined to vote yes. the opponents yielded sufficiently 
 to allow ratification by the very small majority of 19, in a membership of 
 355 votes, the firm and formidable minority still vaguely fearing that the 
 instrument might be susceptible of the very meaning that Dane, Story, and 
 Webster afterwards, by perversion, put upon it. 
 
 TBE AMENDMENT A TRUISM, THOUGH USEFUL. 
 
 But for the understanding that this amendment at least would be added 
 to the compact, the defeat of the system would be certain, though in reality 
 the said amendment could make no change, it being a mere truism, or at 
 best, a gloss, and only tantamount to the declaration, that all powers not 
 given are reserved — a self-evident proposition. Still the general under- 
 standing that such an amendment was to be made, bore a large and useful 
 part in satisf ying the people of several of the states that their sovereignty 
 was preserved in the system, while “ powers ” only, were delegated or trusted 
 to agents. Unquestionably this was the unanimous sentiment and sine qua 
 
92 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 non of Massachusetts. Her idea was, that by virtue of her sovereignty, 
 which was essentially characteristic and inalienable (as her constitution then 
 declared, and as indeed it declares now,) she delegated power just as a prin- 
 cipal would to his agent, to be used for her benefit, and still belonging to 
 her, and subject to her resumptim at will ; and ex abundanti cautela, she 
 declared that all not delegated were reserved. Nay, more, the whole agency 
 was necessarily composed of citizens and subjects of the allied sovereigns, 
 elected by them. The wide distinction between the 'sovereign right of dele- 
 gating authority, and the 'powers impa ted by delegation, was afterwards 
 forcibly expressed by Samuel Adams in a letter to Richard Henry Lee, 
 dated July 4, 1789, as to the object aud importance of this very amend- 
 ment. It is, said he, “ that the good people may clearly see the distinction 
 — for there is a distinction — between the federal poivers vested in con- 
 gress, and the sovereign authority belonging to the several states, which is 
 the palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens.” He say.-, 
 further, he hopes for some judicious amendments, “ so that the whole 
 people may, in every state, contemplate their own safety on solid grounds, 
 and the union of the states be perpetual.” [This, and a like letter to El- 
 bridge Gerry, are in III. Life of S. Adams]. 
 
 Now while Hancock, Adams, Ames, Parsons, Bowdoin and others, were 
 incessantly denying consolidation, and assuring the state that her sovereignty 
 was to be absolute in the new system, why did not some of the Danes, 
 Stcrys, Websters and Curtises, of that day, get up and remark : “ Oh, no, 
 it is not the states, but the nation, that is sovereign ; it is the people of 
 the states, in the aggregate, that now ordain this constitution ; and therein 
 they establish a distribution of their powers between this, their general 
 government, and their several state governments; and, so far as this consti- 
 tution goes, ‘ so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled.’ ” Suppose 
 the great men I have quoted, had, arguendo, uttered these Websteriau dog- 
 mas, would a single vote have been obtained ? But no such idea could have 
 been felt by anybody. Why ? Because Massachusetts, at that moment, 
 had a standing declaration in her organic law — as well as in the then exist- 
 ing “ federal constitution” — that she was a “ sovereign, free and independ- 
 ent state and she then was in the precise character indicated by these 
 superlative and unambiguous words, in convention, determining her will — 
 independently of all the world — as to a federation for herself arid other 
 agreeing states, and a general government for their people ; and, in that 
 
MASSACHUSETTS FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 93 
 
 precise character, she was then and there “ delegating ” — not sovereignty, 
 but — “powers ” to “delegates,” “representatives,” “substitutes,” “agents,” 
 “servants,” “trustees,” etc., as they were uniformly called. 
 
 The quotations I have produced were dissented from by no friend of the 
 constitution ; they entirely contradict the utterances of the Massachusetts 
 expounders ; aud we can now see what a reader must exclaim at every line 
 of the record, that “ this is why Story, Webster and Curtis, never quoted 
 from so proper a source of authority.” 
 
 THE SOLE ORDAINING WAS BY MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The convention ratified the constitution, as follows : “ In convention of 
 the delegates of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. 
 The convention, having impartially discussed and fully considered the 
 constitution for the united states of America, reported to congress by the 
 convention of delegates, * * and submitted to us, by a resolution of 
 
 the general court of the said commonwealth, passed the 25th of Oclober, 
 last, * * do, in the name, and in behalf, of the people of 
 
 the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ASSENT TO AND RATIFY THE 
 said constitution for the united states of America.” 
 
 Not in the name and behalf of any nation, or part of a nation, did the 
 convention deliberate upon, assent to, and ratify the instrument, but it was 
 for the body of people called Massachusetts — a body at the moment abso- 
 lutely sovereign. As to her, the passage of the above ordinance completed 
 the compact; and it was established when nine states did likewise; for, as 
 article VII. declares, it was “ratification” alone that was to establish 
 “ this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” The federal 
 compact, therefore, received its whole life and validity from Massachusetts 
 and the other ratifying states. She and they must have been “ the people 
 of the united states” that did “ordain and establish the constitution.” 
 And as to her territory and people, she alone gave it existence, and its 
 authorities jurisdiction, over them. It was not “the people” as individual 
 voters that ratified, but “ the people ” as states or nations. Massachusetts 
 spoke her sovereign will through her convention, and remained Massachu- 
 setts. No institution, nor anything organic, was changed. Pre-existent 
 states simply made a compact, and the federal system became an addition 
 to the political organism of the country ; and, as it was created by, it 
 belonged absolutely to, the states. Nay more, the administration of it was 
 
94 
 
 FEDEKALIS ATION. 
 
 to be wholly and solely by the subjects of the said states. So that its 
 status is, and must be, simply that of a servant or agent. We have found, 
 then, in the history and records of Massachusetts, one absolute sovereign, 
 acting in the formation of the federal system, or the republic of republics. 
 Now let us look for another. 
 
CHAPTER III. — Connecticut federalises herself. 
 
 THE FIFTH TO RATIFY— VOTE 128 TO 40— HATE, JAN. 9, 1788. 
 
 7 IIE record of this state agrees precisely with that of Massachu- 
 setts, in disproving the consolidation of the states, and proving 
 
 ’ % their most anxious wish to preserve their integrity and sove- 
 reignty in the union. To establish this, I will adduce the testimony of her 
 leading statesmen, and conclude with her sovereign decree of ratification, 
 which, as to her, constituted the league called the federal constitution. 
 
 WHAT HER STATESMEN SAID. 
 
 A federation of sovereignties was the object of this state from the 
 
 beginning, and the great men representing her in the federal convention, 
 considered it accomplished in the constitution proposed. Having carefully 
 guarded against consolidation, two of them, Ellsworth and Sherman, re- 
 ported to the governor of the state, that the aim in the proposed system 
 was, “ to provide for the energy of government on the one hand, and 
 suitable checks on the other, to secure the rights of the particular states, 
 and the liberties and properties of the citizens. We wish it may meet the 
 approbation of the several states, and be a means of securing their rights, 
 and lengthening out their tranquillity.” [II. Ell. Deb. 491]. 
 
 Roger Sherman, in her ratifying convention, said: “The government 
 of the united states being federal, and instituted by a number of sovereign 
 states for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their 
 interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it.” He 
 wrote to John Adams, July 20, 1789, that “it is optional with the people 
 of a state, to establish any form of government they please — to vest the 
 powers in one, a few, or many, and for a limited or unlimited time; ” and 
 “ that they may alter their frame of government when they please, any 
 
96 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 former act of theirs, however explicit, to the contrary notwithstanding.” 
 [VII. Life of J. A., 411,440. 
 
 Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice of the United States, 
 said in the ratifying convention : “ A union is necessary for the purposes of 
 a national defence. United we are strong; divided we are weak.” He 
 further speaks of “economy,” the keeping of peace among the states, and 
 the preservation of commutative justice among them, as among the motives 
 of union. In the federal convention he moved to expunge the word 
 “national” from the constitution, and substitute the words “government of 
 the united states,” which was agreed to, nem. con. In the ratifying conven- 
 tion of Connecticut, he characterized the union as a “confederation,” and 
 said, “the constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies — states 
 in their political capacity but that the only coercion contemplated was 
 the same as that of the state governments — legal coercion of individual 
 citizens. [II. Ell. Deb. 186, 197]. 
 
 Oliver Wolcott, subsequently secretary of the treasury, and senator, 
 said, in the ratifying convention : the constitution effectually secures the 
 states in their several rights. It must secure them for its own sake ; for 
 they are the pillars which uphold the general system. * * I am happy 
 
 to see the states in a fair way to adopt a constitution, which will protect 
 their rights, and promote their welfare. [II. Ell. Deb. 202]. 
 
 Governor Huntingdon spoke of the great movement as “the people 
 meeting together by their representatives, and with calm deliberation fram- 
 ing for themselves a system of government.” [II. Ell. Deb. 200]. 
 
 Chief Justice Law said: “The whole is elective ; all dependent on 
 the people. The president, the senate, the representatives, are the creatures 
 of the people. * * Some suppose that the general government, which 
 
 extends over the whole, will annihilate the state governments. But con- 
 sider that this general government rests upon the state governments [he 
 probably meant states] for its support. It is like a vast and magnificent 
 bridge, built upon thirteen strong and stately pillars. Now, the rulers who 
 occupy the bridge, cannot, be so beside themselves as to knock away the 
 pillars which support the whole fabric.” [II. Ell. Deb. 291]. 
 
 “WE, THE PEOPLE," MEANS CONNECTICUT. 
 
 It is evident she ratified because her statesmen asserted positively, and 
 proved conclusively, that the “ convention of states ” had matured a federal 
 
CONNEOTIOUT FEDEBALISES HERSELF. 
 
 97 
 
 system instead of a national one, and that the integrity and sovereignty of 
 the states, as well as the limitation and subordination of the “ delegated 
 powers,” were absolutely secured. Her convention adopted the constitution 
 by a majority of 88 in 168 members — such convention speaking as follows 
 in the ratification : “ In the name of the people of TnE state of 
 Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said 
 state, in general convention assembled, pursuant to an act of the legisla- 
 ture in October last, * * by these presents, lo assent to, 
 
 ratify, and adopt the constitution, reported by the convention of 
 delegates in Philadelphia, * * for the united states of America. Hone 
 in convention this 9th day of January, A. D. 1788.” 
 
 This is the only way the federal constitution got into Connecticut, and 
 this ordinance is the only law by which it exists there ; and yet Dane, 
 Story, and Webster have ventured to represent that, instead of the constitu- 
 tion being voluntarily established by Connecticut within her borders, it was 
 made by the people of all the states as a mass or nation, and imposed on 
 Connecticut as “ the supreme law” over her. So far as this constitution 
 goes, said Webster, “so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled.” 
 
 It is unquestionable, then, that Connecticut ratified as a sovereign, and 
 that, as a party, she remained above the said constituted league ; above the 
 “powers” she entrusted ; and above the agency created for the exercise of 
 those powers. It could not be otherwise, for the agency was to consist of 
 the elected subjects of the federalised sovereigns, and could but be subor- 
 dinate to them. We are not called upon to consider whether she could 
 have merged herself and extinguished her statehood, for the fact is proved, 
 that she did not do so. Here, then, is absolute_sovereign No. II. 
 
CHAPTER IV. — New York federalises herself. 
 
 THE ELEVENTH TO RATIFY— VOTE, 30 TO 27— DATE, JULY 26, 1788. 
 
 N the convention of this state, the contest was long, severe and 
 doubtful, principally turning upon the existence or non-existcnce 
 in the constitution of the principles now asserted by the Massa- 
 chusetts school. These were then urged as serious charges. Indeed, two 
 of her delegates, Yates and Lansing, had left the federal convention 
 because they were “opposed to any system,” however modified, which had 
 in view the “consolidation of the united states into one government.” And 
 as they feared that the system proposed by the convention had a tendency 
 to that evil, they strove to have it rejected by their state. 
 
 WHAT HER STATESMEN THOUGHT OF THE SYSTEM. 
 
 The views taken, and the defence made, by the federalists of Massachu- 
 setts were repeated in the convention of New York. The leading constitu- 
 tionists, with masterly ability, refuted the said charges, and showed that 
 the states were to be preserved intact, as the very basis, nay, as the “ essen- 
 tial component parts of the union and were, as absolute sovereigns, then 
 dividing the powers they chose to delegate between their state governments 
 and their federal (or league-al) one ; the subject then in hand being the 
 creation and endowment of the latter by the compacting sovereign states. 
 
 John Jay, the first chief justice under the new constitution, said, in 
 his address to the people of New York, early in 1788, to induce them to 
 adopt the new system : “ The proposed government is to be ihe government 
 of the people : all its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no 
 rights but such as the people commit to them. The constitution only 
 serves to point out that part of the people’s business, which they think 
 proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated. 
 
NEW YORK FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 99 
 
 These persons are to receive that business to manage, not for themselves, 
 and as their own, but as the agents and overseers for the people, to whom 
 they are constantly responsible, and by whom they are to be appointed.” 
 In the same address to the people of New York, from which these words 
 are quoted, Mr. Jay said : “ The states of Georgia, Delaware, New Jersey 
 and Connecticut, have adopted the present plan ; ” and he earnestly advised 
 the state of New York to do so. [I. Ell. Deb. 496]. In the ratifying con- 
 vention, Mr. Jay called the system provided for in the [compact, a “ union 
 of states ,” and said “the objects of the general government comprehended 
 the interests of the states, in relation to each other, and in relation to 
 foreign powers.” His view obviously was that the states, as sovereign 
 bodies, were compacting, and creating a governmental agency, which was to 
 remain subordinate to them, and act as their servitor in “providing for the 
 common defence, and promoting the general welfare.” [II. Ell. Deb. 282 
 et seg]. 
 
 Robert R. Livingston, the chancellor of the state, said in the same 
 convention : “ A republic may very properly .be formed by a league of 
 states ; but the laws of the general legislature must act, and be enforced 
 upon individuals. I am contending for this species of government.” [II. 
 Ell. Deb. 274], 
 
 He said further : “ Our existence as a state depends on a strong and effi- 
 cient federal government;” but, “we,” [the people of New York], must 
 see that the power we “ entrust to our rulers be so placed as to insure our 
 liberties and the blessings of a we’l-ordered government.” And after 
 stating the fact that the American people were all agreed upon the great 
 principle of government,” that “all power is derived from the people,” he 
 spoke as follows : “ They consider the state and federal governments as 
 different deposits of that power. In this view,] it is of little moment to 
 them whether that portion of it whichTthey must, for their own happiness, 
 lodge in their rulers be invested in the state governments only, or shared 
 between them and the councils of the union. The rights they reserve 
 are not diminished, and probably] their liberty acquires additional security 
 from the division.” [II. Ell. Deb. 210]. What people did he mean ? 
 Who were dividing their powers — delegating some, and reserving others ? 
 Of course, the people of the state whose convention he was then addressing 
 and advising. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton, in the same convention, characterized the new 
 
100 
 
 FEDERAEIS ATION. 
 
 
 political system as “a confederacy of states, in which thesupreme legisla- 
 ture has only general powers; and the civil and domestic concerns of the 
 people are regulated by the laws of the several states.” [II. Ell. Deb. 353]. 
 
 “ While the constitution continues to be read, and its principles known, 
 the states must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component 
 parts of the union." [Ibid, 301.] “ The destruction of the states must 
 
 be at once a political suicide. Can the national government be guilty of 
 this madness ? ” [Ibid, 353.] “ The question of the division of powers 
 
 between the general and state governments is a question of convenience. 
 It becomes a prudential inquiry into the proper objects of the two govern- 
 ments. This is the criterion by which we shall determine the just distri- 
 bution of powers.” “We” — who? “Determine” — what? Evidently 
 “the people” of New York, in convention, were determining “the just 
 distribution ” of their “powers.” Hamilton did not see “the nation” then 
 establishing a “ distribution of powers between this their general govern- 
 ment and their several state governments.” 
 
 John Lansing, the chief opponent of the new system, admitted, in the 
 ratifying convention, that the framers of the federal system designed the 
 senators “to represent,” and “to protect, the sovereignty of the several 
 states but he charged and c.rgucd that the operation and tendency of the 
 system would be contrary to the design. [Ibid. 289, 290]. 
 
 RATIFICATION IN CONFIDENCE OF AMENDMENTS. 
 
 All their arguments, however, would have been futile, but for'the under- 
 standing that the much dreaded danger would be specially forefended by 
 amendment. In the circular letter to the other states, dated July 28, 1788, 
 signed by Cov. George Clinton, “by unanimous order of the convention,” 
 it was stated that “several articles” were “so exceptionable to a majority 
 of us, that nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision * * 
 
 and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister states, could have 
 prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulation for pre- 
 vious amendments.” [II. Ell. Deb., 413]. 
 
 And the convention, in the very act of ratifying the constitution, did 
 “declare and made known” the following, among 34 articles, declaratory of 
 the understanding of New York : 
 
 I. “ That all power is originally vested in, and, consequently, derived 
 
NEW YORK FEDERALISES HERSEI/P. 
 
 101 
 
 from, the people ; and that government is instituted by them for their com- 
 mon interests, protection and security.” 
 
 III. “ That the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people, 
 whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, 
 jurisdiction and right, which is not, by the said constitution, cleaily dele- 
 gated to the congress of the united states, or the departments of the gov- 
 ernment thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to then- 
 respective state governments, to wh >m they may have granted the same ; 
 and that those clauses in the said constitution, which declare that congress 
 shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that congress is 
 entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses 
 are to be constiued either as exceptions to certaiu specified powers, or as 
 inserted for greater caution.” [I. Ell. Deb. 327]. 
 
 What p?ople were then “ delegating powers ” for “ their happiness” and 
 “ security ?” The people of the state, of course. By what people, then, 
 was the power at that moment being “ delegated,” to be “ re-assumed ” when 
 “necessary to their happiness?” The nation “re-assuming” power “dele- 
 gated” by the state is a gross solecism, and by this single sentence the 
 whole argument against the right of secession is scattered to the winds 1 
 
 DECISIVE PROOF THAT “WE TIIE PEOPLE” MEANS NEW YORK. 
 
 To conclude the case of New York, I quote the ordaining words of her 
 act of ratification, and beg the reader to reflect that there is no breath of 
 federal existence, or shade of federal power, in New York, except what 
 comes therein by virtue of these words: 
 
 “We, the delegates of the people of the state of new YORK, 
 duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the consti- 
 tution of the united states of America ; * * in the name and behalf 
 OF THE PEOPLE OF TIIE STATE OF NEW YORK, DO, BY THESE PRESENTS, 
 ASSENT TO, AND RATIFY THE SAID CONSTITUTION.” 
 
 In the body of the ordinance, and as a part thereof, the convention 
 declare that they ratify, whh the understanding that “ the rights aforesaid 
 cannot be abridged or violated that “ the explanations ” made are consis- 
 tent with the constitution ; and that they do it in confidence that the 
 amendments “ proposed ” will receive an early and mature consideration. 
 The ratification was carried by a majority of 3 in a membership of 57. 
 Suppose Dane, Story and Webster had been there, to talk of the nation or 
 
102 
 
 PEDERALIS ATION. 
 
 aggregate sovereign people “ distributing their powers between their state 
 governments and their general government ” — the said nation sovereign 
 and the states subordinate — why, they would have been hooted at, and the 
 federal plan spurned from the convention ! 
 
 Here is the decisive act of the political body called New York “ assent- 
 ing to and ratifying ” the constitution, with her own free and absolute will 
 precisely as any sovereign state of Europe would have given her assent to 
 any agreement with co-equal states. This ordinance is the only possible act 
 of sovereign authority putting in force in New York the federal compact 
 and its resultant government. It was the will of New York, and not that 
 of any nation, that then and there made and finished the “supreme law.” 
 From her, and her sister sovereigns, the government then received its 
 existence, i s status, and the power it was to exercise in trust “ for the 
 common defence and the general welfare.” It is absurd to suppose this 
 delegated authority could ever become coercive authoiit over the sovereigns, 
 principals, and masters that had delegated it ; or to suppose that such 
 authority did not remain simple legal jurisdiction, to be enforced by legal 
 means, over the individual citizens of the states — such jurisdiction being 
 derived, as aloresaid, solely from the said sovereigns, whose subjects all 
 citizens respectively are. Hence we see that New York remained, as she 
 iu ended to be — an absolute sovereign in the union. 
 
 HE II PRESENT AUTOCRATICAL DECLARATIONS. 
 
 New York now 7 repeatedly declares, in her fundamental laws, her absolute 
 sovereignty in the union — even rivaling Massachusetts in her imperial' 
 self-assertion. Exempli gratia, she declares, in her constitution, adopted 
 November 3, 1846, that “the people of this state, in their right of sove- 
 rei-jnty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate propeity, in and to 
 all lands within the jurisdiction of the state.” [Constitution of New York, 
 section 2]. 
 
 She also declares, as part of her fundamental law, that “ the sovereignty 
 and jurisdiction of this state extend to all the places within the boundaries 
 thereof, as declared iu the preceding title ; but the extent of such jurisdic- 
 tion over places that have been, or may be, ceded to the united states, shall 
 be qualified by the terms of such cession.” [I. Revised Statutes, chapter 
 — •]. Note that it is “jurisdiction,” and not sovereignty, that is to be 
 qualified. We shall hereafter see that the federal government has foothold, 
 
NEW YORK FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 103 
 
 to exist and act, in any state, only by permission and grant of the sovereign 
 commonwealth, and strictly according to the terms of such grant. 
 
 She declares, further, that “it shall he the duty of the governor, and of 
 all the subordinate officers of the state, to maintain and defend its sove- 
 reignty and jurisdiction.” [Ibid]. 
 
 She further declares, that “ no member of this state shall be disfranchised, 
 or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, 
 unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers;” and that 
 “no authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, he exercised over the citizens 
 of this state, hut such as is, or shall be, derived from , and granted hy, the 
 people of this state." [Constitution, article I, section 1 ; I. Revised 
 Statutes, chapter 4, section I]. 
 
 Judging, then, from her own federal history and present declarations, no 
 more absolute sovereign than New York exists on earth. She alone has 
 the supreme right of government upon her soil, and the federal government 
 exists and acts there solely as her agent. 
 
CHAPTER V. — New Jersey federalises herself. 
 
 TOE THIRD TO RATIFY— VOTE, UNANIMOUS— DATE, DECEMBER 18, 1787. 
 
 iS"* 
 
 [■N the convention of states, New Jersey was represented by 
 Governor William Livingston, David Brearly, Win. Patterson, 
 7 £§ and Jonathan Dayton. These statesmen, with the delegates from 
 Connecticut, Delaware, and other minor states, insisted on the strict prin- 
 ciples of federation being observed ; and, as will be seen, they were com- 
 pletely successful, vanquishing their opponents in argument, as well as in 
 voting. So satisfactory was the plan adopted that, they signed it, and aided 
 at home to procure the ratification of their state, which was unanimous. 
 
 THE VIEWS OF HER STATESMEN. 
 
 William Patterson, who, in the federal convention, introduced the 
 plan of the new system, known as the New Jersey plan [see I Ell. Deb. 175], 
 said that “the amendment of the confederacy was, the object of all the laws 
 and commissions upon the subject.” “ The commissions under which we act- 
 are not only the measure of our power, they denote, also, the sentiments of 
 the states on the subject of our deliberation. The idea of a national 
 government, as contradistinguished from a federal one, never entered into 
 the mind of any of them ; and to the public mind we must accommodate our- 
 selves.” [V. Ell. Deb. 176]. He said, further, in reference to a plan 
 tending to consolidation: “We are met here as deputies of thirteen inde- 
 pendent sovereign states, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their 
 sovereignty, and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignty of our 
 states, who have sent us here for other purposes ? * * But it is said 
 that this national government is to act on individuals, and not on states ; 
 and cannot a federal government be so formed as to operate in the same 
 way 7 It surely may. I therefore declare that I will never consent to the 
 
NEW JERSEY FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 luo 
 
 present system, and I shall make all the interest against it, in the state I 
 represent, that I can.” [I. Ell. Deb. 403.] 
 
 These remarks were made early in the session [June 9, 1787], when it 
 was proposed to give the small states power in the new system, only in 
 proportion to tle.ir numbers, and when their delegates feared that they 
 would be gradually merged into a nation. The plan that finally prevailed, 
 as will be seen, was, as he then expressed it, “ a federal government ,” so 
 formed as to operate” “on individuals and not on states. 
 
 I have many kindred expressions from the New Jersey statesmen, but 
 not having space for them, I select the above as the most pithy, as well as 
 a fair specimen. It is also one of the most accessible ones to the common 
 reader. Moreover, it fairly represents the theory which predominated in 
 the federal convention, not only in two or three decisive votes, but generally, 
 in the plan adopted. Strict federal principles prevailed. The states, as 
 political bodies, were to be the parties federating, and were to remain 
 unchanged, as the actors in the system. They were to continue to hold, of 
 original right, all the elective power. Each was to choose, from her own 
 citizens and subjects, her representatives, her senators, and her electors of 
 President; and these, with the officers they — acting as agents of the 
 states — should appoint, were to be the government. All federal acts, then ; 
 were to be the acts of the states, through their representatives and servants, 
 and the government consisting of these, could but be subordinate to the 
 creating and electing sovereignties. 
 
 “WE, THE PEOPLE” OP NEW JERSEY. 
 
 The federal delegates not only approved the plan, but they assured their 
 state that her integrity and sovereignty were safe. Congress, as the agent 
 of the states, sent the plan to New Jersey. The legislature, on the 29th 
 of October, 1787, enacted that a convention should meet at the capital, and 
 “then and there take into consideration the aforesaid constitution, and, if 
 approved of by them, finally to ratify the same, in behalf and on the part 
 of this state." [I. Eil. Deb. 320.] 
 
 The convention was held, and the constitution thoroughly discussed by 
 sections ; but no debates having been preserved, we must resort to the 
 journals, political writings, etc., of that day, to learn the prevailing ideas. 
 Here is an extract from an address to the people of the state to induce them 
 to accede. “ By whom are those taxes to be laid ? By the representatives of 
 
FEDERALISATION. 
 
 llMi 
 
 the several states in congress, * * in perfect conformity to that just 
 
 maxim in free governments, that taxation and representation should go 
 hand in hand. To what purpose are these taxes to be applied ? To pay the 
 debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the 
 united states. Although I drew my first breath in New Jersey, and have 
 continued in it during my life, firmly attached to its local interest, yet when 
 I consider the impossibility of its existence, at present, as a sovereign state, 
 without a union with the others, I wish to feel myself more a citizen of 
 the united states than of New Jersey alone.” \_Am. Museum, Nov., 1787], 
 The idea was to unite the states to preserve their sovereignty, and the 
 involved blessings of their respective citizens. The following extract is 
 instructive : “The convention of New Jersey was composed of accomplished 
 civilians, able judges, experienced generals, and honest fatmers.” As “tho 
 groundwork of its proceedings,” it “resolved that the federal constitution 
 be read by sections ; upon which the general question shall be taken, 
 whether this convention, in the name and behalf of the people of this 
 state, do ratify and confirm the said constitution.” \_Mass. Centinel, Jan. 
 6, 1788.] 
 
 New Jersey unanimously ratified as follows": “In convention of the state 
 of New Jersey * * * Now be it known that we the delegates 
 
 OF the state OF New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the 
 purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on, and considered the 
 aforesaid proposed constitution, DO hereby, for, and on behalf of 
 THE PEOPLE OF THE SAID STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AGREE TO, RATIFY, 
 
 and confirm the same, and every part thereof. Done in con- 
 vention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day 
 of Dec., A. D. 1787. 
 
 The federal constitution and government have no existence or power in 
 New Jeisey, except by virtue of the ordinance. This, as to her, constitutes 
 the league called the federal constitution. 
 
CHAPTEli VI. — Pennsylvania federalises herself. 
 
 THE SECOND TO RATIFY— VOTE, 46 TO 23— DATE, DEC. 12, 1787. 
 
 % 
 
 '/S 
 
 It was in the convention of this state, however, that the first grand contest 
 over the new system took place, and the vindication of it is peculiarly 
 significant and interesting. The charges were mainly those we have already 
 reviewed. One-third of the fi9 members issued an able address, putting 
 them strongly, and winding up with the assertion that “ consolidation 
 pervades the whole instrument.” The system had just transpired from 
 what was called a “ secret conclave,” and it was alike seemingly novel and 
 really surprising. The people feared that it would overshadow and 
 gradually destroy the state, while they were intensely anxious to preserve 
 her sovereignty. 
 
 In a subsequent chapter, I shall take Pennsylvania as an exemplar to 
 exhibit the original formation of an Anglo-American state, and show how 
 thoroughly separate she was in sett’ement, organization and government • 
 how the people of the prospective commonwealth were habituated to the 
 traditions and ideas of complete political disconnection, except as to the 
 sovere'gn, England; how the people of the state were declaredly England’s 
 successor in the sovereignty ; how all the states joined in acknowledging 
 and guaranteeing each to be sovereign [see art. II. of the first federal 
 compact] ; how the statesmen, in all they did, were obliged to obey and 
 conform to, and not impair and destroy, this sovereignty ; and, finally, how 
 the federation, being one of republics, named in the compact and remaining 
 unchanged, must, in the nature of things, be and continue purely voluntary. 
 Precisely consonant with these ideas are the explanations of the statesmen 
 of Pennsylvania, now to be given. 
 
103 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 SHE ASSOCIATES AS A SOVEREIGN. 
 
 Tencit Coxe, one of her great leaders, and one of the ablest political 
 ■writers of that day, explained that the constitution was to be “the act of 
 the people;” “yet,” said he, “it is to be dene in their capacities as citizens 
 of the several members of our confederacy, who are declared to be the 
 people of the united states." [Am. Museum for February, 1788]. With 
 express reference to consolidation, he said : “ If the federal convention had 
 meant to exclude the idea of ‘ union ’ — that is, of several and separate 
 sovereignties joining in a confederacy — they would Lave said: ‘ We the 
 people of America;’ for union necessarily involves the idea of competent 
 states, which complete consolidation excludes.” [Ibid]. In reference to 
 the senators in congress, he said, “ each of whom will be chosen by the 
 legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state.” [Am. Museum 
 for October, 1787]. And in meeting the objection that the new constitu- 
 tion contained no bill of rights, he wrote as follows : “ The old federal 
 constitution contained many of the same things, which, from error or 
 disingenuousness, are urged against the new one. Neither of them has a 
 bill of rights ; nor does either notice the liberty of the press, because they 
 are already provided for by the state constitutions; and, relating only to 
 persona] rights, they could not be mentioned in a contract among sovereign 
 states.” [Ibid]. Here we have the idea, so frequently brought to view, 
 that personal or private rights are already secured by the social compact, 
 the obligation of which requires the body-politic or state to protect them ; 
 ar.d that the great object of the federal compac" was to make the securers 
 secure, that is, to unite the states for their common defence and general 
 welfare. 
 
 James Wilson, a leading member of both the federal and state conven- 
 tions, one of the very first statesmen of that period, and afterwards one of 
 the fi deral supreme judges, said, in the ratifying convention, to allay the 
 fear that the state governments might not be preserved, that “ upon their 
 existence depends the existence of the federal plan.” In answering the 
 question wdiere sovereignty resided, he said, “ the supreme, absolute and 
 unccntrolluble power is in the people before they make a constitution, and 
 remains in them after it is made * * * The sovereignty resides in 
 
 the people. This principle settled, they can take from the state govern- 
 ments powers with which they have hitherto trusted them , and place them 
 
I 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA FEDERA LISES HERSELF. 109 
 
 in the general government if it is thought they will there be productive 
 of more good.” Of course, he could only mean that the authority which 
 formed the state government, could withdraw, and redelegate, the said 
 “powers,” and this could but be the state as a commonwealth of people. 
 The following extracts show this. He compared “ the advantages and 
 necessity of civil government among individuals ” with those of “a federal 
 government among states.” Of course he knew that in the self-formation 
 of a free society of men or states, the integrity of the constituents must 
 be preserved. In none of h.s speeches or writings does he disregard this 
 idea. “The united states” said he, “may adopt anyone of four different 
 systems. They may become consolidated into one government, in which 
 the separate existence of the states shall be entirely absorbed. They may 
 reject any plan of union or association, and act as separate and unconnected 
 states. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in 
 one federal republic. "Which of these systems ought to have been formed 
 by the convention ?” After showing the inadmissibility of the first three, 
 he proceeds : “ The remaining system which the American states may adopt, 
 is a union of them under one confederate republic * * * This is the 
 
 most eligible system that can be proposed.” Quoting from Montesquieu, 
 he proceeds to say : “ Its description is ‘ a convention by which several 
 states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to 
 establish. It is a kind of assemb’age of societies ichich constitute a new 
 one, capable of increasing by means of further association.’” [For the 
 above extracts see II. Ell. Deb., 421-8], 
 
 In these extracts, Wilson recognizes the states as the absolute actors, 
 and necessarily the sovereigns, and gives no support to the idea of Story, 
 Webster and Curtis, that a nation ratified and established tho constitution, 
 though the last named seem to quote from him with great partiality in 
 support of the national theory. 
 
 One more extract will suffice. Early in October, 1787, he said in a 
 speech at Philadelphia : “ * * Let it be remembered, then, that the 
 
 business of the federal convention was not local but general ; not limited 
 to the views and establishments of a single state, but co-extensive with the 
 continent, and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen 
 independent sovereignties.” [AToss. Centinel , October 24, 1787 ; also, in 
 Am. Museum ]. This, and several other equally striking passages from 
 
110 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 Wilson’s speeches, Mr. Curtis failed to quote in the “ History of the Consti- 
 tution.” 
 
 Dr. Franklin, who was at the time the president of Pennsylvania, 
 proposed in the federal convention, a secoud branch of the congress, in 
 which “each state should have equal suffrage,” “in all cases or questions 
 wherein the sovereignties of the individual states may be affected, or 
 whereby their authority over their own citizens may be diminished.” [V. 
 Ell. Deb., 266]. 
 
 WHOM DID SHE MEAN BY “WE, THE PEOPLE." 
 
 Chief Justice McKean, afterwards governor, said in the ratify it g 
 convention : “ The power of this convention is derived from the people of 
 Pennsylvania .” The members, he said, had been “ chosen by the people, 
 for the sole purpose of assenting to, or ratifying , the constitution proposed 
 for the future government of the united states, with respect to their general 
 and common concerns, or of rejecting it.” “It has been moved that you, 
 resolve ‘to assent to and ratify this constitution.’ Three weeks have been 
 spent in hearing objections, * * * and it is now time to determine 
 
 whether they are of such a nature as to overbalance any benefits or advan- 
 tages that may be derived to the state of Pennsylvania by your accepting 
 it.” [II. Ell. Deb., 530]. 
 
 Said James Wilson, in the same body, on this subject: “The single 
 question to be determined is, shall we assent to, and ratify, the constitution 
 proposed? As this is the first state whose convention has met on the 
 subject, and as the subject itself is of great importance, not only to Penn- 
 sylvania, but to the united states , it was thought proper, fairly, openly and 
 candidly to canvass it. * * * We were sent here to express the voice 
 
 of our constituents on the subject.” [II. Ell. Deb., 494]. And in his 
 speech at Philadelphia, Oct. 6. 1787, in showing that a bill of rights was 
 not needed, he said: “It would have been superfluous and absurd to have 
 stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy 
 those privileges of which we are not divested either by the intention or the 
 act that has brought that body into existence. [J/ass. Centinel, October 
 24, 1787]. 
 
 These remarks of McKean and Wilson, which met no dissent, are enough 
 to show the idea of all to be that the state, ex mero motu, was acting as a 
 sovereign. But the proof is made complete by the ordinance of ratification, 
 
PENNSYLVANIA FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 Ill 
 
 the substantial words of which follow : “ In the name of the people of 
 Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men, that WE, the delegates of 
 THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN GENERAL 
 CONVENTION ASSEMBLED, * * BY THESE PRESENTS DO, IN THE 
 
 NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SAME PEOPLE, AND FOR OUR- 
 SELVES, ASSENT TO AND RATIFY THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTION FOR 
 
 the united states OF America. Done in convention at Philadelphia, 
 the 12th of December, 1787.” [I. Ell. Deb., 319]. 
 
 In conclusion, we find that the federal history of Pennsylvania gives no 
 support whatever to the Massachusetts school. The false and dangerous 
 notions of Dane, Story, Webster and Curtis, which then appeared as 
 charges by foes, were despised and repudiated, and the elder and better 
 Massachusetts ideas prevailed — that sovereign states were the actors in 
 forming and empowering the new system; that it was a confederacy of 
 states or republic of republics that was being formed ; that the constitution 
 of it was the concurrent written will of the self-associated states ; and that 
 the agency, or administrative body of the system, was composed exclusively 
 of the “ subjects ” of the states. 
 
 We find Pennsylvania then to be another absolute sovereign of our 
 federation. 
 
 i 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Delaware and Maryland fed£ralise themselves. 
 
 ff HESE two states will be disposed of together, as they made hut 
 
 f ;Vv : , a small record, owing to the readiness of their accession. But 
 \ ( j their acts of ratification afford us two more proofs of the 
 federal (or league-al) system. Let us first give the case of 
 
 DELAWARE. 
 
 THE FIRST TO RATIFY— VOTE, UNANIMOUS — DATE, DECEMBER 7, I7S7. 
 
 This little state figures in American history as the first to ratify the 
 constitution. Her ready adoption is strong evidence that the system was 
 a federation of equals, for she was determined to preserve herself. More- 
 over, her chief men gave her such explanations and assurances as the 
 following from John Dickinson, who had been her, as well as Pennsylvania’s 
 president, who was a member of the federal convention, and one of the 
 great political writers of that period. He habitually called the new system 
 “ a confederation of the states,” and he said it was the duty of the congress 
 under the system “to reconcile in their determinations, the interests of 
 several sovereign states.” [II. Pol. Writings of J. D]. 
 
 “WE, THE PEOPLE” OF DELAWARE. 
 
 Space will not permit extensive quotations, so I will conclude her case 
 by presenting her idea of what “ we, the people,” meant, just as she then 
 by, and in the act of, ratifying, impressed it upon the world. The Penn- 
 sylvania Gazette , of Dec. 20, 1787, says that “ while Delaware acted thus 
 speedily, Pennsylvania is debating the ground by inches, having been in 
 session almost a month, and being yet engaged on the first article.” The 
 Massachusetts C<-ntinel, of Dec. 26, 1787, has the following; “Delaware 
 
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND FEDfiRALISE THEMSELVES. 113 
 
 • — The deputies of the state convention of Delaware met at Dover, on 
 Monday, the 3rd inst., and, a house being formed, they elected James 
 Latimer, Esq. president. On Thursday, they ratified the federal constitution 
 by a unan mous vote, and on Friday, every member signed the ratification, 
 as follows: We, the deputies of the people of Delaware state, in 
 eonvenion met, having taken into our serious consideration the federal 
 constitution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the united states, 
 at a general convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the 17th day 
 of September, a. d., 1787, have approved of, assented to and ratified, and 
 confirmed, and, BY these presents, do, in virtue of the powers and 
 authority to us given for that purpose, for, and in behalf of ourselves and 
 constituents, fully, freely and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify 
 and confirm the said constitution. Done in convention at Dover, 
 Dec. 7, 1787.” [See also I. Ell. Deb., 319]. 
 
 This was a complete and final act of sovereign will, by a state, as such i 
 and when the constitution, according to its terms, went into effect, it was 
 this and twelve other like acts that gave it all the life and validity it ever 
 had, or could hive, as to the thirteen united or associated states. And it 
 was from these acts that the entire existence and jurisdiction of the high 
 and mighty “ Government ” flowed. Moreover, this “Government” was 
 composed personally and entirely of the cikzens and subjects of the ratifiers. 
 It is, then, obviously both absurd and fallacious to say that so far as this 
 constitution goes, “so far state sovereignty is effectual’}' controlled.” It is 
 equally so to say that the people, as republics, are not above the constitution 
 of gov rnment they have created, and elected their own subjects to ope i ate 
 or administer. 
 
 MARYLAND. 
 
 THE SEVENTH TO RATIFY— VOTE, 63 TO 11— DATE, APRIL 2S, 1788. 
 
 When the convention of this state met, the federal plan had been before 
 the people of the country, under close investigation and elucidating debate, 
 for six months. Not only did the advocates everywhere explain the design 
 to be “ a confederation of the states,” but “ the people ” could themselves 
 see that the bodies politic to which they all belonged, and to which they 
 had ever yielded absolute obedience in all things, were associating themselves 
 as such, and were named and recognized as absolute parties to the compact 
 and actors under it. It was plain to Marylanders that Maryland was a 
 
114 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 republic — that is, that she, as a commonwealth, had all original power, or, 
 in other words, the absolute right of self-government ; and, moreover, that 
 no power was to be out of her but what was delegated — that is, entrusted 
 for her use and behoof to an agency. Moreover, the understanding had 
 become general, that if the constitution should be adopted, there would 
 soon be added the new safeguards to state integrity already proposed by 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 “WE, THE PEOPLE" OF MARYLAND. 
 
 It was probably these considerations and reflections that had made the 
 thoughtful and prudent people of Maryland so ready to ratify. Deter- 
 minedly self-governing, they reasoned for themselves, and many districts 
 of them, having concluded the matter, sent deputies to the convention 
 simply to ratify “ the proposed constitution ” “ as speedily as possible,” 
 ‘and to do no other act.” [II. Ell. Deb., 548]. And the convention 
 voted down all attempts at delay and amendment — was only in session a 
 few days — and ratified, by a vote of 63 to 11, in the following terms: “ In 
 convention of the delegates of the people of the state of Maryland, April 
 28, 1788. We, the delegates of the people of Maryland, having 
 fully considered the constitution of the united states of America, reported 
 to congress by the convention of deputies * * held in Philadelphia, 
 
 on the 17th day of September, 1787, of which the annexed is a copy, and 
 submitted to us by a resolution of the general assembly of Maryland, in 
 November session, 1787, do, for ourselves, and in the name, and on 
 the behalf of the people of this state, assent to, and ratify 
 the said constitution.” [I. Ell. Deb., 324]. 
 
 LUTHER MARTIN’S LETTER. 
 
 The most elaborate and instructive argument made against the new 
 system was made by this great Marylander. He was her attorney general, 
 and a member of both federal and state conventions. His charges against 
 the compact were mainly the same we have constantly seen. He feared 
 lurking causes of danger in its various provisions, which, in later years, 
 might emerge to destroy liberty, and he warmly urged its rejection. He 
 would, he said, make every personal sacrifice “ if, on those terms only, he 
 could procure his country to reject those chains which are forged for it!" 
 However, the chains he inveighed against did not exist in the constitution 
 
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND FEDERALISE THEMSELVES. 115 
 
 They were “forged” in the intellects of modern expounders, and foisted 
 on the constitution in after years, the unfounded charges and arguments 
 made by Martin, Henry and others to defeat it, being the very materials 
 from which, as we shall see, the sophistical “ chains ” were “ forged.” [For 
 Martin’s letter see I. Ell. Deb., 344], 
 
 The above sovereign act of Maryland was independent, absolute and 
 complete. It gave the federal constitution of government full force and 
 effect in Maryland according to the terms of it. Not a shade of life and 
 power did it ever otherwise get. We have here, then, the seventh sovereign 
 of the constituted league — the seventh of the thirteen absolute constituents 
 of the republic of republics. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. — Virginia federalises herself. 
 
 THE TENTH TO RATIFY— VOTE 89 TO 79— DATE, JUNE 25, 1789. 
 
 ER convention was an assembly of great men — all attached to 
 the “ Old Dominion ” as to a mother ; all determined to preserve 
 1 ' : ;-7 intact her integrity, and her sovereign will over her interests 
 and destiny ; and all fearing a too powerful federal government, under 
 which the sovereign rights of the states, and the liberties of the people, 
 might be finally lost. The great, all-comprehensive idea of the consoitu- 
 tionists, and the convention was, that Virginia arid her sister states were 
 creating a federal system, to which they were to give, each a separate and 
 independent sanction, and sufficient “ delegation ” of power for its purposes. 
 
 As in other states, the system was attacked from the fear that it was 
 pregnant with the monster consolidation. Patrick Henry was the most 
 active and denunciatory; but George Mason and others ably backed him. 
 They assailed the very clauses as dangerous and treasonable to liberty and 
 self-government, from which Dane, Webster and Story, have since deduced 
 consolidation or national sovereignty. For instance, they attacked the 
 phrase in the preamble — “We, the people of the United States, do ordain 
 and establish this constitution as reducing states to subordination, and 
 creating a national supremacy over them ; the clause making the constitu- 
 tion, laws and treaties “the supreme law of the land,” as a specific abdica- 
 tion of sovereignty by the states to the nation ; and the clause giving 
 certain power over the militia, as giving the general government unlimited 
 power and means to execute its will — even over states. Other objections 
 were made, but these were the main ones. They were all, in fact, misre- 
 presentations, and were then and there fully exposed and reluted by 
 Madison, Randolph, Pendleton, Marshall, Nicholas, Corbin, Innes and 
 others. 
 
VIRGINIA FEDERAL ISIS HERSELF. 
 
 in 
 
 VIRGINIA TO REMAIN A SOVEREIGN. 
 
 Edmund Pendelton, the chancellor of the state, and the president of 
 the convention, said, in reply to Henry, Mason and others, “If the union 
 of the states be necessary, government must be equally so.” “ The people 
 are the fountain of all power. They must, however, delegate it to agents, 
 because * * they cannot exercise it in person. * * When we [the 
 
 people of the state] were forming our state constitution, we were confined 
 to local circumstances. In lorming a government for the union, we [the 
 same people] must consider our situation as connected with our neighboring 
 states. * * If we find it to our interest to be intimately connected 
 
 with the other twelve states , to establish one common government, and bind 
 in one ligament the strength of thirteen states , we shall find it necessary to 
 delegate powers proportionate to that end ; for the delegation of adequate 
 powers in this government, is no less necessary than in our state govern- 
 ments. To whom do we delegate these powers ? To our own representatives. 
 Why should we fear greater dangers from our representatives there than 
 from those ice have here ? * * Every branch [of government] is formed 
 on the same principle, preserving throughout, the representative responsible 
 character.” [III. Ell Deb., 298-9]. He makes an explicit assertion of 
 state sovereignty in the union as follows : “ The impossibility of calling a 
 sovereign state before the jurisdiction of another sovereign state, shows the 
 propriety and necessity of vesting this tribunal [the federal court] with the 
 decision of controversies to which a state shall be a party.” [Ibid. 549]. 
 
 James Madison had previously written in article 46 of the Federalist: 
 “ The federal and state governments are, in fact, but different agents and 
 trustees of the people instituted with different powers. * * * The 
 
 ultimate authority — wherever the derivative may be found — resides in the 
 people alone.” And he explained in the Virginia convention, as well as in 
 the Federalist , that it is “the people as composing thirteen sovereignties" 
 who possess this ultimate authority, and “are parties to” the constitution. 
 [III. Ell. Deb., 94], In article 40 of the Federalist , he said, “ The states 
 were regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns * * * by the 
 
 constitution proposed.” See also article 39 for his full explanation. 
 
 James Innes, an able jurist and statesman, said, in the same convention, 
 “After five months spent in tedious and painful investigation they [the 
 federal convention] with great difficulty demised the paper on the table. 
 
118 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 And it has been adopted by every state which has considered and discussed 
 it * * * Eight states have exercised their sovereignty in ratifying it. 
 
 Let us try it. Experience is the best test. It will bear equally on all the 
 states, from New Hampshire to Georgia. * * * I consider congress 
 
 as ourselves, as our fellow-citizens, and no more different from us than our 
 delegates in the state legislature.” [III. Ell. Deb., 636-7]. 
 
 John Marshall, the great jurist, afterwards for many years the dis- 
 tinguished chief justice of the federation, said, “ When the government is 
 drawn from the people, and depending on the people for its continuance, 
 oppressive measures will not be attempted, as they will certainly draw on 
 their authors the resentment of those on whom they depend. On this 
 government, thus depending on ourselves for its existence, I will rest my 
 safety. * * * United we are strong — divided we fall.” [III. Ell. 
 
 Deb., 420]. “If you adopt it, what shall restrain you from amending it, 
 if, in trying it, amendments shall be found necessary. The government is 
 not supported by force, but depending upon our free will. When expe- 
 rience shall show us any inconvenience we can correct it. * * * Let 
 us try it, and keep our hands free to change it when necessary.” In 
 reference to the alleged fear that “ congress may prostitute their powers to 
 destroy our liberties,” he said, “ This goes to the destruction of all confi- 
 dence in agents.” And, referring to Virginia’s right to “resume” her 
 powers, if abused, he said, it is “ a maxim that those who give may take 
 away. It is the people that give power, and can take iLback. What shall 
 restrain them ? They are the masters who give it, and of whom the servants 
 hold it.” Replying to Mr. Henry, as to the concurrent powers of taxation, 
 he said, “ It is an absurdity, says the worthy member, that the man should 
 obey two masters — that the same collector should gather taxes for the 
 general government and the state legislature. Are they not both the 
 servants of the people? Are not congress and the state legislatures the 
 agents of the people, and are they not to consult the good of the people?” 
 [Ibid. 227, 233]. And while defending the federal jurisdiction of cases 
 between a state and citizens of another state against the vehement attacks 
 of Henry and Mason, he said he hoped that no one would “think that a 
 state would be called at the bar of the federal court. * * * It is not 
 
 rational to suppose that the sovereign power should be dragged before a 
 court.” [Ibid. 555]. 
 
 Gov. Randolph, Mr. Corbin and the Messrs. Nicholas all able statesmen. 
 
Virginia p ed Realises herself. 119 
 
 explained the new system substantially to the same effect. Said Randolph : 
 “ If you say that notwithstanding the most express restrictions, they 
 [congress] may sacrifice the right of the states, then you establish another 
 doctrine — that the creature can destroy the creator, which is the most 
 absurd and ridiculous of all doctrines.” [Ibid. 363], Indeed no advocate 
 ever seemed to doubt that (as Madison stated) we were making “a govern- 
 ment of a federal nature, consisting of many co-equal sovereignties.” 
 [Ibid. 381]. 
 
 «* CONSOLIDATION." 
 
 A few remarks and extracts on this subjects may be instructive. The 
 statesmen were then, as now, men of the people, speaking in common 
 parlance alike on the hustings and in legislative debate. In making charges 
 against the new system, one said, the government ; another, the union ; 
 and a third, the states, would be “consolidated” by it — all meaning sub- 
 stantially the same thing, though “government,” “union” and “states,” 
 are entirely different entities. It was the “ states ” that the system’s defen- 
 ders thought safe from “ consolidation,” while they really desired this 
 “consolidation” for the “union;” that is to say, the making of it more 
 solid, strong and enduring, or, in other words, “ a more perfect union ” — 
 to use the phrase of the preamble — than the previous one. And this is 
 evidently what the convention meant, in the letter of Washington, written 
 by their “ unanimous order,” reporting their plan to congress, by the 
 expression: “ We kept steadily in view * * * the consolidation of our 
 
 union;” for the said convention had just framed article Vi I. — the one 
 characterizing the system, which declared that the constitution was to be 
 established by, and “ between the states , ratifying the same.” 
 
 In fact, no one favored the consolidation of the states ; but many feared 
 and charged that the powers and means, and alleged supreme discretion of 
 the new government, would enable it gradually to supplant the state 
 governments, and degrade the states themselves to provinces or municipal- 
 ities, subject to its imperial will. 
 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton, the president, in reply to Henry: * * 
 
 “ But it is represented to be a consolidated government, * * which so 
 
 extensive a territory as the united states cannot admit of, without termina- 
 ting in despotism. If this be such a government, I will confess, with my 
 Worthy friend, that it is inadmissible.” * * He then proceeded to show 
 
FEDERALIS ATION. 
 
 120 
 
 that it is not such a government, and cannot be changed' to such a one. 
 “ It is,” said he, “ the interest of the federal to preserve the state govern- 
 ments. * * Unless there be state legislatures to continue the existence 
 
 o£ congress, and preserve order and peace among the inhabitants, this 
 general government, -which gentlemen suppose will annihilate the state 
 governments, must itself be destroyed.” [Ibid. 40]. Said Henry Lee, 
 of Westmorelaud, on the same occasion: “If this were a consolidated 
 government, ought it not to be ratified by a majority of the people, as 
 individuals, and not as states? Suppose Virginia, Connecticut, Massachu- 
 setts and Pennsylvania had ratified it; these four states, being a majority 
 of the people of America, would by their adoption have made it binding on 
 all the states, had this been a consolidated government. But it is only the 
 government of those seven states who have adopted it. If the honorable 
 gentlemen [Mr. Henry] will attend to this, we shall hear no more of 
 consolidation.” [Ibid. 180]. 
 
 Madison expressed the same views, [Ibid. 94, 96 ; Federalist art. 39], 
 so with the Messrs. Nicholas, Gov. Randolph and others; but as no friend 
 of the system dissented, further quotation is unnecessary. 
 
 WHAT VIRGINIA MEANT BY “WE, THE PEOPLE." 
 
 Chancellor Pendleton said: “This constitution was transmitted to 
 congress by that convention; by the congress transmitted to the legislature; 
 by them recommended to the people. The people have sent us hitherto 
 determine whether this government be a proper one or not.” [III. Ell. 
 Deb., 6]. Was this “the people” of the united states? The reply of 
 Henry Lee, of Westmoreland, to Patrick Henry is instructive and decisive. 
 The latter had demanded : “ Who authorised them [the convention] to 
 speak the language of we, the people , instead of we, the states ? States are 
 the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not 
 the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national 
 government, of the people of all the states.” [Ibid. 22]. Said Lee in 
 reply: “This system is submitted to the people for their consideration, 
 because on them it is to operate, if adopted. It is not binding on the 
 people until it becomes their act. It is now submitted to the people of 
 Virginia. If we do not adjpt it, it will always be null and void as to us.” 
 [Ibid. 42], 
 
 George Nicholas said, the time is come when “ this state is to decide 
 
Virginia fed Realises herself. 121 
 
 this important question of rejecting or receiving this plan of government.” 
 [Ibid. 7]. Gov. Randolph said: “Were I convinced that the accession 
 of eight states did not render our accession also necessary to preserve the 
 union, I would not aecede till it should be amended.” [Ibid. 67]. 
 ZACnARiAH Johnson said, •“ the great and wise state of Massachusetts 
 has taken this step; the state of Virginia might safely do the same.” 
 [Ibid. 649]. Mr. Stephen said, “ we are about to determine whether we 
 shall be one of the united states or not.” [Ibid. 644]. James Innes 
 said, “ eight statss have exercised their sovereignty in ratifying it. * * 
 
 Let vs try it. Experience is the best test.” [Ibid. 636-7]. John 
 Marshall, as we have seen, called the state “ the sovereign power.” [III. 
 Ibid., 535]. And James Madison said, “ each state, in ratifying the 
 constitution, is considered as a sovereign body," and “ no state is bound by 
 it without its own consent." [III. Ibid., 91; Fed. No. 39]. 
 
 But enough has been quoted, the arguments of the constitutionists being 
 all to the same purpose. The contest was long and animated. The enemies* 
 by the false ascriptions that in subsequent years were made so attractive by 
 the logic and eloquence of a Webster, though overwhelmingly beaton in 
 argument, were barely overcome in voting — the majority for ratification 
 being only 10 in a house of 163. The enacting words of the ordinance 
 areas follows: “We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, 
 duly elected, * * and now met in convention, * * in the name 
 
 AND BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, DO, BY THESE PRESENTS, 
 assent TO, and ratify THE constitution, recommended on the 17th 
 day of September, 1787, by the federal convention, for the government of 
 the united states ; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern 
 that the said constitution is binding upon the said people, accord ng to an 
 authentic copy hereto annexed. Done in convention this 26th day of 
 June, 1788. 
 
 “The said constitution” then, and by that act, became “binding upon 
 the said people ” of Viiginia. She then, by her own peculiar and exclusive 
 will, gave that constitution of government all the life and jurisdiction it 
 ever had, or could have, in Virginia. Nothing could be plainer. Now, is 
 it not incredible that the statesmen, judges and historians, of the Massa- 
 chusetts school should ignore or suppress the sovereign act of Virginia, 
 (and the similar one of Massachusetts), and assert that the nation made 
 the constitution, and that it was not made by the people of the several 
 
122 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 states? They also ignore or suppress the all-important fact, that the 
 thirteen states were, at that moment, under a solemn compact — all with 
 each, and each with a'l — that “each state retains its sovereignty , freedom 
 and independence.” and hence that they did not, and could not act otherwise 
 than as sovereigns; and that no aggregate people did or could exist, with 
 authority to put a general constitution in force in and over one of these 
 states. If thirteen sovereign states did, a sovereign nation did not then 
 exist. If the former did then dispense power, the latter did not. 
 
 MAKING ASSURANCE DOUBLY SURE. 
 
 Furthermore, Virginia, in her absolutely sovereign action by convention, 
 aiming to guard against those dangers to her integrity, which Massachusetts 
 had been so careful to forefend, and which she herself was so earnestly 
 premonished of, seconded the demand of Massachusetts, on the states for 
 amendments, as New Hampshire simultaneously did — the main one being 
 “that each state shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and 
 right, which is not, by this constitution, delegated to the united states.” 
 This, somewhat modified in language, though not in import, was afterwards 
 adopted by the states. Again, the convention, speaking with direct refer- 
 ence to federal functionaries, declared “ that all power is invested in, and 
 deiived from, the people ; and that magistrates are, therefore, their trustees 
 and agents, at all times amenable to them.'" And finally, she embodied in 
 the ordinance of ratification, still speaking for herself, the following decla- 
 ration : “ That the powers granted under the constitution, being derived 
 from the people of the united states [may] be resumed by them whenever 
 the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” [I. Ell. Deb., 
 327 ]. 
 
 Her ideas were, in short, that all power is in the people ; the people are 
 states ; each state retains all she does not delegate ; all magistrates are their 
 trustees and agents ; and the people that delegate powers may withdraw 
 them. These truths are fundamental and sacred ; they are in all bills of 
 rights ; they are state sovereignty, and only mendacity itself can unblush- 
 ingly deny them 1 
 
 The last above quoted passage, judge Story, in his commentaries, uses as 
 a leading proof that these “ powers” are “ derived from the people ” as a 
 nation, when, as he knew, every word and action of Virginia contradicts 
 |t; and the passage itself is susceptible of no such interpretation — the 
 assertion being, as the fact is, that the “ powers ” are “ derived from the 
 
VIRGINIA FEDERALISES HERSELF. 
 
 123 
 
 people of the * * states.” All the states — including Oregon, Maine, 
 
 Texas, Alaska, Greenland and Patagonia — “resuming ” — or “ reassuming," 
 as New York has it — “ the powers ” delegated by Virginia, is a solecism, 
 discreditable either to the head or the heart of the author. 
 
 Such perversions are hardly entitled to respectful exposure; but let us 
 plod patiently on. Look at the ludicrous position, and silly act, these 
 Massachusetts philosophers attribute to Virginia, as well as to their own 
 state. In this trying and solemn hour, when high debate was raging, and 
 all hearts were fervently wishing to secure her “ pearl of great price ” — 
 sovereignty, and the freedom of her children, and her children’s children, 
 against consolidation and arbitrary power, Virginia, by her great statesmen 
 and lawyers — “ and there were giants in these days ” — forgot herself, and 
 her simultaneous sovereign act, and declared that the nation gave ar.d could 
 take away the powers granted. While denying and guarding against it, 
 she confesses an outside sovereignty that destroys her. While engaged in 
 preserving her political life, she commits the most inconsistent and remark- 
 able suicide in history 1 
 
 Now let us conclude the case of Virginia, by contemplating for a moment 
 the conduct of Massachusetts towards her, as it will appear in the pages of 
 ■our Gibbon — if she be sponsor for her misteaching sons, and fail to lead, 
 in restoring the commonwealths to their old status and supremacy. Both 
 foreboded the same dangers. They asserted — acted with — and secured 
 their sovereignty in the same mode — the latter leading the way. They 
 pledged solemn faith for mutual protection, declaring and guaranteeing 
 each other to be — “ sovereign, free and independent.” 
 
 Virginia kept the faith ! She was incapable of doing otherwise. But 
 Massachusetts, to promote selfish ends, became the Peter the Hermit of a 
 new crusade. She perverted the faith, and the solemn compacts of the 
 fathers ; inflamed the North to hunger and thirst for Southern carnage and 
 blood; and finally led an overwhelming host to dragoon the South into 
 submission, and to darken her sunny landscapes with desolation and 
 mourning. “ The land was as the garden of Eden before her, and behind 
 her, a desolate wilderness!” Yes; she issued forth from her own unas- 
 sailed and unbroken walls, which shielded her own plenty and peace, and, 
 like a demon of destruction, razed Virginia’s citadel to the earth, and 
 drove the ploughshare of ruin through all its foundations ! And now the 
 vile weeds of despotism rankly cover the fallow and blood-manured soil 1 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 South Carolina and Georgia federalise themselves. 
 
 N South Carolina, the new system was strongly opposed, and 
 much discussed, while in Georgia, the accession was ready and 
 j ic; unreluctant. Let us take first the case of 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 THE EIGHTH TO RATIFY— VOTE, 149 TO 73— DATE, MAY 23, 1783. 
 
 Not less decisively speaks the record of this state. All her sons were 
 opposed to any interference with state sovereignty — the enemies of the 
 new system charging danger, and the friends declaring the fear to bo 
 groundless. Rawlins Lowndes was the leading opponent. So earnest was 
 he, that, seeming to look forward to the lost liberties of his'state, to justify 
 his opposition, and prove his words of warning true, he wished his epitaph 
 to be : “ Here lies the man that opposed the constitution, because it was 
 ruinous to the liberty of xkmerica.” Were he, Patrick Henry, Luther 
 Martin, and the other opponents, wiser than the rest of the fathers? Did 
 they really find the defects and dangers they charged ? Or did they fear 
 the alleged propensities of the Northern people, and the perversions of their 
 expounding statesmen? 
 
 The leading constitutionists were Charles Pinckney, General C. C. 
 Pinckney, John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, Edward Rutledge, J. J Pringle 
 and others. They encountered and overthrew the same kind of opposition, 
 which, as we have seen, was rife in the other states. The discussion took 
 place both in the legislature and the convention. 
 
 THE EXPLANATION OF THE SYSTEM TO HER. 
 
 Charles Pinckney, a member of both federal and state conventions, 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA FEDERALISE THEMSELVES. 125 
 
 and one of her most distinguished statesmen, said that “ all power of r'ght 
 belongs to the people ; that it flows immediately from them, and is delegated 
 to their officers for the public good ; that our rulers are the servants of the 
 people, created for their use, and amenable to their will.” [IV. Ell. Deb. 
 319]. A “distinguishing feature in our union,” said he, “is its division 
 into individual states, differing in extent of territory, manners, population 
 and products.” [Ibid. 323]. 
 
 He further said, the condition of inter-state and foreign commerce, made 
 necessary “some general and permanent system, which should at once 
 embrace all interests, and, by placing the states on firm and united ground, 
 enable them effectually to assert tlieir [not the nation’s] commercial rights.” 
 [Ibid. 254]. He said further, there is an authority, “ absolute and uncon- 
 trollable,” “ from which there is no appeal ” — “ the sovereign or supreme 
 power of the state;” and that “with us the sovereignty of the union is 
 with the people" [Ibid. 327], meaning, with Madison, the people of the 
 states whose creation the government was to be, and who were then dele- 
 gating “powers” to the said crea ion. For example, he said “ the states 
 ought not to entrust important rights” to one legislative house, and that 
 therefore, the convention thought it “ their duty to divide the legislature 
 into two branches, and, by a limited revisionary power, to mingle, in some 
 degree, the executive in their proceedings.” [Ibid. 256]. 
 
 Furthermore, he cited approvingly the contention of the small states in 
 the federal convention, “ that as the states were the pillars upon which the 
 general constitution must ever rest, their state governments must ever 
 remain ; that however they may vary in point of territory or population, as 
 political associations they were equal.” [Ibid. 256]. 
 
 And, finally, he characterized the new system as “a federal republic,” 
 and said: “To what limits such a republic might extend, or how far it is 
 cay able of uniting the liberty of a small commonwealth with the safety of 
 a peaceful empire ; or whether, among co-ordinate powers, dissensions and 
 jealousies would not arise, which, for want of a common superior , might 
 proceed to fatal extremities, are questions upon which he did not recollect 
 the example of any nation to authorize us to decide, because the experiment 
 has never yet been fairly made. We are now about to make it upon an 
 extensive scale , and under circumstances so promising that he considered it 
 the fairest experiment that had ever been piade in favor of human nature.” 
 [Ibid. 262]. It is beyond question, then, that Charles Pinckney considered 
 
126 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 the states as “ co-ordinate powers," having no “ common superior .” No 
 “ nation of people,” distributing their powers between their general govern- 
 ment and their several state governments was known to him ! 
 
 General C. C. Pinckney, a member of both conventions, afterwards 
 in several high offices, and finally the federal party’s candidate for the 
 presidency, said, near the close of the federal convention, after the character 
 of the new constitution had been agreed on, to wit, on September 3, 1787 : 
 the first legislature will be composed of the ablest men to be found. The 
 states will select such to put the government into operation. [Y. Ell. 
 Deb., 506]. He here recognized what the constitution did, viz: that the 
 states, as parties to and actors in the new system, were to govern them- 
 selves ; that is to say, they — being republics— were, of original right, to 
 elect senators, representatives and president, who, as agents of the said 
 states, were, with such functionaries as they should provide for and 
 appoint, to govern, using the “powers” 11 delegated" or entrusted to them 
 for that purpose by the said states — the said senators to be elected by the 
 respective legislatures of the states, and the representatives and president, 
 pro tanto , by the respective peoples thereof. This is precisely our system 
 — a union of self-governing states. Another remark of General Pinckney, 
 in the federal convention, is apposite. Mr. Martin moved to vary the 
 article relating to the importation of certain persons, so as to allow a 
 prohibition or tax. Mr. Ellsworth remarked that “ the states were the best 
 judges of their particular interest. The old confederation had not meddled 
 with this point, and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it 
 within the policy of the new one." Mr. Charles Pinckney said if this is 
 done “ South Carolina can never receive the plan.” General Pinckney 
 said it would be unjust “ to require South Carolina and Georgia to con- 
 federate on such unequal terms.”* [Y. Ell. Deb., 456, et seq ]. We find, 
 then, that he thought — after the federal plan had been decided on, to-wit : 
 on the 26th of August, 1787 — that South Carolina and Georgia were “ to 
 confederate ” with the other states on “ terms.” 
 
 Let us now see what he afterwards said in the legislature of South 
 Carolina. He stated the objects of the federal convention to be, “ to 
 strengthen the union,” and “ give greater powers to the federal govern- 
 ment.” To the charge that the federal convention had exceeded its powers, 
 he replied that “ the present constitution is but a proposition, which the 
 people may reject j" but he “ conjured them to reflect seriously before they 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA FEDERALISE THEMSELVES. 127 
 
 did reject it, as lie did not think our state would obtain better terms by 
 another convention.” Terms of uuion between states , again ! Said lie 
 further: “ The delegations of Jersey and Delaware * * acquiesced in 
 
 it;” and so satisfied are “the people of those states, that their respective 
 conventions have unanimously adopted the constitution.” [IV. Ell. Deb., 
 282]. 
 
 i His idea that communities as such, and not the aggregate peop’e of them, 
 were the constituents of the union, is indicated in all the above extracts, 
 but more notably in the following : “ The Southern states are weak ; * * 
 
 we are so weak by ourselves, we could not form a union strong enough for 
 effectually protecting each other. Without union with the other states, 
 South Carolina must soon fall. * * Should we not endeavor to form a 
 
 close union with the Eastern states, who are strong? * * If our 
 
 government is to be founded on equal compact, what inducement can they 
 possibly have to be united with us, if we do not grant them some privileges 
 with regard to their shipping ? Or, supposing they were to unite with us 
 without having these privileges, can we flatter ourselves that such union 
 would be lasting ?” [Ibid. 283-4]. Again : “ We do not enter into 
 treaties as separate states, but as united states; and all the members of the 
 union are answerable for the breach of treaty by any one of them.” [Ibid. 
 279]. 
 
 The following is decisive proof of General Pinckney's belief that the 
 states, as political communities, were sovereign, and acted as such, in 
 forming the union : “ It is admitted on all hands, that the general govern- 
 ment has no powers but what are expressly granted by the constitution, 
 and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the sev ral states." 
 [Ibid. 286]. The same principle is repeated as follows : “ The general 
 government has no powers but what are expressly granted to it ; therefore 
 it has no power to take away the liberty of the press ; * * by delegating 
 
 express powers we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not 
 mentioned in the constitution.” [Ibid. 315]. 
 
 These passages from the indelible record, show that General Pinckney 
 regarded the constitution as “a compact” between states ; the system provided 
 for, as a union or “confederation” of states ; and the states themselves as 
 the sovereign delegators and reservers of power. He knew the people, as 
 states, to be acting with entire voluntariness, and, as separate sovereigns, 
 ratifying what they, as collective sovereigns, had framed. 
 
FEDERALIS ATION. 
 
 128 
 
 But the perverters, to support their false theory, that a sovereign nation 
 made the union, have culled fiom the very midst of the above expressions, 
 the statement of General P., that the Declaration of Independence proves 
 that “ there never was any individual sovereignty of the several states.” 
 [Ibid. 301]. In a future chapter, I shall show that General P. probably 
 referred to the government incorporated in the state constitution, as the 
 state, lor this to the most of people was the only visible embodiment of the 
 idea of a state; it acted in every manner of state action; and, in common 
 parlance, it was called the state, and was accredited with sovereignty, parti- 
 cularly by the functionaries of it. If he did not mean as I indicate, he 
 
 was : First, “ blowing hot and cold with the same mouth ;” second, speaking 
 
 . 4 
 
 absurdly, for the states, as political bodies, occupied the whole ter.itory, 
 and included and controlled all the people ; and they were then placing 
 over the said people, absolutely, their new “supreme law;” third, menda- 
 cious — for th i states had then a solemn league and covenant, declaring and 
 guaranteeing that “ each state retains her sovereignty ;” and not only was 
 George III. required by the American commissioners to “ acknowledge ” 
 on this basis as he did, but the fathers themselves in establishing the now 
 plan acted upon it, as they were compelled to do, being citizens and subjects 
 of such sovereignties; fourth, traitorous — for while assuiing his sovereign 
 that the new plan was her “compact,” her “confederation” her “supreme 
 law,” he was, Judas-like, aiming to place her under a yoke ! 
 
 John IIutledge, a member of both federal and ratifying conventions, 
 and afterwards chief justice of the' union, referring to a remark of Mr. 
 Lowndes, said that instead of “ the sun of the country being obscured by 
 the new constitution, * * the sun of this state, united with twelve 
 
 other suns, would exhibit a meridian radiance astonishing to the world. ’ 
 [Ibid. 312]. He said, in the federal convention, in reference to the pro- 
 posal to give congress the power to negative all state laws, it might think 
 interfered “ with the general interests and harmony of the muon : “ If 
 nothing else, this alone would damn, and ought to damn, the constitution. 
 Will any state ever agree to be bound hand and loot in this manner? It 
 is worse than making mere corporations of them, whose by-laws would not 
 be subject to this shackle.” [V. Ell. Deb., 3G8J. 
 
 IIon. J. J. Pringle, attorney general, sa d the treaties “ will effect the 
 individuals equally of all the states. If the president and senate make 
 such as violate the fundamental laws, and subvert the constitution, or tend 
 
SOUTII CAROLINA AND GEORGIA FEDERALISE THEMSELVES. 129 
 
 to the destruction of the happiness and liberty of the states, the evils * * 
 
 "'ill be removed as soon as felt, as those ivho are oppressed have, the 'power 
 and means of redress;” that is to say, the states are absolute, and have 
 the control of the powers they delegate, and the unlimited right of self- 
 defence. [Ibid. 270], 
 
 Hon. Edward Rutledge, a signer of the declaration of independence, 
 and one of the governors of the state, said, in the legislature : “ But the 
 gentlemen [Mr. Lowndes] has said that there were points in this new 
 confederation which would endanger the rights of the people.” He then 
 proceeded to speak of ilie states as the parties to, and the actors in, “ this 
 new confederation and the functionaries thereof, as representatives acting 
 with a “trust.” [Ibid. 276]. 
 
 “WE, THE PEOPLE” OF SOUTII CAROLINA. 
 
 The principal debate which is preserved, took place in the legislature, 
 which finally resolved, unanimously, “ that a convention of tlie people 
 should be called for the purpose of considering, and ratifying or rejecting, 
 the constitution framed for the united states.” [Ibid. 316]. 
 
 Alexander Tweed said : “ The constitution now lies before us, to 
 wait our concurrence or disapprobation. We, sir, as citizens and freemen, 
 have an undoubted right of judging for ourselves.” [Ibid. 333]. 
 
 Hon. Jacob B,ead “urged a concurrence with those states which were 
 in favor of the new constitution.” [Ibid. 286]. 
 
 Charles Pinckney said : “ We are called upon to execute an important 
 trust — to examine the principles of the constitution now before you, and, 
 in the name of the people, to receive ov reject it.” [Ibid. 332]. 
 
 But enough has been quoted, for there was not a word of dissent, in 
 either the legislature or the convention, on the part of any friend of the 
 new system. Friend and foe alike depiecated the principles since advocated 
 by the Massachusetts school— if dogmas so unprincipled can be called 
 principles at all. 
 
 The convention finally ratified the constitution by a vote of 149 to 73, 
 the substantial words of the ordinance being as follows : “ In convention 
 of THE people of the state of South Carolina, by their representa- 
 tives, held in the city of Charleston. * * The convention, having 
 
 maturely considered the constitution or form of government reported to 
 congress by the convention of delegates, * * and submitted to them 
 
130 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 by a resolution of the legislature, * * in order to form a more perfect 
 
 union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
 defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, 
 * * DO, IN THE NAME AND BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, 
 
 HEREBY ASSENT TO, AND RATIFY THE SAID CONSTITUTION. Done in 
 
 convention, the 23d day of May, A. D., 1788.” [I. Ell. Deb., 325], 
 
 Hero we see that, by this act of ratification, South Carolina established 
 the constitution within her territory, and subjected her citizens to its 
 opera' ion, thus giving its functionaries their only jurisdiction. As this 
 jurisdiction flows solely from the constitution, and is subject to it, it is 
 necessarily subject to the will that established it. There was no sign or 
 hint of any other will — certainly none of a national will. Nay, more, if 
 the existence and binding force of the said constitution, as the supreme 
 law of South Carolina, were ever called in question, the only possible proof 
 of the same would be the above act of ratification, with the constitution 
 annexed. How absurd, then, it is to say that South Carolina was not to 
 be, and remain, a sovereign in the union. 
 
 This state also joined Massachusetts in demanding amendments for the 
 more complete security of state integrity and sovereignty, particularly the 
 one declaring that “ the states retain every power not expressly * * * 
 
 vested in the general government.” [I. Ell. Deb., 325]. 
 
 Not one word of support is there in the records of this state for the 
 assertions of Dane, Story, Webster and Curtis I They are contradicted in 
 the most direct and positive manner ! 
 
 GEORGIA. 
 
 THE FOURTH TO RATIFY— VOTE, UNANIMOUS— DATE, JANUARY 2, 1788. 
 
 There was little or no opposition in this state, and no demand for 
 amendments. Her convention, being called to consider the proposed plan, 
 and the accompan ing letter and resolutions, “and to adopt, or reject, any 
 part or the whole thereof” [Ibid. 323] unanimously ratified the constitu- 
 tion — the substance of her ordinance being as follows: “Now know ye 
 that WE, THE DELEGATES OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, 
 IN convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the legislature aforesaid, 
 having taken into our serious consideration the said constitution, * * 
 
 BY THESE PRESENTS DO, in virtue of the powers and authority given us 
 by the people of the said state for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA FEDERALISE THEMSELVES. 131 
 
 and our constituents, fully and entirely assent to, ratify, and adopt 
 the SAID constitution. Done in convention, at Augusta, in the said 
 state, on the 2d day of January, A. D., 1788.” [Ibid. 323], 
 
 As to Georgia, the constitution of government was completed by this 
 act; and it was done solely “in virtue of the powers and authority” “given 
 by the people of the said state,” and not by the people of any nation. 
 This alike shows that the phrase “ we the people ” meant Georgia, and 
 destroys the whole theory of the Massachusetts school. 
 
CHAPTER X. — New Hampshire federalises herself. 
 
 THE NINTH TO RATIFY— VOTE, 57 TO 4G— DATE, JUNE 21, 1788. 
 
 HIS state, being the ninth to ratify, made the complement re- 
 ( l u ' re ^ f° r ^ le establishment of the constitution ; for article 
 ? TII. declared that “ the ratification of the conventions of nine 
 states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between 
 the states so [i. e. by convention] ratifying the same.” Nine successive 
 acts of ratification, then — i. e., the acts of nine separate wills, each operating 
 voluntarily, and with a perfect right to ratify or reject— were to establish 
 and complete the constitution. No single act, movement or exercise of will 
 could, by auy possibility, have done it ; and the record throughout exhibits 
 the action of nine independent wills, and no sign of a single and exclusive 
 one. “ The people" were organized as states, and the states were “ the 
 people." As bodies politic, composed of people, they, and they alone, 
 ’■atiried. The idea of their unity of organization, will, and deed, as a 
 nation, is cntirc’y false. Article VII. shows that ratifications were to 
 establish ; that states were to ordain the ratifications ; and, therefore, that 
 the states were to “ ordain and establish this constitution for the united 
 [i. e., associated] states of America.’ 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE’S ASSERTION OF HER STATEHOOD. 
 
 She was a republic — that is, a community with the absolute right of 
 self-government ; and there was no sign of any authority above her. The 
 record shows that she acted solely of her own motion ; and at that moment^ 
 the solemn covenant called the articles of confederation bound all the states 
 to the recognition of her sovereignty, for their declaration was, that “ each 
 state retains her sovereignty , freedom and independence.” [Article II]. 
 Necessarily she was exercising this sovereignty in making the new consti- 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERALISES HERSELF. 133 
 
 tution. She acted as a commonwealth exclusively, and no power on earth 
 constrained or influenced her. All th r - fathers asserted or took for granted, 
 that the states were acting in this sovereign capacity. Moreover, the people 
 of New Hampshire had. in 1784, by soc’al compact, “formed themselves” 
 — to use their own words — “ into a free, sovereign and independent body- 
 politic, or state, by the name of the state of New Hampshire.” [Const. 
 N. H.. part II., art. I]. This is the character by which she passed, by 
 name, into the union [Fed. Const, art. I., § 2], and her reiteration of it in 
 1792, several years after the constitution was established, proves that she 
 considered herself sovereign in the union. And, indeed, this self-description 
 stands to the present day, as does the following remarkable declaration : 
 “ The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing 
 themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state; and do, and forever 
 hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power * * which is not, and 
 
 may not hereafter be, by them , expressly delegated to the united states in 
 congress assembled.” [Const. N. II., Bill of Bights, art. VII], And, 
 apparently for the sake of greater emphasis, she declares that her people 
 have the right, whenever they deem it necessary to prevent the ends of 
 government from being perverted, or to preserve public liberty, “ to reform 
 the old or establish a new government and that “all magistrates and 
 officers of government ” are her people’s “ substitutes and agents, and at 
 all times accountable to them.” [Ibid., arts. VIII— X]. 
 
 Here we have her self-assertion. No sovereign of Europe could be 
 more autocratic, and her ratification was precisely in character. Let us 
 see. 
 
 **W E, THE PEOPLE” OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 Her convention was called to examine, and to ratify, or reject, the 
 constitution proposed. It was most deliberate in action, adjourning at one 
 time for several months. But for this adjournment, and the timely super- 
 vention of a general understanding in regard to conservative amendments, 
 as well as the favorable action and influence of other states, the constitution 
 would have been probably rejected. As it was, she ratified by a vote of 
 57 to 46 — the substantial words of her ordinance being as follows: “In 
 convention of the delegates of the people of the state of New Hampshire, 
 June the 21st, 1788. The convention, having impartially discussed 
 and fully considered the constitution for the united states of America, 
 
134 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 reported to congress by the convention, * * and submitted to us by a 
 
 resolution of the general court of said state, * * DO, IN THE name 
 
 AND BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
 ASSENT TO, AND RATIFY THE SAID CONSTITUTION for the United States of 
 
 America.” [I. Ell. Deb., 325]. 
 
 The convention coupled with the ratification the following, which, with 
 other proposed amendments, it declared to be indispensable “ to quiet the 
 apprehensions” of the people, and “ to guard against an undue administra- 
 tion of the federal government:” “ That it be explicitly declared, that all 
 powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid constitution 
 are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.” 
 
 It is hard to discover any ground for doubt and fear. But all the 
 promising appearances, all the prospective safeguards, and all the arguments 
 and assurances of the constitutionists, could only “ quiet the apprehension” 
 to a sufficient extent to give the meagre majority of 11 in a vote of 103. 
 Suppose Mr. Webster, who was a native of New Hampshire, though 
 adoptively of Massachusetts, had, in those days, appeared before her — even 
 in the prime of his greatness — and “expounded” the constitution, as he 
 did forty or fifty years later, to mean that a great and undivided nation 
 were, in and by that constitution, “ distributing tlieir powers between their 
 general government and their several state governments,” and that New 
 Hampshire was only to hold and wield what the said nation “ reserved ” in 
 the said constitution, to her, as the county, province, department, pashalic, 
 satrapy, municipality, division or state of New Hampshire; suppose, Isay, 
 these absurd and unprincipled notions, which the Massachusetts school 
 profess to have believed for the last thirty or forty years, had been stated 
 by Webster to New Hampshire as the meaning of the constitution, would 
 she not with unanimity have spurned it from her borders, and disowned 
 the son who insulted her by proposing such degradation. In truth, nobody 
 dared to advocate such ideas in those days. They appeared as charges to 
 defeat the system, and they well nigh accomplished the purpose. 
 
 NINE PARTIES “ ESTABLISHED ” THE COMPACT. 
 
 The seventh, last and characteiizing article of the constitution provides 
 that nine ratifications “ shall be sufficient for the establishment of this 
 constitution between the states so ratifying;” so that when Delaware, 
 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mary- 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERALISES HERSELF. 135 
 
 land, South Carolina and New Hampshire had ratified, it was understood 
 by everybody that while, without nine, the ordinances were nugatory, with 
 that number they were effective; the compact was “established,” and the 
 federation complete, even if no more states radfied. 
 
 The following from the Massachusetts Centinel of June 25, 1788, shows 
 the impressions and ideas of that day — viz : that “ the states ” (to use 
 Hamilton's phrase, heretofore quoted) are the “ essential componentyparts 
 of the union ” — the pillars upon which the federal superstructure solely 
 rests ; that the constitution was “ established ” and complete when the ninth 
 state ratified ; that it was established “ between the states,” as political 
 bodies of people ; and that these were necessarily “ the people of the united 
 states 
 
 “ We felicitate our readers on the accession to the confederation of the 
 state ot New Hampshire, not only because it completes the number of 
 states necessary for the establishment of the constitution, but because it is 
 a frontier, a neighboring, and, to us, really a sister state. It is now one 
 of the nob’e pillars of the great national dome.” 
 
 We find New Hampshire, then, to be the ninth absolute sovereign ; and 
 THE FEDERATION OF STATES, OR THE “ REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS,” TO 
 BE COMPLETELY ESTABLISHED BY THE RATIFICATIONS OF THE NINE 
 states, which are named and provided for, as distinct political bodies, and 
 as parties to, and actors under, the compact. 
 
 TIIE PUTTING OF THE AGENCY AT WORK. 
 
 After the states had thus established the constitution as their frame of 
 general government and “supreme law,” their general agency, congress, 
 proceeded to put the great machine in operation. The following quotations 
 will bring vividly to us the ideas of that day. 
 
 It should be premised that the federal convention always recognized the 
 political bodies called states, as the sole potential actors in the framing and 
 establishing of the constitution, and considered themselves as the citizens, 
 subjects, representatives, agents and servants of the said states, with only 
 advisory powers. The idea of the fathers unquestionably was, that the 
 new government was not to operate on the political bodies that were making 
 it, but on their citizens, by their authority — the new arrangement being 
 the sel '-government of the states, on matters common to them ; that is to 
 say, the government, by themselves, of their citizens, through the instru- 
 
136 
 
 FED ERALIS ATION. 
 
 mentality of a general governmental agency. It should also be mentioned 
 that the federal convention, in their letter reporting their plan to congress, 
 unanimously said the new system was “ THE federal government of 
 these states,” and that it was the “delegating” of an “extensive 
 trust.” The following is from their record: 
 
 “ In convention, Monday, Sept. 17, 1787. Present : The states of New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton, from New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 South Carolina and Georgia. * * Resolved, That it is the opinion of 
 this convention that as soon as the conventions of nine states shall have 
 ratified this constitution, the united states, in congress assembled, should 
 fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states which shall 
 have ratified the same; and a day on which the electors should assemble 
 to vote for the president ; and the time and place for commencing proceed- 
 ings under the constitution. That after such publication, the electors 
 should be appointed, and the senators and representatives elected ; that the 
 electors should meet on the day fixed for the election of the president, and 
 should transmit their votes, certified, signed, scaled and directed, as the 
 constitution required, to the secretary of the united states in congress 
 assembled ; that the senators and representatives should convene at the 
 time and place assigned ; that the senate should appoint a president of the 
 senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening and counting the votes 
 for the president ; and that after he shall be chosen, the congress, together 
 with the president, should, without delay, proceed to execute this consti- 
 tution. By unanimous order of the convention. George Washington, 
 President.” [I. Ell. Deb., 16]. 
 
 The reader will please note, en passant, that here and in the constitution, 
 are positive proof that the convention unanimously asserted that the states, 
 as bodies, were to ratify and establish the constitution [see the preamble 
 and article VII.] ; that the states, through electors, were to appoint the 
 president [art. II., sec. 1] ; that the states were to elect the senators and 
 representatives [article I., section 2, 3], and that this “congress” of the 
 delegations of the states, “ together with the president,” were “ to execute 
 this constitution ” of the said states. Here is a decisive proof of the 
 untruth of the Massachusetts school in saying that “the people,” as a 
 nation and not as states, established and put in effect the consiitution. 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERA LISES HERSELF. 137 
 
 THE ACTION OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Now let us see what action the congress of the states took when the 
 ninth state had ratified. I copy, from the Worcester [Massachusetts] Spy 
 of July 17, 1788, its report from the journal of congress — my purpose 
 being alike to reproduce the sacred record, and the impression made upon 
 the people of that day : 
 
 “In congress, July 2, 1788. The state, of New Hampshire having rati- 
 fied the constitution, * * and transmitted to congress the ratification 
 
 . > 
 
 * * the president reminded congress that this was the ninth ratification 
 
 transmitted and laid before them ; whereupon * * ordered, that the 
 
 ratifications * * be referred to a committee, to examine the same, and 
 
 report an act for putting the said constitution into operation, in pursuance 
 of the resolutions of the late federal convention.” [See also the Journal 
 of Congress, and I. Ell. Deb., 332], 
 
 The said committee, on the 14th of July, 17S8, reported an act for 
 putting the constitution into operation, which was debated till the 13th of 
 September, when congress — two more states having meanwhile ratified — 
 resolved that, as “ the constitution * * has been ratified in the manner 
 
 therein declared to he sufficient for the establishment of the same ; and 
 such ratifications, duly authenticated, have been received by congress, and 
 are filed in the office of the secretary, * * the first Wednesday in 
 
 January next be the day for appointing electors in the several states, which, 
 before the said day, shall have ratified the said constitution ; that the first 
 Wednesday in February next be the day for the electors to assemble in 
 their respective states, and vote for a president ; and that the first Wednes- 
 day in March next be the time, and the present seat of congress the place, 
 for commencing proceedings under the said constitution.” [Ibid. 33-J]. 
 
 Conformably to this, their resolve, and to their provisions in their consti- 
 tution [art. II., sec. 1 ; art, I., secs. 2, 3], the states proceeded to “appoint 
 electors,” and to elect their senators and representatives to congress. And, 
 on the 4th of March, 1789, proceedings were commenced ; and Washington 
 having been unanimously elected president, “the congress, together with 
 the president,” did, as the convention advised, “proceed to execute” “the 
 constitution of [i. e., belonging to] the united [or associated] states 
 
 It is plain, then, that “ the people of the united states,” as they had 
 organized themselves by soc'al compact in their respective states, did 
 “ ordain and establish,” and “procejd to execute,” “ this constitution for 
 
138 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 the united states of America.” Thus they have chosen to govern themselves 
 in federal matters. And liberty is obviously at an end, if they, as self- 
 organized, are not superior to the agency they, in self-government, create. 
 The Massachusetts school seem to forget that the states were republics, and 
 that, to remain so, they must retain the right of self-government — not in 
 part, but wholly ; and that this intact right of self-government is tlieir 
 sovereignty , and is the very thing that makes them states, and not provinces 
 or municipalities. In their character as sovereign states they acted ; and 
 only a federation was possible, unless there had been self-extir.ction, or 
 self-degradation to provinces or counties, of which American history gives 
 no shadow of evidence. The “ nation ” of the Massachusetts school, as 
 well as the second social compact forming such nation, are mere figments. 
 It seems to be ignored by some of the members of that school that the 
 time is past, when intelligent men , and especially those who have investi- 
 gated the history of the constitution , can innocently and creditably reaffirm 
 the assertions of Story and Webster on matters of constitutional or federal 
 history and exposition. 
 
CHAPTER, XI. — North Carolina federalises herself. 
 
 THE TWELFTH TO RATIFY— REJECTION, AUG. 1, 17SS, BY 188 TO 8S— ADOPTION, NOV. 
 
 21, 1789, BY 193 TO 75. 
 
 state, which rejected the constitution at first, hut accepted 
 Jo! it after she felt assured of satisfactory amendments, most com- 
 
 (fl) \ 
 
 ? \'ig pletely demonstrated the sovereign self-icill of the American 
 commonwealths, and the absurdity of the idea that any national controlling 
 power existed. 
 
 All these states (the people of which must have constituted the sovereign 
 nation, if there was one) joii ed in declaring that the commonwealth called 
 North Carolina “ retained its sovereignty ,” and this solemn treaty-recognition 
 of the great' fact was in full force, and she acted up to it, in the time and 
 deed of determining her will, as to ratifying or rejecting the new federal 
 plan. No one in all the land pretended to question her right to reject, and 
 remain iorever as independent as Russia or France ! The assertion, then, 
 that a sovereign nation existed, controlling the states into association, is 
 obviously a sheer fabrication. 
 
 HER IDEA OF THE UNION. 
 
 But as North Carolina only awaited amendments, and did, when she felt 
 sure of them, ratify the constitution, we may profitably quote the explana- 
 tions of her chief statesmen to get her idea of the new system. 
 
 James Iredell, a distinguished jurist and statesman, afterwards on the 
 supreme bench of the union, said in opposition to the dogma that “ a 
 government is a compact between the rulers and the people:” “This is 
 held to be the principle of some monarchial governments in Europe. Our 
 government is founded on much nobler principles. The people are known 
 with certainty to have originated it themselves. Those in power are their 
 servants and agents ; and the people, without their consent, may new model 
 
MO 
 
 E E D E R A L I S A T I 0 N. 
 
 their government whenever they think proper, not merely because it is 
 oppressively exercised, but because they think another form will be more 
 conducive to their welfare. It is upon the footing of this very principle 
 that we are now met to consider of the constitution before us.” [IV. Ell. 
 Deb., 9], In reference to the federal senate, he said it was necessary to 
 vest “this [the treaty-making] power in some body composed of represen- 
 tatives of states, where their voices should be equal ; for, in this case, the 
 sovereignty of the states is particularly concerned, and the great caution 
 of giving the states an equality of suffrage in making treaties, was for the 
 express purpose of taking care of that sovereignty, and attending to their 
 interests, as political ‘bodies, in foreign negotiations.” [Ibid. 125]. He 
 said, further, “the senate is placed there for a very valuable purpose — as 
 a guard against any attempt of consolidation," and “ to preserve completely 
 the sovereignty of the states." [Ibid. 133]. 
 
 William II. Davie, one of the ablest statesmen produced by North 
 Carolina, a member of both federal and state conventions, and afterwards in 
 several distinguished positions, said, in the state convention, “ If there 
 were any seeds in this constitution which might one day produce consolida. 
 tion, it would, sir, with me, be an insuperable objection, I am so perfectly 
 convinced that so extensive a country as this, can never be managed by one 
 consolidated government. The federal committee were as well convinced 
 as the members of this house, that the state governments were absolutely 
 necessary to the existence of the federal government. They considered 
 them as the great massy pillars on which this political fabric was to be 
 extended and supported ; and were fully persuaded that when they were 
 removed, or should moulder down by time, the general government must 
 tumble into ruin.” [Ibid. 58]. Further along in the debate, in reference 
 to the proper lodgment of the treaty-making power, he said : “ As the 
 senate represents the sovereignty of the states, whatever might affect the 
 states in their political capacity, ought to be left to them. This is the 
 certain means of preventing a consolidation.” [Ibid. 123], In this con- 
 nection he mentions the most important and instructive fact, “ that the 
 extreme jealousy of the little states, and between the commercial states and 
 the non-importing states, produced [in the federal convention] the necessity 
 of giving an equality of suffrage to the senate. The same causes made it 
 indispensable to give to the senators, as representatives of states, the power 
 of making, or, rather, ratifying, treaties ; * * the small states would 
 
NORTH CAROLINA FEDERALISES HERSELF. 141 
 
 not consent to confederate without an equal voice in the formation of 
 treaties. * * Every man was convinced of the inflexibility of the little 
 
 states on this point. It, therefore, became necessary to give them an 
 absolute equality in making treaties.” [Ibid. 120]. This is like the 
 statement that Charles Pinckney made in the convention of South Carolina. 
 He said the smaller states, in the federal convention, declared that “ they 
 formerly confederated” as equal “political associations,” and that “no 
 inducement whatsoever should tempt them to unite upon other terms.” 
 [Ibid. 256]. Mr. Davie further said that North Carolina’s insisting upon 
 amendments before ratification, was an “attempt to dictate to one of the 
 most powerful confederacies in the world” while “ toe ” are “ no part of 
 that confederacy." “ Four of the most resjjectable states,” continued he, 
 have adopted that constitution, and recommended amendments. New 
 York [if she refuses to adopt], Rhode Island and North Carolina will be 
 the only states out of the union. But if these three were added, they 
 would compose a majority in favor of amendments. * * Two-thirds of 
 
 the legislatures of the states in the confederacy , may require congress to 
 call a convention to piopose amendments. * * Without adoption, we 
 
 are not a member of the confederacy , and, possessing no federal rights, can 
 . neither make any proposition, nor require congress to call a convention.” 
 [Ibid. 236], 
 
 Archibald Maclaine, one of the ablest advocates of the federal 
 system, said in the same convention, in reference to the general and local 
 governments being alike subordinate to the same people, that “the members 
 of the general government, and those of the state legislature, are both 
 chosen by the people — both from among the people, and are in the same 
 situation.” [Ibid. 68]. In reference to the phrase, “we, the people,” he 
 said: “ The constitution is only a mere proposal. * * lie might adopt 
 
 it, if we thought it a proper system, and then it would become our act. 
 * * It is no more than a blank, till it be adopted by the people. When 
 
 that is done here, is it not the people of tin state of North Carolina that 
 do it, joined with the people of the other states, who have adopted it? The 
 expression, then, is right.” [Ibid. 25], 
 
 Samuel Johnston, who was ak the same time governor of the state, 
 and the president of the convention, said, on the same occasion : “ We are 
 not to form a constitution, but to say whether we shall adopt a constitution 
 to which ten states have already acceded. If we think it bad, we can reject 
 
142 
 
 FEDERALIS ATION. 
 
 it. If proper for our adoption, we may adopt it.” [Ibid. 15]. Speaking 
 of the several sacred rights of the people and states, which some feared the 
 new plan endangered, he said : “ If I thought any thing in this constitution 
 tended to abridge these rights, I would not agree to it.” As to amend- 
 ments to secure the integrity of the states, and the subordination of the 
 government to them, he said : “ It will be adopted by a very great majority 
 of the states. For states who have been as jealous of their liberties as any 
 in the world, have adopted it ; and they were some of the most powerful 
 states. We shall have the assent of all the states in getting amendments.” 
 [Ibid. 57]. 
 
 Richard D. Spaight, a member of both the federal and state conven- 
 tions, said in the latter: “ The gentleman says we exceeded our powers. I 
 deny the charge. We were sent with a full power to amend the existing 
 system. This involved every power to make every alteration necessary to 
 meliorate and render it perfect. * * What the convention has done is 
 
 a mere proposal. It was found impossible to improve the old system 
 without changing'its very form ; for by that system the three great branches 
 of government are blended together. * * The proposing a new system, 
 
 to be established by the assent and ratification of nine states, arose from 
 the necessity of the case.” This new system he shows to be a federal 
 government, with the legislative, executive and judicial functions divided 
 and independent. But was there, as Webster has since asserted, a change 
 from a confederation to “another system?” Let Mr. Spaight answer: 
 “ If we do not adopt first, we are no more a part of the union than any 
 foreign power. * * If we adopt first, our representatives will have a 
 
 proportionable weight in bringing about amendments. * * It is adopted 
 
 ly ten states already. The question, then, is not whether the constitution 
 be good, but whether we will, or will not, confederate with the other states.” 
 [Ibid. 206-8]. 
 
 THE SOVEREIGN REJECTS THE LEAGUE. 
 
 But I have quoted enough. The friends and foes of the new plan were, 
 in this convention, as they were in every other, opposed to consolidation, 
 and in favor of preserving the integrity of the state, and her sovereign will 
 over her interests and destiny. That this statehood was endangered by 
 the unamended constitution, was the opinion of North Carolina, for she 
 refused to adopt, by a majority of 188 to 88, but simultaneously made the 
 
NORTH CAROLINA FEDERALISES HERSELF. 143 
 
 following record: “In convention, August 1, 1788: Resolved, that a 
 declaration of rights, * * together with amendments, * * ought 
 
 to be laid before congress, and the convention of states, that shall or may 
 be called, previous to the ratification of the constitution aforesaid, on the 
 part of the state of North Cai’olina.” [Ibid. 242]. And she proceeded 
 then and there to make such declaration [Ibid. 243], and to join Massa- 
 chusetts in demanding further safeguards for state integrity. Her version 
 of the then prospective Tenth Amendment is as follows : “ That each state 
 in the union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, 
 which is not by this constitution delegated to the congress of the united 
 states, or to the departments of the federal government.” [Ibid. 244]. 
 
 THE SOVEREIGN RATIFIES THE LEAGUE. 
 
 Having, like a sovereign, rejected, she subsequently, in her own time 
 and manner, and on her own terms, like a sovereign, ratified the constitu- 
 tion — no power or influence exhibiting itself, in any quarter, to operate 
 upon her will. On the 13th of September, 1788, as we have seen, the 
 congress of the states resolved to j ut the new government in operation, 
 which was duly done; whereafter, to-wit, on November 21, 1789, (the 
 general government having been organized ; Washington elected president 
 by all the states that had joined the union — except New York, she not 
 participating ; and the desired amendments assured), North Carolina, by a 
 vote of 193 to 75, ratified the constitution as follows: “Resolved, that 
 THIS CONVENTION, IN BEHALF OF THE FREEMEN, CITIZENS AND INHABI- 
 TANTS OF THE STATE OF NoRTH CAROLINA, DO ADOPT, AND RATIFY THE 
 
 said constitution and form of government. Done in convention 
 this 21st day of November, 1789.” [I. Ell. Deb., 244]. 
 
 Was this not acting like a “ sovereign, free and independent state,” as all 
 the states solemnly agreed and guarantied she was ? 
 
 Why did not Mr. Webster's great “ We-the-people ” nation — the great 
 sovereign commonwealth, that “once upon a time” — in his imagination — 
 so sovereignly distributed its powers between its “general,” and its “local” 
 governments, give North Carolina her share, and compel her to take it? 
 Was t just and merciful to her people, to allow her to remain — as long as 
 she chose to be contumacious — utterly destitute of power for their protec- 
 tion and welfare? — for be it known and understood, that “our states had 
 their status in the union, and no other legal status ! ” and “ neither 
 
144 
 
 FEDER ALISA T ION. 
 
 MORE NOR LESS POWER THAN THAT RESERVED TO THEM BY THE CON- 
 STITUTION ! ” So said Mr. Lincoln — rather emphasizing, though not 
 misstating, the views of the great Massachusetts expounders — Dane, Story 
 and Webster. 
 
 WASHINGTON VERSUS WEBSTER. 
 
 Webster’s chief dogma is. as we have seen, that the constitution is the 
 union or association of an undivided nation, and that in it, this people dis- 
 tribute their powers between their general and state governments. The 
 following shows Washington’s idea : 
 
 On May 10, 1789, the governor and council of North Carolina addressed 
 congratulations to him on his election to the presidency, saying, among 
 other things : “ Though this state be not yet a member of the union, under 
 the new form of government, we look forward with pleasing hope to soon 
 becoming such, and in the meantime consider ourselves bound in a common 
 interest and affection with the other states, waiting only for such alterations, 
 as will remove the apprehensions of the good citizens of this state, for 
 those liberties for which they have fought and suffered, in common with 
 others.” Signed by Samuel Johnston, governor, and James Iredell, presi- 
 dent of the council. 
 
 Gen. Washington replied June 19, 1789. He considers “the letter 
 * * but as indicative of the good dispositions of the citizens of your 
 
 state towards their sister states, and of the probability of their speedily 
 acceding to the new general government.” He joins them in the hope 
 that “ the union will be as perfect, and more safe than it has ever been,” 
 and concludes by imploring “ Divine guidance in the councils which are 
 shortly to be taken by their delegates, on a subject of the most momentous 
 consequence. I mean the political relation which is to subsist hereafter 
 between the state of North Carolina and the states now in union, under the 
 new general government.” For this correspondence see the American 
 Museum for July, 1789. 
 
 President Washington, Gov. Johnston, and Judge Iredell did not know 
 of any “ association of the people” of all the states, “uniting their power,” 
 “ joining their highest interests,” “blending in one indivisible mass all their 
 hopes for the future,” and exhibiting a “national will ” “effectually con- 
 trolling” “state sovereignty.” [Webster’s speeches of ’30 and ’33]. The 
 eminent teachers of Massachusetts did not “keep a school” in those days. 
 
NORTH CAROLINA FEDERALISES HERSELF. 145 
 
 to teach that the union was not an association of states — i, e., “ the united 
 states and these unsophisticated fathers thought the people had no social 
 or political organization, and no capacity to act politically, except as states. 
 
 They took for granted, and acted upon, the principle Massachusetts had 
 promulgated — a principle applicable alike to all the equal states of America, 
 viz : “ That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive 
 right of governing themselves as a free } sovereign and independent state" i 
 
CHAPTER XII. — Rhode Island federalises herself. 
 
 THE THIRTEENTH TO RATIFY— REJECTION, MARCH, 1788— ADOPTION, MAY 29, 1790— 
 
 VOTE, 34 TO 32. 
 
 HIS little state rejected tlie constitution, by a direct vote of her 
 people, in March, 1788. The vote was 2,708 to 232, many 
 9 citizens declining to vote . Two years afterwards, when the 
 amendments deemed necessary to secure state sovereignty were assured, she 
 called a convention, which, after duly deliberating, ratified the constitution 
 by a vote of 34 to 32 — the following extract being the material part of her 
 ordinance: “We, the delegates of the people of the state of 
 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in 
 convention, having maturely considered the constitution for the united 
 states of America, * * (a copy whereof precedes these presents), and 
 
 having a'so seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of 
 this state, * * in the name and behalf of the people of the 
 state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by 
 these presents, assent to and ratify the said constitution. 
 * * Done in convention at Newport, * * the 29th day of May, A. 
 
 D., 1790.” 
 
 Rhode Island, then, with the absolute right to adopt or reject, ratified, 
 and made the thirteenth of the sovereigns that constituted the federation, 
 and the federal government. 
 
 WASHINGTON’S VIEW OF THE ACT. 
 
 In June, 1790, to the legislature of Rhode Island, Washington wrote, 
 acknowledging their congratulations on his “ election to the chief magistracy 
 of our confederate republic,” and expressing his “ pleasure at the completion 
 of our union hy the accession of your state." [X. R. I. Colonial Records, 
 410], To Gov. Fenner, of Rhode Island, he wrote, June 17, 1790, con* 
 
RHODE ISLAND PEDERALISES HERSELF. 147 
 
 gratulating him on the ratification of that state, and on the attainment of 
 the union of “ all those states which were originally confederated.” “ Our 
 bond of union,” continued he, “ is now complete, and we are once more as 
 one family.” He meant family of states, and not of persons. 
 
 FINIS CORONAT OPUS. 
 
 Rhode Island then crowned the work of union, as she now crowns the 
 argument of federalisation. Even Mr. Curtis, at present the leading 
 expounder of the Massachusetts school, admits that Rhode Island was 
 then in a condition of “absolute sovereignty.” [II. Hist. Const. 599]. 
 Just as she existed, she took her p'ace in the federal system, without any 
 change being provided for, or hinted at. Indeed, she was named as a 
 pre-existent and unchanged political entity. That name — Rhode Island — 
 could have had but one meaning, as to people, organism, or political right. 
 
 Nay more, she crowned the testimony of the states, on the question of 
 their intended absolute sovereignty in the union, in a way not generally 
 noted and appreciated as it should be. Massachusetts, in her convention, 
 had insisted that after the states should adopt, and carry into effect, the new 
 constitution, they should amend it, declaring that “ all powers not expressly 
 delegated by the constitution, are reserved to the several states." [II. Ell. 
 Deb., 177]. Samuel Adams, in said convention, had stated nem. dis., that 
 this was “ a summary of a bill of rights,” and that it meant that “ each, 
 state retains its sovereignty ,” etc., “and every power,” etc., “not expressly 
 delegated to the united states.” He wrote to E. G-^rry and R. H. Lee, in 
 congress in 1789, that the amendment was desired, so that the people might 
 always “see a line drawn, as clearly as may be, between the federal powers 
 vested in congress, and the distinct sovereignty of the several states.” [III. 
 Life of S. A.]. 
 
 Moreover, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York.. and 
 North Carolina had joined Massachusetts in demanding the amendment; 
 and it had become universally understood that such amendment would be 
 made, to make assurance di ubly sure against consolidation of the states, 
 which Ames, Parsons, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, Pendleton and others, 
 had assured the people w is impossible under the constitution, aS it stood 
 without amendment. A'ain, North Carolina had rejected because of the 
 want of such provision buc had subsequently ratified because she felt con- 
 fident it would be made. 
 
148 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 It was then that Rhode Island crowned the evidence against the intent 
 of consolidation, as follows : “ And the convention do, in the name and 
 behalf of the people of the state , * * enjoin it upon their senators 
 and representatives * * elected to represent this state in congress, to 
 * * use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the ' following 
 
 amendments * * : 
 
 1. The united states shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom 
 and independence, and every power, juiisdiction and right, which is not by 
 this constitution expressly delegated to the united states * * [I. 
 
 Ell. Deb., 336], 
 
 Thus we see the status that Rhode Island, in common with her sisters, 
 intended and expected to have in the union. And history shows that the 
 commonwealths, and leading public men, all held the idea that sovereign 
 republics were constituting a federal government, or, in other words, an 
 agency, through which to exercise their powers, for their common defence 
 and general welfare. [See again, Part I., Ch. VII]. 
 
 THE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS. 
 
 I We have now patiently gone through the historical records of all the 
 original states, and ascertained from the testimony of their leading men, 
 jwho were the advocates of the new system, and from the acts of the states 
 ithemselves, that the constitution was formed and vitalized bv thirteen inde- 
 pendent and concurrent wills, each with no superior on earth; that each 
 and every convention iyas authorized and elected solely by the state it acted 
 for, to deliberate on the proposed system, ^and express that state's will in 
 ratifying or rejecting it; and that, therefore, no great nationality or national 
 will ever did, or could possibly, exert itself in the premises ; but that the 
 thirteen states did associate themselves, by federal compact, “ to establish 
 justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;” and did 
 thereby “form a more perfect union ” of states, as well “ as a more efficient 
 federal government.” 
 
 The association formed was necessarily a confederacy, for its constituents 
 were states, which remained imact after its establishment. [Art I., § 2, c. 
 3J. It was properly called the “federal system,” or “confederated republic,” 
 by Washington and his compeers; and it completely answered to the 
 “republic of republics” of Montesquieu. 
 
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 WE the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union 
 
 ordain and establish this constitution. 
 
 ARTICLE I. — All legislative power....* _.... 
 
 ARTICLE II. — The executive power. 
 
 ARTICLE III. — The judicial power. 
 
 ARTICLE IV. — Full faith and credit 
 
 ARTICLE V. — The Congress. 
 
 ARTICLE VI.— All debts. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. — The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall 
 be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so 
 ratifying the same. 
 
 Delaware, [l. b.] We the depntles do battfy 
 the said constitution. Done in convention, De- 
 cember 7, 1787, unanimously. 
 
 Pennsylvania, [l. s.] We the delegacep do 
 batify the foregoing constitution. Done in con- 
 vention, Dec. 12, 1787. Vote 46 to 23. 
 
 New Jhbsey. [l. a.] We the delegates do 
 •batify the same. Done in convention. Dec. 
 18, 1787, unanimously. 
 
 Geobgia. [l. s.l We the delegates do batify 
 the said constitution. Done in convention, Jan. 
 
 2. 1788, unanimously. 
 
 Connecticut [l. a.] We the delegates do 
 batify i be constitution. Done in convention, 
 January 9, 1788. Vote 123 to 40. 
 
 Massachusetts, [l. a.] The convention do 
 batify the said constitution. Done February 
 
 7. 1788. Vote 187 to 168. 
 
 Mabyland. [l. a.] In convention we the 
 delegates do batify the said constitution. Done 
 April 28. 1788. 
 
 South Caboltna. [l. s.] The convention do 
 batify the said constitution. 
 
 New Hampsbibh. [l. s.] The convention do 
 batify the said constitution. Done June 21, 
 1788. Vota 57 to 46. 
 
 Vikginia. [L. a.] We the delegates in con- 
 vention do Batify the constitution. Done this 
 June 26, 1788. Vote 89 to 79. 
 
 New York. [l. s.] We the delegates do batify 
 the said constitution. Done in convention, 
 July 26, 1788. Vote 29 to 26. 
 
 IiobthCaboiina. [l.s.1 Resolved that this 
 convention do ratify the said constitution. 
 Done November 21, 1789. Vote 193 to 75. 
 
 Rhode Island, [l. s.] We the delegates do 
 batify the said constitution. Done in conven- 
 tion, May 29, 1790. Vote 84 to 32. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. — The “executed” “deed.” 
 
 AVING shown from the sacred records of the country, who the 
 parties to the “deed” were, and their successive executions of 
 the same, I now present to the eye, the instrument and its real 
 makers together, as an ocular or pictorial view will enable the simplest 
 person to see and expose the leading and misleading perversions of those 
 sophists, who infest every section and neighborhood, and busy themselves 
 in undermining those temples of liberty, the commonwealths. 
 
 A FATAL ADMISSION OF MR. WEBSTER. 
 
 Though Mr. Webster said the federal constitution was made by a nation, 
 and not by states ; and that it contained no element of a compact, he could 
 not fail, owing to the nature of the case, to contradict himself, and make 
 fatal admissions, as will be more plainly seen hereafter. The following 
 example is from his speech in reply to Calhoun, in 1833: “The constitu- 
 tion,” said he, “began to speak only after its adoption. Until it was 
 ratified by nine states, it was but a proposal — the mere draft of an 
 instrument — a deed drawn, but not executed.” 
 
 The admission that “ it was ratified by nine states,” and “ began to speak 
 only after its adoption ” by these states, is a giving up of the whole case, 
 for the product of such ratifications could only be a pact, treaty or league — » 
 and all the ink of the Massachusetts school cannot prevent the fatality of 
 the admission ! 
 
 THE COMPLETE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
 
 It is obviously not the mere instrument, but the instrument, the parties 
 and the government established, that make up the federal system ; I propose 
 now to bring to view : 1. The “ dee,t ” as Mr. W. chooses to style it ; 2. 
 The names of the parties with the only “ ratifying'' “ ordaining," and 
 “ establishing ” words ever used, to give force to the “ instrument 3. The 
 
150 
 
 THE “EXECUTED” “DEED.” 
 
 date of each of the ratifications, showing the severalty of them ; 4. The 
 corporate vote of each party, expressing her will to execute the “deed.” 
 
 Then we shall have the tout ensemble , as in a picture — the vitalized 
 “ instrument ” — the “ deed” “ executed.” Then we shall know and realize 
 beyond a doubt, that the plan .was framed in a “ convention of states,” and 
 submitted to each state, to be ratified or rejected ; that each state, of its 
 own motion, and in its own time, called a convention to act upon it ; that 
 the thirteen states successively “ ratified ” the instrument, just as any other 
 thirteen parties would have acceded to, or ratified, any other instrument ; 
 that these are the only parties the history and records of the country give 
 any account of ; and, finally, that the only possible legal and political result 
 was a compact of federation, and a constitution of federal government. 
 These were the ideas of the fathers; and, when we reach, as we shall pre. 
 sently, the examination of the “ deed ” itself, we shall find full corroboration ; 
 for it will appear that the states were contemplated, and provided for, as 
 sovereign parties and actors, in every section and every line of it. 
 
 NOW LET ITS SEE THE “DEED” AS “EXECUTED 
 
 that is to say, the constitution of general government, as “done” by the 
 thirteen states, together with the only words ever used to give it life and 
 legal force — the only words that could possib y ordain and establish it; the 
 words that were, so to speak, the enacting clause of the said “supreme 
 law.” 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 We the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, 
 establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and 
 our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of 
 America. 
 
 ARTICLE I., Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall 
 be vested in A congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate 
 and house of representatives. 
 
 Section 2. The house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen 
 every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each 
 state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous 
 branch of the state legislature. 
 
 * * Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 states which may be included within this union, according to their respective 
 numbers . * * 
 
 The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, 
 
THE “EXECUTED” “ 
 
 151 
 
 DEE D.” 
 
 but each state shall have at least one representative ; and until such enumeration 
 shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three; 
 Massachusetts eight; Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one; Con- 
 necticut five; New York six; New Jersey four; Pennsylvania eight; 
 Delaware one ; Maryland six ; Virginia ten; North Carolina five; South 
 Carolina five ; and Georgia three. 
 
 When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive 
 authority thereof, shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies * * 
 
 Section 3. The senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators 
 from each state, * * and each senator shall have one vote. * * 
 
 Section 8. The congress shall have power — [here follows an enumeration of 
 the powers of congress, and prohibitions on congress and the states] . 
 
 ARTICLE H., Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a 
 president of the united states of America. He shall hold his office during the 
 term of four years, and together with the vice-president, chosen for the same time, 
 be elected as follows : 
 
 Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, 
 a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to 
 which the state may be entitled in congress, but no senator or representative, or 
 person holding an office of trust or profit under the united states, shall be 
 appointed an elector. * * 
 
 ARTICLE III., Section 1. The judicial power of the united states 
 shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the 
 congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges both of the 
 supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior; and 
 shall at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be 
 diminished during their continuance in office. * * 
 
 ARTICLE IV., Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state 
 to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state ; and the 
 congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records 
 and proceedings snail be proved, and the effect thereof. 
 
 Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and 
 immunities of citizens in the several states. * * 
 
 Section 3. New states may be admitted bv the congress into this union ; but 
 no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other 
 state ; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts 
 of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well 
 as of congress. * * 
 
 .Section 4. The united states shall guaranty to every state in this union a 
 republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; 
 and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature 
 cannot be convened), against domestic violence. 
 
 ARTICLE V. The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem 
 it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution ; or on the application 
 of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states shall call a convention for 
 proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and pur- 
 poses as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
 of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the 
 other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress ; provided that no amend- 
 ment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 
 first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ; and that no state, 
 without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage on the senate. 
 
 ARTICLE VI. All debts and engagements entered into, before the adoption 
 of this constitution, shall be as valid against the united states under this constitu- 
 tion, as under the confederation. 
 
 This constitution and the laws of the united states, which shall be made in 
 pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
 authority of the united states, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the 
 
152 
 
 FEDERALIS ATIOIT 
 
 judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or the 
 laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the 
 several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united 
 states and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support 
 this constitution ; but no seligious test shall be required as a qualification to any 
 office or public trust under the united states. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be 
 sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying 
 the same. 
 
 I DEL A W A RE. “ We, the deputies of the 
 people of t lie Delaware state, * * by these 
 presents do, in virtue of the power and autho- 
 rity to us given for that purpose, for and in 
 behalf of ourselves and constituents * * ap- 
 prove of, assent to, ratify, a:id confirm, the 
 said constitution. Donein convention * * 
 
 Dec. 7, 1787,” by unanimous vote. 
 
 II. PENNSYLVANIA. “We, the delegatee 
 
 Of THE PEOPLE Of the COMMONWEALTH of PENN- 
 SYLVANIA, * * do, in the name and by the 
 authority of the same people, assent to and 
 ratify the foregoing constitution for the united 
 states of America. Done in convention, 12th 
 Dec., 1787,” vote 46 to 23. 
 
 III. NEW JERSEY. “ We the delegates of 
 the state of New Jersey * * do hereby, for 
 and on behalf of the people of the said state 
 of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and co firm 
 the same, ai d every part thereof. Done in con- 
 vini'ion. 18th Dec., 1787,” by unanimous vote. 
 
 IV. GEORGIA. “We, the delegates of the 
 
 people of the state of Georgia, * * by 
 
 these presents do, in virtue of the powers and 
 authority to us given by the people of the said 
 state tor that purpose, * * assent to, ratify, 
 and adopt the said constitution. Done in con- 
 vention * * 2d Jan., a. d., 1788,” by unani- 
 mous vote. 
 
 V. CONNECTICUT. “ In the name of the 
 people of the state of Connecticut: We the 
 delegates of the people of said state, * * by 
 these presents, do assent to, ratify, and adopt 
 the constitution. * * Done in convention, 
 
 Jan. 9, 1788,” vote, 128 to 40. 
 
 VI. MASSACHUSETTS. “ The convention 
 
 * * do, in the name and in behalf of the peo- 
 ple of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
 assent o. and ratify the said constitution.” 
 
 Done Feb. 7, 1788. Vote, 187 to 168. 
 
 VII. MARYLAND. “In convention * * 
 we the delegates of the people of Maryland, 
 
 * * do, in the name and on behalf of the 
 people of this state, assent to and ratify, the 
 
 HERE, THEN, ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF A FEDERATION. 
 
 Now we see the “executed” “deed,” or instrument, as a whole; also 
 who the parties are, and how they vitalized it. Precisely as thirteen states 
 of Europe would have done, our thirteen states successively ratified the 
 great compact, thus exactly filling the technical measure of a league or 
 federation, and rendering impossible anything else. That those consti- 
 tuents act by ambassadors, while ours act by conventions, js of no moment. 
 The product of independent but concurring wills must he a compact. As 
 Mr. Webster admits, the “instrument” became the “deed” “executed, 1 ’ 
 
 said constitution.” Done April 28, 1788. Vote 
 63 to 11. 
 
 VIH. SOUTH CAROLINA. “ The conven- 
 tion * * do, in the name and behalf of the 
 people of this static, hereby assent to, and 
 ratify the said constitution. Done in *onven- 
 tion, 23d of May, a d., 1788.” Vote 149 to 73. 
 
 IX. NEW HAMPSHIRE. “The conven- 
 tion * * do, in the name and behalf of the 
 people of the state of New Hampshire assent 
 to, and ratify the said constitution for the 
 united states.” Done June 21, 1788. Vote 57 
 to 46. 
 
 X. VIRGINIA. “We, the delegates of the 
 
 PEorLE of Virginia, * * now met in conven- 
 
 tion, * * in the name and in behalf of the 
 people of Virginia, do, by these presents, assent 
 to, and ratify tiie constitution * * hereby 
 announcing to all t iose whom it may concern, 
 that the said constitution is binding upou the 
 said people, according to an authentic copy 
 hereto annexed * * Done in convention, 
 this 2Gth of June, 1788. 1 ' Vote 89 to 79. 
 
 XI. NEW YORK. “We, the delegates of 
 the people of the state of New York, * * in 
 the name and behalf of the people of the 
 state of New York, do, by these presents as- 
 sent to, and ratify the said constitution * * 
 Done in convention, the 26th of July, 1788.” 
 Vote 29 to 26. 
 
 XII. NORTH CAROLINA. “Resolved that 
 this contention, in behal r of the freemen, 
 citizens and inhabitants of the state of North 
 Caroinla, do adopt and ratify the said consti- 
 tutio i. Done in convention this 21st Nov., 
 1789. Vote 193 to 75. 
 
 . XIII. RHODE ISLAND. “We, the dele- 
 gates Of THE PEOPLE of t 6 STATE Of RHODE 
 Island, * * in the name and in the behalf 
 of THE PEOPLE of the STATE i f RHODE ISLAND, 
 do, by thes* prese ts, assent to, and ratify the 
 said constitution * * Done in convention, 
 the 29th of May, a. d., 1790.” Vote 34 to 32. 
 
THE ‘EXECUTED” “DEED.” 153 
 
 when ratified by the several wills of nine states. A moment’s reflection 
 will show that anything, in the premises, but a compact, was a legal impos- 
 sibility, while anything but a federation was a political one; for here were 
 precisely the elements of each — no more, no less : 1. The cause, motive 
 or consideration ; 2. The parties capable of contracting ; and 3. The 
 assent or ratification cf each and all. 
 
 If states were not the only parties ordaining and establishing, why can 
 we not find the history of some other action to this end ? Why should the 
 last article of the instrument provide u Jor the establishment of this consti- 
 tution between the states so [i. e. by conventions] ratifying the same?" 
 Why should all the leading fathers say, as they did do, at the time of 
 establishing it : this system is a federation of sovereign states ? [see their 
 statements in Part I., Ch. VII.] 
 
 The plain answer is that the states were associating to make themselves 
 “the united states,” or the “union of states,” as the const! utiun itself 
 repeatedly characterises the association formed ; and it was poiit cally and 
 morally impossible that a general government, constituted and carried into 
 effect by such parties, should be other than a federal government, or that 
 their union should be other than a federation of equal sovereigns. 
 
 Until the new federal constitution was completely “established,” as a 
 living and operating form of government, in place of the old ; that is to 
 say, until nine states had ratified, and had acted severally in electing 
 federal functionaries, and these had convened and organised themselves as 
 the new federal government ; the solemn treaty-stipulation, guaranty, and 
 pledge of faith, of all the states to each, was in full force, in the following 
 words: “Each state retains its sovereignty.” [Seethe first fed. 
 const'n., Art. II.] With this supreme and majestic status and character, 
 each and all acted. Must not sovereignty have existed in each state 
 through the act of establishing, and hence afterwards, to enforce, and, if need 
 be, to amend ? When did this sovereignty, and the voluntariness of the 
 association cease ? * 
 
 ♦While showing the states to he the absolute, the exclusive, and the only possible parties to the 
 constitution, it is well to note the theory of the remarkauie work called “ The Lost Principle, by 
 Barbarossa,” published at Richmond, in I860. It sets tbrt»i that the warm controversy on represen- 
 tation, between the large and the small states, and between the North and the South, that rose in 
 the convention of 1787, resulted in establishing an equilibrium be ween the sections bv compact. 
 Such compact — or more properly speaking, adjustment or understanding — it snch there was, does 
 aot come under my aim, which is to set forth an actual written compact , constituting a government, fand 
 ipso facto a union of states,) and delegating specific powers. The terms of that instrument, its powers 
 tnd parties, are most palpable; and nothing is said in it of sections or their agreements. However, 
 die subject will be more extensively noticed in Part ill, while the author’s theory will be ibuna 
 ji the Appendix, set forth in his own words* 
 
154 FED ER ALIS ATIOlf. 
 
 GROSS PICTORIAL DECEPTION. 
 
 In all the publications of this great instrument, from the beginning to 
 this day, tne following words are placed at the close : “Done in convention 
 by the unanimous consent of the states present , this 17th of September , 
 1787." Affixed to this are the names of the mere framers, and of the 
 states they represent. A pictorial impression is thus made upon the 
 popular mind, which the “Massachusetts school” deepen by speciously and 
 sophistically using the preamble, the supreme-law clause, and the Tenth 
 Amendment. They say that the constitution teaches that “ toe, the people " 
 of the nation, “ do ordain and establish” [preamble]; that what the 
 nation ordains is “ the supreme law of the land," [Art. YI, Sec. 2] ; 
 and that all powers not delegated by the nation, in this constitution, are 
 by the said nation, “ reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” 
 [Amendment X.] This is the pith of the consolidation doctrine. And it 
 is well to add here, that Judge Story as if to aid in misleading, asserts the 
 aforesaid authenticating words to be a part of the constitution. [See his 
 Com., § 1856.] This will be properly noticed hereafter. 
 
 The result of the above teaching is, a popular belief that a system was 
 devised and put in force, in 1787, by the said framers, who represented 
 and acted for the nation ; while the states were present, consenting to be 
 bound, and to have and enjoy only such rights and powers as should be 
 “reserved to” them and the people; and that the subsequent ratifications 
 by the states, were merely the taking of the affirming vote of the nation, 
 by sections, or. groups of voters.” [See Jameson’s Constitutional Conven- 
 tion, 59 et se^.]. 
 
 EXTOSURE OE THE FALLACY. 
 
 These, and other deceptions, produce in the popular mind, a vague and 
 false idea of our system, and divert attention from the real signers of the 
 “ executed ” “ deed,” the real constituents of the constitution — “ the people" 
 as commonwealths. It is forgotten that these “ moral persons ” — the 
 bodies-politic, named in the constitution — gave to that instrument all its 
 life and validity, each, in its own time, place and convention, discussing 
 the instrument, and ratifying it. It is forgotten that they delegated in it 
 all the powers it contains, and ever afterwards administered it, through 
 their own citizens and subjects, whom they elected or appointed for the 
 purpose. It is forgotten, too, that it was only the draught , or unexecuted 
 deed, that was “done in convention,” while the living thing, i. e., the 
 
THE “EXECUTED” “ 
 
 DEED. 
 
 155 
 
 constitution of union and government, was not “done” — in the sense of 
 being executed, i. e., ordained as law, and empowered to operate — till the 
 commonwealths respectively acted on it, and gave it the only existence and 
 legal force ever contemplated — each acting with her own absolute and 
 exclusive will, and they taking two or three years to deliberate and deter- 
 mine whether to adopt or reject — the first adopting in December, 1787, the 
 ninth and complemental one in June, 1788, and the thirteenth and last in 
 May, 1790. These states, as Hamilton declared, nem dis., were “ the 
 parties to the compact,” [Fed. 85.] and the “ essential component parts of 
 the union,” [II. Ell. Deb., 304]. And the said states were necessarily the 
 only “parties,” or “parts,” possible, for they comprised — nay they were 
 thernse ves — all the people of the country, and had under their sovereignty 
 and jurisdiction, all the territory. 
 
 The above deceptive presentation of the “executed” “deed,” is like 
 exhibiting a contract signed by the lawyers who framed it, instead of the 
 parties to be bound. Or, it is like a conveyance, with the names of the 
 conveyancers, instead of the vendor and vendee, affixed. 
 
 In a republic, these popular impressions are very important, as “ the 
 people,” who of right govern in everything, are, unfortunately gregarious, 
 and addicted to following leaders and teachers. They seldom look beneath 
 the surface, and, as appearances generally influence them, things virtually 
 are, or rather become, what, to the masses, they seem to be. For example, 
 in the case before us, under a constitution, which most clearly provides for 
 a federation of states , governing themselves through agencies, we have a 
 nation or empire of provinces , held together and ruled by a central sove- 
 reignty 1 
 
 THE TRUE PRESENTATION OF OUR SYSTEM. 
 
 to be hung on every wall, and printed in every book, for schools, or popular 
 instruction, is the following, which would, if promulgated, so impress the 
 people, and the rising generation, that all the hermeneutics of the herme- 
 neutical “ Massachusetts school,” could not interpret or expound it away.- 
 
 Each state virtually signs and seals the constitution, through her organ — 
 the convention, which expresses her will to “ ratify ,” using, in every 
 ordinance, as will be seen, this very word — the one which the absolute 
 sovereigns of the world habitually use in adopting the compacts, treaties, 
 leagues, alliances, etc., their commissioners or ambassadors prepare. 
 
156 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 THE “ MORE PERFECT UNION ” OF 1788. 
 
 We have now a complete and accurate conception of the “ more perfect 
 union ” of states formed in 1788, to supersede the one of 1778, which had 
 proved unsatisfactory. Though the above quoted phrase shows that the 
 constituents were the same in both unions, the great perverters audaciously 
 6ay that the change nationalised the states, by consolidating them into one 
 state or nation, instead of federalising them. Mr. Webster asserted that 
 “ a change was made from a confederacy of states to a different system.” 
 [Speech of 1833], So said Judge Story, [I. Com., § 357] ; and such was 
 the statement of the federal supreme court in “ Gibbons vs. Ogden.” [9 
 Wheaton, 1]. 
 
 All hi-tory shows the falsity of the contention ; the fathers declare it, 
 as Chapter VII.. Part I. shows ; and we shall see in the next chapter that 
 the constitution itself shows it to be utterly baseless. 
 
 THE IDENTITY OF CHARACTER OF THE TWO UNIONS, 
 
 and the true conception of our present system can be at once ineffaceably 
 stamped on the popular mind, and an end put to controversy, as follows : 
 
 1. Let the commonwealths be represented as so many symbolical 
 figures. Below are 13 such with their names. Each is a republic or 
 self-governing people — “free, sovereign and independent.” Added to each 
 is a figure representing its tripartite government — the legislature, the exe- 
 cutive, and the judiciary. 
 
 2. Let a single figure he placed below to represent congress or the 
 federal legislature — i. e., the first federal government. 
 
 3. Let a lim^be drawn from the legislature of each state to the congress, 
 to indicate the imparting of existence and authority to the first federal 
 consti ution, that of 1778. It was adopted by the states through their 
 legislatures. 
 
 4. Let there be added to the congress, to complete the tripartite form 
 of government, two figures, one the executive, and the other the judiciary 
 • — thus representing the plan devised by the convention of 1787. 
 
 5. Then, a line drawn from each body-politic itself, instead of its legis- 
 lature, indicates the imparting of life and authority to the second federal 
 constitution — that of 1788. 
 
CONGRESS] 
 
 iog\ 
 : m 5 
 ; ^rn » 
 • n i 
 
THE “EXECUTED” “DEED." 
 
 15? 
 
 BOTH SYSTEMS FEDERAL UNIONS. 
 
 This symbolical demonstration shows precisely our present system not 
 only, but the difference in form and character, between it and the first. 
 Both systems were associations of commonwealths. Both unions were 
 voluntary, and no involuntariness could supervene, for each state was a 
 republic or self-governing people, with no limit of right ; and each will 
 that acted, survived, and presumably remained free. And in all the long 
 track and record of progress, there is no shadow of evidence that the said 
 bodies-politic were consolidated, or their wills subordinated. That is to say, 
 they were not provincialised again ! 
 
 They are now the same political entities that gained independence and 
 statehood. Each has now the same individual name, geography, people, 
 organism, mind and will, and the original and underived right and power 
 that appertained, under God, respectively to the organized societies of 
 people in 1776. And out of them, no power has ever gone except dele- 
 gations to their own members, citizens, and subjects, who, acting exclusively 
 with such powers, can only be “ substitutes and agents, ” as all the fathers 
 called them. 
 
 THE SEPARATE WILLS OF STATES MADE BOTH SYSTEMS; 
 
 It is obvious, then, that the system founded in 1788, was as much of a 
 federation as the first, for the people of each state gave their consent and 
 ordaining power to this as to that, in their character as a commonwealth,, 
 or sovereign political body; and more unmistakably in this case, as here it 
 was the commonwealth itself that acted, while there it was its agent, the- 
 legislature ; here the sovereignty directly delegated power, there the dele- 
 gation was done by delegates. Masters and principals made up their mind's- 
 and exerted their wills in the latter case, while servants and agents acted 
 with their discretion in the former. States, in both instances, bound them- 
 selves in faith — in the former case affirming, or acquiescing in, the acts of 
 their agents, but, in the latter, acting themselves. It is plain, then, that 
 the union of 1788 was a voluntary association of pre-existent sovereigns — 
 a federation of distinct and absolutely independent states. Indeed these 
 wills could not by any political or moral possibility come together, in peace 
 and without force, for self-preservation and self-government, without a con- 
 federacy being the result. Voluntariness was essential, and. force only could 
 end it! 
 
158 
 
 FEDERALIS ATION. 
 
 THE LATER FEDERATION THE “ MORE PERFECT." 
 
 If, therefore, I were to instance a complete federation, I would name the! 
 one of 1788, instead of the other; for, as to this one, the forms, acts and' 
 solemnities, were of a higher character ; the authority from the associating 
 sovereignties was more direct and pronounced ; the architects were abler, 
 more experienced, and better instructed in public law, and political philoso- 
 phy ; the action was mnch more deliberate and careful ; and the structure 
 was nearer perfection, more practical, and much better adapted to securing 
 the ends in view, viz, “ the common defence,” “ the general welfare,” and 
 “the blessings of liberty” of the self-joined states. [See Fed. Const, 
 preamble]. 
 
 But let us conclude these chapters on federalisation by asking the con- 
 stitution itself, what polity it provides for ? 
 
CHAPTER XIY. — The testimony of the constitution. 
 
 S E shall hereafter gradually see what I now assume, that in the 
 republican form of government, sovereignty, according to its 
 ? Gf nature, controls every person and thing within its territory, and 
 is itself above all control ; that it is indivisible and inalienable ; that it 
 does in nowise consist of the rights and powers it grants and delegates ; 
 that while it is the right to govern, it is not the government — this being 
 the exercise of sovereignty through agencies and instruments; that sove- 
 reignty is predicable only of will ; that political will can only exist and be 
 exercised in and by an organised community of people; that hence each 
 state must be sovereign for itself, i. e., have the absolute right of self- 
 government in all things; that by their wills the states made “the constitu- 
 tion of the united [or associated] states;” that in so doing they federated; 
 that entirely intact their said wills must remain to govern (each itself 
 locally, and they themselves generally), and to amend their constitution if 
 they wish ; and finally, that, in all respects, the union is an association of 
 sovereigns. 
 
 I shall now show that the federal instrument fully proves this theory, 
 and contains nothing against it. 
 
 4® 
 
 “ WHAT DOES IT SAY OF ITSELF ? w 
 
 In his speech of 1833, Mr. Webster, while conceding that the constitu- 
 tion was no more than “a deed drawn but not executed” till it was ratified 
 by the states, said : — “ The question whether the constitution is a compact 
 between states is one which must be mainly argued from the instrument 
 itself.” He then asks, “ What does it say of itself? What does it pur- 
 port to be? Does it style itself a league, confederacy, or compact between 
 sovereign states ? ” And answers, “ Certainly not ; but it declares itself a 
 constitution.” This advances us not a step, but leaves the question still 
 
160 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 before us : What is the constitution? Let us then adopt his suggestion, andl 
 ask the “ deed ” what it has to say of itself, taking care to keep out of his 
 sophistical clouds. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF THE TITLE AND PREAMBLE. 
 
 The title is “The Constitution of the United States,” and the preamble 
 says: — “We, the people of the united states, * * do ordain and estab- 
 
 lish this constitution for the united states of America.” Whose constitu- 
 tion then is it? The title answers, “the constitution of the * states.” 
 Who is it for? The preamble answers, “this constitution for the * states.’ 
 The states then are the important subjects of these sentences, while the 
 word “ united ” — meaning associated — is a mere adjective. These phrases 
 obviously refer to the pre-existent states, united by the pact. It was only 
 as such bodies that “the people” could become parties to the constitution, 
 for each individual citizen was a member of the state, and had no right 
 whatever to act politically, except in such body and as such member. 
 
 Again, “peop’e of” and “constitution of,” like “government of,” 
 “treasury of,” “army and navy of,” and the like phrases throughout the 
 instrument, are possessive phrases, necessarily implying that the political 
 entities mentioned, belonged to “ united states,” not united people ; which 
 is literally the fact, and which was the understanding of the fathers. We 
 are then compelled to say that the owners of these things are so many 
 states ; that each must have the mind and will of an owner ; and that the 
 phrase “united states” can but mean pre-existent communities, who have 
 conjoined themselves in league. 
 
 And the repeated use, in the said pact, of the phrase “union of states ” 
 conveys the same idea [art. I., § 2 ; art. IV., §§ 3, 4], Nay more, the 
 states referred to in the preamble, must be those which the second article 
 of the first federal pact declared to be sovereign, and which must have 
 remained so in and through the very act and moment of forming the “ more 
 perfect union " described and “ established ” in the second and present 
 federal pact. 
 
 We find, then, that the title and preamble of the constitution, illustrated 
 by history, conclusively show a union of distinct commonwealths, co-equal, 
 and of course each for itself sovereign. I shall now proceed to show that 
 all the instrument consists with these views, and proves itself to be a fcedxu 
 of absolute sovereignties. 
 
THE “EXECUTED” “DEED.” 161 
 
 TIIE “ DEED ” NAMES AND RECOGNISES THE STATE! 
 
 Article I., § 1, declares that “representatives and direct taxes shall he 
 apportioned among the several stales which may be included within this 
 union, according to their respective numbers.” The article then provides 
 for a numbering and apportionment within three years, and decennial 
 repetitions of the same, and continues as follows : “ The number of repre- 
 sentatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have 
 at least one representative ; and until such enumeration shall be made, the 
 state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose 3, Massachusetts 8, 
 Rhode Island 1, Connecticut 5, New York 6, New Jersey 4, Pennsylvania 
 8, Delaware 1, Maryland 6, Virginia 10, North Carolina 5, South Carolina 
 5, and Georgia 3. When vacancies happen in the representation from any 
 state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill 
 such vacancies.” 
 
 Here are named the political bodies which are alike “the united states” 
 and “the people of the united states,” for “the people” are the states, 
 and the states are “the people.” This section shows pre-existent historical 
 bodies, with their respective names, geographies, organisms and independent 
 political wills — bodies which fully and precisely filled the description of the 
 state or nation of public law, and which associated themselves as “ the 
 united states” for their “ common defence and general welfare ” — becoming 
 thereby “ th : several states ” of “ this union," as the constitution repeatedly 
 calls them. The presumption is that each remained the same political body 
 in the union that acted in entering it, especially as there is no provision 
 degrading, or even in the slightest degree changing, a state. 
 
 A fact commonly overlooked, though very important, should be noted 
 here. The word “state” in the constitution, referring to New York or 
 Virginia, means precisely what it does when it refers to France or Russia, 
 i. e., the state or nation of public law. For instance, article III., § 2, 
 provides for jurisdiction of cases “ between a state, or the citizens thereof, 
 and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” [See also Amendment XI]. The 
 words “ state ” and “ states,” used by the fathers without qualification, must 
 mean what they do when used by publicists. [See I., Sto. Coni. § 207]. 
 
 ALL ELECTIONS OR POWERS ARE OF STATES. 
 
 All authority to elect federal functionaries, and all the “ powers delegated 
 to them,” belong absolutely to the states, by virtue of their original existence 
 
 
16 a 
 
 PEDERAUS ATION. 
 
 and right. Article I., § 1, declares that “ all legislative powers herein 
 granted, shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall 
 consist of a senate and house of representatives.” The “ members ” of the 
 tl house ” are to be “ chosen every second year, by the people of the several 
 states ,” who are qualified to elect members of the lower branch of the state 
 legislature. “ The senate * * shall be composed of two senators from 
 
 each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years.” These provisions 
 show that these two bodies, which are to possess and exercise “ all legislative 
 powers herein granted,” are to be entirely elected by “ the states.” 
 
 Section 8 of the same article declares, that the aforesaid “ congress shall 
 have power ” to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, make the 
 Coinage, establish a postal system, declare war, raise armies, provide a navy, 
 etc., etc. In section 9 are the restrictions put by the states upon their 
 congress, i. e., “the congress of the * states and in section 10 
 are the inhibitions imposed by the states upon themselves, in which they 
 agree not to make treaties, grant letters of marque, coin money, pass ex 
 post facto laws, or such as impair the obligation of contracts, levy duties 
 without the consent of congress, keep troops or war-ships in time of peace, 
 or engage in war, unless actually invaded, etc., etc. 
 
 We now see that the legislative provisions necessarily imply distinct and 
 sovereign states, voluntarily united and voluntarily acting in the union ; 
 and show that the said states elect, by their voters, all the members of both 
 houses of congress — this body having “ all legislative powers herein 
 granted.” Nay more, we see that both houses of congress are elected by, 
 and do represent, states alone — such states being identical with “the people 
 of the united states.” Here also is seen the falsehood of the assertion 
 that the house of representatives is “ national ” in character, instead of 
 federal. The representatives are “apportioned among the several states 
 “ each state shall have at least one representative the filling of “ vacancies 
 in the representation of any state ” is provided for ; the representatives are 
 to be elected by and in “ the several states and they are to be a part of 
 “ the congress of the * states 
 
 And, consistently with the above, article II., § 1, declares that “the 
 executive power shall be vested in a president and that “ each state shall 
 * * appoint a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators 
 
 and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress.” 
 It is further provided that these electors are to meet in the state , and cast 
 
THE TESTIMONY OE THE CONSTITUTION. 163 
 
 the vote of the state, and transmit the same sealed, to congress, where, in 
 due time, it is to be opened and counted with the others. 
 
 So far we see that the “ deed’’ contains no idea which is not strictly'one 
 of federation, of state authority, and state action. And these legislative 
 and executive representatives and agents of the states are to provide for 
 and appoint all other officers (including the judicial functionaries) of these 
 leagued or federated states. 
 
 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALWAYS VICARIOUS. 
 
 The constitution expressly shows that all federal “ powers ” are, and 
 remain, derivative from, and subordinate to, the states as such. 
 
 Article I. declares that “ all legislative powers herein granted, shall be 
 vested in a congress of the united states.” Article II. declares that “the 
 executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states.” Article 
 III. declares that “ the judicial power of the united states shall be vested 
 in one supreme court,” etc. Whose “judicial power ” is referred to? “The 
 judicial power of the united states,” of course. Whose legislative and 
 executive authority is meant? That of the same states. 
 
 But it would be insulting the intelligent reader to argue such a matter 
 further. No one can suppose that this created thing and agency called the 
 government, could have “ absolute supremacy ” over the states that estab- 
 lished it, or indeed over any person or thing whatever. 
 
 ALL CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS ARE THOSE OF STATES. 
 
 The next two articles will prove that all federal officers and all citizens, 
 are citizens of the states, and of course respectively their subjects ; as well 
 as show still further that the states were intended to be the sole parties to 
 and actors in the federal system. Article III. with Amendment XI., 
 provide that “ the judicial power shall extend * * to controversies 
 
 between two or more states ; between a state and citizens of another state ; 
 between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state, 
 claiming lands under grants of different states ; and between a state, or 
 the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens and subjects;” but that (as 
 the amendment provides) this “ power shall not be construed to extend to 
 any suit against one of the united states by citizens of another state, or by 
 citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” 
 
 Here and in article IV ., § 2, we find the ichole '’'people of the united 
 
161 
 
 FEDERALISATION. 
 
 states ” provided for, in reference to judicial matters, and privileges of 
 citizenship, under the description of citizens of states. 
 
 But let us go on. Article IV. says: “Full faith and credit shall he 
 given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of 
 every other state. * * The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all 
 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”* 
 
 THE UNION WAS MADE TO PRESERVE THE STATES. 
 
 The following clauses of this same article IV. put it beyond doubt that 
 the union was to be composed exclusively of states; and that the great 
 object of forming it was the preservation of them in their full pre-existent 
 integrity and sovereignty. “ New states may be admitted by congress into 
 this union ; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the juris- 
 diction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two 
 or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of 
 the states concerned, as well as of the congress. * * The united states 
 
 shall guaranty to every state in this union, a republican form of government, 
 and shall protect each of them against invasion,” etc.j" 
 
 THE WILLS OF STATES MUST LIVE TO AMEND. 
 
 Article Y. provides for amendments by the “ ratification” of three- 
 fourths of “ the states and that “no state without its consent shall be 
 deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.” Here alone are two irrefuta- 
 ble proofs of the correctness hereof, and of state sovereignty in the union. 
 1. The phrase, “ its consent,” shows beyond question, the contemplated 
 
 * This is the only citizenship in the united states, that the fathers ever contemplated. A state, as 
 •will be seen, is the members thereof, bound in the social compact. Look at the present con titutions 
 of Massachusetts and New York. The latter calls her people “members” and “citizens ” of the 
 state. Massachusetts sets forth the actual social compact in her preamble, and calls her ci izen “ a 
 subject of this state,” as he is in fact and in right. In a republican state the social compact is the 
 only possible tie of allegiance. We shall see this hereaf.er, as well as that the only allegiance in 
 our country is due to the state. 
 
 When the phrase “citizen of the united states ” is used, it means a citizen and subject of a state 
 entitled to the benefit of this stipulation of Ins sovereign, when he goes to any one of the federalised 
 states, 'i. e., he can go to any state and have the same “ privileges and immunities ” as the citizens of 
 that state enjoy. 
 
 f The phrase — “a republican form of government” obviously means a republic, in contra-distinc- 
 tion to a monarchy or aristocracy; a government of the people by themselv s, no matter what form 
 they choose to be organized and to act in. “ E;ich state retains its sovereignty” was the solemn 
 agreement and pledge of faith of all the states, in the constitution of 1778. “Every state in this 
 union ” exercised this sovereignty, or right of self-government till the full and entire formation of 
 the present union, and hence tiil after the present constitution was “ ordained and established.” 
 Hence it was 13 sovereignties that “ordained and established,” and hence the above clause can but 
 mean that each state is guarantied by all in the enjoyment of the said sovereignty, or the right of self- 
 government. It is a pledge of faith of all to each ; that she shall be “/ree” in will, “sovereign” in 
 will, and “ independent ” in will. And the very essentials of a republic are “freedom, sovereignty and 
 independence,” in mental powers or faculties — i. e. in perception, rp&son, judgment and will, to be 
 exercised in government; and these distinguish the state from the province or county The will of 
 a republic, or commonwealth, or state, must remain , in all things above her institutions of government , 
 whether general or local — federal or state. It is this alone which makes her a free state or republic! 
 
THE TESTIMONY OF THE CONSTITUTION. 165 
 
 survival of tlie sovereign wills which acted to “ ordain and establish this 
 constitution.” 2. States cannot ratify amendments, without having kept, 
 for future exercise in ordaining, the wills that originally “ ratified ” and 
 “ ordained.” And if the reader will look thoughtfully at article V., he will 
 see that the congress of the states — that is to say, the states collectively — 
 is to propose amendments, and each state is to “ratify,” i. e. “oidain”- 
 thus laying the additional federal law on her members, citizens, or subjects. 
 Let it be kept in mind that government, including the making and 
 administering of constitutions, is mental and functional action ; and that 
 mind must dwell in some body, and act through organs, while, as all func- 
 tionaries are oath-bound, they must belong to one of two classes, the per- 
 jured and the unperjured ! 
 
 THE SAME STATES MADE BOTH FEDERAL COMPACTS. 
 
 Article YI. provides that the debts, etc., shall be as valid against the 
 united states under this constitution, as under the confederation; and that 
 the constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and the treaties, 
 “ shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every state shall 
 be bound thereby * * ; ” and all officers, both of the federal and state 
 
 governments, are to swear “ to support this constitution.” 
 
 The above words, “ constitution ” and “ confederation ,” evidently refer to 
 the instrument used — “the united states” being the identical and absolutely 
 unchanged parties “under” both ; but, with great unfairness, Story and 
 Webster refer to this article in proof of a change “from a confederation, 
 to another system ” of government, which is not a confederation, and which 
 they say is a constitution ! and furthermore, Webster absurdly says “ the 
 constitution is a government proper,” as if the instrument , and the govern- 
 ment under it, were the same political entity 1 He might as well have 
 said, a constitution is what is constituted ! 
 
 THE INSTRUMENT SAYS THE STATES ARE THE PARTIES. 
 
 While all the expounders of the Massachusetts school positively assert 
 that the people, as a nation, made the constitution, and are the constituents 
 of the union, the “deed” itself as positively proves the contrary, by showing 
 the states to be the sole parties to “the union of states ” called “ the united 
 6tates.” Let us see. Keeping in mind the actual naming of the states in 
 the first article, and the constant recognition of them through all the pro- 
 
166 
 
 FEDERAL IS AT ION. 
 
 visions thus far quoted, let us bring to view article VII. This article, the 
 full force of which does not seem to be appreciated, prevents the possibility 
 of honest controversy ; for it is absolute and decisive proof of the states 
 being the sole parties to the instrument, and hence superior to it in every 
 possible respect, as well as sovereign over the government provided for. 
 It reads as follows : “ The ratification of the conventions of nine states 
 shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the 
 states so ratifying the same.” 
 
 Unquestionably then, 1st, that which is to establish, or suffice for 
 “ establishment ,” is “ ratification 2d, “ states" are to “ratify;” 3d, 
 therefore, “ the states ” are to “ establish ” the constitution and government. 
 
 No question can arise that conventions were to declare the sovereign 
 wills of states, for the language is, “ between the states so [i. e. by conven- 
 tions] ratifying the same.” 
 
 And we must keep in mind, too, the character in which the states acted, 
 until the establishment of the constitution was completed — that of sovereign 
 states. See the second article of the “ federal constitution,” which was, in 
 1788, or perhaps on the 4th of March, 1789, superseded by the present 
 one. 
 
 In order that we may now and here fully appreciate the gross error of 
 the Massachusetts school, let us exhibit the preamble and article VII. in 
 juxtaposition — keeping in mind the naming of the states , and their recogni- 
 tion throughout, as well as the fact that “ united ” is merely an adjective : 
 “We, the people of the united states * * do ordain and establish this 
 
 constitution. * * The ratification of the conventions of nine [of the 
 
 said] states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution 
 between the states so [i. e., by conventions] ratifying the same.” It is 
 certain, then, that several states, and not a nation, “ established ” the system, 
 and remained the sovereigns of it. 
 
 TIIE “EXECUTED” “DEED." 
 
 To give' a correct idea of the constitution as a completed instrument, 
 binding the parties — whether in law or in faith, it matters not — it should, 
 as above shown, be published with the names of the states, and the expres- 
 sions they used in ratifying and ordaining — just as should any other deed, 
 compact, or instrument whatever. Who ever before heard of a completed 
 contract, or “executed” “deed” being published — with the intent of 
 
THE TESTIMONY OP THE CONSTITUTION. 167 
 
 showing it as such — with the names of the lawyers who drew it up, but 
 not the names of the parties ? How would such a document look in court 
 as the basis of a suit against a party ? Nay more, how does it look when 
 cited to tell its own history and character? When Mr. Webster asked, 
 “what does it say of itself?” the last thing in the world to serve his 
 purpose was its answer! 
 
 It is now evident ‘that to get a complete idea of “ the constitution of the 
 united states,” the instrument, the names of the ordainers, and the ordain- 
 ing words, should be presented together, in a pictorial representation, as it 
 were, just as is done above. The acts of ratification undoubtedly vitalise 
 the instrument. Suppose courts did not take official cognisance of the 
 constitution, and it were permitted to be denied that it was law in a given 
 state, the act of ordaining or adopting, would be indispensable to show its 
 “ establishment ” in her territory, and over her people. There is, as to any 
 given state, but one ratifying , ordaining and establishing act in existence. 
 Nobody ever heard of any other than the act of ratification. 
 
 THE COMPACT WAS “DONE” ONLY BY STATES. 
 
 Instead of the constitution being “done” by the convention of 1787 
 this body was composed of mere agents of the states, and was under special 
 instructions from them to devise a plan, and report it to congress, to be 
 sent by that body to the respective states for their absolute decision — each 
 for herself, pro or con. Each, through her legislature, called her conven- 
 tion, which her people elected. Each held it in her own time, and at her 
 own place; and each had the universally conceded right to reject, and two 
 of them did so. All finally ratified ; three in 1787, eight in the different 
 months of 1788, one in 1789, and the last in 1790; each convention by 
 vote declaring the will of a corporate body, a sovereign commonwealth’ 
 The convention of 1787, had simply “done” what would have been waste 
 paper, but for the life and validity which was “ done” to it by these thirteen 
 absolutely sovereign wills. By these wills, and by them only, “the consti- 
 tution of the united states” was “done,” the federation formed, and the 
 government “ established.” 
 
 The constitution contains no sign of any other theory than the one herein 
 set forth ; and no leading father can be cited in opposition to it. The 
 “ powers ” of the instrument must be delegations of states ; the restrictions 
 on states must be their agreements ; the government must be their creation; 
 
PART III 
 
 ALLACIOUS EXPOSITION 
 
 " * • full of eubtile eophismeg which dog play 
 With double Bences, and with lalse debate ” 
 
 Faseie QukeXS. 
 

 
 
 
CHAPTER I. — Charges and expoundings identical. 
 
 ip HE false charges, made by the anti-federalists to defeat the con- 
 
 stitution, though promptly met, and decisively refuted, were 
 1 subsequently adopted by the professed friends, and so-called 
 expounders of our system, as the true expositions thereof — a proceeding, 
 much like vindicating a man’s character, by ascribing to him the evil traits, 
 which have been charged by his enemies foi the purpose of destroying it. 
 
 These were ascriptions of intent and meaning; and though Washington, 
 Hamilton, Madison, and all the rest of the constitutionists, declared and 
 conclusively showed — as is indicated in Part I., Chapter VII. — that the 
 intent and meaning were directly the reverse of what was charged, yet 
 most sedulously have the said expounders, during the last half of our 
 century of federal liberty, asserted and taught the false and reprobated 
 theory as the true one 1 
 
 In so doing, they necessarily entered, and travelled in, the path of 
 sophistry, and committed the flagrant wrongs now exposed. 
 
 COMPARISON OF CHARGES AND EXPOUNDINGS. 
 
 I proceed to place the original and untrue charges, and the pretended 
 expositions , side by side, under five heads, so that we can take in at. a 
 glai.ee the gross interpietative impositions to which the American people 
 have been so long subjected. The enemies and the expounders both con- 
 tend that by the present constitution : 
 
 1. The states were made into one state; i ^ "" 
 
 2. A federacy was changed to a nation ; 
 
 3. The general government is a sovereignty ; 
 
 4. “ The government ” is the final judge of its authority ; 
 
 5. A state and a county are equal in rights. 
 
174 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 I.— THE STATES MADE INTO ONE STATE. 
 
 Said Patrick Henry in the Vir- 
 ginia ratifying convention : “ It must 
 be one great consolidated national 
 government of the people of all the 
 states.” [Ill Ell. Deb., 227]. 
 
 Eor similar views of Elbridge 
 Gerry, see I. Ibid. 493. 
 
 Said Webster, in his speeches of 
 1830 and 1833 : “The federal con- 
 stitution is established by the people 
 of the united states in the aggre- 
 gate * * The union is the asso- 
 
 ciation of the people.” “It is the 
 people who speak and not the states.” 
 
 II.— THE CHANGE FROM A FEDERAOY TO A NATION. 
 
 Said Patrick Henry: “This 
 is an alarming transition from a 
 confederacy to a consolidated gov- 
 ernment.” [Ill Ibid. 44] 
 
 Said Webster in his speech of 
 1833 : “ All contemporaneous history 
 shows that a change was made from 
 a confederacy of states to another 
 system.” And the Supreme Court 
 of the United States have declared 
 the same thing. [Gibbons vs. Og- 
 den, 9 Wheaton, 1.] 
 
 III.— THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT A SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 Lansing, Williams and Smith, 
 in the New York convention, and 
 Henry and Mason in the Virginia 
 one, contended that the constitution 
 is, by the will of the people, express- 
 ed in the “supreme law” clause, 
 placed above the states ; and that the 
 general government can therefore con- 
 trol every power that would impede 
 its operations. [II Ibid. 374, 377]. 
 
 W illi ams said : “ Congress is the 
 highest power in the government.” 
 “ Whatever they judge necessary for 
 the proper administration of the 
 powers lodged in them, they may 
 execute without any check or im- 
 pediment.” [Ibid. 338]. 
 
 Said Webster in his speech of 
 1S33 : “ This constitution, etc., is 
 the supreme law of the land.” “ So 
 far as the people have expressed 
 their will in the constitution, so far 
 state sovereignty is effectually con- 
 trolled.” 
 
 See next point for expressions of 
 Webster making fuller the accord 
 with Williams. See also quotation 
 from Curtis under the next point. 
 
CHARGES AND EXPOUNDINGS IDENTICAL. 175 
 
 IV.— THE GOVERNMENT THE FINAL JUDGE OF ITS AUTHORITY. 
 
 Said Luther Martin : “ By its 
 [i. e. the government’s] determina- 
 tions every state must be bound.” 
 [I Ibid. 3C0.] 
 
 Again : “ All courts, whether fed- 
 eral or not, would be bound by oath 
 to give judgment according to the 
 laws of the union.” 
 
 Said Smith, in the New York 
 convention : “ The general govern- 
 ment has moreover this advantage : 
 all disputes relative to jurisdiction 
 must be decided in a federal court.” 
 [II Ell Deb. 332, 378. See also 
 Lansing, p. 354]. 
 
 It was claimed generally by the 
 enemies, th it the general government 
 was to arbit finally on all questions 
 concerning jurisdiction. 
 
 Said Webster, in his speech of 
 1833 : “ The government of the 
 united states does possess, in its ap- 
 propriate departments, the authority 
 of final decision on questions of dis- 
 puted power.” 
 
 lie a'so said in the same speech : 
 u It rightfully belongs to Congress, 
 and to the courts of the united 
 states, to settle the construction 
 of this supreme law in doubtful 
 cases.” 
 
 George T. Curtis, in his argu- 
 ment in the Dred Scott cas -1 , Dec. 
 18, 1856, said : “ Congress is * * 
 the absolute, supreme, and final 
 judue of what the constitution has 
 committed to its political discretion.” 
 
 V.— A STATE AND A COUNTY EQUAL IN RIGHTS. 
 
 Said Tredwell in the New York 
 convention : “ The sole difference 
 between a state government under 
 this constitution, and a corporation 
 under a state government, is, that a 
 state being more extensive than a 
 town, its powers are likewise propor- 
 tionally extended, but neither of 
 them enjoys the least share of sove- 
 reignty.” [Ibid. 403.] 
 
 Said Lincoln, after he was elected 
 to the Presidency: “In what, on 
 principle, is a state tetter than a 
 county” ? His contention was that 
 states had “no status or rights,” but 
 those given to them in the national 
 constitution; and that in rights, 
 states and counties were alike. 
 
 Webster, in his speech of 1833, 
 said substantially the same thing, 
 viz: that “state sovereignty is effec- 
 tually controlled” by the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 •‘Look hero, upon this pictnre. <infl on this; 
 
 The counterfeit presentment of two brothers.** 
 
 Let us stop and reflect 1 Did the American people really adopt the 
 
176 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 consolidation that they feared, and hated, and scorned so much, that repu- 
 diation of the system was well-nigh caused by the mere suspicion of it? 
 To appreciate the great and general dread of consolidation, or destruction 
 of the commonwealths, let the reader recur to the views of Fisher Ames, 
 and those of Chancellor Pendleton, pages 86 and 119 supra. 
 
 In justice, however, to pure patriots, I should here say, en passant , that 
 Henry, Mason, Martin, Lowndes, Yates, Lansing, Gerry and others, were 
 opponents of the constitution, because they were friends of liberty, which 
 they thought or feared the system endangered. Their idea was, that it 
 might reduce the commonwealths to their recent provincial condition, and 
 make the revolution nugatory. 
 
 THE FEDERAL SIMULACRUM. 
 
 Expositions, thus originating, necessitated the false and misstated facts, 
 the abuse of logic, and the perversion of language, of which sophistry, is 
 composed; and finally became formulated as commentaries, judicial deci- 
 sions, obiter-dicta, party-platforms and so-called constitutional arguments, 
 through which media alone the federal instrument was seen — the result 
 being virtually a spurious constitution. 
 
 And under the teaching and lead of politicians — who as a class have 
 become the greatest enemies of liberty — the people actually turned away 
 from the real system, and the golden words of the fathers, as well as the 
 truths of political philosophy; and the very opposites of them all became 
 “ public convictions,” [for this phrase see quotation from Mr. Curtis in 
 the opening of the next chapter]. Perversion, for gaining and effectuating 
 what the constitution denies and prohibits, has been so long habitually 
 practised, that a concordant usage has gradually supervened, and the pre- 
 cious compact is hidden by a simulacrum ! 
 
 THE SHEIK UL GEBEL 
 
 Hussun Subah, the founder of the order of assassins — commonly called 
 the “ Old Man of the Mountain ” who flourished near the shore of the 
 Caspian in the 11th century, “composed for his dais or initiated, a cate- 
 chism consisting of seven heads, among which were implicit obedience to 
 their chief ; secrecy ; and the principle of seeking the allegorical, and not 
 the plain sense of the Koran ; by which means the text of that book could 
 be distorted to signify anything which the interpreter wished.” [I Univ. 
 Hist. 240]. 
 
CHARGES AND EXPOUNDINGS IDENTICAL. 177 
 
 In the formation of the union, and for many years thereafter, Massa- 
 chusetts held the first place as the exemplar of institutional liberty, and 
 the representative of statehood. But to the grand old mother came degen- 
 erate sons — men who like the Sheik ul Gebel, founded an exegetical 
 system to distort the plain sense, the evident purpose of the constitution, 
 so as to make it provide for a nation of provinces, instead of & confederacy 
 of states — the central power of the former promising advantages to sections 
 and classes, as well as gains to personal ambition and avarice, which a 
 compact among sovereign, equal, watchful, and jealous states, coveriug the 
 actual points contemplated, and leaving out all others, with strict constiuetion 
 and faithful execution of powers ; would never permit. 
 
 JUDGE STORY'S RELATION TO THESE PERVERSION3. 
 
 As head-master of the Massachusetts school, Judge Story succeeded 
 Nathan Dane, who, after having striven with others to prevent the adoption 
 of the constitution, revived the charges they had made against it, and 
 foisted them upon it as expositions. 
 
 Whether Judge Story was his disciple and follower in this matter, I am 
 not prepared to say ; but he quotes Dane with approval, and neglects all 
 the advocates of the constitution, both of his own state, and elsewhere, 
 save such as suit life purpose. Why does he confine his citations of 
 contemporaneous evidence to Dane, Henry, and other known enemies? 
 Why does he not quote the instructive debate of the ratify ng convention 
 of Massachusetts ? Why does he not quote the other debates — say those 
 of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia ? Why does he nearly ignore 
 the important parts of the federalist? Why does he not quote, fully and 
 fairly upon the points he makes, Washington, Franklin, Ham lton, Mad'son, 
 Livingston, Patterson, Wilson, McKean, Coxe, Dickinson, Pendleton, 
 Randolph, Nicholas, Ccrbyn, Marshall, Davie, Iredell and others ? Because 
 they are unanimous against his cherished dogma — that an undivided 
 nation , from the plenitu e of its political sovereignty , formed and em- 
 powered both general and state governments. When he resorted to con- 
 temporaneous debates, he found his theory of the constitution, only in the 
 shape of charges made by enemies for the purpose of defeating it. These 
 he avails himself of as follows : “ It is also historically known that one of 
 the objections taken by the opponents of the constitution was, ‘that it is 
 not a confederation of states, but a government of individuals.’ ” [I 
 
178 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 Sto. Com. § 356.] By recurring to the text the reader will see (what the 
 word “also” indicates) that Judge Story introduces this as cumulative 
 evidence of the truth of his theory. He plainly admits the theory of the 
 enemies to he his. They charged it to defeat the system. He uses their 
 charges as explanations of it, though they are contradicted and refuted by 
 all the fathers. He quotes Patrick Henry, the most determined enemy of 
 the system, as follows: “That this is a consolidated government is de- 
 monstrably clear. The language is, 1 we, the people,’ instead of ‘ we, the 
 states.’ States are the characteristics and sou' of a confederation. If the 
 states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated 
 national government of the people of all the states.” [Ibid., § 358, note 
 and authorities cited]. 
 
 Now, here is a professed friend and expounder of the constitution, predi- 
 cating of it precisely the assertion made — as a charge to defeat it — by its 
 most bitter enemy ; and quoting the statement of that enemy to prove the 
 correctness of his exposition. Nay more, he ignores or suppresses the 
 volumes of opposing statements made by the advocates of the constitution, 
 and fails to state that it is also historically known ” that the triumphant 
 refutation of these charges of Henry, Martin, Lowndes, Dane, and others, 
 alone saved the constitution from overwhelming^ defeat; and furthermore, 
 that these charges operated as warnings to the people, and induced them, 
 in their state conventions, and everywhere among themselves, and through 
 the press, emphatically to repudiate (as their deputies had done in the 
 convention of 1787,) every idea of a national government, or a govern : 
 mental sovereignty; and, moreover, to make the 9th, 10th and 11th 
 amendments, to prevent the possibility of these curses ever supervening. 
 
 PROBABLE REASONS FOR JUDGE STORY’S ERROR. 
 
 It is known, however, that Judge Story, did not originate these dog- 
 mas ; and it is conjectured that without that close research and profound 
 thought that so momentous a subject deserved, he adopted the views and 
 copious citations of Dane, than whom there was no abler lawyer or more 
 competent investigator. Moreover, from 1811, to his death in 1845, 
 Judge S. was a member of the federal Supreme Court, which, being inter- 
 ested, generally favored the idea of a strong, self-perpetuating government, 
 and leaned to national views. So that besides being prejudiced, when, in 
 the era of perversion — say from 1830 to 1835, the said dogmas came into 
 
CHARGES AND EXPOUNDINGS IDENTICAL 179 
 
 prominence as a system, he was engaged in judicial, professorial, and book- 
 making labors, and hence was compelled to remit the research and argu- 
 ment to sustain the new exegesis, to Webster and Jackson, who dil nor, 
 investigate, because, like themselves, 'the champions of the commonwealths 
 merely assumed the premises of their arguments. Both parlies needed to 
 be DRIVEN to industrious research for the facts of the case ! 
 
 WERE THE MOTIVES WORTHY OF THE OCCASION. 
 
 It seems to me that all the contestants cared more — as is the case with 
 partisans generally — for keeping or getting power, for gaining material ad- 
 ventage, or for gladiatorial triumph, than for basing our polity on the 
 deep and earth-wide rock of truth, and measuring it with the mete-wand 
 of God's justice. They cared more for victory than for right 1 
 
[CHAPTER II. — Wno makes “supreme law”? 
 
 AjS"* 
 
 V 5 -' w 
 
 f ?3i 
 
 1 s% 
 
 WILL now proceed to take np, seriatim, and test the truflh arid 
 the constitutional principle of the leading dogmas, or so-called 
 interpretations of the so-called “ Massachusetts school.” 
 
 A conspicuous neutral journal a few years ago, mentioned the fact that 
 
 the Railway Company of New York, had so contrived a book, 
 
 that their visitors, in registering, unwittingly signed a memorial to the Le- 
 gislature for a charter, subsidy, or some other grant jto the company ; and 
 remarked that “this neat little trick is worthy of the best minds ever pro- 
 duced by Massachusetts.” 
 
 As politicians are alike everywhere, that state is by n® means peculiarly 
 deserving of this fling. All of them trick for party or personal gain ; 
 and so degraded is partisanship now-a-days, that even the most sacred prin- 
 ciples o-f the constitution are subjects of compromises, adjustments, plat- 
 forms, party legislation, etc. In principle the neat little trick is like some 
 of the so-called interpretations I have to expose, just as the Thracian rob- 
 ber’s acts were like those of Alexander the Great. But the difference in 
 degree, if not in respectability, is vast. The former will ever remain an- 
 ecdotical, and too little to be worth authenticating, while the expoundings 
 »f Dane, Story, and Webster, and the results thereof, will live as long as 
 history itself. Mighty armies rallied upon their phrases, and marched to 
 the music of their sounding words. At their bidding hundreds of thous- 
 ands were slain, wide regions desolated, and states reduced from freedom 
 to the most abject bondage of provinces. 
 
 I will attempt no allotment of credit among the above worthies. George 
 Ticknor Curtis, the biographer of Webster, claims all the glory for his hero, 
 as follows : * * “ It is to him that we are to trace that great body of 
 
 public convictions, which, ten years after he was laid in the tomb, enabled 
 the government of the United States to draw forth the energies of a people, 
 
WHO MAKES 
 
 181 
 
 “supreme la av.” 
 
 who would never have gone through the late civil war without those con- 
 victions. * * He knew well, that if the issue did come in this terrible 
 
 form, he had prepared the intellect of his country with that which could 
 alone justify and support the efforts that must be made. He knew always 
 that his own fame was completely identified with the doctrine that regards 
 the constitution, not as a compact, but as a law." The italics are in the 
 text. 
 
 “ WHAT IS OUR SYSTEM ” ? IS MATTER OF FACT. 
 
 Common sense would say that the question whether our general organism 
 is “united states,” or an undivided nation ; a “union of states,” or a union 
 of persons, is one of fact, to be settled by the constitution itself ; and in 
 cases of doubt, by historical evidences of intention. Cut the expounders, 
 to accomplish their ends, set up before the sacred instrument a screen of 
 what they call “interpretation,” or “commentary,” which is composed of 
 untruths, mis-stated facts, garbled quotations, and sophistical arguments ; 
 and thus produce the said “ public convictions.” 
 
 The constitution was established, and its character was fixed, when nine 
 states had ratified it. That character was a matter of fact and technical 
 . description. But no question of interpretation could properly arise, till 
 after the election and organization of the government; and, even then, not 
 till the legislature or judiciary should find, involved in a case before them, 
 some doubtful provision, phrase or woi'd, to be interpreted according to 
 accepted rules, for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the ordaining 
 power in using it. [See Part I, Ch. VIII]. 
 
 Proceeding now to show 
 
 HOW THE “ PUBLIC CONVICTIONS” WERE PRODUCED, 
 
 and to expose the untruth and sophistry of the leading so-called interpre- 
 tations of the Massachusetts school, I notice en passant the above expres- 
 sion of Mr. Curtis that Webster’s “fame is identified with the doctrine 
 that regards the constitution not as a compact , but as a haw." 
 
 The instrument is both a compact and a law. It purports to be, and 
 is, A compact because it is to be adopted by separate ratifiers, they all 
 being pre-existent and complete states, (each of them acting with its own 
 will through a convention) which ratifications are declared to be “ sufficient 
 for the establishment of this constitution;” and secondly it calls itself A 
 Law — “ the supreme law of the land.” 
 
182 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 Like a treaty between or among powers of Europe, it is both a compact 
 and a law , it being the latter to the subjects of eacb power, even without 
 a declaration to that effect. The constitution itself calls a treaty (which 
 is a compact) “the law of the land.” [Art. VI.] 
 
 So Mr. Curtis ’ distinction is worthless, both as to the fame of Mr. 
 Webster, and as “that which could alone justify and support” our unre- 
 publican war. But let us pass to 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 1. — The Nation Ordained. 
 
 To prove that the federal constitution is made by, rests upon, and de- 
 rives its authority from, the aggregate people of the United States as a 
 nation. Nathan Bane writes that the instrument “ is, as the people have 
 named it truly, a constitution ; and they properly said, ‘ we, the people of 
 the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution,’ and not ‘we 
 the people of each state.’” Judge Story quotes him approvingly, and 
 then says: “.There is nothing in the constitution intimating it to be a com- 
 pact.” * * “ The language is, ‘ we, the people of the United States, 
 
 do ordain and establish this constitution .’" * * “ T he people do or- 
 
 dain and establish, not contract and stipulate with each other. The people 
 of the United States , not the distinct people of a particular state with 
 the people of the other states. The people ordain and establish a ‘ consti- 
 tution,' not a ‘ confederation.' ” The italics are Judge Story’s. [I Com., 
 § 352.] Webster expresses himself in a similar manner. [Speech of 
 1833.] And so does the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Story 
 — the above quoted “commentator” — being the organ of the court. [I 
 AVheatoB, 324.] 
 
 IGNORING OR CONCEALIN'® FACTS DOES NOT DESTROY THEM. 
 
 It is unquestioned history, that each and overy one of the thirteen ori- 
 ginal states held a convention, to ratify or reject the federal compact ; that, 
 after debate, the said convention did by vote ratify it; and that the said 
 convention was elected and empowered solely by the sail state, and only 
 acted for her. And moreover, the will of the state was invariably ex- 
 pressed by a solemn instrument. 
 
 Leaving these ordinances of ratification out of the argument did flOt 
 destroy them. Did the expounders forget that the long debates upon them, 
 lasting two or three years; their final adoption by the' states respectively 
 in convention ; the congress receiving them as proof of the establishment 
 
WHO MAKES “SUPREME LAW.” 
 
 183 
 
 of the compact, and as the basis of starting the new government, are 
 indestructible facts in the history and archives of the country ? Did they 
 lorget that these ordinances show precisely who ordained and established 
 the constitution ? Did they forget that these ordinances alone convey life 
 and force from the people to the instrument ? And finally, did they forget 
 that these ordinances show that the people acted solely as commonwealths ? 
 In looking into this matter, we shall see why the expounders have sup- 
 pressed these majestic utterances. 
 
 DID NOT THE PEOPLE, AS STATES, OP.DAIN ? 
 
 It is true the constitution contains the words — “ We the people of the 
 united states,” and not “we the people of the state;” but this is not “the 
 whole truth.” The phrase in the constitution, and the one in the ord'nances 
 ratifying it, both refer to the authority which established the constitution, 
 and must be taken together. It would be absurd to say that the fathers 
 wrote in the pact, that it should be “ established between the states rati- 
 fying” by convention ; and that such ratifyings “shall be sufficient 
 FOR the establishment OF this constitution;” recognized that each 
 state could absolutely ratify or reject ; and wrote in each ordinance of 
 ratification : “ We the people ox the state, do hereby assent to, and ratify 
 this constitution ;” and yet, that they intended to provide that a nation, 
 and not states, should ordain and establish ! 
 
 It must be noted here, that the cause of the constitution is the subject 
 of inquiry, and not the constitution itself. As we have seen, the proof is 
 direct and positive that the sole cause was the ordainers of the said ordi- 
 nances, their thirteen separate wills being expressed in the said instruments, 
 and becoming conjoint or united on the one object — the constitution. 
 
 The preamble itself settles the quest'on. It says the constitution was 
 made by “ the people of the united states ” “ for the united states.” Itself, 
 then, shows the pre-existent states that the people were. The said “ peo- 
 ple ” had always acted as states. They were organised and capable of 
 acting only as such. All history shows that they acted separately — each 
 with her own will in federalising themselves. 
 
 Besides that this seems self-evident. Part II hereof gives overwhelming 
 and conclusive proof. 
 
 THE ORDAINING INSSRUMENTS. 
 
 If proof of the people’s communication of authority to the federal com- 
 pact, or constitution, were required, the instrument by itself would not 
 
 v 
 
1§6 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 Motley and others, ignore or suppress the action of the states, and espe- 
 cially the above ordinances? — and why, when they are forced to notice the 
 latter, they garble them, as they will presently be shown to have done ? 
 If they admit that the states enacted the above instruments, and that 
 thus alone was life and validity given to the constitution, and existence 
 and authority to the government; they admit the entire falsity of the 
 counter-statement, which all of them have repeatedly made, to-wit: that 
 the nation ordained the constitution , and that , as it is “ the supreme laio 
 of the land," “ state sovereignty is effectually controlled ” by it. 
 
CHAPTER III. — Fai.se evidence of establishment. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 2 — The Constitution National. 
 
 <S 
 
 ^1© one ex P 01ln ^ ers asked for proof of the “ establish- 
 
 f ment of the constitution, he asks in return, “ What does it say 
 
 1 SSg of itself?” [Webster,] and immediately answers from the pre- 
 amble: “ We, the people, * * do ordain and establish,” and he further 
 
 says this means “ the people as a nation.” This deception necessitates 
 various others, which are to be exposed herein. 
 
 Now, it is of vital importance that the people should understand the 
 source of constitutional authority ; or, in other words, who it was that 
 effected “the establishment of this constitution,” and was the source of its 
 existence and power. There must be some precise and conclusive evidence 
 on a subject of such paramount importance. And yet, on this very sub- 
 ject, the said expounders have been most careful to teach false ideas, and 
 cause confused notions in the popular mind. If they had really desired, 
 in good faith, to make a truthful pictorial impression, they would have 
 affixed to the compact the names of the states and their ordaining words — 
 these indicating precisely what gave life to it. [See Part II, Chapter 
 XIII.] As far as it goes, the constitution is the evidence of whatever 
 system was established, i. e., whether it was federal or national. But some- 
 thing more is necessary. It would be pettifogging folly to offer an instru- 
 ment as evidence of the parties to it, or of the extent of their obligations, 
 which lawyers had, under instructions, drawn for the said principals, and 
 had signed — not to adopt, but to authenticate and recommend as their plan 
 — but which the principals had never signed. Such instrument would 
 simply show what the plan was, and who devised and recomn ended it for 
 adoption, but not bind the principals contemplated. Now, how is the 
 execution and binding force of such instrument to be shown? Simply by 
 proving the acts that gave it existence and validity. If the constitution 
 
188 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 were not of the class of political facts, of which the courts take cognizance 
 without proof, the only possible evidence of its being in force in any given 
 state, would be that state’s act of ratification. Proving this would be, in 
 legal effect, like proving, by the party’s signature, or otherwise, the execu- 
 tion of any other instrument. 
 
 THE NEW SYSTEM “DONE" ONLY BY STATES. 
 
 Now we prove each ratifying ordinance as an absolute fact. We equally 
 prove, as a fact, that each was “ done ” by and for a state. Hence, as no 
 other source of life and power is shown, we establish it as a fact, that the 
 constitution was “ done," i. e., “ ordained and established," by thirteen 
 states, as their f rame of general government, and as “ the supreme law of 
 the land.” This precisely accords with the provision of Article VII, that 
 the “ratifications” of “nine states,” are to “be sufficient for the establish- 
 ment of this constitution, between the states so [i. e., by convention] 
 ratifying the same.” No “ ratifying ” or “ establishing ” but that of states, 
 that is, communities of people, could have been contemplated. It was 
 thus that the “deed”— to use Webster’s phrase — was to be “executed.” 
 It was thus, that the thirteen “ moral persons,” called states, were to form 
 the republic of republics — “ the united states.” 
 
 It is absolutely untrue that the convention of 1787, represented, and 
 acted for, a nation, in “ making a distribution ” of the said nation’s “ powers 
 between their general government and their several state governments 
 and “ reserving to the states ” the rights and powers they were there- 
 after to possess. The states made “ the constitution of the united states 
 created the government ; delegated its only powers ; and reserved all not 
 delegated : and necessarily the only restrictions upon states are their 
 voluntary ones. They are self-associated bodies — “ united states.” 
 
 All the history and records of the country, without the exception of a 
 line, word or syllable, aid in proving the last proposition, while no line, 
 word or syllable of the said history and records can be 'produced to prove 
 that a nation established our constitution of general government ! 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 3. — Story’s New Article. 
 
 If we judge from what the expounders have added to the constitution, 
 their “ construction ” means building or fabricating. The ingenuity of the 
 above named commentator has given us a most important addition. 
 
FALSE EVIDENCE OF ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 189 
 
 "When on the 17th of September, 1787, the deputies of the American 
 states, in convention, published the plan for “ the federal government of 
 these states,” they affixed their signatures by states, in order to authenticate 
 the plan, and to recommend it. Nobody ever dared to say, in so many 
 words, that the convention ordained , or that it had any more than mere 
 advisory authority, but the peculiar circumstances cf the case afforded an 
 opening for deception. In his Commentaries, vol. ii, § 1856, Judge Story 
 says: “And here closes our review of the constitution, in the original form 
 in which it is framed for, and adopted by, the people of the united states. 
 The concluding passage of it is: ‘Done in convention, by the unanimous 
 consent of all the states present, the 17th day of September, 1787.’ * * 
 
 Attbe head of the illustrious men who framed and signed, stands the name 
 of George Washington.” This is a sample of Judge Story’s exposition ; 
 and the phrase I have italicized, as well as the impression made, are entirely 
 untrue. Nobody — not even Judge Story — ever thought that the words 
 quoted were “ the concluding passage of the constitution i ” 
 
 SHEEP FOLLOW BELL-WETHEKS. 
 
 In all American boohs the constitution is invariably published as “ Done 
 in convention, by the unanimous consent of the states present and the 
 names of the deputies are affixed. It is published thus — strange to say — 
 in the book of Mr. A. H. Stephens. The people are thus pictorially 
 impres ed with the idea, that then, there, and by those men, the constitu- 
 tion was “done.” [See Part II, Ch. XIII.] 
 
 Men are naturally gregarious, and each flock must have a bell-wether 
 When a man like Story becomes accepted as a leader, his grex disci p idorum 
 thenceforward seem to think they need but follow and swallow. Many 
 pages could here be quoted from men who think, and many more from that 
 immense class who mistakenly think they think, to show a very general 
 adoption of the above false idea of the origin of our federal system. For 
 example the New York World of April 8th, 1864, said, “the constitution 
 was a federal compact, “ done in co tvenfion, by the unanimous consent of 
 the states present.” The so-called Massachusetts school, generally, pretend 
 to regard the “consent” referred to, as the basis of the federal constitution, 
 though they know the function of the convention was merely to make a 
 plan ; and that the real and only consent, and vitalizing force, was given 
 by states, and through the separate conventions of these bodies. And 
 
190 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 they intimate rather than broadly assert, that the people of the states, by 
 ratifying, consented to take place and rank, as fractional parts of a nation, 
 much as companies, by order, merge themselves in a regiment, or divisions 
 in an army. Indeed, Webster, in his speech of 1833, and Curtis, in his 
 letters to the New York World , in 1867, speak of this very consent, as 
 the forming of a national society by social compact. Such is the “ inter- 
 pretation” of the “school!” 
 
 THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND. 
 
 This seems to be not only the view of Story, Webster and Curtis, but it 
 is the idea of Buchanan, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Beverdy Johnson, 
 Robert J. Walker, Geo. H. Pendleton, et omne genus , as well as of all 
 those “black spirits and white, red spirits and gray,” that “mingled” in 
 the Philadelphia convention of 1866. To show how these able men, being 
 deluded themselves, mislead the people, I quote the following from a speech 
 of the last-named — who is one of the most distinguished of the alumni of 
 the Massachusetts school — at Bangor, Maine, in 1868: “I bow myself in 
 reverence, before the form of government which has bound these mighty 
 states together, and which has reconciled their different and discordant 
 interests into the harmony of one people, and one government. The men 
 of 1787, were self-denying men. They feared consolidation of power. 
 They put behind them all the allurements of imperial pomp. They denied 
 themselves the fascinations of a strong government. They contented 
 themselves with the simplicity of confederation. They committed to the 
 federal government inter-state and international affairs. All the rest, they 
 reserved to the states themselves. Within this narrow sphere they made 
 the federal government supreme. All beyond remained to the unimpaired 
 soiereignty of the several states.” 
 
 These are substantially the views of all the conservative men and presses 
 of the Massachusetts school. Nay more, there is hardly an inharmonious 
 buzz in the whole hive. The “ public convictions,” caused by their teach- 
 ings, seem to be inveterate, that some high authority, other than the states, 
 distributed powers to the general and state governments ; giving suprem- 
 acy to the former, so that to the extent of its powers, “ state sovereignty” 
 — to use Webster’s phrase — “is effectually controlled.” All this is not 
 only sophistical, but false ; and so fully contradicted by our history, that it 
 cannot be innocently repeated by one who is not ignorant of the subject. 
 
FALSE EVIDENCE OF ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 121 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 4.— The States not Named. 
 
 That the states are not named ir. the constitution is a common assertion 
 hard to account for ; though, in politics and war, an untrutH is often "bet- 
 ter for temporary use than the truth ; and in 1861, Everett, Motley and 
 others saw that the “ public convictions” needed strengthening by the 
 foimer means. 
 
 I shall simply quote the gentlemen named, and then quote the constitu- 
 tion, leaving the reader to decide between them. 
 
 Mr. Everett said [see I Rebellion Record 9,] “That instrument does not 
 purport to be a compact, but a constitution of government. It appears in 
 its first sentence, not to have been entered into by the states, but to have 
 been ordained and established by the people of the United States, for 
 ‘ themselves and their posterity.’ The states are not named in it ; nearly 
 all the characteristic powers of sovereignty are expressly granted to the 
 general government, and expressly prohibited to the states,” etc. 
 
 John Lothrop Motley, since Minister to England, in a letter to the Lon- 
 don Times in 1861, on “the cause of the civil war,” [see I Reb. Rec. 
 209] said: “It was n.t a compact. Who ever heard of a compact to 
 which there were no parties ? or who ever hoard of a compact made by a 
 single party with himself? Yet the name of no state is mentioned in the 
 whole document ,” etc 
 
 Federal Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2 — “ Representatives and direct taxes 
 shall be apportioned among the several states. * * The number oi 
 
 representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall 
 have at least one representative ; and until such enumeration shall be made-,, 
 the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose 3, Massachusetts 
 S, Rhode Island 1, Connecticut 5, New York 6, New Jersey 4, Pennsyl- 
 vania 8. Delaware 1, Maryland 6, Virginia 10, North Carolina 5^ South 
 Carolina 5, and Georgia 3. When vacancies happen in the representation 
 from any state, the executive authority thereof, shall isme writs of election, 
 to fill such vacancies.” 
 
 We can now see why the “ expounders” never get out of the loose pre- 
 amble or preface, into the constitution itself. The very first article exposes 
 two cardinal and flagrant untruths. 1st, That the states are not named 
 in the constitution. 2d, That the members of the lower, house of the 
 
192 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 congress are the representatives of the people at large, i. e. of the nation, 
 and not representatives of the political bodies called states, in which form 
 alone “the people” existed, and could politically act. This matter will be 
 discussed elsewhere. 
 
CHAPTER IV. — Some samples of “ sophismes.” 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 5. — The Supreme-law Clause. 
 
 F HE climax of all the Massachusetts arguments of “ interpreta- 
 b tion,” is, that “This constitution shall bo the supreme law of 
 
 the land.” If one ask — whose “constitution” is it? Who 
 
 made it? Whose “land” is referred to? Over what subjects is it “the 
 supreme law?” the ready answer is another segment of the sophistical 
 circle, viz : “ ‘ We, the people ’ — as a nation — ! do ordain and establish this 
 constitution.’ ” 
 
 It is obvious that all “ the people,” at the time of forming the constitu- 
 tion, were states. The association continued to he “the united states,” as 
 it had been under the previous constitution. “ The people” remained “the 
 people of the united states;” the instrument of union, “the constitution of 
 the united states;” and the general governing agency, “ the government 
 of the united states.” These are the very phrases of the constitution. 
 They plainly mean that “ the people,” “ the constitution,” and “ the govern- 
 ment,” belong to the said states — the united [or associated] states.” 
 
 The people chose to be, and remain, organized as states ; and they were 
 incapable of political action in any other form. Being republics, sover- 
 eignty, or the right of self-government, necessarily resided in each.' As 
 Wilson, of Pennsylvania, and other fathers, explained: “the sovereignty 
 is in the people before they make a constitution, and remains in them after 
 it is made.” 
 
 As republics, they intended to govern — not be governed. Of their 
 constitutions, or frames of government, the federal one is “the supreme law of 
 the land.” It is the “law” (i. e., the expression of the will,) of the con- 
 joint law-makers — not above them , but above their subjects, and their 
 
VJ4 
 
 fallacious exposition. 
 
 agencies of government. Their constitution can be no law over them, for 
 as to them, it has no sanction or means of enfoicemcnt. A law without a 
 sanction, is no law. 
 
 Many politicians seem to have vague notions on this subject. lion. A. 
 II. Stephens, in his “War between the states,” p. 40, says: “ The exercise 
 of supreme law-making power, even over the authority delegating it, may 
 be legitimate so long as the delegated power is unresumed.” Is there ever 
 such an “exercise?” Mr. Stephens ought to explain, with illustrations. 
 
 TUE FATHERS’ IDEA OF “TIIE SUPREME LAW.” 
 
 The plain and simple idea of the fathers was this: The states, being 
 constitutors of the constitution, ordained that where conflict should arise 
 between this, and any other law of the land, this should be supreme — all 
 laws being expressions of their wills ; federal laws being made by their 
 joint will , and state laws by their several wills. 
 
 Said Hamilton — meeting this very claim of Messrs. Webster and Story 
 — then, a charge, by enemies, of danger in the clause : “ The word 
 ‘ supreme ’ imports no more than this, that the constitution and laws made 
 in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. 
 * * But the laws of congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and 
 
 when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. 
 In the same manner, the states [he meant the state governments] have 
 certain independent powers, in which their laws are supreme.” Again, he 
 said: “The laws of the united states are supreme, as to all their proper 
 constitutional objects. The laws of the states are supreme in the same 
 waij." [II Ell. Deb, 362.] 
 
 Said Judge Iredell, in the North Carolina ratifying e nvention, about 
 said supreme law : “ What is the meaning of this ? * * It is saying 
 
 no more than that, when we adopt the government, we will maintain and 
 obey it ; in the same manner, as if the constitution of the state had said, 
 that when a law is passed in conformity to it, we must obey that law. 
 Would this be objected to? Then when congress passes a law, consistent 
 with the constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If congress, 
 under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, 
 they will violate the constitution.” [IV. Ibid. 178-9.] 
 
 Said William Pi. Davie, in the same convention: “Every power 
 ceded by it must be executed. * * It is not the ‘ supreme law ’ in the 
 
SOME SAMPLES OF “SOPHISMS.” 
 
 195 
 
 exercise of a power not granted. * * To vest the federal government 
 
 with power to legislate, and then deny supremacy in the laws, is a solecism 
 in terms.” [Ibid. 182.] 
 
 Judge Parsons, afterwards the celebrated chief justice of Massachu- 
 setts, said the same thing, in substance, in the ratifying convention of that 
 state: “an act of usurpation is not obligatory ; it is not law.” £11 Ell. 
 Deb., 94.] 
 
 It is needless to quote further, for these were the opinions of all. The 
 truth is, the supreme-law clause of the constitution was a mere emphasis 
 of a fact or principle — the enunciation of a truism. Any and every law 
 is supreme, in the sense intended, when there is no conflicting law above 
 it — even, lor instance, the order of a parent to a child, or a master to a 
 servant. Any rule, within an authorized sphere, and on a rightful subject, 
 is supreme, from the decree of an autocrat, down to the ordinance of a 
 town council. And, in the very nature of things, the compact of the states 
 overrode their home and peculiar laws, even without the phrase I speak 
 of ; for the very engagement of the parties, to which their faith is pledged, 
 is that no one of them shall nullify, defeat, or even interfere with, what 
 all, for the common good, have agreed on. If the nations of Europe were 
 to federalize themselves to-day, each would proceed to-morrow to make 
 every home and local law conform to the treaty. The idea is as old as 
 international agreements, that a state’s compact with other states is “ the 
 supreme law of the land” in her territory; and all her courts upon finding 
 any other law conflicting with it, would necessarily and dutifully decide it 
 to be “ supreme.” 
 
 Moreover, it is absurd to suppose the commonwealths created a govern- 
 ment and delegated to it, authority and means to destroy them. Kay 
 more, the fathers unanimously excluded from the constitution all 
 power and means of contending against the will of a state, saying 
 that the coercion of a state was “ visionary and fallacious” [Madison], 
 “one of the maddest projects ever devised” [Hamilton], and equivalent to 
 “war” [Randolph, Ellsworth et als.], and all agreed that it was inconsist- 
 ent with the voluntary union of states which was aimed at by all. : and 
 finally, if this “ supreme law of the land” is over the states, individually 
 and collectively, why did Messrs. Seward, Greeley, Everett, and others, 
 admit the want of power, in the general governmsnt, to coerce the states? 
 and why are so many misstatements and sophistries needed to strengthen 
 
 
196 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 the “public convictions,” and give ease to the public conscience on this 
 subject? 
 
 THE EXPOUNDERS PROVE TOO MUCH. 
 
 If the constitution is a law over one state, it is over all — “the united 
 states,” even, being subordinate; and Lincoln was right in his expression 
 that “ the states have no status or rights ” except those “ reserved to them 
 by the nation, in its constitution.” In other words, the stupid states have 
 put their “ supreme law ” over, and thereby subjugated, themselves ; and 
 given their own citizens and chosen agents full power to coerce their obe- 
 dience 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 6. — Partly Federal and partly National. 
 
 In article 39 of the Federalist, are to be found several little sentences, 
 which have done much detached duty in the great contest — supposed to 
 be a logical one — as to whether the constitution is a compact or not. The 
 expounders use them to prove that our general polity is partly federal and 
 partly national in character — the national part predominating; so that 
 practically, we are a great political unit, made up of municipal fractions 
 called states, and “ so far as the constitution goes, “ so far state sovereignty 
 is effectually contrlled.” [Webster.] One of these sentences is the 
 heading hereof. 
 
 None of “the writers of the Federalist” or other fathers hinted at any 
 nation acting in the premises, or at the states being reduced to provinces 
 or counties. In the article alluded to, Mr. Madison said, “ the act estab- 
 lishing the constitution will not be a national , but a federal act. “Each 
 state ” is to ratify, continued he, “ as a sovereign body,” and is “ only to 
 be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, it will be a 
 federal and not a national constitution. He then shows how, in their 
 compact, the sovereigns, as to the certain matters provided for, treat their 
 aggregate subjects as a nation ; and concludes that “ the proposed consti- 
 tution ” is “ neither a national nor a federal one, but a composition of 
 both,” i. e. it is federal in the establishment of it, but, pro tanto, national 
 in operation. 
 
 Mr. Madison’s obvious meaning was, that the states, as separate parties, 
 each acting with her own will, compacted to establish the constitution, and 
 agreed therein to govern their respective subjects together, as to the general 
 
197 
 
 SOME SAMPLES OF “SOPHISMES.” 
 
 matters the constitution was made for; thus treating them as if a nation. 
 And the true idea is, that so far as the federal compact goes, the people 
 are quasi a nation — not in political existence, organism or power, hut as 
 subjects of government. It is also true that the constitutors and components 
 of that nation are the states, and that the people of that nation are entirely, 
 exclusively “ and absolutely ” the “ citizens of the several states,” and, of 
 course, the subjects thereof. 
 
 Articles III, § 2 ; IY, § 2 ; and the 11th amendment, show that there 
 were no citizens of a nation ; and article I names the states as pre-existent 
 bodies, while the whole instrument contains no hint of their change in 
 name, (either proper or technical) geography, organism or political autho- 
 rity ; but, throughout its whole extent, recognizes and provides for them 
 as the parties to it, the actors under it, and the sources of all fedeial 
 elections and federal power. In short, the phrase — “ the united states,” 
 makes and ends the whole argument. It grinds Webster and Story to 
 powder I 
 
 ME SENATE FEDERAL— ME HOUSE NATIONAL, 
 
 The mixed character is pretendedly inferred from another source. In 
 illustrating it, the expounders allege that the senators are to represent 
 states, but that “ the house of representatives will derive its power from 
 the people of America.” “ The people of America ” are, of course, the 
 nation — the states being the provinces. The very article (39) in which 
 the above phrase is used, refutes the perverters a thousand times over. 
 But let us ask the constitution itself, whose representatives they are? who 
 they are elected by ? and whose power and means they officially use ? 
 
 1 . Article I, § 2, says the representatives are to be “ chosen every 
 second year by the people of the several states." 
 
 2. “ The electors [i. e. the voters] in each state ” are to be such as the 
 state authorises. 
 
 3. Representatives “ shall be apportioned among the several states ” 
 according to numbers 
 
 4. '■'■Each state shall have at least one representative .” 
 
 5. The same article and section names the states and fixes the number 
 each state shall u he entitled to choose ” till the apportionment. 
 
 6. The same article provides for the governor issuing writs of election 
 for filling vacancies in “ the representation from any state" 
 
FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 1'98 
 
 Note also the following, in Article II, § 1 : “Each state shall appoint, 
 in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, 
 equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the 
 state may he entitled in the Congress.” 
 
 We find, then, that “ each state shall have ” these agents, and each 
 “ shall be entitled to choose” them. Voting powers and eligibility to 
 office are fixed, of original right by the state, and are confined to her own 
 citizens and members. It is obvious’y not the people at large, but socie- 
 ties of people, that are to be represented ; and it is equally obvious that 
 republics, for federal self-government, are to send representatives, as well 
 as senators, to a congress of themselves. 
 
 The point of distinction between the consolidated and the federal form, 
 is the individuality of states, and their complete independence of will, 
 which we shall always find to have been carefully preserved. 
 
 What a stupendous fraud, then, is the national idea commonly taught. 
 Not a line in all American history or records agrees with it. Everything 
 shows the polity to be a federation, i. e., “ the united states.” The instru- 
 ment evidencing it, is properly called the federal constitution. So far, 
 however, as the states have willed that it should be, it is national in ope- 
 ration upon their citizens. Madison, Hamilton, and all the fathers said 
 the constitution did not attempt to consolidate the states, but contemplated 
 them as absolutely sovereign commonwealths in league for self-preservation 
 and self-government. [See Part I, Ch. VII.] 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 7.—“ Reserved to.” 
 
 The expounders assume — 1. the nation; 2. the supreme-law dogma; 
 and 3. the subjection of the states to this supreme law ; and pick little 
 crumbs of comfort, if not support, out of detached phrases, with which 
 their theory is consistent, though it is inconsistent with the constitution 
 and every fact of history, and especially with God’s truth and justice ! 
 
 The states — said Lincoln — have no “ status" or “ power,” but what is 
 “ reserved to them,” in the constitution by the nation — in other words 
 no rights but those the nation has allotted to them in its supreme law. 
 Amendment X reads : “ The powers not delegated to the united states by 
 the constitution * * are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
 
 people:” thus showing that all the powers granted or vested by the con- 
 
199 
 
 SOME SAMPLES OF “SOPHISMES" 
 
 stitution are delegated ; and that all which the delegators did not put in 
 the constitution, they must have KEPT OUT. This is the necessary mean- 
 ing of “reserved” in the 4oth amendment, and “retained” in the 9th. 
 
 Why was the phrase “ reserved to,” used ? I shall try to show in the 
 proper place, that, (as Livingston, Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, and others 
 viewed it,) the people, as commonwealths, were respectively distributing 
 them powers between their home and their federal governments ; and in 
 “ reserving” or “ retaining” powers and rights, they had to reserve to the 
 state governments, where many already were, or to themselves, who owned 
 all the residue. It must be kept in mind that in the common parlance of 
 those days “ state” was convertible with “ state-government” as well as 
 with the commonwealth of people. 
 
 “ To the states, or to the people," meant to the state governments, or to 
 the states. It is well to mention also that the reservation is not “in’ but 
 “by the constitution.” [See Amendment X.j 
 
4 
 
 CHAPTER V.— Garblings. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 8. — Garbling the Ratifications. 
 
 MiT^ 
 
 " *N the “Commentaries” [vol. I, § 356] Judge Story says: “It 
 was, nevertheless, iu the solemn instruments of ratification by 
 the people of the several states, assented to, as a constitution. 
 The language of these instruments uniformly is, ‘ we, &c., do assent to, 
 and ratify the said constitution The reader will please note the “ &c.” 
 Judge Story further says, that the language of the conventions of Massa- 
 chusetts and New Hampshire is peculiar, and he pretends to quote it, as 
 follows : “ The convention, &c., acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the 
 goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, in aifording the people of 
 the united states, in the course of His Providence, an opportunity, deliber- 
 ately and peaceably, without force or surprise, of entering into an explicit 
 and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new 
 constitution , &c., do assent to, and ratify, the said constitution.” Please 
 note, in this extract, two cases of “ &c.;” also Judge Story’s italics. Mr. 
 Webster, in his speech of 1833, [III Webster’s Works 476,] garbles this 
 ratification as Judge Story does, so that the present expose applies equally 
 to him. 
 
 And we find the same mysterious and suspicious, “ &c.,” in all the quo- 
 tations the Massachusetts writers make of the ratifications. For fuller 
 exposure, it is well to bring several to view. E. D. Mansfield, in teaching 
 political truth to the young people of our country, says, on page 171 of 
 his “ Political Grammar “ The language of the ratifications is remarkably 
 uniform, and remarkably explicit as to the source whence the constitution 
 receives its authority and force. All the ratifications commence, We, 
 the delegates of the people thereof, and all terminate by making their 
 ratifications in the name of their constituents, the people.” This is evi- 
 
GAMBLINGS. 
 
 201 
 
 dently a studied statement. One or two more will suffice, out of many X 
 have before me. During the war, an enterprising American in England, 
 under the auspices of the United States Legation, got up a “ Bacon’s guide 
 to American politics,” for the purpose of preventing the English people 
 and government from sympathizing with and favoring the South, in which 
 “ guide” the same deception is practiced as follows : “ All the ratifications 
 commence with 1 We, the people,’ and all terminate by making the ratifica- 
 tions ‘ in the name of our constituents, the people.’ Thus the states, in 
 their official capacity, proposed the constitution, * * but it receives 
 
 its sanction and validity from the whole people, in their sovereign capacity.” 
 
 And Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, in a letter to Edward Everett, dated 
 June 3d, 1861, wrote that “ the duly authorized delegates of the people 
 of South Carolina, executed an instrument under seal, declaring that they, 
 ‘in the name and behalf’ of that people, assent to and ratify the said 
 constitution.” 
 
 Now what does “&c.,” or the ellipsis, mean, in all these quotations? or, 
 rather, what does it hide? Simply this: it conceals words which com- 
 pletely falsify the assertions made, and conclusively prove that the people , 
 as independent states — organized and acting as such — and not the people 
 as a nation , are the parties to the federal constitution, and the sole 
 sources of its authority ; and that this instrument evidences a federation 
 of sovereignties. And, that the above writers thought so, is shown by 
 their invariable suppression of the pith of these ordinances. Indeed they 
 could not have believed otherwise. 
 
 THE TRUE VERSIONS. 
 
 Keferring generally to the acts of ratification, all to be found in I El- 
 liott’s Debates, 319-337, I will copy the ordaining words of two or three 
 ot them, so that the reader can see, in juxtaposition, the garbled and the 
 true expressions. Here are the suppressed words and the very pith of the 
 ratification of Judge Story’s own state : “ The convention” [here follow 
 the introductory words above quoted, which the reader must recur to, in 
 order fully to appreciate the deceptions] do, in the “ name and in behalf of 
 the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify 
 the constitution for the United States of America.” The ratifying act 
 passed by a vote of 187 to 168. , 
 
 , Here is the pith of the act of New Jersey : “ In convention of the 
 
202 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 state of New Jersey, * * We, the delegates of the state of New Jer. 
 
 sey, * * do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people of the said 
 
 state of New Jersey, agree to ‘ ratify’ and confirm the same, and every 
 part thereof.” Passed by unanimous vote. 
 
 Here is the substantial portion of Virginia’s ordinance: “We, the dele- 
 gates of the people of Virginia * * now met in convention * * 
 
 in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, do, by these presents, 
 assent to, and ratify, the constitution recommended, * * hereby 
 
 announcing to all whom it may concern, that the said constitution is binding 
 on the said people.” Vote 89 to 79. 
 
 Here are the words of Georgia: “ * * We the delegates of the 
 
 people of the state of Georgia, in convention met, * * do, in virtue 
 
 of the power and authority to us given, by the people of the said state, for 
 that purpose, for, and in behalf of, ourselves and our constituents, fully' 
 and entirely assent to, ratify, and adopt, the said constitution.” Vote 
 unanimous. All the ordinances are in substance the same ; and all contain 
 the word “ratify” — referring to the act of the political body — the state. 
 
 WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE? 
 
 Now, the purpose of these garblings is obvious. If the perverfers had 
 written and printed the suppressed passages, they would have destroyed 
 themselves, for the words suppressed, show the states to be the only possible 
 creators and delegators. But while engaged in the deception, they often 
 unwittingly recognize these acts of ratification, as conveying from the 
 organized peoples, i. e., the commonwealths, the entire life and strength of 
 the constitution. For example, see the above words of Judge Story: 
 “The people of the several states assented to” the said c nstitutien, by 
 “ solemn instruments of ratification'' This admits all I claim, for no one 
 pretends that the original “ establishment," i. e., the vitality and validity 
 of the pact or constitution, could come from any other source than these 
 acts of nine or more states, spoken through nine or more conventions. 
 An instrument prepared by the deputies of thirteen such parties, which 
 the said parties consecutively and independently adopt, and which contaijfe 
 their provisions for the general government of their people, must be v a 
 federalizing instrument, whether sanctioned by signature, seal, proxy, dele- 
 gation,, convention, commissioners, ambassadors, or any other mode and 
 means of expressing will ; and the product of such instrument is neces- 
 
GARBLING S. 
 
 203 
 
 sarily a federation, i. e., a union of states. How can any intelligent man, 
 in the face of these facts, innocently assert that our general polity is an 
 association of peop’e as a nation, instead of a society of commonwealths — 
 a republic of republics — “the united states ?” What chance has truth, 
 reason, argument, compacts, or the sacred faith of the fathers, against 
 those “ free-lances ” of the tongue and pen — the so-called Massachusetts 
 school — with their command of the press — where they constantly speak 
 and write such as the following extract from Motley’s letter to the London 
 Times — heretofore quoted from : “ * * the name of no state is men- 
 
 tioned in the whole document ; the states themselves are only mentioned 
 to receive commands or prohibitions, and the people of the united states is 
 the single party by whom alone the instrument is executed. The consti- 
 tution was not drawn up by the states, it was not promulgated in the name 
 of the states, it was not ratifLd by the states. The states never acceded 
 to it, and possess no power to secede from it. It was ordained and estab- 
 lished over the states by a power superior to the states — by the people of 
 the whole land, in their aggregate capacity, acting through conventions o^ 
 delegates expressly chosen for the purpose within each state, etc.” [I 
 fteb. Rec., 211.] Every sentence of the above is directly and positively 
 contradicted by the history and records of the country, as heretofore shown, 
 and as we shall constantly see. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 9. — Garbling the Federalist. 
 
 Many instances of this ingenuity on the part of some of the “ best minds 
 of Massachusct:s ” could be given, but it is presumed the following will 
 suffice. An American politician con iders himself quite fortunate, if lie 
 can quote an apposite aud forcible passage of the Federalist, to prove his 
 contention. In quoting to prove his, Judge Story says: “It is truly 
 remarked by the Federalist, [Art. 39,] that the constitution was the result, 
 neither from a decision of the majority of the people of the union, nor 
 from that of a majority of the states. It resulted from the unanimous 
 assent of the several states, that are parties, differing no otherwise from 
 their ordinary assent, than its being expressed, not by the legislative 
 authority, but by that of the people themselves.” He professes to give 
 the substance, but abstracts what is merely prefatory to the gist of the 
 passage, and leaves off, so as to convey the impression of a national consti- 
 tuency, or the “ we-the-people ” idea, to prove which, is the great end of 
 
204 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 his argument. Here is what next follows : “ Were the people regarded, in 
 this transaction, as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the 
 whole people of the united states would bind the minority. * * Each 
 
 state in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, inde- 
 pendent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In 
 this relation, the new constitution will, if established, be a federal , and not 
 a national constitution.” This is decisive on the very point Judge Story 
 was discussing, and it destroys him completely; and he recognized this, by 
 suppressing the passage confuting him, while quoting its antecedent, which 
 seemed to support him. And the careful reader will find that all of Judge 
 Story’s arguments and multitudinous citations, on the great subject of “the 
 nature of the constitution,” are so delusive, that full examination is the 
 only safe-guard against deception. 
 
 AN EFFORT OF MR. WEBSTER IN THIS LINE. 
 
 Mr. Webster is equally unscrupulous in culling expressions and facts to 
 suit his purpose, and withholding contexts and historical explanations. 
 An instance like the above is the following, from his speech of 1833. He 
 asserts that “ the writers of the Federalist ” declare that “ the fabric of 
 American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent op the 
 people, [the small caps are his] ; and he uses this expression of the said 
 writers, and the immediate context, to refute the idea of pact, and to show 
 that a nation was formed. He did not seem to know that this expression, 
 found in article 22, refers to the first federation, being made by delegative 
 instead of original power ; and simply meant that the people of the states 
 • — and not their legislatures, were to ordain and establish the new pact. 
 He did not seem to reflect that not only were the people of the common- 
 wealths the only people, but as has been shown, they could politically act 
 onlij as states ; and that their several absolutely independent acts made 
 them “ united states” as they agreed to call themselves. 
 
 lie then goes on to declare that “ the powers conferred on the new 
 government were perfectly well understood to be conferred, not by any 
 state, or the people of any state, but by the people of the united states.” 
 And, finally, he proceeds to garble the ratifications of Virginia, Massachu- 
 setts and New Hampshire, to prove his view. And, with sublime audac’ty, 
 he says : “ Indeed, sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the num- 
 bers of the Federalist , to the debates in conventions, to the publications 
 
GARBLINGS. 
 
 205 
 
 of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had been made, from a 
 confederacy of states to a different system.” Now all these assertions are 
 untrue; and the authorities he dares to refer to, flatly contradict him. 
 For instance, “the writers of the Federalist,” instead of calling the system 
 a nation or state, in any technical sense, repeatedly characterize it as a 
 “confederacy.” [See again Part I, Chap. VII.] Instead of saying the 
 general government rests on the “ basis of the consent of the people ” as a 
 nation, they say that “ each state ratified ” “ as a sovereign body,” and is 
 only “ bound by its own voluntary act.” [Art. 39.] Instead of saying, 
 the power’s are conferred on the new government by the people of the 
 united states as a nation, they say “the states” alone “delegate” them. 
 Instead of saying, the people compact to form a nation, they say “13 
 independent states ” are “ the parties to the compact ” forming “ the con- 
 federacy” [art. 85].* Finally, in direct opposition to all the pretending 
 expounder asserts, they say “the states are regarded as distinct and inde- 
 pendent sovereigns * * by the constitution proposed.” [Art. 40.] 
 
 With but slight investigation, the expounders could have found numerous 
 proofs like these, covering and deciding the very points of controversy. 
 But their search was only for short and convenient passages, to sustain 
 foregone conclusions. And even the so-called “ state-rights" men of the 
 original states, neglect these truths, which sparkle like gems, wherever, 
 in the archives and constitutions of the said commonwealths, they look I 
 
 * This very article — written by Hamilton, contains the expression : “A nation 
 without a national government is an awful spectacle.” This, like the “ we-the- 
 people” sentence, and others, long did much “detached service” in lorming trie 
 aforesaid bellicose “ public convictions.” 
 
CHAPTER VI. — Adroit substitutions. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 10. — Changing Terms and Meanings. 
 
 HEN, in 1861, Mr. Edward Everett was preparing his address 
 to strengthen the “ public convictions” against the South, and 
 
 °l against his own previous utterances,* he saw that the thirteen 
 
 ratifications were the only means of communicating the power of the people 
 to the federal compact; ttiat each of these ratifications was passed by the 
 highest legislative body known — the one usually employed by the people in 
 their sovereign action ; and that the acts of such bodies were generally consid- 
 ered to be of the character of ordinances or enactments. He saw that, 
 for his argument, “ ordinance” was a bad name, for the reason that the 
 power of enactment and that of repeal are commensurate ; and hence, in 
 order to refute the wicked secessionists, he conceived the ‘ cute’ idea of 
 substituting “ deed” for “ ordinance, ’’and thereby getting a more favorable 
 definition to assist in producing the desired “public convictions.” 
 
 So, in his address of the 4th of July, 1861, we find him speaking of 
 South Carolina’s ordinance of secession as follows : “ It was intended, by 
 calling the act of ratification an ordinance, to infer a right of repealing it, 
 by another ordinance. It is important therefore, to observe that the act of 
 ratification is not, and was not, at the time, called an ordinance, and con- 
 tains nothing which by possibility can be repealed.” [I Rebellion Record, 
 
 8 .] 
 
 But, as if lacking confidence in this link of his feeble chain, he wrote 
 to “the learned and accurate [?] historian of the constitution,” Mr. Greoigc 
 
 * In 182G, Mr. Everett was in congress, and a warm defender of the states. He then, agreed, with 
 Mr. Jefferson, that “ the constitution of the united states is a compact of independent nations.” [VII 
 Jefferson's Works.] On May 29, 18G0, he wrote to Washington Hunt against coercion, and caid our 
 “ union of co-equal sovereign states requires, as its basis, the harmony of its members, and their 
 voluntary ci-operation in its organic functions.” On February 22, 18G1, he wrote: “To expect to 
 hold fifteen states in the union by force is preposterous. * * If our sister states must leave us, 
 in the name of Heaven, let them depart i i peace.” 
 
ADROIT SUBSTITUTIONS. 
 
 207 
 
 Ticknor Curtis, who strengthened it as follows : I have “ looked carefully 
 at the ratification,” and found it to be “ much more in the nature of a 
 deed, or grant, than an oidinance. An ordinance would seem to be au 
 instrument adopted by a public body, for the regulation of a subject, which, 
 in its nature, remains under the regulation of that body ; — to operate till 
 otherwise provided for while “ a deed, or grant, operates to pass some- 
 thing ; and, unless there be a reservation of some control over the subject 
 matter by the grantor, his cession is necessarily irrevocable.” “ These 
 distinctions are applicable to the cession of political powers by a people.” 
 “ The question submitted to the people of South Carolina by the congress, 
 was, whether they would cede the powers of government, embraced in an 
 instrument sent to them. * * In other words, they were asked to make 
 
 a grant of those powers. When, therefore, the duly authorized delegates 
 of the people of South Carolina executed an instrument under seal , 
 declaring that they , ‘in the name and behalf ’ of that people, ‘assent to 
 and ratify the said constitution ,’ I can perceive no propriety in calling this 
 deed an ordinance.” 
 
 At the very outset, Mr. C. unwittingly shows the impropriety, if not 
 the untruth, of calling the “ ordinance ” a “ deed.” The act he treats of, 
 was “ an instrument adopted by a public body, for the regulation of a 
 subject, which, in its nature, remains under the regulation of that body.” 
 What that “ public body ” was Mr. C. well knew, for the following words 
 which he did not quote, were at the head of the very “ ordinance ” which 
 he pretends is a “deed.” “In convention of the people of the state of 
 South Carolina.” That “body” was a republic, and the subject of the 
 action was self-government, which was never intended to be alienated, but 
 was to remain forever and ever “ under the regulation of that body.” So 
 much for his artifice of exchanging words to get an advantage in definition, 
 lie succeeded in showing the absolute propriety of calling the “deed” an 
 “ordinance.” 
 
 And it is untrue that Congress “ submitted” any question to the people, 
 or the convention of South Carolina at ’least in any such sense as Mr. 
 Curtis implies ; and even the “ convention of states’ did not do so ; but 
 South Carolina submitted a question to herself— her legislature speaking 
 her voice in the submission. The following is an extract from the very 
 ratification Mr. C. “looked carefully” at: “The convention having ma- 
 turely considered the constitution or form of government reported to Con- 
 
208 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 gress by the convention, * * and submitted to them by a resolution of 
 
 the legislature of this state,” etc. 
 
 Again, Mr. Curtis misrepresents tbe matter of ratifying. The conven- 
 tion of South Carolina sat and deliberated for her alone, acting exclusively 
 with her power. The very beginning of the act is as follows: “In con- 
 vention of the people of the state of South Carolina, by their representatives , 
 held in the city of Charleston,” etc. After full discussion of the federal 
 plan, South Caro’ina, in convention, by a vote of 149 to 73, passed, enacted, 
 or ordained, the following : “ The convention * * do, in the name and 
 
 behalf of the people of this state, hereby assent to, and ratify the said 
 constitution. Done in convention, 23d day of May, A. D., 1788.” 
 
 In the following particulars also, Mr. Curtis’ statement is “conspicuously 
 inexact.” 1. He implies that “ the duly authorized delegates ” represent 
 “ the people of South Carolina,” as a mass of individuals, a mere fraction 
 of the nation, doing its part in the establishment of the constitution ; and 
 not as a political body. He conceals that said delegates could only act as 
 a body. 2. To help out the “deed” idea, he calls it an instrument under 
 seal, though it has none of the peculiarities of one. The authority exe- 
 cuting the instrument probably affixed no seal, the president and secretary 
 using theirs merely for authentication. The convention could hardly liavo 
 had a seal, and that of the state, most likely, could only have been used by 
 the governor or secretary of state, who had no official connection with the 
 act. 3. lie ignores the “convention of the people of the state of South 
 Carolina” altogether. 4. He even garbles, to avoid quoting the word 
 “state,” as it would bring to view the political body acting. 5. He leaves 
 out the vote, which shows beyond question that assenting to, and ratifying, 
 was done by a body politic. As he does all these things, and more, in the 
 35 words I have underscored, he must rank as the leading expounder of 
 the present day. 
 
 But let us quote more of this astounding letter. Mr. C. continues that 
 “ there are those who pretend that the most absolute and unrestricted terms 
 of cession, which would carry any other subject entirely out of the grantor, 
 do not so operate, when, the subject of the grant is political sovereignty; 
 but a political school which maintains that a deed is to be construed in one 
 way, when it purports to convey one description of right, such as political 
 sovereignty, and in another, when it purports to convey a right of another 
 kind, such as property, would hold a very weak brief in any tribunal of 
 
ADROIT SUBSTITUTIONS. 
 
 200 
 
 jurisprudence, if the question could be brought to that arbitrament. The 
 American people have been much accustomed to treat political grants, made 
 by the sovereign power without reservation, as irrevocable conveyances, 
 and executed contracts; and although they hold to the right of revolution, 
 they have not yet found out how a deed, absolute on its face, is to be 
 treated in point of law as a repealable instrument, because it deals with 
 political rights and duties.” 
 
 If these are the real views of Mr. Curtis, he has utterly failed to “ rise 
 to the height of the great argument ” of a republic. The people (whether 
 states or a nation) were establishing institutions of self-government. To 
 remain republican, i. e., to remain a self-governing people, it was essential 
 that sovereignty should be forever in them. All the fathers considered — 
 as Wilson, of Pennsylvania, expressed it — that “the supreme, absolute, 
 and uncontrollable power is in the people before they make a constitution, 
 an4 remains in them after it is made.” 
 
 Now this is the absolutely essential idea of a republican polity. Hence, 
 no such question was, or could have been submitted to the people of South 
 Carolina — or even thought of — as, whether or not “ the powers of govern- 
 ment” or “political sovereignty” should be irrevocably alienated by them ? 
 Ceding, surrendering, relinquishing or alienating “powers,” by “ irrevocable 
 conveyances,” never entered the public mind; but the question in each of 
 the then existent communities of people virtually was : “ Shall we, the 
 state, delegate these powers [not to govern us, as a commonwealth, for tee 
 govern , but] to govern our subjects? Those who are to exercise these 
 powers, will be our citizens, elected by us. They will be our representa- 
 tives, delegates, agents, trustees, and subjects, exercising the authority tee 
 delegate — no mure !” 
 
 “DELEGATE,” THEN, IS THE ONLY CORRECT WORD. 
 
 All the other words to be found in the common parlance, political essays, 
 debates, state papers, &c., of that day, must, when they refer to the vesting 
 of powers in a government, be limited in meaning to “delegate” because, 
 1st. In the nature of things the people are the real government — the 
 so-called government being only an agency, and possessing only delegated 
 power. 2d. The constitution exhibits only a created government and 
 vicarious authority. Article I, says that “ all legislative powers herein 
 granted shall be vested in a congress,” &c.; article II, that “the executive 
 
210 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 power sliall be vested in a president,” &c.; article III, that “ the judicial 
 power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court,” &c., and 
 amendment X, that “ the powers not delegated to the united states by this 
 constitution * * are reserved,” &c. All the powers of the constitution, 
 then, are “ delegated .” 
 
 This word also refers back to, defines, and absolutely controls the meaning 
 of “relinquished” and “vested,” used in the ordinance of South Carolina, 
 in the declaration that, “ the states ” “ retain every power not expressly 
 relinquished by them , and vested in the general government 
 
 This view is more evident from the fact that all the other states that 
 expressed themselves on the subject, used the precise word “ delegated." 
 [See the ratifications of Mass., N. II., N. Y., R. I., Ya. and N. C., I Ell. 
 Deb. 322-5-7, 334 ; III Ibid. 659 ; IY Ibid. 244.] 
 
 The views of Messrs. Everett and Curtis, then, are untrue in fact, and 
 unfounded in reason and political philosophy. There is no “deed absolute 
 on its face;” no “irrevocable conveyance” of “powers of government” or 
 “political sovereignty;” but there is an ordinance , by “ a public body, for 
 the regulation of a subject which, in its nature, remains under the regula- 
 tion of that body ; to operate till otherwise provided for.'' And no such 
 “deeds,” “cessions,” “conveyances,” or “alienations,” as they allege, can be 
 found in American history ; and it is the reverse of true that the American 
 people have been accustomed to treat such “political grants” as “irrevocable 
 conveyances.” The very “political grants” which he describes as “powers 
 of government,” and misdescribes as “political sovereignty,” are in all the 
 elate constitutions, and in the iederal one too, and are entirely subject to 
 revocation and amendment, no matter whether it is provided for or not; 
 and so in the case of all political corporations. The people, as organized, 
 arc supreme, and have unlimited power of amendment or repeal. 
 
 As these writers based their dogma of an “ irrevocable cession " of 
 “ political sovereignty ” on statements proved to be untrue, and arguments 
 shown to be fallacious, we may consider their signal failure as a concession 
 that the ordinances are repealable, and the powers revocable, as is un- 
 doubtedly the case. 
 
 There are several other ideas of this remarkable letter of Mr. Curtis, 
 which would justify more than the mere mention I must content myself 
 with. 1st. If he proves an “irrevocable conveyance” of “political sove- 
 
ADROIT SUBSTITUTIONS. 
 
 211 
 
 reignty,” he. proves that the republican form of government here, is at an 
 end — i. e., that the people have self-government no longer ! 
 
 2d. He confounds powers of government with “political sovereignty,” 
 though the latter is the right to exercise, or delegate, the former. Any 
 part, or the whole, of such “ powers,” may be delegated without diminishing 
 sovereignty in the least.* 
 
 3d. He announces that “political sovereignty” is subject to alienation, 
 like property, and of course subject to bargain and sale. Massachusetts, 
 enriched by tariffs, bounties, &c., may buy out the stock at Washington — 
 including what the people of South Carolina alienated; and Mr. Curtis 
 may mount the viceregal throne of that province. Nothing at Washington 
 is extra commcrcium. Or, suppose, firstly, South Carolina becomes bank- 
 rupt; secondly, Makes a cessio bonorum ; thirdly, Massachusetts becomes 
 the highest bidder; and fourthly, Viceroy Curtis ! These political teachers 
 often advance startling ideas — and work up to them ! 
 
 4th. He leaves us to conjecture his grantee of the “irrevocable cession,” 
 by “absolute conveyance,” of “political sovereignty.” It cannot be the 
 nation, for that is his grantor. Nor “the united states,” for he denies that 
 they are sovereigns. His grantee is “the government,” to which he, like 
 the Philadelphia platform, ascribes “absolute supremacy” and the allegiance 
 of the states. But the government cannot be the grantee, because, 1st. 
 The alleged grants are delegations, and the pretended grantee is a trustee 
 and agent, using the powers for a principal or principals. 2d. The instru- 
 ment containing the grants was “ordained” in 1788, while the government 
 was not elected and organized till the spring of 1789. How could it be a 
 party or grantee ? 3d. The government could not be a party to the act 
 
 creating it. 4th. It is not the government, but the independent branches 
 thereof, that the grants or delegations are confided to: e. g. “All legislative 
 powers herein granted, shall be vested in a congress,” etc. [See also the 
 executive and judicial delegations.] It is, then, not the “ government,” 
 
 * It is almost universal to consider sovereignty as made up of, or as divisible into, the pow rs of 
 government, and subject to delegation or reservation. Even while contending for the absolute 
 eovere gnty of the states, Mr. A. H . Stephens seems to argue, that such sovereignty was impliedly 
 reserved, in the original compact, among a “mass of residuary rights;” but that, to quiet apprehen- 
 sion, “this reservation was soon after put in the constitution amongst other amendments, in plum 
 and unequivocal language.” The “reservation” he speaks of is that of “the powers not delegated”— 
 in the Tenth Amendment. [See I War between the States, 489.] He seems to forget that it is 
 sovereignty which acts in delegating and reserving powers; and that its own existence or transfer 
 cannot be involved. The truth is, the constitution neither mentions, nor even remotely alludes to, 
 sovereignty. 
 
212 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 [with a big G] that is “grantee.” The said government, instead of being 
 a unit, with oneness of mind and will, is three units, each distinct, coequal, 
 and absolutely independent. 
 
 5th. All the officials are citizens and subjects of the several states, 
 acting temporarily in a representative capacity. How could they, either as 
 individuals, or a corporation, have the technical capacity of grantee? 
 
 6th. And finally, amendment X affords absolute proof that the only 
 possible grantee was “the united states “ The powers not delgated to the 
 united states by the constitution * * are reserved, etc. It is, then, the 
 
 association of states that is the grantee, and the government, personally 
 composed of subjects of states, is the association’s agency. 
 
 We see, then, that “grantee” has no other sense than delegatee, trustee, 
 and agent. No instrument has “operated to pass something.” The states 
 are associated as equals; they are not changed by their act of association, 
 in name, geography, organism or authority ; they are “the united states,” 
 and are, themselves, the real government, the so-called governments being 
 their created agencies, acting solely with their life and power. All Amer- 
 ican history supports this view. 
 
 Let us conclude, then, by turning away from the brazen and counterfeit 
 coinage we have loathingly reviewed, to the wisdom of the “best minds,” 
 of the golden age of Massachusetts, as expressed by “the celebrated Chief 
 Justice Parsons,” in the ratifying convention of the old Bay State, with 
 the assent of Hancock, Adams, Bowdoin, Ames, King, Gore and others : 
 The new political system is “a government to be administered for the com- 
 mon good, by the servants of the people, vested with delegated powers, by 
 popular elections, at stated periods. The federal consti:ution establishes a 
 government of this description, and in this case the people divest themselves 
 of nothing ; the government and powers which the congress cau administer, 
 are the mere result of a compact,’’ etc. 
 
CHAPTER YII. — Misstating hestort and records. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 11. — Misstating the Views and Acts 
 of the Convention. 
 
 £%UST as they tear the “We-th e-people” shred from the preamble, 
 f ®!S iff and s ^ ow by i fc that the constitution is not a union of states, bnfc 
 is an association of the people thereof to form a nation, of 
 which the states are mere provincial parts ; these determined peivcrters 
 pick out of the record of the convention of 1787, and of the speeches and 
 writings of the fathers, little passages, w r hich, torn from the contexts, sup- 
 port their theory. In this chapter, I shall confine myself principally to 
 exposing tne deception practised in reference to the action and plan of the 
 “convention of states” of 1787. I will begin by reiterating briefly, 
 
 VlIE REASONS FOR MAKING A NEW FEDERATION. 
 
 The first “ federal government of these states,” consisted of a mere con- 
 gress, vested with nearly the same legislative powers as the present one. 
 But as it had no coercive authority to enforce its enactments, compliance 
 was virtually at the option of the states. Of course such a governmental 
 contrivance was weak and inefficient ; and "when peace supervened, and 
 “ union or subjugation” ceased to be the momentous alternative, each state 
 began to exercise her free will as to commerce, currency, debt, contribu- 
 tions for defence, etc., and other matters of common interest. The ten- 
 dency of things was towards disunion and weakness, if not civil or inter- 
 necine strife. Hence the wise and patriotic fathers counseled their states, 
 and finally induced them to “ form a more perfect union,” and “ a more 
 efficient federal government,” giving to this the legislative powers of the 
 first, with a few additional ones ; as well as commensurate executive and 
 judicial authority — thus making for federal matters, the complete govern- 
 
214 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 ment that each state enjoyed, and giving to it the same authority and 
 means of enforcing its powers on individual citizens, that the state govern- 
 ments possessed ; so that the said agencies, state and federal, became a 
 great “political machine,” owned and worked by the states, through their 
 elected agents— these being their own citizens and subjects. [See Part II, 
 Ch. 1.] The said states were themselves to compose whatever nation there 
 was to be : and it was they alone that authorized legal coercion of their 
 citizens, by their federal agency ; but they most positively and carefully 
 withheld jurisdiction and coercive power over themselves. 
 
 The history and records of the country contain no word of testimony 
 against the above, but the perverters have, by industrious culling, gathered 
 “line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little,” 
 until they have produced a sort of “mosaic dispensation” of centralism, 
 from which arises that monster — the corporate despot of Washington! 
 
 THE MISSTATEMENT TO BE KEFUTED. 
 
 Not long after the opening of the convention, to-wit, on May 30th , 
 1787, it was resolved, that “a national government ought to he established, 
 consisting of a supreme legislative, executive and judiciary .” [I Ell. 
 Deb. 151.] Mr. Webster quotes this, and asserts that “it completely 
 negatives all idea of league, compact, and confederation. Terms could not 
 be chosen,” continues he, “ more fit to express an intention to establish a 
 national government, and to banish forever all notion of a compact between 
 sovereign states.” [Speech of 1833.] And Judge Story comments in 
 the same style. He quotes the above resolution, and says “it plainly shows 
 that it was a national government, and not a compact, which they were 
 about to establish.” He further remarks, that “the inefficiency of the old 
 confederation forced the states to surrender the league then existing, and 
 to establish a national constitution.” [I Sto. Com. 2 7.] 
 
 The two leading — if not the only — ideas Story and Webster aim at, in 
 this quotation, are involved in “national ’ and “supreme.” They use the 
 above resolution to prove, 1st. That a consolidated nation was formed. 
 2d. That the government of it is a sovereignty. Taught by them, Lincoln 
 said the states are mere counties, with no rights but those reserved to them 
 by the nation in the constitution. The dogma of the “absolute supremacy” 
 of “the government,” and the allegiance of the states thereto, promulgated 
 by the Philadelphia convention of 1866, sprung from the same source. 
 
MISSTATING HISTORY AND RECORDS. 
 
 215 
 
 All these heresies are comprehended in Webster’s assertion that, so far as 
 the constitution goes, “so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled.” 
 
 Both of the above ideas of Story and Webster are utterly baseless ; and 
 the use of the said resolution to prove them is wrongful. The resolution 
 was adopted without much notice, and with no debate, and was referred to 
 the committee of the whole, with other propositions, as matters for 
 future consideration, [V Ell. Deb. 134] and in the three and a half months 
 of subsequent deliberation, the direct antithesis of what the perverters 
 predicate of this resolution, was contended for, and finally prevailed, as I 
 will now proceed to show historically. [The reading of Appendix C with 
 this chapter, is important.] 
 
 Two or three plans for a federal constitution were before the committee 
 of the whole convention. Edmund Randolph’s plan opened as follows: 
 
 “ 1. Resolved, That the articles of confederation ought to be so corrected 
 and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, 
 namely: common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.” On 
 May 30th, at the suggestion of Gr. Morris, Randolph moved the postpone- 
 ment of this, and the consideration of the three following : “ 1st. That a 
 union of states, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed. 
 * * 2d. That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the states, 
 
 as indhidual sovereignties, would be sufficient. 3d. That a national 
 government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, 
 executive, and judiciary.” Several members at once expressed the doubt 
 “whether the act of Congress recommending the convention, or the com- 
 missions of the deputies to it, would authorize a discussion of a system 
 founded on different principles from the federal constitution?” [Y Ell. 
 Deb. 133.] Whereupon, the first two of the above resolutions were dropped , 
 and not heard of afterwards ; and the third became the first of 19 reso- 
 lutions, which the convention adopted for consideration, [Ibid. 189] and in 
 which the prospective constitution is repeatedly styled — the “articles of 
 union.” [Ibid. 190.] 
 
 HOW THE STATES INSTRUCTED THEIR DEPUTIES. 
 
 Before going further, it is well to note the instructions in the commissions 
 of the deputies, and “the act of congress” referred to. Massachusetts, in 
 commissioning hers, said, “the sole and express purpose” was to make such 
 “alterations and provisions,” as will, “render the federal constitution ade- 
 
FALLACIOUS KXFOSITION. 
 
 21(1 
 
 quatc to the exigencies of government, and preservation of the union.” 
 [I Ell. Deb. 126.] “To revise the federal c nstitution,” was the phrase of 
 several ; and “to render the constitution of the federal government adequate 
 to the exigencies of the union,” was the language of others. [See I Ell. 
 Deb. 126-139, for the language of all.] And the act of the congress of 
 the states upon the subject, expresses the same idea, in nearly the same 
 words. [Ibid. 119-20.] I will observe, en passant , that these extracts 
 enable us to appreciate another of the ’cutenesses that so bespangle Web- 
 ster’s efforts, viz: that the instrument of 1778 was called “articles of 
 confederation,” while the one of 1788, “called itself a constitution,” i. e., 
 “a government proper,” and that therefore the two systems were essentially 
 different. Without insisting that “there is nothing in a name,” I merely 
 show the fact, that both states and fathers habitually called each instrument 
 “'the federal constitution,” and “the constitution of the federal government.” 
 In reference to the instructions, the presumption is, that the deputies 
 obeyed them. We shall see that they did so. [See Appendix C No. 1.] 
 
 It appears, then, that the states instructed their deputies to amend the 
 confederation ; that the convention tacitly conceded that u the commissions 
 of the deputies ,” and “ the act of congress," only warranted the making of 
 a federal system ; and that it formally declined to say that “ a union of 
 states merely federal ,” made ly a treaty among the states as sovereignties , 
 would not accomplish the object in view. And we shall see that, so far 
 from attempting the nationalization of the states, the constant aim of the 
 fathers was to induce them to federalize themselves, and remain intact as 
 sovereigns ; and that, iD the course of the deliberations, every “national” 
 word and idea was gradually eliminated from the system. Dut before 
 going further, it must be shown that Story and Webster gain their whole 
 basis by misquotation ! 
 
 THE EXTOUNDEKS’ STYLE OF QUOTINO. 
 
 The very resolutions, the first of which they quote as the basis of their 
 theory, prove the entire falsity of their assertions. To show this, let us 
 put the first, and the last two in juxtaposition, and refer to the others : 
 “ 1. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee that the national 
 government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, 
 executive and judiciary. * * 18. Resolved, that the legislative, execu- 
 
 tive, and judiciary powers within the states, ought to be bound by oath to 
 
MISSTATING HISTORY AND RECORDS. 
 
 217 
 
 support the articles of union. 19. Resolved, that the amendments which 
 shall be offered to the confederation, by the c nvention, ought, at a proper 
 time or times, after the approbation of congress, to be submitted to an as- 
 sembly or assemblies of representatives,” etc. [I Ell. Deb. 181-2 ; V lb. 
 189-90.] Here we see that not only was the convention instructed, as 
 heretofore shown, to amend the articles of confederation, but that such 
 “ national government” as the convention aimed at, was to be provided for 
 in “ articles of union” of states ; and that the desideratum was to be 
 ATTAINED BY MAKING “ AMENDMENTS” “ TO TIIE CONFEDERATION.” 
 
 Now these ‘cute expounders, suppressing all the others, put the first 
 resolution before the people, hoping thereby to make them believe that the 
 convention “ completely negatived all idea of * * confederation.” 
 
 Tnus we convict them of garbling the sacred records. In like spirit, 
 they point to the Randolph, or Yirginia plan, that these resolutions are a 
 part of, as national, and to the Patterson, or New Jersey plan, as federal, 
 and represent that the former prevailed, when, in reality, a pure league, 
 federation, or union of states, was formed. The two plans, as originally 
 introduced, are in I Elliott’s Debates, pp. 143, 175. They bear but little 
 resemblance to the plan finally adopted. Each of them contemplated for 
 its basis, the “ all-power” of the states. 
 
 THE “ NATIONAL” IDEA REPUDIATED. 
 
 And, consistently with the above, on the very first occasion of consid- 
 ering this matter, the following record was made: “Wednesday, June 
 20th — The first resolution of the report of the committee of the whole 
 being before the house, Mr. Ellsworth, seconded by Mr. Gorham, moves 
 to alter it so as to run— ‘ that the government of the united states ought 
 to consist of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary.’ This altera- 
 tion, he said, would drop the word ‘ national,’ and retain the proper title 
 ‘ the united states.’ * * He wished also the plan to go forth as 
 ap amendment of the articles of confederation. * * The motion of 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth was acquiesced in, nem con . The second resolution — ‘ that 
 the national legislature ought to consist of two branches,’ being taken up 
 — the word ‘ national’ struck out, as of course.” [V Ell. Deb. 214.] 
 Nay more, while the word “ national” was used twenty-six times in the 
 aforesaid resolutions, it was, in obedience to the above-indicated will of the 
 convention, invariably exchanged for “united states,” and “ union of 
 
218 
 
 (FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 states so that finally neither the word nor the idea of it, was left in the 
 federal plan. 
 
 MORE ANTI-NATIONAL FACTS. 
 
 The expunction of “ national,” is merely the first of a series of great 
 facts, that decisively contradict and refute Story and Webster, as well as 
 their feebler followers. The second is, that on the 18th of August, 1787, 
 the nationalists proposed to invest the general government with power.-, 
 to grant charters of incorporation, to establish a univeroity and semina- 
 ries, to promote literature, science, and arts, to encourage useful knowledge, 
 and discoveries, by premiums, etc., to establish public institutions, re- 
 wards, and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce and 
 manufactures, etc., etc. These, and others proposed, were suited to a 
 national or state legislature, but not a federal one ; and the convention 
 declined to recommend transferring them from the state governments 
 where they already were.* [Y Ell. Deb. 440-5-6.] 
 
 The 3d great anti-national fact is, that a power to revise or negative 
 state laws, was repeatedly proposed, and as often overwhelmingly defeated. 
 [Ibid. 174, 180, 321-2, 468-9.] On the occasion of the last proposal, 
 John Rutledge indignantly exclaimed : “If nothing else, this alone would 
 damn, and ought to damn, the constitution and the convention, by vote, 
 refused even to let it go to a committee, and the proposition was withdrawn. 
 [Ibid. 4G8-9. See also Appendix C, No. 3.] 
 
 The 4th great anti-national fact, is the all-important one, that the eon- 
 \ention absolutely declined to give the general government even the least 
 coercive power over states, and all the fathers spurned the idea, both in the 
 federal and state conventions, as inconsistent with the plan, and tantamount 
 to giving the power to wage war against the states. Mr. Madison said the 
 ilea w as “visionary and fallacious Mr. Hamilton that it was “the maddest 
 project ever devised;” and Ellsworth, Randolph, and others spoke of it as 
 preposterous, in the nature of war, and out of the question. This subject 
 will be dealt with hereafter. Now what sort of a national government is 
 that which has no coercive power over the constituents of the nation- — no 
 
 If all powers, except those expressly delegated, were reserved by the states, the power to create 
 the United States Bank, or Jay Cooke’s National Insurance Company, to say nothing of other 
 corporations, must have been reserved by the states, for no such power is expressed in the constitu- 
 tion. And as this power was proposed, discussed, and actually excluded from the constitution, there 
 can be no doubt of the above corporate bodies being the offspring of usurpation by men who had 
 sworn to do otherwise! 
 
MISSTATING HISTORY AND RECORDS. 
 
 219 
 
 power to hold them together, and no power to negative, or even revise, 
 state laws? How could Mr. Webster permit himself to say that the 
 constitution “effectually controlled” “state sovereignty?” And we must 
 note here, that the states made three amendments to forefend this very 
 danger — the ninth and tenth to prevent the implying of powers for state 
 control, and the eleventh to guard against even judicial coercion of states. 
 
 THE REAL PREAMBLE. 
 
 The 5th great anti-national fact is one that Dane, Story, Webster and 
 Curtis, have deemed too important for allusion to, iet alone sophistical 
 comment on ; and well they might, for it crushes them, and their little 
 imaginary foothold in the constitution. The preamble, and first article, 
 unanimously adopted by the convention, for the proposed compact, were as 
 follows : “ We, the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
 Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, do 
 ordain, declare, and establish the following constitution for the government 
 of ourselves and our posterity. — Article I. The style of the government 
 shall be ‘the united states of America,’” etc. [V Ell. Deb. 376, 382.] 
 
 But the whole instrument, after being agreed upon and adopted, article 
 by article, was p aced in the hands of a committee of revision, who reported 
 it back considerably improved in mere form. As to the preamble, the 
 generalization, “We the people of the united states” was substituted, as 
 equivalent to the specification of the states. This was proper, because the 
 constitution was to take effect when ratified by nine states, and it might, 
 if the states were named, result that some would be designated, though 
 not in the union. It should further be explained, that the phrase “We 
 the people ” was used in this constitution, because the previous pact had 
 been ratified, or acceded to, by the state governments — the mere creatures 
 of the people ; whereas, in this case, it was intended to connect the federal 
 government with, and base it directly upon, the very source of power — the 
 sovereignty itself ; making 13 sovereignties, as Madison and all the fathers 
 understood, the conAitutors of the new pact — the constituents or principals 
 of the new agency. The people of the states, being obliged to act as 
 organizations, and according to the law of their political nature, gave sepa- 
 rate assents, and hence the new constitution was not less a compact than 
 the old one, though the powers vested by it in the government created, 
 
•220 
 
 1 A L !, A C I 0 U S EXPOSITION. 
 
 were more extensive. And the convention accepted the revised constitu- 
 tion as their work, and never reconsidered their solemn and unanimous 
 approval of the phrase — “We, the people of the states.” Dane and Story 
 must have known this, as well as the independent ratifications, when the 
 former penned, .and the latter quoted approvingly, the following, in refer- 
 ence to the preamble: “They properly said, ‘We, the people of the united 
 states’ do ordain and establish ; and not ‘We, the people of each state.’ ” 
 
 “ The style of the government shall he the united states of America f 
 Here we see that “ the real government is ” the states themselves, the 
 “general government” being “the government of [i. e., belonging to] the 
 united states,” and a mere agency. These states were republics, and they 
 intended to keep, and not cede, political sovereignty. Their citizens only, 
 and not themselves, were to be the subjects of governing power. This is 
 what Madison meaEt, in the Virginia ratifying convention, by the phrase 
 “a government of a federal nature , consisting of many coequal sovereign- 
 ties and what Parsons meant, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, 
 by saying, ‘‘the people divest themselves of nothing ,” when they delegate 
 powers of government ! 
 
 The 6th great anti-national fact is, that the entire convention thought 
 they had formed a federal plan, because in their unanimous letter, reporting 
 the constitution to congress, they spoke of it as “the federal government 
 of these states and in the compact itself, they repeatedly wrote the 
 phrase — “the united states ,” and “ union of states .” And it is a most 
 potent fact, that Gouverneur Morris, one of the chief consolidationists, and 
 the chairman of the committee on revision, whose pen made the change 
 referred to above, declared, years afterwards, that “ the constitution is a 
 compact between political societies , * * each enjoying sovereign 
 power. ” [III Life of G. Morris, 193.] 
 
 ANTI-NATIONAL CONTEMPOKANEOUS EXPOSITION 
 
 But, perhaps, the most important fact in the history of this great subject, 
 is the following, that after the work was finished, all the leading fathers, in 
 the state conventions, through the press, and before the people, charac- 
 terized the constitution as a compact, and the system as a federation of 
 states, as is already shown in Part I, Chapter VII. 
 
 It is quite certain, then, that the original states, and the fathers, intended 
 to avoid the very thing these ’cute men predicate of the constitution, viz — 
 
MISSTATING HISTORY AND RECORDS. 
 
 221 
 
 a consolidated nation, or a sovereign national government ; and to males 
 the very thing these men deny, viz — a federal union of states. 
 
 Hamilton, all of whose views and wishes were in favor of consolidation, 
 was forced to admit that his plan and idea had been rejected, [V Ell. Deb. 
 556,] and that the system was “ a confederacy of states.” [II Ell. 
 Deb. 353.] He also said : “While the constitution continues to be read, 
 and its principles known, the “states must, by every rational man, be con- 
 sidered as essential component parts of the ‘union.’ " [Ibid. 304.] 
 
CHAPTER. VIII. — Webster’s master-piece of criticism. 
 
 INTERPRETATION No. 12. — “ Constitutional Compact.’ 
 
 VP* 
 
 N 1833 
 
 W 
 
 ]Mr. Calhoun submitted a scries of resolutions to the 
 United States Senate, the first of which declared, “that the 
 <5 jsjj people of the several states * * are united as parties to a 
 constitutional compact, to which the people of each state acceded as a 
 separate sovereign community.” 
 
 In his celebrated reply, Mr. Webster severely inveighed against Mr. C.’s 
 use of the words “compact” and “accede,” and charged him with “aban- 
 doning the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary.” “ If” 
 said Mr. W., “ nothing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing 
 would seem necessary, in order to break it up, but to secede from the same 
 compact. * * This is the reason why it is necessary to give new names 
 
 to things ; to speak of the constitution, not as a constitution, but as a 
 compact; and of the ratifications by the people, not as ratifications, but as 
 acts of accession. ” And he repeatedly made the assertion that “ there is 
 no language in the whole constitution, applicable to a confederation of 
 states.” 
 
 These utterances involve the absurd assumption that all language used, 
 in devising, d scussing and establishing the constitution, by the fathers and 
 the states, which they did not also use in the instrument, is unconst : tu- 
 tional, as well as improper for resolutions and arguments concerning it. 
 
 “COMPACT” AND “ACCEDE” ARE CORRECT. 
 
 I shall now proceed to show that Mr. C’s language was precisely that 
 which the fathers and the states habitually used, throughout the great 
 series of discussions and acts attending the establishment of the federal 
 system. Nay more, I shall show before concluding that Mr. Calhouns 
 
■Webster’s master-piece oe criticism. 223 
 
 resolution expressed the most studied and elaborate views of Mr. Webster 
 himself! 
 
 In the establishment of the constitution, the acts by which the conven- 
 tions expressed the wills of their respective states, were described by a 
 variety of words and phrases, all of which embodied the idea of a ratifica- 
 tion of the instrument by political bodies. Little Delaware, in her ordi- 
 nance, hitched to “the constitution,” a tandem of four, as follows: “ap- 
 prove of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said constitution.” Besides 
 these, the states and the fathers used, for the purpose of expressing the 
 same act, “join,” “unite,” “accept,” “accede to,” “affirm,” “sanction,” 
 “ agree to,” “ adopt, ”&c., &c. Of these the word ratify was used in all 
 the ordinances, probably because it was the technical wor 1 usually em- 
 ployed by sovereigns to express their sanction of treaties, alliances, leagues, 
 federations and other compacts. And it seems to be the word best fitted 
 to signify a commonwealth’s adoption of a federal pact, while it does not 
 even- hmt at the assent or approval of m re voting persons. The theory 
 of the expounders really is, that our peop.e, in provinces, counties, or de- 
 partments adopted the “ national constitution,” just as the French elected 
 the President for life, the Emperor, and, more recently, the plebiscite. 
 They seem, however, to perceive but dimly that their theory implies a like 
 despotic authority here, which permits the expression, and provides for the 
 ascertainment of, the popular will — or rather wish. 
 
 Any fair arguer would have known that all the above expressions con- 
 veyed the same idea, so far as they referred to the giving of existence and 
 authority to the new system. It was plainiy impossible for rne who knew 
 the facts, not to see that the states, in convention, made a proposal to each 
 state; each assented to a,.d ratified it ; thereby it became the “ federal 
 constitution, ” and they became “ the united states.' 1 
 
 But Mr. Webster was only able to attack the aforesaid resolution by 
 quibbling ; so he “criticised” the above words, pretending not to know that 
 by “accede” Mr. Calhoun precisely meant ratify, while by “compact” he 
 precisely meant constitution ; and that the character and legal effect of the 
 instrument depended, not upon what Mr. Calhoun or anybody else called 
 it, or, indeed, what it called itself, but upon what it actually was. 
 
 he ignored constitutional bistort, 
 
 or he would not have characterized the above words as “ unconstitutional 
 
224 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 language,” for the fathers and the states habitually used compact as mean- 
 ing constitution, and accede as ratify. 
 
 Hamilton wrote to Madison, June 8, 1788. “God grant that Virginia 
 may accede'' He wrote to Chipman, of Vermont, July 22, 1788: “The 
 accession of Vermont to the confederacy is of great importance.” And 
 in a subsequent letter he speaks of Vermont’s “ accession to the union,” 
 and her becoming “ a member of the confederacy .” In article 85 of the 
 Federalist, he characterizes the association of states as a confederacy ; calls 
 the constitution a compact ; and says that “thirteen independent states’’ 
 are “ the parties to the compact." In the ratifying convention of New 
 York, he says the new system is “a confederacy of states /” [II Ell. Deb. 
 353]. 
 
 Madison, in the Virginia ratifying convention, characterized the new 
 plan as “ a government of a federal nature , consisting of many coequal 
 sovereignties." This is his key-note, and many passages containing the 
 words “ compact ” and “accession” could be produced. One will suffice: 
 “Suppose,” said he, “eight states should ratify, and Virginia should propose 
 certain alterations as the previous condition of her accession." [Ill Ell. 
 Deb. 618.] 
 
 John Jay wrote to Washington in June, 1788 : “The accession of New 
 Hampshire does good, and that of Virginia would do more.” So we see 
 that all “the writers of the Federalist,” not only recognized the states, 
 instead of the nation, as the actors in establishing the constitution, but 
 they, like Calhoun, “ abandoned the use of constitutional language for a 
 new vocabulary.” 
 
 Washington, in a letter to David Stuart, of Oct. 17, 1787, spoke of 
 the new constitution as a “ compact or treaty ,” and said that among the 
 states, “there must be reciprocity or no union.” 
 
 To Bushrod Washington, he writes, Nov. 10, 1787 : “Is it best for the 
 states to unite ? * * If the union of the whole is a desirable object, 
 
 the component parts must yield a little in order to accomplish it.” He 
 then asks what the opponents in Virginia would do, “if nine other states 
 should accede to the constitution.” 
 
 Writing to Madison, Dec. 7, 1787, he speaks of “ the states acceding to 
 the federal government,” etc. To the same, January 10, 1788, he says: 
 “Nine states will have acceded to it.” 
 
 To Gen. Knox, June 17, 1788, he speaks of “ the accession of South 
 
Webster’s waste r-p iece op criticism. 225 
 
 Carolina,” and hopes “that the staffs which may be disposed to make a 
 secession, will think often and seriously on the consequences.” 
 
 To Marquis de Lafayette, June 17, 1788, he speaks of “the accession of 
 Maryland to the proposed government,” and says, “the accession of one 
 state more will complete the number needed to establish it." 
 
 To Gen. Pinckney he wrote on June 28, 1788, that “ Ncio Hampshire 
 had, on the 21st instant, acceded to the new confederacy by a majority [in 
 her convention] of eleven voices.” To John Jay, July 18, 1788, he 
 speaks of “the accession of ten states and July 20, 1788, to Sir Edward 
 Newenham, of the states “having formed a confederated government.” 
 
 w riting to Gouverneur Morris, in 1789, he hopes “the non-acceding 
 states will very soon become members of the union. 
 
 And on July 1, 1790, he writes to Count de Segur: “ The union of 
 states is now complete under the new government, by the late accession of 
 Rhode Island to the constitution.” [All these extracts are to be found in 
 Yol. IX, Writings cf Washington.] 
 
 The following extract from a letter from Washington to the Earl of 
 Buchan, dated April 22, 1793, — first published in the London Autographic 
 Mirror in 1865 — shows his federal idea or conception at that date to be 
 unchanged : “I send you the plan of a new city about the center of the 
 union of these states." 
 
 Franklin could be quoted exten ively to the same effect. A single 
 quotation wi 1 suffice. He wrote on Nov. 5, 1789 : “Our new constitution 
 is now established with eleven states, and the accession of a twelfth is soon 
 expected.” 
 
 Governor Randolph, Judge Parsons, Chancellor Livingston, Samuel 
 Adams, James Wilson, and many others, could be quoted to the same 
 effect. A single expression of the first named, in the Virginia convention, 
 will suffice: “Were I convinced that the accession of eight states did not 
 render cur accession also necessary to preserve the union, I would not 
 accede to it, till it should be previously amended.” [Ill Ell. Deb. 67.] 
 
 neither disputant knew the facts of the case. 
 
 Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun seem to have been about equally well- 
 informed in constitutional history. In the rejoinder of the former to the 
 latter, in 1833, he said : “The gentleman also attempts to find an authority 
 for his use of the word accede.” JR then went on to admit ilm Gen. 
 
226 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 Washington used it, as did his biographer. But, said he, it was in regard 
 to North Carolina’s ratification ; as the old union was broken up, and the 
 new one already formed, “there was propriety, perhaps, in calling her 
 adoption an accession.” 
 
 The above extracts indicate the effective reply Mr. C. could have made. 
 Besides beating his Titanic adversary in argument, and convincing the 
 learned; he might have crushed him with mountains, and convinced the 
 world ! Mr. Webster’s arguments were made mainly of assertions of fact, 
 all of which could, then and there, have been proved to be false ! 
 
 In fine, all the fathers preferred the “new vocabulary,” and were quite 
 ignorant of the alleged fact, that there v. as “no language in the whole 
 constitution applicable to a confederation of states.” 
 
 MR. WEBSTER’S VIEWS LATE IN LIFE. 
 
 As Mr. Webster was an American politician, like most of the class, he 
 could act the pendulum. Having done ample justice to his consolidation 
 swing, I will show his federal oscillations. 
 
 He wrote to Col. William Hickey, Dec. 11, 1850, that “the constitution 
 is the bond, and the only bond of the union of these states. It is all that 
 gives us a national character.” [“ The Constitution,” p. xxii.] This 
 expresses precisely the idea of Calhoun, and is the exact antithesis of Mr. 
 Webster’s assertion in 1833, that the constitution is the union of the 
 people, and not a union of states ! , 
 
 He wrote to Mark Cooper, of Georgia, in 1851 : “The states are united, 
 confederated , not ‘chaos-like, together crushed and bruised.’ ” 
 
 “The states are united, confederated.” All the fathers, and the consti- 
 tution, speak of “ the union of states ” — “ the united states.” These 
 expressions, with their habitual use of federal (and its cognates from the 
 same root foedus ) make it impossible that they should have intended any- 
 thing else by the constitution, than a league “between the states ratifying 
 tho same.” This was unquestionably Webster’s meaning. “The states 
 are united, confederated.” 
 
 In 1851, to the young men of Albany, he said: “ * * here is the 
 
 constitutional compact nevertheless still binding ; * * when called upon 
 
 to fulfil a compact, the question is, will you fulfill it? I, for one, am 
 ready.” Again he speaks of “the compact of the constitution” being a 
 “fair” one. 
 
Webster’s master-piece of criticism. 227 
 
 At Capon Springs, Virginia, in June, 1851, he said the following: 
 “How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter in a compact 
 lor certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, 
 nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. * * If the Northern states 
 
 refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect” one “part of the con- 
 stitution.” “ * * and congress provides no remedy, the South would 
 
 be no longer bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken 
 on one side, and still bind the other side.” 
 
 So we see that Mr. Webster himself put the “ new vocabulary ” in 
 requisition, even using the phrase “constitutional compact” which he so 
 chided Mr. Calhoun about . 
 
 ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN. 
 
 In the above extract from his speech at Capon Springs, by the phrase 
 “different parties” Mr. W. must have meant “states,” and by “certain 
 purposes” he could but mean the reasons for which they federated — ttie 
 “parties” and “purposes” which the constitution in fact exhibits. It is 
 quite presumable, too, that when he used “compact” he meant one of “the 
 compacts which” Hamilton said [in Fed. 85] were “ to embrace thirteen 
 distinct states in a common bond of amity and union.” Nay more, the 
 presumption from this very extract is, that he agreed with Hamilton’s 
 assertion in the same article, that “thirteen independent states are * * 
 
 the parties to the compact.” 
 
 Mr. Curtis, like Mr. Webster has attempted to explain the phrase “ con- 
 stitutional compact,” consistently with the theory of 1830-3. He was, 
 said Mr. C., “ speaking of a particular clause in the constitution * * 
 
 as founded in a compact between different classes of the states,” etc. The 
 fallacy of this hardly needs exposure. 1st. The “parties” of the constitu- 
 tion are “states,” and not “classes of states,” or “sections,” or “the North 
 and South.” 2d. There is no history of such “parties” having existed, 
 negotiated, deliberated upon, much less established, “compacts.” 3d. It is 
 descending to the ridiculous, to suppose that such “parties” agreed upon 
 representation, taxes, coinage, regulating commerce, etc., etc., and that the 
 nation then proceeded to make an imperial or “ supreme law,” embodying 
 such agreements and binding such “ classes of states” and “ sections” in- 
 dissolubly to observe them. 4th. The phrase — “ the Northern States,” in 
 the above extract, destroys Mr. C.’s assumption. 5th. It is a mere sole- 
 
228 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 cism to say the constitution is founded in compact, while it is not itself a 
 ccompact. It is both a compact and a constitution of federal government. 
 
 MB. WEBSTER’S BEAL VIEWS. 
 
 These are most likely to be found — not in editions of his works, or his 
 biographies, prepared by interested persons, hut in the studied und elabo- 
 rate memorial to congress on the Missouri question, which he and others 
 were elected by the inhabitants of Boston to prepare, and which they re- 
 ported on Dec. 15th, 1819. [See Appendix E.] Mr. Webster was then 
 in his prime; he had been elected to congress from New Hampshire six 
 years before ; had distinguished himself ; had doubtless thoroughly studied 
 our polity, and its history; and he seems to have been thechainmn of the 
 committee. 
 
 They present the memorial in the following manner : 
 
 “The committee appointed by a vote of the meeting, * * “ submit 
 
 the following 
 
 (Signed,) Daniel Webster, 
 
 George Blake, 
 
 Josiah Quincy, 
 
 James T. Austin, 
 John Gallison. 
 
 Boston, Dec. 15, 1819. 
 
 In this memorial, Mr. Webster calls the united states, “the American 
 confederacy !” and the following are some of the most remarkable passages. 
 The constitution provides that “ ‘new states may be admitted into the 
 union.’ The only parties to the constitution, contemplated by it originally, 
 were the thirteen confederated states .” 
 
 Objecting to an extension of “inequality of representation, which already 
 exists in regard to the original states,” he proceeds to say : “As between 
 the original states, the representation rests on compact and plighted faith , 
 and your memorialists have no wish that that compact should be disturbed, 
 or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject 
 assumes an entirely different character, when a new state proposes to be 
 admitted. With her there is no compact and no faith plighted." 
 
 And he argues throughout, on tbte assumption that a new state comes 
 into the union by compact with the states already associated — these being 
 represented by congress. Nay more, he declares that the states in the 
 union have, individually, “the exclusive possession of sovereignty.” In 
 
Webster’s master-piece of criticism. 229 
 
 reference to the formation of Kentucky and Maine, from the territories 
 respectively of Virginia and Massachusetts, he says: “No person has ever 
 doubted that any state, in acceding to a division of its territory, and the 
 formation of a new state, has always possessed the right to impose its own 
 terms and conditions as a part of the grant. The ground of this right is 
 the exclusive possession of sovereignty, etc." 
 
 There can be no doubt that these were, and remained, Mr. "Webster’s 
 real ideas, for Massachusetts had prohibited him, and all her officers and 
 citizens forever, from having any opinion on the subject. She then declared 
 in her constitution, (as she does now) that “the people of this common- 
 wealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, 
 sovereign and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exer- 
 cise and enjoy every power, etc., which is not * * by them expressly 
 
 — • 
 
 delegated to the united states.” 
 
 “By them delegated !” Why, here is absolute proof, that Massachusetts 
 is sovereign over the federal government ! Mr. Webster’s “opinion about 
 the sovereignty of a state,” indeed ! Why the poor worm would have been 
 crushed, if he had dared to opine, on a question his sovereign had settled. 
 “The Old Bay State” was ever the stickler, par excellence , for absolute 
 sovereignty of a state, and she was right. [See also Constitutions of N. 
 H., N. Y., et als.] 
 
 Now, in view of the early and elaborate statements of Mr. Webster, just 
 quoted, as well as the Albany and Capon Springs speeches, and the Cooper 
 and Hic-key letters, have I not shown, as I undertook to do, that Mr. Cal- 
 houn’s resolution expressed the most studied and elaborate views of Mr. 
 Webster himself.” Might not the latter, consistently, truthfully, and 
 properly, have submitted the said resolution to the United States 1 Senate ? 
 Here it is : 
 
 “ Besolved, that the people of the several states, composing these United 
 States, are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which the people 
 of each State acceded as a separate sovereign community, each binding 
 itself by its own particular ratification : and that the union, of which 
 ths said compact is a bond, is a union between the states ratifying the 
 same. 
 
 Mr. Webster, in his speech of 1833, said: “ Where sovereign commu- 
 nities are parties, there is no essential difference between a compact, a con- 
 federation, and a league. They all equally rest on the plighted faith of 
 
230 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 the sovereign party. A league or confederacy is but a subsisting or con- 
 tinuing treaty.” 
 
 In giving this, and many other definitions as a publicist, statesman, or 
 lawyer, Mr. Webster seems to forget that to sustain our position, we simply 
 fill up his definitions with facts, just as lawyers prove the ingredients of 
 murder, larceny, or other crime. In this instance, all the facts of history, 
 as well as his own admissions, decisively prove the “ league or confederacy.” 
 
 WHY WAS HE ON BOTH SIDES ? 
 
 Webster’s views last exhibited, were popular in Massachusetts previous 
 
 to 1830. They suited her interests. Indeed, during the era of good 
 
 feeling, viz: in 1825, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Everett agreed that “the 
 . . V.. ' i 1 . 
 
 constitution of the united states was a compact between independent 
 
 -#> 
 
 nations;” and, as we have seen, Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun were in 
 “sweet communion joined.” But in 1830-3 Massachusetts had vast 
 interests staked in tariffs, navigation laws, fishing bounties, etc., which 
 could be promoted by judicial opinions, commentaries and expoundings in 
 favor of a nation. Had she not become a client able to pay large fees ? 
 And did she not want advocates who would deny that “the only parties to 
 the constitution contemplated by it originally were the thirteen confederated 
 states;” that the provisions of the said constitution” rest on compact and 
 plighted faith ;” and that the state in the union has “the exclusive posses- 
 sion of sovereignty’ ? Bid not Webster accept employment, and act as an 
 advocate ? 
 
 Much more might be said and quoted on this matter, but space will not 
 permit. The following from Bledsoe’s, “Is Davis a traitor?” is said after 
 thorough investigation and understanding of the subject: “The truth is, 
 that Mr. Webster was a mere theorist, nay a mere party sophist. He took 
 an oath to support, but not to study the constitution. * * From his 
 
 own generation he won the proud title of “the great expounder ;” yet, after 
 his appeal to posterity shall have been decided, he will be pronounced the 
 great deceiver.” 
 
 Having in my youth and early manhood been one of the sheep of Web- 
 ster’s flock, I should feel peculiarly sheepish, if I were to adopt these severe 
 strictures, and yet I feel somewhat indignant at being led so long, to pastures 
 out of the pale of the constitution and in the wilderness. 
 
 It almost seems as if there were in American history two Daniel Websters 
 
websthr’s m a s t e r-p iece of criticism. 
 
 231 
 
 — one a statesman and jurisconsult, and the other a politician and advocate. 
 One seems genuine, and the other counterfeit. The former, only, dwelt io, 
 and breathed the pure atmosphere of truth. Perhaps it were better to 
 say that the early stream of this great life descended, and like an under- 
 ground river ran for years beneath the material interests and sordid desires 
 of his commonwealth, but finally, flashed out and sparkled on to the 
 ocean, reflecting the truth-beams of Heaven 1 
 
CHAPTER IX. — Lincoln's plain English. 
 
 . . . , 
 
 HE foregoing interpretations produced irrepressible conflict, 
 Lincoln and war ! The doctrines of Dane, Story, Webster and 
 others, (taught as I have shown by the original enemies of the 
 constitution, to prevent its adoption) produced, as George T. Curtis cor- 
 rectly asserts, “that body of public convictions" which moved and enabled 
 one part of the states, by the use of the governmental agency of all, to 
 subjugate the rest. Conceding here, once for all, that under the jus gen- 
 tium, the former had as good a right to coerce, as the latter to secede, I 
 pass on. 
 
 One of these “ public convictions” was that the constitution was a law 
 upon states, and not a compact between or among them ; and it was this 
 which made peace impossible in 1861. The successful party naturally 
 said : “ The constitution is the supreme law, and we are elected by the 
 nation, to be the government ; and to enforce the said law, with the army 
 and navy if necessary ; and if states exercise judgment and will contrary 
 to ours, in any affair, we must treat them as counties in rebellion. Power 
 is given to us, by the nation, to rule them, and we are the final judges of 
 the extent of that power. 
 
 “ Subjugate the states,” I say, for all are subjugated, though of course 
 the tame and obedient ones are not yet dealt with. By 1866, such pro- 
 gress had been made towards despotism, that the conservative convention, 
 held at Philadelphia, declared “ the government” to have “absolute su- 
 premacy !” and the states to be in “ allegiance” to it ! ! The personnel of 
 “ the government” have become a corporate despot, wielding the stupen- 
 dous enginery of imperialism over an empire of provinces. The present 
 great chief, looking at the result of the fifteen year’s war against common- 
 wealths, blurts out : “What we now do in Louisiana and Arkansas, we 
 will do in New York, Illinois and Missouri, when necessary.” Meanwhile, 
 
LINCOLN’S PLAIN ENGLISH. 
 
 233 
 
 here, there and yonder, all over the land, imperial acts are done, and 
 significant emblems of central sovereignty are set up — each with all the 
 meaning of the cap of Gesler in the market place of Altorf ! 
 
 The truth is, the change in the government from agency to sovereignty 
 is come, and isjiow hardening down upon us, which, as Burke says, has 
 1 perverted from their purposes" “all the free magistracies of the world.” 
 
 Let us now cursorily review the new doctrine, and see how it appears 
 dressed up in 
 
 PKESIDENT LINCOLN’S PLAIN ENGLISH. 
 
 It is much to he regretted that the expounders did not, in the great era 
 of perversion — 1 830-33 — link on to their logical chain those vulgarly can- 
 did, but legitimate, conclusions, aftewards stated with pen and sword by 
 the late, lamented and most lamentable Lincoln ; for such preposterous 
 ideas as he advanced, would then have been laughed to scorn, and the 
 utterers elected to Bedlam, rather than congress or the presidency. 
 
 We are sometimes startled, as well as amused, to see how poetry and 
 oratory become nonsense and absurdity upon being put in plain English. 
 Many a Lincoln has proved his own honesty and simplicity, while exhibiting 
 his teacher as a mere sophist, or falsifier. 
 
 In 1861, after being elected to the presidency, Mr. Lincoln, in a speech 
 in Indiana, and in his inaugural address, said and assumed that the states 
 are hut counties , without sovereignty , and that the government is sovereign, 
 and can rightfully coerce the states to obey it. In his extra-session message 
 of the same year, he said : “The states have their status in the union, and 
 they have no other legal status. * * The union is older than any of 
 
 the states, and, in fact, it created them as states. Originally, some depen- 
 dent colonies made the union and, in turn, the union threw off their old 
 dependence for them, and made them states such as they are.” “Our 
 states have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the 
 union, by the constitution, no one of them ever having been a state out of 
 the union. 
 
 The deluded man had read Mansfield’s Political Grammar, Webster’s two 
 great speeches, Jackson’s Proclamation, and — to graduate on — Story’s Com- 
 mentaries, taking it for granted that these authors told the truth ; and not 
 knowing that their peculiar expositions were fallacious, and were, more- 
 over, identical with the charges originally made against the constitution by 
 
234 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 its foes ; and that it was only because the said charges were most signally 
 refuted by the advocates of the constitution, that the American common, 
 wealths adopted it 
 
 JUSTICE TO MR. LINCOLN, 
 
 It seems proper to say that after his nomination, he had no time — even 
 if he had been competent — to investigate for himself, and deduce correct 
 conclusions. Moreover the dogmas and arguments of Dane, Story, Webster 
 and Jackson, were the platform, nay the very soul, of his party. Confiding 
 in the honor of these expounders, he unqualifiedly accepted their treasonable 
 perversions, and they, more than he, are responsible for the bloody conse- 
 quences. From their premises and arguments, he concluded that coercion 
 of states was constitutional and proper. 
 
 It is evident that he was “more sinned against than sinning.” He was 
 a person of fair intellect, slight education, limited knowledge, no research, 
 kind heart, jocular disposition, and credulous and confiding nature — just 
 the man with his inexperience in statesmanship, and his vague and hazy 
 notions of political ethics, and constitutional history and law, to be misled 
 by the sophists of his party, and to be the instrument of crafty political 
 Jesuits. lie was not a man to contrive wickedness — to wilfully subvert 
 the constitution, and to build his greatness on his country’s ruin, but he 
 could be moved by various plausible and delusive pleas and pretexts to do 
 what he would have shrunk from with horror, had he understood the 
 des’gns, or seen the hearts of the movers. 
 
 At all events upon the ground indicated by the above extracts, the 
 Southern states were coerced, vi et armis , for four years; and, at last, 
 brought to writhe under the heel of federal military power ! 
 
 At first, Lincoln’s above quoted dicta sounded like a huge joke; which 
 was laughed at, till army a. ter army from the “Northern hive” marched 
 down to perpetrate it upon the South ; whereat the laugh changed, for the 
 joke was the fiat of an irresistible mob, that had become a great party, 
 and for many years had fanatically surged like the many-voiced sea against 
 the barriers ol the constitution. 
 
 In g'ancing at some of this unfortunate man’s conclusions from the 
 arguments and assertions of his aforesaid teachers, we shall see that derision 
 ■would be the fittest notice, but for the abhorrent consequences. Acting 
 upon their doctrines, he made the land dark with death and mourning. 
 
Lincoln’s plain English. 
 
 235 
 
 But liis guilt, to that of his teachers, morally, is as much less, as homicide 
 by misadventure is less than that with malice prepense. 
 
 STATES AND COUNTIES POLITICALLY EQUAL! 
 
 Suppose, said he, u a state ” and “ a county" are “equal in territory and 
 inhabitants , in what on principle is a state better than a county ? Would 
 an exchange of names be an exchange of rights ?" 
 
 Common sense, if present, would have answered : All the original states 
 declared themselves to be separately “sovereign, free and independent,” at 
 the moment of making, and up to the finishing of, the federal constitution ; 
 and it was in this character that they made and finished it. No county ever 
 had such a character. Again, the states were named in the constitution 
 as the parties and actors of the system. The counties were not mentioned. 
 Again, each and every state, old and new, has now, as part of her consti- 
 tution, or rather her declaration of rights, that “ all political power is 
 inherent” in her people, or equivalent words, while a county is a mere 
 subdivision of such state, incorporated by her, with mere municipal pi we s, 
 and repea'able at will. The former is the creator, and the latter her creation. 
 And finally, the states ratified and ordained the federal constitution of 
 government. No county ever acted in the premises, or could do so ! i 
 
 A state and a county equal, indeed ! 
 
 No doubt he honestly thought his teachers said so. 
 
 SOVEr.EIGNTY, IF NOT ASSERTED, IS LOST! 
 
 11 Much is said about the ‘ sovereignty of the states, but the word even is 
 not in the national constitution : nor, as is believed, in any of the state 
 constitutions. * * A r o one of our states , except Texas, ever was a 
 
 sovereignty 
 
 This extract amounts to a mere guess, and is false and absurd, except as 
 to the tiivial fact, that the word “sovereignty” is not in the federal instru- 
 ment. 
 
 A little reflection would have shown Mr. Lincoln that the word need 
 not be used, if the thing is in the states; and that this question is one of 
 fact, which was settled by the solemn declaration of all, that “each state 
 retains her sovereignty." This declaration proves that the fact existed. 
 
 This sovereign will of each state — thus declared by all — existed and 
 acted, until the “federating anew” was done ; that is to say, until “a more 
 perfect union” of the states than the previous one, was formed; until the 
 functionaries of the new government were elected ; until they organized 
 
236 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 and went to work ; and until the people, as persons, yielded consent and 
 habitual obedience to the new system. 
 
 That the people, as sovereign commonwealths, did begin to make and 
 impose upon the people, as persons, a government, no one will deny. How 
 absurd it was to do so, if they had no right to go through, and coerce 
 obedience. It is beyond question that they acted with sovereign will, and 
 “ordained and established and we look in vain along the course of time 
 and history, for any change in that sovereign will, and for involuntariness 
 of union ; until we come, sadly to contemplate Lincoln and war ! 
 
 Many thoughtless people think that the “powers” of declaring war, making 
 treaties, coining money, levying taxes, etc., are sovereignty ; but these are 
 simply “powers” or authorities delegated by each state, by virtue of its 
 sovereignty, to the united states, and are in no sense sovereignty, th : s being, 
 as Webster said, never in the government, but always in the people — these 
 as commonwealths, and without any change whatever, being tiie self- 
 united STATES. 
 
 As I have heretofore shown, New York, Massachusetts and New Hamp- 
 shire, in their constitutions , declare their sovereignty , eo nomine; and 
 equivalent' declarations are made by all the states, including Mr. Lincoln’s 
 own state of Illinois, which, with all the other Northwestern ones, were, 
 according to the express stipulation of the treaty of cession by Virginia to 
 the united states, to be admitted into the union, with “the same rights of 
 sovereignty , freedom and independence with the other states and Illinois 
 has ever since been — though Mr. Lincoln was probably not aware of it — 
 “a sovereign, free and independent state,” with all political power and 
 rights, not only in her absolute ownership, but — excepting such powers as 
 she delegated to the united states — in her actual nossession ; and so she 
 substantially declares in her constitution. 
 
 Eut Mr. Lincoln was excusable for attaching importance to the non- 
 mention of sovereignty in the federal pact, for Mr. Webster (apparently 
 believing that if a note, bond, or other instrument, did not call itself such, 
 it might be something else) strenuously argued that the constitution was a 
 constitution, because it called itself a constitution.* 
 
 ♦Here is another of those numerous subterfuges, or shams of argument, Mr. Webster is remarkable 
 for. His sounding phrases on this subject, expressed nothing, for states could constitute a consti 
 tution of government, and call it a constitution, just as easily and properly as the people of a state 
 or of the so-called nation could. 
 
 “What is it?” instead of “What does it call itself? is the proper question; and the conclusive 
 answer is — “the constitution of [not the united people or nation, but] the uniWJ states.” 
 
LINCOLN’S PLAIN ENGLISH. 
 
 237 
 
 Mr. L. seemed to think that nations or states must, somehow, lose their 
 sovereignty by not mentioning it in their compacts. Possibly he asserted 
 ownership in a’l the powers of attorney he gave ; or virtue and chastity in 
 his marriage contract. A Southern supreme court of the same flock, 
 considered defective a certain class of titles, which all courts had for gen 
 erations recognised, because the subjects of such titles were not men- 
 tioned in the federal constitution. 
 
 THE UNION CREATED THE STATES ! 
 
 “ The union is older than any of the states, and in fact it created them 
 as states." 
 
 He probably guessed that this was what Story and Webster meant, and 
 he was not far wrong, though they would have blushed to hear their views 
 thus paraphrased. “ Union of states,” and “ united states,” are both con- 
 stitutional phrases ; and he might as well have said “ united is older than 
 any of the states, and in fact it created them as states ; being united colo- 
 nies before they were united states, it follows that united made them states !" 
 
 Would even Mr. Lincoln (let alone Story and Webster) have paid the 
 price of pearls for the string on which they were strung ? And yet, in the 
 phrase — “a string of pearls,” “string” bears the same relation to “pearls,”— • 
 that “union” does to “states.” The same remark applies to .the phrases : 
 “a set of diamonds,” “a purse of guineas,” “a guild of men,” and a fede- 
 ration or union of republics. The first name in each sentence is merely a 
 descriptive one, while the main significance is in the last. The truth is, 
 the constant use of the word “union,” in place of the constitutional phrase 
 “the united states,” is a mere subterfuge, for the latter is fatal to the whole 
 argument of the expounders. It shows that all original authority must 
 be in the several states, while all delegated authority must be in “the united 
 states.” The states must have pre-existed to be associated, while the same 
 states must continue to exist, to be the united states. 
 
 THE STATES BECAME SUBJECT TO THEIR OWN UNION ! 
 
 Let us notice one more gem. The states have il their status in the union, 
 and they have no other legal status. * * Our states have neither more 
 
 nor less power than that reserved to them in the union by the constitution, 
 no one of them ever having been a state out of the union." 
 
 Every word is fallacious and untrue, for the states were necessarily pre- 
 
238 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 existent to the union of them ; their wills made the union ; their instrument 
 of compact throughout contemplates and treats them as the sole parties to, 
 and actors in, the union ; and finally, they call themselves therein a “union 
 of states” and “united states” — using these very words. As individual 
 states, they must have possessed all original authority, and, as an association, 
 they could but hold delegated power. 
 
 But the climax of Linco'n’s absurdity consists in his pointing to the 
 10th amendment, as the evidence of the states having no other powers 
 than those “reserved to them in the union by the constitution,” and thus 
 showing that our foolish fathers left the states, under the original constitu- 
 tion, absolutely without powers ; and had to amend, in order to give them 
 a few ! 
 
 Common sense would have taught Mr. Lincoln, that the states of th e 
 association “delegated” and “vested” all the “powers” in the pact; and 
 “retained” all rights and powers not delegated, i. e., kept them out of the 
 pact, and in themselves ; that the powers delegated must be still owned by 
 them and hence that the states have all powers, including those in “ the 
 constitution of. \ [i. e. belonging to] the united states’” 
 
 Every body knows, from the ease of Texas, North Carolina, and Rhode 
 Island — to say nothing of others — that Mr. Lincoln’s assertion, that no 
 state was ever such out of the union, is unqualifiedly untrue ! But if it 
 were true, it would not affect the question of sovereignty, as this is 
 only predicable of will, and as will only resides in the republics or organ- 
 izations of self-ruling people. 
 
 SEEING THINGS UPSIDE DOWN. 
 
 Would to G-od these perversions and blunders had been as harmless as 
 they are amusing 1 They are only equalled by those of the philosophers 
 who contend that the sun diurnally circuits the earth ; or that of the boozy 
 wight, standing on the wrong side of the square, awaiting the arrival of 
 his house, so that he can step in ; or that of the Irishman digging away a 
 bank “ to let the dark out of his cellar !” 
 
 These are called “ constitutional views !” If “ views” at all, they are 
 “ views” afar off — through the moral mirage of platforms, partisan 
 speeches, and sectional commentaries, which distort every thing, and 
 turn it upside down. Why! if Hamilton, Jay, Washington, Hancock, 
 Franklin, and all. those fathers who were so fortunate as to die early, 
 
Lincoln’s plain English. 
 
 239 
 
 were to re-visit their beloved America, such “ views” would astonish them as 
 much as it would to see people standing on their heads, houses inverted, 
 ships “ walking (he waters,” with masts for legs ; trees rooted in the sky; 
 rivers running to their sources ; or babes giving birth to their parents. 
 
 They would find their voluntary union of states to have grown involun- 
 tary and indissoluble : states degraded to counties, and returned to a worse 
 than British provincialism; and the quondam governmental agency, trans- 
 muted to an “ absolute supremacy,” and swaying the scepter of an empire ! 
 
 THE WOIISHIP OP THE GOD “UNION.’' 
 
 In the very next paragraph to the one just reviewed, Mr. Lincoln uses 
 the word “union,” in the absurd sense I have indicated, seven times in nine 
 lines. The priests of unionolatry, wishing to avoid the ideas couched in 
 the full phrase, “union of states,” or “united states,” use the word “union” 
 without its proper adjuncts, and attribute to it corporate personality, and 
 sovereign authority ; besides fa sely saying it is a union of people, and not 
 a union of states. They cite as their sole proof, the insignificant tag called 
 the preamble — which is really no more of the compact, than the tail or the 
 kink of it is of the pig; and conc ude the argument by the untruth, that 
 the states ceded or ;urrendered (i. e. alienated) to the said “union,” a par- 
 amount or supreme sovereignty over themselves. Not a line of the consti- 
 tution or history, hints at any such transter, while all evidences show that 
 the separate states delegated (but did not alienate) powers, to “ the united 
 states,” (and not to the “union,”) these states thus governing themselves, 
 as to their federal affairs, through their federal agency. 
 
 The sophistical and quibbling priests know that by using the constitu- 
 tional phrases “united states,” and “union of states,” they would direct the 
 thoughts, even of boobies, to moral or political persons — commonwealths 
 self-joined for self-government and self-preservation. They know that the 
 said boobies would look into the pact, and see “the states in this union” 
 [art. IV] to be the parties, the delegators, the sovereigns ; and the govern- 
 ment to be the creation, and the agent of the said states. Aye, they know 
 that men who have merely enough brains and education to read and count, 
 may see, in the instrument, specified powers, confided to the said agent by 
 the said sovereigns; can, on a tally-stick, notch the number of them; and 
 must know that a president, whether named Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, 
 
240 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 or Grant, becomes a peijured usurper, and traitor, and deserves to be bung, 
 the moment be goes beyond them. 
 
 THESE AKK THE SEASONS WHY, 
 
 under pretence of interpretations, commentaries, judicial decisions, &c., the 
 so-called expounders sophisticate, misrepresent, garble, and falsify the 
 sacred records of the country ; why they found a theory on the preamble 
 that belies the compact ; why Story adds an eighth article to the constitu- 
 tion, [Sto. Com. § 1856,] and why the names of the signers, who simply 
 planned, but did not ordain, the compact, are always published with the 
 instrument, to make the impression that they ordained, while the names 
 and acts of the states ivho did ordain and establish, are always suppressed 
 or ignored ! 
 
 These are the reasons why our deluded people are induced to look up 
 to flags, soaring eagles, and stars — not down to what these are symbols of ; 
 to search in “the milky baldric of the skies” for the constellation of the 
 union, rather than grovel in — to understand — the actual system of associated 
 states ; and to keep their “eyes in fine frenzy rolling, from earth to heaven,” 
 instead of watching, with that “eternal vigilance which is the price of 
 liberty,” to see that the sacred constitution is preserved, and its duties 
 done. 
 
 Just so the priests of idolatry divert attention from the st.itue of wood 
 or stone ; prohibit reasoning about it ; and send the heated and fanatical 
 imaginations of devotees filled with fear and awe, in search of some invisi- 
 ble spirit, whose all-power can favor or harm them, according to their 
 obedience and gifts to the priesthood 1 
 
 ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY ! 
 
 The people of America must come down from stars, and eagles, and 
 flags ; and regard matters of political government as human and earthly 
 affairs, to be arranged, in a common-sense and judicious manner, for the 
 benefit of all concerned. A voluntary union among neighboring states 
 must be founded on amity and mutual interest; and these motives, as well 
 as the voluntariness, must be preserved, or the association of states be- 
 comes an empire of provinces ! 
 
 Fisher Ames likened the states to beautiful and useful structures, stand- 
 ing upon the naked beach, and the union to a dyke fencing out the flood ; 
 
LINCOLN’S PLAIN ENGLISH. 
 
 241 
 
 and said that without this, the next spring tide would bury us in one 
 common destruction. [II Ell. Deb. 159.] 
 
 Americans must become practical — nay vulgarly prudent, and even grovel 
 in and among their defences, remembering that their institutional walls are 
 to protect their precious blessings in their citadels of liberty, the common- 
 wealths, not more from exterior force, than from their own rulers . 
 
CHAPTER X. — The anti-Lincolnism op Washington. 
 
 HAVING noticed the preposterous theory predicated of the con- 
 stitution by Lincoln, I will show the view taken of the same 
 1 tfey sacred words and figures, by the great Washington. 
 
 I need not contrast the men, as it will be duly done by history. But 
 their assertions and opinions should be compared. And to determine pre- 
 ponderance, perhaps [we should contrast Lincoln’s training and associates, 
 and his springing like a fungus from the hot-bed of partisan and sectional 
 antagonism, with Washington’s gradual growth of intellectual stature, his 
 exemption from sectional and partisan prejudice, and his being of that 
 august band of patriots — -primus inter pares — who made American federal 
 liberty institutional. Nay more, Washington’s intercourse with the giants 
 of those days, was fraternal and close through their generation, and he 
 bore a leading part in all the discussions and ordrinings which make up 
 the recorded political history and philosophy of that sublime epoch. 
 
 It may be said, without fear of coutradiction, that the statements of the 
 fathers, contained in Part I, Chapter VII, of this work, are precisely the 
 views of Washington. The following extracts show this beyond all doubt 
 
 or cavil. 
 
 And if the American people be really possessed of the spirit of ’76, 
 they will henceforth follow the “ Commentaries” of the expounder, par 
 excellence , George Washington ! and thus preserve the commonwealths 
 and their union ! 
 
 Washington was as much a state-rights, or rather state-sovereignty man, 
 as Jefferson or Calhoun, and understood our institutions quite as well as 
 they did. But he never thought of the miserable figments which Story, 
 Webster, Lincoln, and the Philadelphia convention of 1866, foisted upon 
 the constitution as expoundings of it, viz : that the making of the union 
 consolidated the several commonwealths of America into one national unit ; 
 or in other words, the people as a nation, in their national constitution, 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON 243 
 
 “ distributed their powers between their general government and their 
 several state governments;” and that so far as the constitution went, “ so 
 far state sovereignty was effectually controlled” ; or, to sum up the matter 
 in a sentence, that the states were reduc d to mere fractions of the great 
 unit — i. e. to counties or provinces of a state. 
 
 The most of the extracts will be found in Sparks’ “Writings of Wash- 
 ington.” If they are elsewhere, proper citations will be given. The reader 
 will please observe that this “great expounder" begins by mentioning that 
 “the states [are] to appear in the convention ; ” that he speaks, all the way 
 through, of the states adopting, ratifying, or acceding to the compact; that 
 he calls the people, “ the people of these states,” and the new system, “ the 
 federal government of these states,” (and, by the way, this is the unani 
 mous expression of the “convention of states” that he presided over) ; that 
 he speaks of the constitution as providing for “the political relation which 
 is to subsist” between “the states,” and of “the measures, taken by the 
 different states, for carrying the new government into execution ; ” and, 
 finally, that he says it will be “an important epoch in the annals of thi3 
 country,” “when the states begin to act under the new form.” 
 
 Washington to Madison, 31st March, 1787 : 
 
 “ I am glad to find that congress have recommended to the states to 
 appear in the convention.” 
 
 Gen. Knox to Washington, March 19th, 1787 : 
 
 “ Your name has had great influence to induce the states to come into 
 the measure.” 
 
 Washington to Edmund Randolph, 9th April, 1787 : 
 
 “I very much fear that all the states will not appear in convention.” 
 
 Washington to David Stuart, 1st July, 1787 : 
 
 “Whilst independent sovereignty is so ardently contended for, uhilst the 
 local views and separate interests of each state will not yield to a more 
 enlarged scale of politics,” etc., “the situation of the country” must be 
 “weak, inefficient and disgraceful.” [See remarks on the following letter:] 
 
 The celebrated letter of Washington to “the president of congress,” 
 written by unanimous order of the convention of the deputies and subjects 
 of the states, to accompany the constitution proposed by the said convention, 
 for the adoption or rejection of the said states, dated Sept. 17th, 1787, 
 contains the following: 
 
 “ The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power 
 
244 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating 
 commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should 
 be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the union ; 
 but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men 
 is evident. Hence results the necessity of a different organization. 
 
 “It is obviously impracticable, in the federal government of these states, 
 to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for 
 the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give 
 up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. * * * 
 
 “ In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view 
 * * the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, 
 
 felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important considera- 
 tion * * led each state in the convention to he less rigid, * * and 
 
 thus the Constitution * * is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that 
 
 mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situa- 
 tion rendered indispensable. He finally says that it may not meet “ the 
 full and entire approbation of every state;” but that “each will doubtless 
 consider, that had her interests alone been consulted,” it might have been 
 “ disagreeable or injurious to others.” 
 
 We see from this letter, as well as from the one dated July 1, 1787, that 
 Washington used the word “ sovereignty,” as it was frequently used in that 
 day, in the second, subordinate, and improper sense, of government. Both 
 state and federal governments were often called sovereignties — for the 
 reason, probably, that they occupied the same position relatively to the 
 subjects of government, that the sovereigns of Europe did; and it was then, 
 as it is now, sometimes forgotten, that those potentates claimed to rule by 
 Divine right, and maintained the claim by force, while our governments, 
 being creations, and having only derivative authority, must be subordinate, 
 and not sovereign. In truth, they exist by the will, and rule by the consent 
 of the peojle. A thousand evidences might be given, but Mr. Webster’s 
 admission, in 1833, will suffice. “The sovereignty of government is an 
 idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known 
 in North America. * * * With us all power is with the people. 
 
 They alone are sovereign ; and they erect what governments they please, 
 and confer on them such power as they please.” 
 
 And Washington, as will be seen, always recognized the truth, that the 
 “ all power" in question was in the people as states, and that they were 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON. 249 
 
 only organized and capable of political action as such; and, consistently, 
 each state declared or implied in her organic law, that all power was inher- 
 ent in herself, i. e. her people. [See constitutions of Massachusetts, New 
 York, et afo.] 
 
 Another important point of the above letter must be noted here. In 
 speaking of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, to be “ vested in 
 the general government,” Washington and the convention say: “The im- 
 propriety of delegating ueh extensive trust to one body of men is evident. 
 Hence results the necessity of a different organization" It is quite ob- 
 vious that the “ different organization” spoken of, is the complete govern- 
 ment of three co-ordinate departments — the legislative one being in two 
 branches ; this government operating directly on the individual people, 
 and executing its own powers ; whereas the “ one body of men” in the 
 congress to be superseded, bad no power to enforce its laws, and no direct 
 contact with the people. It is also obvious that, in both cases, the govern- 
 ment was made and empowered by pre-existing and continuing states, and 
 that hence it was impossible that anything other than a federation should 
 be formed. The oft-rcpqated constitutional phrases, “ united states,” and 
 “union of states,” of themselves are full proof of a confederacy. This 
 explanation is made for the purpose of exposing the gross misstatements 
 made by Story, Webster, and the Supreme Court of the United States, to 
 the effect that the change referred to by tbe fathers, was a change from a 
 federation to “ another system" which was not a federation. 
 
 So far from this being true, the fathers generally (including Washing- 
 ton) asserted the new system to be a “ confederacy,” and, moreover, thev 
 stated the actual change wrought, precisely as Washington and the con- 
 vention do in the above letter. Both ideas, i. e., the confederacy and the 
 character of the change, are happily put in juxtaposition by Mr. Spaight 
 in ihe convention of Noith Carolina, of which (after serving in the fed- 
 eral convention) he was tin able and active member. 
 
 “ What the federal convention has done is a mere proposal. It was 
 found impossible to improve the old system, without changing its very 
 form ; for, by that system, the three great branches of government are 
 blended tog ther. * * The proposing of a new system, to be established 
 
 by the assent and ratification of nine states, arose from the necessity of the 
 case. * * * It is adopted by ten states already. The question then 
 
 is not whether the constitution be good, but whether we will or will not 
 
246 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 confederate with the other states.” [IV Ell. Deb., 206—8.] See also 
 Pinckney’s remarks, IV Ell. Deb, 256.] And in Elliott’s Debates gene- 
 rally, it will be seen that the change was explained as above — all the 
 fathers recognizing the states, whose subjects they were, as the parties to, 
 and the sovereigns in, the new system. 
 
 We see then, that Washington and the whole convention of 1787, con- 
 sidered the change being made as the substitution of one federal govern- 
 ment for another — the differences between the two being in the mode of 
 organization, and in the direct connection of the new one with the people, 
 instead of the legislatures of the states. The commonwea'ths were recog- 
 nized by all as the sole constituents of the new, as they had been of the 
 old federation. 
 
 That this was Washington’s view will become clearer as we advance. 
 
 Washington to Patrick Henry, 24th Sept. 1787, sends “copy of the 
 constitution which the federal convention has submitted to the people of 
 these states. * * * You? own judgment will at once discover the 
 
 good and the exceptionable parts of it. * * I wish the constitution 
 
 which is offered had been more perfect, but I sincerely believe that it is 
 the best that could be obtained at this time. As a constitutional door is 
 open for amendments hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present cir- 
 cumstances of the union, is, in my opinion, desirable.” 
 
 Benjamin Harrison, having received a duplicate of the above letter, wrote 
 a reply, dated October 4, 1787, from which I extract the following, to show 
 that these two great patriots agreed in thinking the constitution defective, 
 and that it might be a failure, as it was an experiment. Surely they could 
 never have supposed that the voluntary parties making it, and creating the 
 government under it, would become, by its operation, involuntary parties 
 to it, as it is now asserted they are. 
 
 “ I cannot divest myself of an opinion that the t eeds of civil discord are 
 plentifully sown in very many of the powers given, both to the president and 
 congress ; and that if’ the constitution is carried into effect, the states south 
 of the Potomac will be little more than appendages to those to the north- 
 ward of it. * * In the interim , I shall only say that my objections chiefly 
 
 lie against the unlimited powers of taxation, and the regulations of trade, 
 and the jurisdictions that are to be estab ished in every state, altogether 
 independent of the laws thereof. The sword, and such powers, will — nay, 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON 247 
 
 in the nature of things, must — sooner or later, establish a tyranny, not 
 inferior to the triumvirate or the centumviri of Rome ” 
 
 Washington to Madison, 10th October, 1787 : 
 
 “ I scarcely think any powerful opposition will be made to the constitu- 
 tion’s being submitted to a convention of this state.” 
 
 Col. George Mason, in his objections to the constitution, [I Ell. Deb. 
 494,] expressed the wish that it might be provided in the federal compact 
 that any navigation law should require a two-thirds vote. Washington 
 aptly wrote in a letter to David Stuart, Oct. 17, 1787, that “ no men, 
 bodies ct men, or countries, will enter into any compact or treaty, if one of 
 the three is to have a negative control over the other two. * * There 
 
 must be reciprocity, or no union.” 
 
 Now, here is positive proof that Washington considered the present fed- 
 eral constitution to be a “ compact or treaty ” “ between the states ratifying 
 the same.” 
 
 Washington to Bushrod Washington, 10th of November, 1787 : 
 
 “A candid solution of a simple question does, in my opinion, decide the 
 dispute, namely: Is it best for the states to unite? * * If the union 
 
 of the whole is a desirable object, the component parts must yield a little 
 in order to accomplish it.” lie then asks what course the opponents would 
 adopt for Virginia, “if nine other states should accede to the constitution? 
 * * The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is 
 entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to 
 representatives of their own choosing. * * Their servants can, and 
 
 undoubtedly will be recalled,” if they act “contrary to the interests and 
 wishes of the people.” “No government can be well administered without 
 powers; yet, the instant these are delegated, although those who are 
 entrusted with the administration are no more than the creatures of the 
 people, act as it were but for a day, and are amenable tor every false step 
 they take, they are, from the moment they receive it, set down for tyrants.” 
 
 Washington to Madison, in congress, 7th Dec., 1787 : 
 
 He speaks of the “ solicitude” felt concerning the prospective decisions 
 of the conventions of the states. After speaking of the motives of several of 
 the states, he continues; “ if these, with the states eastward and northward 
 of us, should accede to the federal government, I think the citizens of this 
 state will have no causs to bless the opposers of it here, if they should 
 carry their point.” 
 
248 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 Washington to Jefferson, Jan. 1st, 1788 : 
 
 Speaking of the chances of the new constitution being adopted, he says: 
 Pennsylvania ; New Jersey and Delaware, are the only states whose 
 conventions have, as yet, decided on it. He then says, Connecticut 
 and Massachusetts hold their conventions this month, Maryland in 
 April, and Virginia in June, etc. He apprehends “ more or less opposition 
 in the most of the states” — formidable in Virginia, as well as NewYork — 
 but hopes success. He finally speaks of the need of “an efficient general 
 government to regulate our commercial concerns, to give us national 
 respectability, and to connect the political views and interests of the several 
 states under one head, in such a manner as will prevent their forming 
 separate connections with European powers, or being involved in European 
 disputes.” 
 
 Washington to Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, Jan. 8th, 1788 : 
 
 “There are some things in the new form which I readily acknowledge, 
 do not, and never will obtain my cordial approbation ; but, I believe 
 * * that, in the aggregate, it is the best constitution that can be 
 
 obtained ; and that this, or a dissolut'on of the uuion, awaits our choice, 
 and is the only alternative before us.” 
 
 Washington to Count Rochambeau, Jan. 8th, 1788; also, to Wm. Mc- 
 Intosh, same date : 
 
 He speaks of “ the people of these states,” and says “ it [the constitu- 
 tion] is to be submitted to conventions chosen by the people in the several 
 states, and by them approved or rejected.” This of itself shows that 
 Washington considered the people, as organised in states, to be absolutely 
 sovereign. 
 
 Washington to Madison, in congress, 10th Jan., 1788: 
 
 Speaks of the const.tution being likely to produce that “energy, stability 
 and security which is, or ought to be, the wish of every good citizen of the 
 union.” Speaking of the arguments to be used in the convention of Vir- 
 ginia, he “ expects the most prevailing one will be, that nine states at least 
 will have acceded to it.” 
 
 Washington to Marquis De Lafayette, 7th Feb., 1788: 
 
 “It ap| ears to me little short of a miracle that the delegates from so 
 many states, different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and 
 principles, should unite in forming a system of national government so little 
 liable to well-founded objections. * * With regard to the two great 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON. 249 
 
 points — tlie pivots upon which the whole machine must move — my creed 
 is simply : 
 
 “ First, that the general government is not invested with more powers 
 than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good gov- 
 ernment, and consequently, that no objection ought to be made against the 
 quantity of power delegated to it. 
 
 “ Secondly. That these powers — as the appointment of all rulers will 
 forever arise from, and, at short stated intervals, recur to, the free suffrage 
 of the people — are so distributed among the legislative, executive, and judi- 
 cial branches, into which the general government is arranged, that it can 
 never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aris- 
 tocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall 
 remain any virtue in the body of the people.” 
 
 He then proceeds to recognize the truth that the constitution can afford 
 no security against the consequences of “ the corruption of the morals ” of 
 the people, their neglect ot the duty of being vigilant as to the preservation 
 of their rights, and the “successful usurpations that may be established” 
 on the ruins of liberty. 
 
 And he concludes by speaking of “the prospect of the constitution’s 
 being adopted by nine states or more. Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jer- 
 sey, and Connecticut have already done it. It is also said that Georgia 
 has acceded.” 
 
 Washington to Lafayette, 28th April, 1788: 
 
 “ The people retain everything they do not, by express terms, give up. 
 Hence a bill of rights is nugatory.” 
 
 Washington to Jay, 15th May, 1788: 
 
 “ Should South Carolina, now in session, decide favorably, and the gov- 
 ernment thereby (nine states having acceded) get in motion, I scarcely 
 conceive that one of the remainder, or all of them together, * * would 
 
 incline to withdraw from the union with the other nine.” 
 
 Washington to Gen. Knox, June 17th, 1788: 
 
 “ The information of the accession of South Carolina to the new govern- 
 ment, gives us a new subject of mutual felicitations.” Then expressing the 
 hope that it will have influence on the convention of Virginia, he concludes 
 by saying, that there is every prospect that the constitution will be adopted 
 in New Hampshire. “ I cannot but hope, then, that the states which may 
 
250 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 be disposed to make a secession [from the union], will think ofhn and 
 seriously on the consequences.” 
 
 Washington to Jay, June 8, 1788: 
 
 “I congratulate you on the adoption of the constitution hy the conven- 
 tion of South Carolina.” He then expressed regret that the New York 
 convention had a majority of anti-federalists, and said: “If this state 
 should, in the intermediate time, make the ninth that shall have ratified 
 the proposed government, it will, I flatter myself, have its due weight.” 
 
 Washington to Marquis De Lafayette, June 17, 1788: 
 
 “I mentioned [in a letter by Mr. Barlow] the accession of Maryland to 
 the proposed government. * * The accession of one state more will 
 
 complete the number, (nine), needed to establish it.” He evidently thought 
 states and not a nation, were “to establish it." 
 
 Washington to Gen. Pinckney, Jnne 28, 1788: 
 
 Speaks of the adoption by the Virginia convention, by a vote of 89 to 
 79. He speaks of the people of Alexandria devoting this day to rejoicing, 
 and their enjoyment being heightened by the news that “New Hampshire 
 had, on the 21st inst., acceded to the new confederacy, by a majority of 11 
 voices — that is to say, 57 to 46.” Mark the important words “ acceded 
 to the new confederacy!” 
 
 He says further, that they had the pleasure of “ pouring a libation to 
 the prosperity of the ten states, that have actually adopted the general gov- 
 ernment;” and expresses a “hope that the union will now be established 
 on a durable basis.” Providence, he continues, “ seems still disposed to 
 favor the members of it, with unequalled opportunities for political happi- 
 ness.” 
 
 As to North Carolina, he says: “I should be astonished if that state 
 should withdraw from the union.” As to New York, he says: “The ma- 
 jority of the convention seems opposed to the adoption of the new federal 
 S 3 'stem.” But he seems to count on the example of the states which have 
 already acted, for he says in conclusion : “ The decision of ten states can 
 hardly be without its operation. ^ * After New York shall have 
 
 acted, then only one little state shall remain.” 
 
 Washington to John Jay, July 18, 1788 : “The accession of ten states 
 must operate forcibly with the opposition, etc.” 
 
 Washington to Madison, (in congress) 3d of August, 1788; “* * 
 
 the several parts should submit to the inconveniences, for the benefits they 
 
T II E ANT I-L INCOLNISM OF 'WASHINGTON. 251 
 
 derive from the conveniences of the compact. * ^ Toward New York 
 
 we look for whatever is interesting, till the states begin to act under the 
 new compact, which will be an important epoch in the annals of this 
 country.” Note that “ the states” are “ to act under the new compact.” 
 
 Washington to Sir Edward Newenham, 20th July, 1788 — speaks of our 
 having formed : “ A confederated government, where due energy will not 
 be incompatible with the inalienable rights of freemen.” 
 
 Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, Oct. 26, 1788: “The constant report 
 is, that North Carolina will soon accede to the new union.” 
 
 He further says: “Whoever shall be found to enjoy the confidence of 
 the states, so far as to be elected Vice President,” will be acceptable to me, 
 should I be President. 
 
 We see from the above extracts that Washington constantly recognized 
 the absolute states of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
 et als., as the high contracting powers then forming the federal (or, to coin 
 an English synonym, the league-al ) constitution. His idea was that the 
 states were associating themselves, to act thenceforward as a union of states, 
 (as the constitution repeatedly calls the polity lorrned), or a “confederacy,” 
 which was his own name for the new system. 
 
 As the other fathers did, he often used the general phrase, “the people,” 
 meaning all the peop'e of the country ; but it is equally true, that he and 
 they meant “the people” as organized. They (the said people) were 
 organized only in states, and they had capacity for political action only as 
 such. They were not organized as a nation, and they could not politically 
 act as such, for they must act according to the law of their political being. 
 Moreover, there is no record of any national action whatever, in forming 
 or adopting the constitution. 
 
CHAPTER XI. — The anti-Lincolnism of Washington. 
 
 ( Continued .) 
 
 HB foregoing views of the Father of his country on the consti- 
 Tv tut * on ’ were ex P resse< l before he became President, and the fol- 
 °l lowing afterwards. Throughout, he recognises the states as 
 political bodies, which were associating themselves, and constituting the 
 federal government for their subjects. 
 
 Moreover, he not only called the system, “ the new confederacy,” and 
 the states “the members of the union,” but he regarded the constitution as 
 establishing the only relations between the states ; and the said states as 
 the sole actors in the union, and the exc’usive sources of political power. 
 The truth is, Washington and the rest of the fathers thought that, as all 
 the territory and all the people belonged exclusively to the states, any 
 general constitution must be made by them — must belong to them — must 
 provide for their union, and must be worked for their benefit, and with 
 their authority. The country was theirs, and the government their ser- 
 vant, just as much as his household belonged to him, and the domestics of 
 it were under his control. He and they evidently assumed that all rights 
 were state-rights — all citizens state-citizens — all sovereignty state-sovereign- 
 ty — all allegiance state-allegiance — and all treason state treason ! 
 
 These ideas may seem strange to some, but I believe Washington, so far 
 as he thought of them, took them for granted, and never wrote an incon- 
 sistent word. But let us proceed with his record, remembering that after 
 the inauguration of the government, his testimony is Irorn better insight, 
 and against his interest, and his possible lust of power. 
 
 Washington to Jefferson, Feb. 13, 1789 — speaks of “the measures 
 taken by the different states for carrying the new government into execu- 
 tion.” 
 
 Washington to Innes, 2d March, 1789 — speaks severely of “those who 
 
T IX E ANT I— L INCOLNISM OP WASHINGTON. 253 
 
 by sowing the seeds of disaffection, may attempt to separate any portion of 
 the united states from the union.’* 
 
 Washington to Gov. Johnston, of North Carolina, June 19, 1789— 
 speaks of the probability of North Carolina “ speedily acceding to the Lew 
 general government,” and of the “subject of the most momentous conse- 
 quence” to be dea't with by the North Carolina convention: “ I mean,” 
 says he, “the political relation which is to subsist hereafter, between the 
 state of North Carolina, and the states now in union, under the new general 
 government.” [Mark these last words.] 
 
 Washington to Gouverneur Morris, 1789. — ■“* * * The national 
 
 government is organized; * * opposition to it is no more, or hides its 
 
 head; * * it is hoped it will take strong root, and that the non-acceding 
 states will soon become members of the union.” 
 
 Washington to Edmund Randolph, Attorney General 11th February, 
 1790. — Speaks of an act which must “ be passed, to extend the judicial 
 power of the united states to North Carolina.” 
 
 Washington to Fenner, governor Rhode Island, June 14, 1790.- — Con- 
 gratulates him on the “ ratification of the constitution by the convention 
 of Rhode Island,” and continues: “Having now attained the desirable 
 object of uniting under one general government all those states which were 
 originally confederated,” etc. He then says “ our bond of union is now 
 complete, and we are once more as one family.” 
 
 Washington to Count De Segur, 1st July, 1790. — “ The union of states 
 is now complete under the new government, by the late accession of Rhodu 
 Island to the constitution.” 
 
 Washington commissioning the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow 
 money, August 28, 1790 — authorizes him “ to borrow on behalf of the- 
 united states, within sttid states or elsewhere,” $14,000,000; “and to make 
 such contracts as shall be necessary, and for the interest of the said states..”' 
 
 Dr. David Stuart writes to Washington, March 10, 1792 : 
 
 “A spirit of jealousy, which may. become dangerous to the union,, toward 
 the Eastern stages, seems to be growing fast. It is represented that the 
 northern phalanx is so firmly united as to bear down all opposition, while 
 Virginia is unsupported even by those whose interests are similar to hers.” 
 
 Washington replied 20th March, 1792 : “ I am sorry such jealousies as 
 you speak of, should be gaining 'ground and poisoning the minds of the 
 Southern people.” He then goes on to speak of diversities of interests 
 
254 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 and feelings between sections and parts of states, and even counties. “ Yet,” 
 said he, “it did not follow that separation was to result from the disagree- 
 ment. To constitute a dispute there must be two parties. To understand 
 it well, both parties and all the circumstances must be fully heard ; and to 
 accommodate differences, temper and mutual forbearance are requisite. 
 Common danger brought the states into confederacy, and on their union 
 our safety and importance depend. A spirit of accommodation was the basis 
 of the present constitution. Can it be expected then that the Southern 
 or Eastern parts of the empire will succeed in all their measures?” lie 
 then speaks of the unity or concert of Eastern states being likely to make 
 them generally successful, and asks the question, “ If the Eastern and 
 Northern states are dangerous in union , [italics his own] will they be less 
 so in separation ? If self-interest is their governing principle, will it forsake 
 them, or be governed by such an event? * * Then independently of 
 
 other considerations, what could Virginia, and such other states as might 
 be inclined to join her, gain by a separation? 
 
 Washington to Hamilton, 20th July, 1792: 
 
 He enumerates the objections taken to the policy of the government and 
 the interpretations of the constitution — one of which is characterized as a 
 disposition evinced by a certain fact'on to disregard the “ limitations imposed 
 by the constitution on the general legislature — limitations, on the faith of 
 which the states acceded to that instrument.” 
 
 Washington to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1792 : He counsels mutual forbear- 
 ance, conciliation, accommodation, “and such healing measures as may 
 restore harmony to the discordant members of the union and the governing 
 powers of it.” “Without these, I do not see how the union of the states 
 can much longer be preserved.” 
 
 Washington to Gouverneur Morris, 20th October, 1792: 
 
 Speaks of the Indians being under “an influence [British] which is 
 hostile to the rising greatness of these states.” 
 
 And his letter to the Earl of Buchan, of April 22, 1793, heretofore 
 quoted, shows how completely he was governed by the idea of distinct and 
 sovereign ■political bodies , self-united : “ I send you the p an of a new city 
 about the center of the union of these states .” 
 
 To any reflecting mind, the last five letters, as well as numerous other 
 expressions, show that Washington not only regarded the union of states 
 as purely voluntary, and motived by a community of political faith and 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON 
 
 sentiment, by amity, and by the mutual interest of safety, economy, and 
 means of wealth and power, but that he thought the constitution defective, 
 experimental, and dissoluble. See bis letters to Gen. Knox and Gen. 
 Lafayette, in August and September, 1787 ; also the above quoted one of 
 September 24, 1787, to Patrick Henry, and others. Nay, more, he recog- 
 nized motives or causes tending to separation, as likely to arise, and he 
 abjured “the people of these states,” who, as commonwealths, had formed 
 “ the confederacy,” as he called it, to be conciliatory and compromising, 
 and to frown down all attempts to cause a separation of the states. 
 
 The following letters and extracts from the Farewell Address, show that 
 he considered good will and mutual interest as the only ties binding the 
 states, and moral suasion as the only force to be relied on to prevent the 
 sundering of those ties. This must be so, for the convention ot ’87, includ- 
 ing him, unanimously spurned th t idea of coercion of states ; and subse- 
 quently the states, item, con., amended the constitution to prevent even 
 judicial coercion of states. [See amendment XI.] The fathers all thought 
 the states only bound by virtue of voluntary engagements; and, to u e the 
 language of Webster at the close of his life, that “ the constitution is the 
 only bond of the union of these states.” 
 
 Washington to R. II. Lee, 22nd August, 1785: 
 
 “There is nothing which binds one country or state to another, buf 
 interest; without this cement, the Western inhabitants can have no predi- 
 lection for us ; and a commercial connection is the only tie we can have 
 upon them.” He was speaking of .the people of the Ohio and Mississippi 
 valleys. 
 
 Washington to R. II. Lee, July, 19, 1787 : 
 
 “ Till you get low down the Ohio, I conce.ve that it would be the interest 
 of the inhabitants thereof to bring their produce to our ports: and sure I 
 am there is no other tie by which they wi.l long form a link in the chain 
 of federal union.” 
 
 Extracts from Washington’s Farewell Address, with exp’ana- 
 tions : It is well to remark at the outset, that there is no inconsistency 
 between the address and the extracts heretefore given. To promote “ the 
 happiness of the people of these states ” is the professed object he has in 
 view; and he regards the motives of amity, fraternal feeling, and mutual 
 interest, “as the sacred ties which bind together the various parts.” And 
 the presumption is inevitable that if he had foreseen that fraternal fueling 
 
256 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 would give place to mutual dislike, and amity to enmity, lie would have re- 
 commended separation as preferable to bitter contentions, and the unrepubli- 
 can disposition to settle disputes by arms ; and he would have advised resort to 
 the divine idea of secession, as expressed by Abraham to Lot ; and surely 
 that could not have been so bad as the great American civil war — the curse 
 of the nation, and the infamy of the age? He never contemplated a union 
 of force — a union to be preserved by coercion of the component states; 
 and not a line he ever wrote, (even in the farewell address), is consistent 
 with such an idea. 
 
 In the beginning of the address, he prays “ that Heaven may continue 
 to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence ; that your union and broth- 
 erly affection may be perpetual ; that the free constitution , which is the 
 work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained ; that its administration 
 in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue ; that, in 
 fine, the happiness of the people of these states , under the auspices of 
 liberty, may be made complete. 
 
 “ The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also 
 now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of 
 your real independence — the support of your tranquillity at home, your 
 peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which 
 you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes 
 and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices em- 
 ployed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ; as this is 
 the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal 
 and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often 
 covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should 
 properly estimate’ the immense value of your national union to your col- 
 lective and individual happiness.” 
 
 He is addressing “ the people of these states,” and “ the government,” 
 the “ unity ” of which, he says, h so dear to them, is the government which 
 they made, acting as states, and which necessarily remains subject to the 
 wills that gave it existence. This is an argument to the people of states, 
 who, in imparting or withdrawing power, must act according to the law of 
 their political being as states. We have heretofore seen his repeated asser- 
 tions that the union is a “ confederacy.” 
 
 “ While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and 
 particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find, in 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON. 257 
 
 tlie united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource, 
 proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent inter- 
 ruption of their peace by foreign nations ; and what is of inestimable value, 
 they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars 
 between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied 
 together by the same government ; which their own rivalships alone would 
 be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments 
 and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will 
 avoid the necessity of these overgrown military establishments, which, 
 under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are 
 to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty ; in this sense 
 it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your 
 liberty, and that the love of the one, ought to endear to you the preserva- 
 tion of the other. 
 
 “These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting 
 and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance ot the union as a primary 
 object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government 
 can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere 
 speculation, in such a case, were criminal. We are authorized to hope that 
 a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of govern- 
 ments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the expe- 
 riment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful 
 and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while 
 experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always 
 be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may 
 endeavor to weaken its bands.” 
 
 Of course “the continuance of the union” was “the primary object of 
 patriotic desire,” as long as it was the instrument of “ the people of these 
 states,” in preserving their safety aud happiness; and as long. as its govern- 
 ment was the servitor of said people. But the above shows that it was 
 undoubtedly Washington’s view, that if a full and fair experiment proved 
 that this “common government” could not “embrace so large a sphere” 
 without defeating instead of promoting the object of government, i. e. 
 “the happiness of the people of these states,” it might, by its makers, be 
 brought to an end — haviug no iron strength and eternal existence of its 
 own, but only existing at the will of its sovereign creators. 
 
258 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 “ To the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the 
 whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict between the parts, can 
 be an adequate substitute ; they must inevitably experience the infractions 
 and interruptions which all alliances, in all time have experienced. Sensi- 
 ble of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by 
 the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your 
 former for an intimate union , and for the ej/icacious management of your 
 common concerns. This government, the offspring of your own choice, 
 uuinflueneed and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature delib- 
 eration, completely free in its principles, and in the distribution of its 
 powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provi- 
 sion for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your 
 support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiesence 
 in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true 
 liberty.” 
 
 In this quotation, we have further positive proof that "Washington did 
 not consider that there was “ a change from a confederation to another 
 ■ system,” for in the passage underscored, he regards the constitution as 
 1 another compact, and the new system as a un’on of states, as the constitu- 
 tion calls it. “A more perfect union” of the states, as the preamble ex- 
 presses it. “ This government,” is the offspring of our “ own choice.” 
 Whose choice ? Whose will is referred to ? Of course “ the people of these 
 states.” They were only organized and capable of acting as states. They 
 did act absolutely as states. Of course then, Washington could but say as 
 he did in his letter heretofore quoted, of October 17th, 1787, that the 
 constitution was a “ compact or treaty and as he did in his letter, also 
 heretofore quoted, of June 28th, 1788, that the system proposed was “ a 
 new confederacy,” that is to say a new league of states — a “more perfect 
 union.” Who will now deny that Wa hington considered “the united 
 states of America” a federation of sovereignties? 
 
 His political principles were those of Wi son, Dickinson, Hamilton, 
 Madison, Jay, and other leading federalists, who most elaborately explained 
 the new federal system to the people. This is well known by all who under- 
 stand the subject; but to prevent cavil and evasion, I will show his special 
 adoption of their theory of the absolute sovereignty of the states in the 
 union. 
 
 Washington to David Stuart, October 17, 1789: “Dear Sir — As the 
 
T n E A N T I-L I N C 0 L N I S M OP WASHINGTON. 259 
 
 enclosed Advertiser contains a speech of Mr. Wilson — as able, candid and 
 honest a member as was in the convention — which will place the most of 
 Colonel Mason’s objections in their true light, I send it to you. The re- 
 publication of it, if you can get it done, will be serviceable at this junc- 
 ture.” 
 
 The leading and most striking parts of this speech were as follows : In 
 showing that a bill of lights was not needed in the federal constitution, 
 because not being given, the said rights were reserved already, he said: “it 
 would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal 
 holy of our own creation, that we should enjoy these privileges of which 
 we are not divested, either by the intention or the act which has brought 
 that body into existence.” 
 
 Further along, he said, in explaining the reason why the federal con- 
 vention did not deal with subjects already provided for in the state consti- 
 tutions : “ Let it be remembered, then, that the business of the federal 
 convention was not local, but general ; not limited to the views and estab- 
 lishments of a single state, but co-extensive with the continent, and com- 
 prehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sovereign- 
 ties .” [ Pennsylvania Herald, Oct. 10, 1787.] 
 
 Another Pennsylvania statesman, Tench Coxe, said at the same time, on 
 the same matter, that such subjects “could not be mentioned in a contract 
 among sovereign states.” 
 
 The above were unquestionably the views of Washington: and strange 
 as it may seem to those who have been taught by Story and Webster, the 
 fathers took them for granted, and acted upon them; and the federal con- 
 stitution is entirely based upon them ; and in those days neither friend nor 
 foe ever called them in question. 
 
 Washington to John Vaughan, April 27, 1788: “The writer of the 
 pieces signed Fabius, whoever he is, appears to be master of the subject; 
 * * an extensive republication of them would be of utility, in removing 
 
 false impressions.” 
 
 Fabius was John Dickinson, who had been President of both Pennsyl- 
 vania and Delaware. He was a member of the federal convention, and was 
 recognized as one of the leading statesmen of that period. What were 
 the views, evincing “ mastery of the subject worthy of “ extensive repub- 
 lication,” as well as calculated to “ remove false impressions?” The fol- 
 
2C0 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 lowing extracts from II “ Political Writings of John Dickinson,” will 
 show. The italics are in the original. 
 
 Speaking of the danger to liberty, in the new system, he says, writing 
 early in 1788: “ the power of the people, penading the whole system, by 
 frequent elections, together with the strong confederation of the states, 
 forms an adequate secuiity against every danger that has been apprehend- 
 ed.” “The objectors agree that the confederation of the states will be 
 strong, according to the system proposed,” etc. 
 
 “ The}', (the House of Representatives), and the Senate, will actually be, 
 not only legislative, but also diplomatic bodies, perpetually engaged in the 
 arduous task of reconciling in their determinations, the interests of several 
 sovereign states.” 
 
 Speaking of the danger of usurpation by the federal government, he 
 says,- “the trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they 
 retain their senses, to violate the independent sovereignty of their res- 
 pective states, that justly darling object of American affection, to 
 which they are responsible.” “But a bad administration may take place; 
 what is then to be done? The answer is instantly found: Let the fasces 
 he lowered before the supreme sovereignty of the people. It is their 
 duty to watch, and their right to take care that the constitution be pre- 
 served; or in the Roman phrase, on perilous occasions, to provide that the 
 republic receive no damage .” 
 
 “ It is said such territory has never been governed by a confederacy of re- 
 publics; granted ; but where was there ever a confederacy of republics in 
 such territory, united, as these states are to be, by the proposed constitu- 
 tion?” etc. 
 
 “America is, and will be, divided into several sovereign states, each 
 
 possessing every power proper for governing, within its own limits, fur its 
 
 * 
 
 own purposes , and also for acting as a member of the union." 
 
 I have quoted copiously, as John Dickinson’s writings are not accessible 
 to many, and as they show Washington’s views very clearly and forcibly. 
 
 Let us now show his approval of “The Federalist,” and then quote its 
 expressions : 
 
 Washington to David Stuart, 30th Nov. 1787 : 
 
 After stating that “some writers wish to see this union divided into sev- 
 eral confederacies,” and deprecating the idea, he writes as follows: 
 
 “As an antidote to these opinions, and. in order to investigate the ground 
 
THE ANTI— LINCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON. 
 
 261 
 
 of objections to the constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under 
 the signature of Publius, is written. * * They [the articles] are written 
 by able men, and before they are finished, will, or I am mistaken, place 
 matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the 
 writers, I am not at liberty to mention names; nor would I have it known 
 that they [these papers] are sent by me to you for promulgation.” 
 
 He was in the confidence of the writers ; he and they were ardent fed- 
 eralists; and they concurred with him in political philosophy. lie often 
 specially sanctioned what they wrote; aided in the “promulgation” of their 
 writings; and in his subsequent administration of the new governmental 
 agency, he was in close alliance and sympathy with them, personally and 
 politically. 
 
 What then did Jay, Hamilton, and Mad'son — write, in expression of 
 their own and Washington’s views, concerning the proposed general polity? 
 
 The very fii-st article of the Federalist indicated the object to be, the 
 continuance of the union of states, under a new federal government; or, 
 as the constitution expresses it, “to form a more perfect union.” And, in 
 that, and the two or three articles immediately following, the question is 
 discussed whether there should be an association of states or not, and if yea, 
 whether" three. or four confederacies v. ould be better than one.” This is 
 Jay’s expression, and he elsewhere called the polity a “union of stated” 
 and a “conf deracy.” 
 
 In concluding the great discussion, Hamilton states, in 85 of the Fed- 
 eralist, that, by the compact pi-oposed, “thirteen independent states were 
 to be accommodated in their interests, or opinions of inteixst;” and that 
 hence arose the necessity of making such a system, as would “satisfy all 
 the parties to the compact.” And, in the same article, he ai’gues that the 
 failure of this plan, would be a “dissolution of the confederacy.” And in 
 the New York ratifying convention, about the same time, he described the 
 system provided for in the proposed constitution, as “a confederacy of 
 states .” [II Ed. Deb. 353.] 
 
 In article 39, it is stated that “each state, in ratifying the constitution, 
 is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be 
 bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitu- 
 tion will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution.” 
 This is Madison’s, italics and all. 
 
 In article 40 Madison continues the subject, meeting the objection that 
 
262 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 the new system wasso different from the preceding one, that it was not 
 within the intention of the states: “Will it be sa.u arat the fundamental 
 principles of the confede’ ation were not within the purview of the con- 
 vention, and ought not to have been varied ? I ask, what are those princi- 
 ples ? Do they require that, in the establishment of the constitution, the 
 states should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They 
 are so regarded by the constitution proposed.” 
 
 Article 20 — the joint production of Hamilton and Madison — concludes 
 with the following remarkable and decisive passages : “ Experience is the 
 oracle of truth ; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be 
 conclusive and sacred. The important truth which it unequivocally pro- 
 nounces in the present case is, that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a gov- 
 ernment over governments, a legislation for communities as contradistin- 
 guished from individuals ; as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it 
 is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting violence 
 in the place of law ; or the destructive coercion of the sword , in the place 
 of the mild and salutary coercion of the magistracy .” 
 
 All the numbers of the Federalist, and all of Washington’s writings, 
 are consistent with the above passages. The extract from article 20 is one 
 ef the numerous decisive proofs that the states were never intended to be 
 subject to the government ; for they were the sources of all power — were 
 republics, i. e., self-governing states. And it is amazing that anybody 
 should ever have been foolish or wicked enough to say that the states are 
 subject to their own compact, and the government they created by it. 
 Yea, verily, it is a solecism, as Hamilton and Madison above say, to talk 
 of “ a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a leg- 
 islation for communities as contradistinguished from individua's.” And 
 it shows either ignorance of history, or suppressio veri, for expositors of the 
 constitution to deny that the states purposely excluded coercion of states 
 from the compact; and afterwards nem. con., provided by amendment (XI) 
 against even judicial federal coercion of them. 
 
 We find, then, from Washington’s own expressions, his views to have 
 been that the states “ established" the union ; that the instrument providing 
 for it, is the '■'■compact or treaty ” of the states; that the object accomplished 
 was the forming of “ a new confederacy" i. e., “ a more perfect union” of 
 the states, than the previous pact provided for; and that the states were not 
 only voluntary parties to, but they were to be voluntary actors in, the union. 
 
THE ANT I— L INCOLNISM OF WASHINGTON 263 
 
 Washington always took it for granted, that the states were sovereign 
 bodies of people; and that the federal compact, and the agency created, 
 were simply the instrumentalities of the states for self-government, and 
 remained of course subordinate to them. 
 
 Now, in order to see Washington’s clearness and breadth of view, and 
 his admirable consistency throughout, let us glance back at his statement 
 of the great political desiderata fir our country, in his circular letter to 
 the governors of the states in 1783, on the occasion of his laying down 
 his office as Commander-in-Chief: 
 
 1. A “union of the states under one federal head;” 
 
 2. A “ sacred regard for public justice;” 
 
 3. A proper peace establishment ; 
 
 4. The cultivation of friendly feelings among all the people of the 
 country, etc., etc. 
 
 Washington never lost sight of these objects; he always took it for 
 granted that the states were the sole actors in federalizing themselves ; and 
 he finally had the satisfaction to see the work done precisely as he fore- 
 casted. The thoughtful reader cannot fail to see that Washington was 
 much more admirable as a statesman and political philosopher, than is com- 
 monly supposed. 
 
CHAPTER XII. — Verbal jugglery. 
 
 , FTER contrasting the doctrines of “the two Washingtons,” it is 
 well to bring to view, in the same line of investigation,- the 
 7 two sc ^ s so-called definitions of Noah Webster, as to the 
 matter in hand — one genuine and the other counterfeit. 
 
 With sapping and mining industry, equal to that of a species of rodent 
 vermin, and quite as difficult to follow and counteract, a certain class of 
 teachers and leaders, have undermined to its ruin, the sacred temple of con- 
 stitutional freedom. Unfortunately they, and their discip'es or followers, 
 mainly control the political propagators, print, press, publishers, politicians, 
 and, in short, the most of the means of political teaching, in the whole 
 land. 
 
 THIMBLE-RIGGING EXPOSITION. 
 
 In 1830-3, Daniel Webster abandoned his previous and sound constitu- 
 tional views, and played most skilfully “ with double sences and with false 
 debate.” Said he : “ Words are things * * of mighty influence ; 
 
 because a just conclusion is often avoided, or a false one reached, by the 
 adroit substitution of one phrase or one word [or he might have said one 
 definition] for another.” He evidently saw that even the strongest logical 
 position in any argument could be turned,” by making false deflations of 
 the chief words of it, and having them accepted as “ public convictions.” 
 
 Again, a minority politician, in the early part of the present century, Li 
 said to have remarked, in substance : “ The terms are against us, but their 
 meanings are subject to usage.” Sophists seem to have accepted these 
 hints, and labored assiduously ever since to produce a desired usage, and a 
 “ public conviction” of new and false meanings, tending towards, if not 
 powerfully aiding, consolidation and imperialism. Many an “ adroit sub- 
 stitution” have they since, with flagitious cunning, made — the latest, most 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 2C3 
 
 conspicuous, and most banefully influential being the counterfeit deflnitions ) 
 which are the subject of this chapter, and which are coined and circulated 
 throughout the land as Noah Webster’s. 
 
 Phrasing the process to be exposed, as I do above, is dignifying it ; for 
 it is the simple forging of Noah Webster’s most venerated and potential 
 name, to declarations of fact and opinion, directly and flagrantly opposed 
 to his life-long views; and “passing the counterfeits” as his statements; 
 such acts being crimes against the people, against freedom, and against 
 God, beside which the tricks of thimble-rigging, which they resemble, are 
 mere innocent sport? 
 
 THE AMERICAN “OLD MAN OF TOE MOUNTAIN.” 
 
 If the “school” is responsible for the foregoing deceptions, and the soph- 
 istries yet to be exposed, have we not found the American “ Sheik ul Gebel ” 
 — the “Chief of the Assassins” of lib ity ? The honor and conscience of 
 perverters in general, are estimated, and the character of them portrayed by 
 Gouverneur Morris, the statesman, as follows: “But after all, what dois it 
 signify that men should have a written constitution, containing unequivocal 
 provisions and limitations. The legislative lion will not be entangled in a 
 logical net. The legislature will always make the power which it wishes 
 to exercise. * * The idea of binding the members by oaths is puerile. 
 
 Having sworn to exercise the powers granted according to their true intent 
 and meaning, they will, when they desire to go lurther, avoid the shame if 
 not the guilt of perjury by swearing the true intent and meaning to be, 
 (according to their comprehension), that which suits their purpose.” [Ill 
 Lite of M., letter dated Dec. 22, 1814.] 
 
 NOAH WEBSTER’S REAL DOCTRINES. 
 
 Noah Webstef died in 1S43 — aged 85 — after having attained the first 
 rank of great Americans. He was one of the ablest and most eflicieut of 
 those eminent patriots called “the fathers,” who devised the new federal 
 system and secured its adoption. In 1784-5, he wrote and published his 
 Sketches of American Policy , advocating a general government that shou’d 
 act, not on states, but directly on individuals, just as the state governments 
 did; and should possess powers to effectuate its laws in like manner. 
 When the federal, system of 1787 was devised, he published in its favor, 
 “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 
 aud in the American Magazine , founded and edited by him in 1787-8, he 
 
2GG 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 monthly, and most ably, exposed the essential ideas and traits of the system. 
 I now present some extracts, not only to show the deceptions referred to, 
 but to instruct the people as to their real federal polity. In the number 
 for December, 1787, he says, “ The whole body of people in society is the 
 sovereign power, or the state; which is called the body politic. Every man 
 forms a part of this state, and so has a share in the sovereignty; at the 
 same time, as an individual, he is a subject of the state.” 
 
 In showing that a bill of rights was not needed in the federal constitu- 
 tion, he said, “A bill of rights against the encroachments of kings and 
 barons, or against any power independent of the people, is perfectly intel- 
 ligible; but a bill of rights against the encroachments of an elective legis- 
 lature, that is against our own encroachments on ourselves, is a curiosity 
 in government.” 
 
 Many such extracts might be given, all showing that the people, as com- 
 monwealths, were the nations, states, or powers of the land; that they were 
 to federate, to form the new polity, as equal and sovereign states; that they 
 were to govern themselves as republics; and that the agency of federal 
 government was to have no powers but those entrusted in writing, all others 
 being retained. 
 
 As to the equality and supremacy of the states in the union, he said, in 
 the first number: “The equality of representation, which was the result 
 of compromise and mutual concessions, establishes the equal sovereignty of 
 each state.” 
 
 TUB STATES ABOVE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. 
 
 “The individuals who compose a political society or state, have a sove- 
 reign right to establish what form of government they please, in their own 
 territory.” 
 
 In the number for January, 1788, he said, “* * no constitutions 
 
 in a free government car. be unalterable. * * A state is a supreme 
 
 corpora’ ion that never dies. Its powers, when it acts for itself, are at all 
 times equally extensive; and it has the same right to repeal a law this year, 
 as it had to make it the last. If, therefore, our posterity are bound by our 
 constitutions, and can neither amend nor annul them, they are to all intents 
 and purposes our slaves. * * We have no right to say that our poster- 
 
 ity shall not be judges of their own circumstances. The very attempt to 
 make perpetual constitutions is the assumption of the right to control the 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 267 
 
 opinions of future generations, and to legislate for those over whom we 
 have as little authority as we have over a nation in Asia.” , 
 
 TUE AIM IS TO PRESERVE THE STATES COMPLETE. 
 
 lie said in reply to objections, that “the federal constitution will pre- 
 serve our equal republican forms of government; nay, that it is their only 
 firm support, and the guaranty of the'r existence.” 
 
 The object universally held in view was the preserving of the states 
 intact; and numerous quotations of similar tenor to the following from 
 Chancellor Livingston, in the New York ratifying convention, could be 
 quoted ; “ Our existence as a state depends on a strong and efficient federal 
 government,” 
 
 ELECTEES AND AGENTS* 
 
 Noah Webster, in common with all the fathers, regarded all federal 
 officials (i. e. the whole federal government), as elec ees and agents of the 
 States. 
 
 In a later number than the last mentioned, in reviewing the papers of 
 the Federalist , then currently appearing, he spoke of the election of rep- 
 resentatives by the separate people of the states; of each state endowing its 
 own electois; of the appointment of senators by the state legislatures , and 
 of the appointment, by the states, of electors for the President. 
 
 In February, 17S8, he wrote that “the representative of a people is, 
 as to his powers, in the situation of an attorney, whose letters commission 
 him to do every thing which his constituent could, were he on the spot.” 
 
 A COMPACT AND A CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The federal instrument involves a compact, because it has the assent of 
 several wills, arid a. constitution of government, because it provides for 
 constituting:, or establishing and empowering, the said government. In a 
 subsequent number, he cited Montesquieu’s admission to prove that “ a con- 
 federation of republics may be so formed, as to unite the happiness of fiee 
 states with the vigor of monarchies. The new constitution may be an im- 
 provement on the Lycian league, which that writer proposes as a model.”. 
 
 And he quotes and agrees with Hamilton, in article 85 of the Federal- 
 ist, that in forming a “ constitution of the united states,” “ thirteen inde- 
 pendent states are to be accommodated in their interests, or opinions of 
 interest,” “ in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact 
 
 / 
 
2C8 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 He, lite "Washington, Livingston, Hamilton, Madison, and all the lead- 
 ing fathers, considered that a Teague of states was formed by the federal 
 instrument; and in the subsequent numbeis, he publishes the states’ ap- 
 provals and ratifications, that made them a “ union of states,” or “united 
 states,” as they called themselves. 
 
 NOAH WEBSTER NEVER CHANGED. 
 
 In these views he was consistent through a life spent in profound study 
 of such subjects — i. e. for more than fifty years. All his definitions pre- 
 cisely contorm to them. The American people, and all coming generations, 
 could, in his great dictionary, learn not only the true meaning of a# the 
 “mighty words” in which American political history and philosophy, the 
 constitution and the debates on it, wore written, but the true exposition of 
 that institutional freedom, which was the peculiar boast and pride of the 
 leagued or associated states or peoples of America. 
 
 THE “ADROIT SUBSTITUTIONS” IN WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY. 
 
 With much painstaking and ingenuity, false definitions have been coined 
 and substituted for those of Noah Webster, as to all the important political 
 and constitutional words of his dictionary. In contrasting the true with 
 the false, the former will be those of 1S44, the year after his death, and 
 the latter these of 1864. The first column will exhibit the correct and 
 beautilul theory — as held by all the fathers — of the American sisterhood 
 of states: that association of “moral persons,” who agreed, for strength, 
 safety, convenience, economy, and united wisdom, to join their authority, 
 intellects, wills, and power, in federal self-government ; while the other 
 shows the double fraud of representing the united states to be a state, the 
 states to be counties or provinces, and the vicarious government to be a 
 sovereign with absolute supremacy ; and ascribing such wickedness and 
 folly to the revered lexicographer, all of whose writings and definitions, 
 through a long life, give such theory the direct lie. 
 
 Let us begin with the definition of 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 in the edition of 1844 it is as [Of course no material change of 
 follows : the definition of a superlative word 
 
 “ Sovereign, a. Supreme in could have been ventured on. The 
 power; possessing supreme domin- “ play with double sences,” however, 
 ion ; as a sovereign prince. will be seen in the frequent use of 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 2G9 
 
 *• Sovereign, n. A supreme lord 
 or ruler ; one who possesses the 
 highest authority, without control. 
 
 “ Sovereignty, n. Supreme 
 power ; supremacy ; the possession 
 of the highest power, or of uncon- 
 trollable power.” 
 
 Of course, only sovereignties could compact in the premises, constitute 
 government over their subjects, and delegate their powers to be used in 
 ruling them. 
 
 the word in the sense of govern r 
 ment, as well as supreme political 
 authority. As sovereignty is in 
 “ the people,” it cannot be in the 
 elected rulers.] 
 
 After the revolution, “the people” were the distinct bodies politic, or 
 “moral persons,” who acted in every political movement. Their individu- 
 ality and entireness of body, mind and will as commonwealths, must have 
 continued till the end of their joint act of federation; and hence they 
 could not be less than sovereign in the union. In associating, they earn- 
 estly and exclusively contemplated and sought self-preservation, and no sign 
 of any consent to a change of character or authority, is to be found any- 
 where. The sovereignties could but be the communities existing after , 
 just as they did before, the general government was constituted 
 Let us now see the definitions of 1844 and 1864 in contrast. 
 
 STATE,” “COMMONWEALTH," AND “REPUBLIC; 
 
 In the edition of 1844 is to be 
 found the following : 
 
 “ State, n. A political body or 
 body-politic : the whole body of the 
 people united under one government, 
 whatever may be the form of gov- 
 ernment. 1 Municipal law is a rule 
 of conduct prescribed by the supreme 
 power in a state.’ — Blaclcstone. More 
 usually, the word signifies a politi- 
 cal body, governed by representa- 
 tives ; a commonwealth, as the states 
 of Greece ; the states of America. 
 
 “ Commonwealth, n. An es- 
 tablished form of government or 
 
 In the edition of 1864 is to be 
 found the follow ing : 
 
 “ State, n. In the United States 
 one of the commonwealths or bodies 
 politic, the people of which maize up 
 the body of the nation , and which 
 under the national constitution stand 
 in certain specified relations with the 
 national government, and are in- 
 vested as commonwealths, with full 
 power in their several spheres over 
 all matters not expressly inhibited.” 
 
 [The sophists who made up the 
 edition of 1864, feeling responsible 
 
FALLACIOUS 
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Siu 
 
 civil polity ; or more generally a 
 state ; a body politic, consisting of 
 a certain portion of men, united by 
 compact, or tacit agreement under 
 one form of government, and system 
 of laws. A commonwealth is prop- 
 erly a free state ; a popu.ar or rep- 
 resentative government ; a republic ; 
 as the commonwealth of Massachu- 
 setts. The word signifies strictly, 
 the common good or happiness ; and 
 hence the form of government sup- 
 posed best to secure the public good.” 
 
 [It is further stated that the term is 
 applied to Great Britain and other 
 bodies politic, whose forms of gov- 
 ernment are considered as free or 
 popular.] 
 
 In the same edition is .the follow- 
 ing : “ Republic, n. A common- 
 wealth ; a state,” etc. 
 
 Noah Webster then makes no distinction between ours and foreign states 
 • Neither does the constitution. [See Art. Ill, § 2, and Amendment XI.] 
 A state, nation, or power, is distinct in existence, independent in authority, 
 and without a superior. If one of our communities is a state at all, she 
 is sovereign. If less than a state, she is a county or province, and is 
 remanded to colonial or provincial vassalage. Hence we see that Noah 
 Webster, like all the fathers, teaches that the states are commonwealths, 
 distinct, independent, and sovereign in mind and will; and he assumes that 
 they could neither politically exist, nor politically act, in any other form, 
 and hence that they could be associated only by a fosdus, and as a federa- 
 tion. Doubtless he considered it as absurd to think of consolidating thir- 
 teen moral persons or states into one, as it would be to weld thirteen natural 
 persons into a giant ! 
 
 COMPACT AND CONSTITUTION. 
 
 In the edition of 1844 is the fol- In the edition of 1864 is the fol- 
 lowing : lowing: 
 
 for the “ public convictions” hereto- 
 fore noticed, and perceiving that the 
 former definitions of “ state,” “ com- 
 monwealth” and “republic” exhibit- 
 ed the states as distinct bodies, not 
 only in making the union, but in 
 existence afterwards, and that the 
 giving of “ Massachusetts” and 
 “ Great Britain” as precisely similar 
 instances, was fatal to the theory 
 upon which the said “ public con. 
 victions” were based, carefully left 
 out the instances, and changed such 
 portions of the definitions as they 
 thought militated against their the- 
 ory.] 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 271 
 
 • Compact, n. An agreement; 
 a contract between parties ; a word 
 that may be applied in a general 
 sense to any covenant or contract be- 
 tween individuals ; but it is more 
 generally applied to agreements be- 
 tween nations and states, as treaties 
 and confederacies. So the constitu- 
 tion of the United States is a polit- 
 ical contract between the states ,” etc. 
 
 “ Constitution, n. The estab- 
 lished form of government in a state, 
 kingdom, or country ; a system of 
 fundamental rules, principles and 
 ordinances for the government of a 
 state or nation. In free states, the 
 constitution is paramount to the stat- 
 utes or laws enacted by the legisla- 
 ture, limiting and controlling its pow- 
 er; and in the United States the 
 legislature is created, and its powers 
 designated by the constitution.” 
 
 In the above two definitions, Noah Webster says the states are joined 
 by their own wills, in “ a political contract between the states,” in which 
 they constituted the government; that “the legislature [«'. e. congress] is 
 created, and its powers designated, by the constitution ; ” and that this 
 “constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by” congress, 
 and “limits and controls its power.” Hence he teaches that “the consti- 
 tution of the * * states,” and “the government” it constitutes, are 
 
 subject to the states. Sufficient proof is found in the frauds here exposed, 
 to show that the perverters themselves. understood his teachings so, did not 
 dare to let them remain, and made the changes in the hope of deceiving 
 “ the people.” 
 
 DELEGATION AND DELEGATE. 
 
 In the edition of 1844 is the fol- In the edition of 1864 is the fol- 
 lowing : lowing : 
 
 “ Compact, n. An agreement 
 between parties : a covenant or con- 
 tract, either of individuals or of na- 
 tions.” [The rest of the former 
 definition is suppressed.] 
 
 “Constitution, n. The prin- 
 ciples or fundamental laws which 
 govern a state, or other organised 
 body of men, and are embodied in 
 written documents, or implied in the 
 institutions and usages of the coun- 
 try or society.” 
 
272 
 
 FALLACIOUS 
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 One or more persons deputed to rep- 
 resent others, as in a convention, in 
 congress, etc. ; as the 
 from Massachusetts.” 
 
 delegation 
 
 “ Delegation, n. A sending “ Delegation, n. 
 away; the act of putting in commis- 
 sion, or investing with authority to 
 act for another ; the appointment of 
 a delegate. 2. The persons deputed 
 to act for another, or for others. 
 
 Thus the representatives of Massa- 
 chusetts in congress, are called the 
 delegation, or whole delegation. 
 
 “Delegate, v.t. To send away; 
 appropriately to send on an embas- 
 sy ; to send with power to transact 
 business as a representative. 2. To 
 entrust; to commit; to deliver to 
 another’s care and exercise ; as to 
 delegate authority or power to an 
 envoy, representative or judge.” 
 
 In these definitions, Noah Webster keeps republicanism in view: the 
 republics, i. e. “the people,” are to govern themselves through their agents’ 
 who, being their citizens, are their subjects and servants. These are the 
 government, and the powers they as rulers wield must be “delegated” or 
 entrusted, and the government must be a created agency , with derivative 
 authority , and cannot be anything else. 
 
 Nay more; he says that the members, both of the senate and of the 
 lower house of congress, are “the delegation” of a state, representing it as 
 such. [See also the definition of “congress,” infra!] The states, then, 
 are self-ruling commonwealths associated — “states united,” to use his own 
 phrase ; and the general legislature, is a congress of states. [See “ congress,” 
 
 [The definitions of these two 
 words are not much changed, except 
 in suppressing the truth that the 
 members of congress are u tlie rep- 
 resentatives of Massachusetts ,” as a 
 commonwealth.] 
 
 infra.'] 
 
 If this was not Noah Webster’s theory, why should the direct antithesis 
 of it be now foisted into his definitions, while all his statements and illus- 
 trations that support said theory, are suppressed? 
 
 UNION, AND E PLURIBUS UNUM. 
 
 In the edition of 1844 is the fol- In the edition of 18G4 is the fol- 
 lowing : lowing : 
 
 “Union, n. 7. States united. “Union, n. 3. That which 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 273 
 
 Thus the united states are some* is united or made one; something 
 times called the union. formed by a combination or coali- 
 
 tion of parts or members ; a confed- 
 eration ; a consolidated body ; as the 
 united states of America are often 
 called the union. 
 
 “E Pluribus Unum. One com- “ E Pluribus Unuii. One out 
 posed of many. The motto of the of many. One composed ofimany ; 
 
 United States, consisting of many the motto of the United States, as 
 states confederated .” being one government formed of 
 
 many independent states.” 
 
 Here we find that Noah "Webster declared the “union” to be “states 
 united” — “many states confederated; ” but that after his death, his name 
 was affixed to the untruth, that “union” means “ a consolidated body ; 
 as, the united states are often called the union; ” and to the gross absurdity, 
 that E pluribus vnum means, in substance, that several formerly independ- 
 ent states are consolidated into one government, and are no longer inde- 
 pendent states, but provinces. 
 
 FEDERAL, FEDERALIZE, CONFEDERATION. 
 
 Tn the edition of 1844 is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 “Federal, a. From Latin foe- 
 dus, a league. 1. Pertaining to a 
 league or contract; derived from an 
 agreement or covenant between par-' 
 ties, particularly between nations. 2. 
 Consisting in a contract between 
 parties, particularly and chiefly be- 
 tween states or nations ; founded on 
 alliance by contract or mutual agree- 
 ment ; as a federal government, 
 such as that of the United States.” 
 
 Th the edition of 1864 is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 “ Federal, o.” [Then follows 
 the substance of the old definition, 
 except that the words “founded on 
 alliance by contract or mutual agree- 
 ment ; as, a federal government, 
 such as that of the United States,” 
 are left out.] 
 
 “2. Specifically, composed of states 
 or districts, which retain only a sub- 
 ordinate and limited sovereignty, as 
 the union of the 'United States, or 
 the Sonderbund of Switzerland : 
 constituting or pertaining to such 
 a government as the federal constitu- 
 tion” etc.’ 
 
274 
 
 FALLACIOUS 
 
 E I r ^ 1 ' r I 0 N. 
 
 “Federalize. v. t. or i. To 
 unite in compact as different states ; 
 to confederate for political purpo- 
 ses. — Barlow. 
 
 “Confederation, n. 1. The [In the edition of 1864 the second 
 act of confederating; a league; a of the opposite definitions is left 
 compact for mutual support ; alii- out.] 
 ance, particularly of princes, nations 
 or states. 2. The United States 
 are sometimes called the confedera- 
 tion!' 
 
 Here again we find Noah Webster, like Washington, Livingston, Hamil- 
 ton, Madison, and other leading fathers, teaching that the union was a 
 league or federation of states, and the editors of the later editions fraud- 
 ulently changing his doctrines. 
 
 CONGRESS, 
 
 Ifi the edition of 1844 is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 “ Congress, n. 4. The assem- 
 bly of senators and representatives of 
 the several stales of North America, 
 according to the present constitution 
 or political compact by which they 
 are united in a federal republic ; 
 the legislature of the United States, 
 consisting of two houses, a senate 
 
 * )> 
 
 In the edition of 1864 is the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 “ Congress, n. * * The assem- 
 bly of senators and representatives 
 of the people of a nation, especially 
 of a republic, for the purpose of 
 enacting laws, and considering mat- 
 ters of national interest, and con- 
 stituting the chief legislative body 
 of a nation." 
 
 and house of representatives 
 
 I use the italics to increase the force of the contrast. But comment will 
 be dispensed with, because it could add nothing to the exposition. Look 
 on this picture, and on this! The true one is a federal congress [frem 
 congredior, to come together] of states, legislating for their subjects ; and 
 the base counterfeit and caricature, presents a national legislature as sover- 
 eign over a nation of people. 
 
 THE SUM OF NOAH WEBSTER’S VIEWS. 
 
 Here then are Noah Webster’s teachings, which he fondly thought he 
 
VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 275 
 
 had embalmed in the magnum opus of his life, as a sacred historical testi- 
 mony and bequest to his countrymen : 
 
 1. American political sovereignty, which is unlimited authority over 
 everything in the state or nation, resides always in the people. 
 
 2. They politically exist and politically act, only as republics or com- 
 monwealths called states. These are equals and sovereigns, and are subject 
 to no political authority whatever. 
 
 3. They, as such, confederated, and thus formed a “union of states,” 
 called “ the united states ; ” but made no change in themselves, either in 
 being or authority. 
 
 4. They, as such, constituted governments — each its own, and all tlieir 
 general one. 
 
 5. To these, their creations, they “delegated” — that is to say, they 
 entrusted — not their sovereignty , or right to govern all persons and things 
 in their territory, but “ powers" of government, thus governing themselves 
 and remaining supreme; and the senators and representatives, chosen by 
 each state, are that states delegation, to represent her in the congress oj 
 states. 
 
 In fine, Noah Webster always asserted the unquestionable truth, that our 
 system is a confederacy of states — “ states united ” [les etats unis,'] to use 
 his own phrase — and that their government was their mere agency, or the 
 means by which they governed themselves. 
 
 THE FALSEHOODS ASCRIBED TO HIM. 
 
 In this matter of fact and testimony, he is made to teach, as truth, 
 the untruth, that our general polity is a nation or state, with counties or 
 provinces as subdivisions, such as existed under Britain ; that congress is 
 “the chief legislative body of the nation, to enact laws and consider mat- 
 ters of national interest;” that the constitution is “the supreme law of the 
 land,” for congress to enforce over states and people; and that, in short, 
 the government — i. e. congress — has “absolute supremacy” over allegiant 
 states. 
 
 All the recent declarations and acts of the dominant party of the country, 
 and of the government as administered by that party, entirely conlorm to 
 these forged teachings. 
 
 PRO TANTO, THE BOOK IS NOT NOAH WEBSTER’S. 
 
 Noah Webster’s dictionary means Nc ah Webster’s definitions; and he 
 
276 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 and his nanu are responsible only for the products of his own mind. “ The 
 chief value of a dictionary consists in its definitions ,” says Noah Webster’s 
 son-in-law, Chauncey A. Goodrich, in the edition of 1847, which he “revised 
 and enlarged;” and yet after many editions had been issued, with the defi- 
 nitions in question unchanged, the principles involved in them were attacked ; 
 and while a hot war raged about them, the assailants, filled with passion 
 and rancor, were allowed to change such definitions to suit their contention, 
 and justify their wickedness. No doubt the revision of political and con- 
 stitutional terms was entiusted to some eminent lawyer — the coirectness of 
 whose work was taken for granted: but a great and gross wrong has been 
 done; and it remains to be seen what Noah Webster’s descendants will do. 
 
 They would nevur allow one who had contracted, and then quarreled 
 with them, to uefine anew the ivords of the contract , so as to alter its whole 
 meaning ; or one who had robbed them, or murdered one of their family, 
 to change , after the fact , the crime's description, or the meanings of its 
 words! Ah ! if the descendants of that great man inherit any of his sturdy 
 nature, clear mind, pure principles, bright honor, and proud dignity, they 
 will, as he undoubtedly wou d, repudiate the wrongful changes, and publish, 
 as r-'on as may be, an expurgated edition. 
 
 Tf the enormity of this wrong were understood, the outcry would be 
 universal. Six thousand years of history can show no parallel. The 
 American people, at a great (and to the family of Webster a most precious) 
 price, bought the results of that great man’s labors — his wares, so to speak ; 
 and they paid him with princely patronage, the highest of mortal* honor, 
 and the most profound veneration for his memory. 
 
 But he conveyed, and could convey, as to these subjects, nothing but 
 ascertainments. The language and its meanings already belonged to the 
 people; and they wanted the latter fixed precisely, as to contemporary 
 signification, so that their institutional, political, and legal words could be 
 ever used — like coins, and weights, and metes — as tests or measures of 
 right, and power, and duty, by themselves, and their ruling agents. This 
 was Webster’s noble task, and he performed it royal ’y. 
 
 CONTEMPOKANEA EXPOSITIO. 
 
 The reader must keep it in mind that the inquiry is ever as to the intent 
 of the makers or constitutors of the federal system, just as it would be if 
 the subject were any other constitution, or instrument expressing will- 
 
277 
 
 VERBAL JUGGLERY. 
 
 What did the words used, then mean? Thisis common sense; and these 
 meanings are the people’s rights. “ Contemporanea expositio est optima 
 et fortissimo in lege," is a universally accepted maxim. Daniel Webster said 
 in 1833: “The constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well- 
 known language, as using it in its well-known sense;” and Chief Justice 
 Marshall said, in the Burr case: “So far as the meaning of any terms is 
 completely ascertained, those by whom they are employed, must be consid- 
 ered as employing them in their ascertained meaning, unless the contrary 
 is proved by the context.” Similar passages could be given from Yattel, 
 Pothier, Lieber, and, in short, all other publicists. 
 
 Now these precious materials of which our political defences, both general 
 and local, are built; these wahs of adamant — as we fondly supposed them 
 to be — surrounding the treasuries and citadels of our “blessings of liberty” 
 [federal preamble] are perverted, interpreted away, changed, or nullified, 
 by the trusted exponent and defender, or his representatives. 
 
 The people — the majestic governing people of this country, placed the 
 highest value on Webster’s dictionary as a treasury of truth and princi- 
 ples, which were to be kept sacred for use, to measure and weigh their 
 moral, political, and treaty obligations ; and they reposed in Webster and 
 his fidelity, a knightly, nay, a royal faith. The conduct reviewed — like 
 that of those chosen servants of the people, who are oath-bound to sup- 
 port and defend, but who violate, the constitution — may be compared to that 
 of the trusted knight, who, while his king was in deadly conflict, got behind 
 his shield, and, with his own weapons, wounded him to death 1 
 
CHAPTER XIII. — Conservative errors. 
 
 ‘S&N concluding this part of my work, I will try to expose the errors of 
 ill several public teachers, whose devotionto liberty and the sacred defences 
 thereof, cannot be called in question. Many of these eminent so-called 
 conservatives and strict-constructionists, do, with great show of research, 
 thought and logic, combat the errors of “ the Massachusetts school,” 
 while they themselves promulgate fallacies nearly as reprehensible. 
 
 If this class reform their views of our general polity, they must study 
 it in the light of actual contemporaneous history, and the herein contained 
 explanations of the fathers, repudiating the false g'oss thrown on it, first 
 by enemies to defeat it, and afterwards by the equally unfounded, because 
 identical, dogmas of Dane, Story and Webster, and their followers. 
 
 “ A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ” 
 
 Probably the most wide-spread, important, and cardinal error, is in ref- 
 erence to the meaning of this seemingly plain phrase. I have seen it used 
 in argument hundreds of times in this generation, but never in its true 
 sense, i. e., the meaning it had in the minds of the fathers, which I shall 
 now try to show. 
 
 This phrase can but mean a republic. “The people” were organized, 
 did exist, and could only act, as bodies, called “ Massachusetts,” “ Penn- 
 sylvania,” “Virginia,” “Georgia,” etc. Each was a republic — a common- 
 wealth — a state, i. e., a “moral person,” possessed of a mind and will. 
 This will in each — that is, the collective will of the people — was to be 
 exercised in self-government: and, in providing that “the united states 
 shall guaranty to every state in this union a republican form of government,” 
 the constitution seems to mean that the will and power of all the commu- 
 nities of people are to be exerted, when necessary, to protect each commu- 
 nity of people in self-government, i. e., in the free exercise of her own will, 
 in all governmental matters. 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 £79 
 
 The wills of the thirteen states were exerted through deputies in the 
 convention of 1787, in devising the “federal constitution;” and the same 
 wills were separately and successively exerted in ratifying, i. e. in ordaining 
 and establishing that constitution, and endowing it with its only possible 
 legitimate life and power. 
 
 THE SOVEREIGN WILLS SURVIVED FEDERATION. 
 
 The wills exercised on that grand occasion, dwelt in pre-existent states. 
 To associate the bodies-politic as “united states,” and subject their people 
 to “the governmentjof the united states, ’’.these wills must have been sove- 
 reign wills; must have continued sovereign until the government was 
 completed and actually set at work; and must, as sovereign wills, have sur- 
 vived the act of making the union of states. And hence, unless abdication 
 or suicide can be shown, these sovereign wills existed until, in war, the 
 states were brought under the yoke, i. e. subjugated. 
 
 u FORM ” AND SOUL BOTH ARE MEANT. 
 
 But all the attempts at exposition I have seen, appear to take it for 
 granted that the provision referred to, means merely the form of a republic, 
 even though life and soul be wanting; or though the said form cower 
 helpless under despotism, as several of the American states now do! 
 
 I will give here, two examples of the error, to comment on. In speak- 
 ing of the Louisiana case, the New York Sun said the following: “ The 
 oft-cited clause of the constitution, that £ the United States shall guarantee 
 to every state in this union a republican form of government, does not 
 apply to a case like that existing in Louisiana. The form of the govern- 
 ment of that state is all right. [N. Y. Sun, 1874.] 
 
 A leading southern paper — highly conservative — held forth on the same 
 topic, as follows : “ That there is no defect in the form of the constitution 
 of Louisiana, is perfectly clear. Its form is contained in her constitution, 
 which is the especial production of congress by its reconstruction laws. 
 * * How can congress then affirm, that the form of this constitution 
 
 of Louisiana is not republican ? 
 
 The error here, is amazing, considering that it is that of a Louisiana jour- 
 nal. In saying “ its form is the especial production of congress by its re- 
 construction laws,” it virtually but unwittingly, said — “ Louisiana has no 
 sign of a republican form of government,” 
 
 These views which seem universal, even among conservatives, result, as 
 
FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 2S0 
 
 I humbly think, from confused thought, or a want of thought. The 
 word “ form” in the clause, must mean kind or sort. 
 
 When in the process of making the principles of liberty and human 
 rights institutional, the people put the guaranty clause in the federal con- 
 stitution [Art.IV, § 4], they acted in view of the general forms (or kinds, 
 or sorts, or species,) of government, the world then presented, and publi- 
 cists explained, viz : the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the republican ; 
 and they said “ we want no monarchy or aristocracy, but we aim to estab- 
 lish or perpetuate a republic.” Hence the idea in all the mstitutions then 
 being established was, that the people were to govern themselves — all con- 
 stitutions being their fundamental laws, establishing their forms of gov- 
 ernment, and all rulers being their substitutes, agents and servants. All 
 sovereignty was held to be ever in the people, and never in the rulers; aud 
 the above article means as follows ; The associated states shall guaranty 
 to every state in the association , that she shall have and enjoy the being 
 and lights of a republic, — that is to say : New York, Massachusetts, 
 Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Georgia, Oregon, Texas, et als., collectively, are 
 bound in sacred faith and international honor, by their treaty, compact, or 
 constitution, (whichever it may be called), to secure Louisiana iu being 
 and remaining a republic. They must use their influence, their political 
 authority, and finally, if needs be, their material strength, to preserve in 
 her the unqualified right of self-government. It does not mean that she 
 shall have “ a republican form” without substance — the appearance or pre- 
 tence of freedom without the reality. It docs not mean that she shall 
 have a constitution, a legislature, an executive, a judiciary, and popular 
 voting, (some European monarchies have all of these), but that she shall 
 be a republic and govern herself — separately in her own affairs, and jointly 
 with her sisters in federal. It does not mean that she shall have all her 
 rights reserved to her in the federal constitution (as the Storys, George H. 
 Pendletons, Horatio Seymours, et id omne genus , say,) but that she shall 
 have and enjoy all original rights, and all original power. Rights and 
 powers reserved must, of course, be out of the instrument which contains 
 the rights and powers delegated, as a moment’s reflection on Amendments 
 IX and X will show. 
 
 All this is consistent with the legitimate authority in the federal consti- 
 tution, which is plainly written, vicarious, and confined. It is authority 
 given to men to act, not for themselves, but for others, who of course are 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 281 
 
 above them. These superiors are the people, however organized and acting. 
 The claim of absolute supremacy over states, instead of delegative author- 
 ity from and under them, is the assertion of might , trying to become right 
 by force and fraud. 
 
 SELF-PRESERVATION TIIE DUTY OF A STATE. 
 
 The states in this union associated for self-preservation, and they con- 
 templated no change in themselves, or diminution of authority. To “pro- 
 vide for” “defence” and “welfare,” they, the said “moral persons,” 
 exercised the investigative faculties, reasoning powers, judgment, and will, 
 that a natural person would do, for the same purposes. It must be kept 
 in mind that tin Almighty, in making men moral agents, i. e., giving them 
 the rigtit of self-government, and ruling' them into society, requires that 
 the above mentioned powers shall be exercised now and ever, for that self- 
 preservation, which is the first law of nature, equally to states, persons, and 
 brutes. States as well as men are the products of God’s wisdom. Now. 
 reader, think of it, and tell me if you do not a set r tain facts, reason on 
 them, judge , and determine your will , as to your “ defence ” and “ welfare? ” 
 Must not every moral being do so? If the last time you did so, you had 
 bound yourself to do so no more, would you not be a slave? If a state 
 has so bound herself, is she still free? The great issue now before God 
 and the world, is freedom or slavery of states !— states made of men, and 
 their belongings and rights! 
 
 Ah! such mental poiocrs in a God-endowed commonwealth — the “moral 
 person” Vattel speaks of — are coupled with the duty of constant exercise. 
 A starie is charged with the “ defence ” and “ welfare ” of her people. Her 
 making this union, is a confession of her duty to make another if this, her 
 second effort, fail, as did her first. Aud nothing but weakness can excuse 
 her for not destroj'ing the despotism that presents the free exercise of her 
 tvill and duty in this matter. AVeakness alone makes submission a duty. 
 This and the women and children, are often the sole safety of the op- 
 pressors, in some of the states ! 
 
 VOTING IS A MERE SIMULACRUM OF LIBERTY, 
 
 in some of our states. In them, only the form of institutional freedom is 
 left. “Soul is wanting fhere.” The will of the corporate despot at Wash- 
 ington, instead of the will of the people, is law. But is it not a represent- 
 ative government? Do not the people elect all? Is not that sell-go vein- 
 
232 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 ment? Vain delusion! In England the people elect. Louis Napoleon 
 had universal suffrage in France. Our people are similarly privileged. 
 We have the “form” but no substance, no life of the repnblic! “The 
 government,” claims and enforces “ absolute supremacy” over states and 
 people. 
 
 THE GUARANTY IS REALLY ONE OF SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the state, as a political body, has the right to 
 the guaranty ; and that her soul, her will, and her right to govern, must 
 be included. The soul is essent ! al to such “moral person” [Vattel,] and 
 reason, judgment, and will, are essential to the soul. Hence, to guaranty 
 republican government to a state, is to guaranty the continued existence 
 of the community of people referred to ; the continued existence of the 
 soul of that commonwealth ; the continued existence of the will thereof ; 
 the continued existence of the right of that will to govern in all cases • 
 and the continued existence of its entire control of the instruments called 
 votes, by and through which the said will is expressed. 
 
 These votes spring solely from the will of the commonwealth Through 
 them, under state laws, and at state polls, all officers, state, and federal, 
 get their sole validity and authority to act. All the power of the federal 
 government of any kind, or on any subject, must come through these votes. 
 Says Montesquieu : “In a democracy, there can be no exercise of sove- 
 reignty but by the suffrages of the people, which are their will. The 
 sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws establishing suffrage 
 are therefore fundamental to this government.” [Esprit des Lois p. 12.] 
 
 Some may fancy they find “exploded theories” in what I here write; 
 and may think I am “behind the times,” and “unpractical.” But I am 
 only restating the statements and faith of the fathers; and giving the 
 precise acts of the people, in building up their permanent institutions ; and 
 I am very careful to adduce facts, and to avoid the great offence of denying, 
 burying or crushing “ God’s truth ; ” for it will live through time, “rise 
 . again,” and finally “sear the eye balls” of those who, because it is stricken 
 down, and they think it troublesome and profitless to raise and defend it, 
 say: “Let us .accept the situation,” and “go ahead from attained results!” 
 
 THE FOURTEENTH PARTY TO THE COMPACT, 
 
 was, according to Robert Y. Hayne and Judge J. S. Black, the govern- 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 283 
 
 ment, -which they must have known had no existence, till long after the 
 eleven states had ratified, established, and finished said compact. 
 
 Hayne, in his debate with Webster, said : “ Here then is a case of a 
 compact between sovereigns ; and the question arises — what is the remedy 
 for a clear violation of its express terms, hy one of the parties”? — thus 
 treating the government, both as a party, and a sovereign. 
 
 Judge Black is an abler man, and a clearer thinker. In the Milligan 
 case, he spoke of the “ vesting of the judicial power, which the united 
 states could legally exercise and said — “ that was the compact made 
 with the general government at the time it was created.” 
 
 Other eminent men make the same mistake, so that the confusion of 
 ideas on this subject is general. It is only necessary to say that the com- 
 pact existed and was complete, through those ratifications, declared in 
 itself to be sufficient for the establishment of it, many months before the 
 general government existed. After the collective states, in the congress 
 of themselves, had recognized the finished compact, and advised the states 
 to act under it, by electing their subjects as its functionaries ; after 
 the several states had elected their quotas, according to the express terms ; 
 and after these electees had convened and organized under the said pact ; 
 then and not till then did or could the general government exist. It is 
 then, absurd to call the government a party. 
 
 TnE real fourteenth party — if any — is, as has been shown here- 
 tofore, the association called “ the united states,” to which all the powers 
 of the constitution were delegated, as Amendment X proves. [See supra, 
 212 .] 
 
 Article I of the original form of the constitution, as unanimously ap- 
 proved by the convention of 1787, corroborates this view fully : “ The 
 style of the government shall be ‘the united states of America.’” 
 The united republics themselves — and not their agency — were to be “the 
 government.” The people as organised, must govern themselves. Other- 
 wise they are not republican ! [See Y Ell. Deb. 377.] 
 
 NULLIFICATION. 
 
 The first remarkable appearance of this error — for such I assume it to 
 he — is in the Kentucky resolutions of 1799, said to have been written, or, 
 at least inspired, by Mr. Jefferson. [See IV Ell. Deb. 545.] The Yir- 
 
284 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 ginia resolutions of 1798 are also charged — but denied — to contain the 
 doctrine. 
 
 The next most conspicuous assertion of the claim, was that of South 
 Carolina, and her eading statesmen, in 1830-3. 
 
 As has been shown, the state has a sovereign mina and will, of which 
 the constitution and the resultant government, are alike the offspring ; 
 while, in establishing such constitution, and working the government 
 through agents, the said state is s'mply exercising its right of govern- 
 ment, i. e. sovereignty, in a purely functional way. To say it is the sove- 
 reign law-making power, is equal to saying, it is the sovereign law-repca'- 
 ing power. The states elect all government, and delegate all governmental 
 authority. 
 
 But, a state or its convention, has no right to withdraw some, and leave 
 the rest of the powers; or obstruct the execution of a part; or annul a 
 law, while adhering to the union ; for the constitution, being a compact, is 
 not to be partly suspended, and partly executed, by one of the parties. 
 If, however, a state attempt it, only a casus helli is made, for coercing the 
 will of a state is inconsistent with the voluntariness of the states’ union, 
 and their action in it, and, of course, justifies the return of blows. The 
 fathers characterized such coercion correctly, as war. Hence, the position 
 of the Jackson administration is as bad as that of the nullificrs; and its 
 proclamation was both petty and fogging sophistry — a state paper alike 
 unworthy of the subject and the author. The proclamation of force was 
 not actually against an unlawful combination, so much as against the sove- 
 reign will of an equal commonwealth; and it was treasonable in its nature. 
 
 A CABDINAL EKROK, AND A PLAIN DISTINCTION. 
 
 South Carolina made a great mistake in attempting to nullify the federal 
 tariff laws ; and it raised a fatal prejudice against secession, or the ultimate 
 peaceful right of se’f-prescrvation, which of course includes discretion as 
 to occasion, time, and manner. South Carolina should have protested, and, 
 if unheeded, withdrawn. Her false position gave Webster his great van- 
 tage ground, of which he availed himself mest adroitly — yoking “nullifi- 
 cation” and “secession” together, and driving both to ruin. 
 
 Said he: “In the constitution it is the people who speak, and not the 
 states; * * it does not exact from states any plighted public faith to 
 maintain it; * * it makes its own preservation depend on individual 
 
conservative errors. 
 
 235 
 
 dhty and obligation.” He then proceeds to say that state legiolators, 
 judges, and executive officers, like federal functionaries, are bound by oath 
 to support the constitution (Art. YI. § 3,) ar.d hence are compelled to 
 elect- senators, and provide for the election of representatives and president. 
 The functions of states in the union, he argues, are not voluntary; they 
 have no discretion ; “ the people ” have bound them inseparably to the 
 constitution, and under the controlling power of the federal government. 
 Their sovereign will, and right of self-preservation, are alienated and gone 
 for ever. Hence, (having made his premises, his conclusion is easy,) both 
 “nullification” and “secession” are unconstitutional and inadmissible. 
 But Mr. Webster finds it convenient to ignore the most important fact: 
 that members of a state convention are not mentioned, and are not under 
 the obligation of taking such oath (expressio unius est exclusio alterius .) 
 Why are not conventionists required to take the oath? Because, immedi- 
 ately representing the sovereignty— MADE said constitution (includ- 
 ing this clause,) and are of necessity above it. The will that creates, 
 remains above its creation. The will that delegates powers, owns them 
 absolutely; and whosoever else holds them, does it as agent or trustee. 
 States did not intend to subordinate themselves. They did not place them- 
 selves under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as every line of 
 the record shows! Not only so, but they provided against even judicial 
 federal control ; and moreover, they spurned the idea of federal coercion 
 of states, from their “ convention of states,” while, at the same time, they 
 gave to the governmental agency, or commission for federal affairs, just 
 such relations to , and control over , their citizens , as their state governments 
 had — and nobody claims th.it these have sovereignty over the states 1 
 
 When, then, the organised people — the state — call a convention, it is- 
 the sovereignty that acts : it is uncontrollable — above all constitutions, and 
 in no degree bound by them, for it is the power that alike constitutes and. 
 dissolves, makes and unmakes them. Massachusetts conclusively proves 
 this in her constitution, as heretofore quoted: “Tiie people of this 
 Commonwealth * * have an incontestable, unalienable right to. 
 
 institute government, and to * * totally change the same when, 
 
 their safety and happiness require it.” This constitution, which is full of 
 unqualified state sovereignty, is said to have been written by John Adams,, 
 the ancestor of the present conspicuous persons of that name in Massa- 
 chusetts. 
 
286 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 THE PLAIN DISTINCTION. • 
 
 Now we can see, quite plainly, the distinction between nullification and 
 secession. 
 
 Nullification remains in the union, enjoying its benefits, but only obey- 
 ing such part of its laws as it pleases ; and sworn functionaries presumably 
 violate their oaths. 
 
 Secession withdraws from the union, revoting all powers “ delegated” 
 thereto; and state officials are relieved of all federal obligations by the 
 supreme power that imposed them. 
 
 I think now that it is conclusively proved, by the self-characterisation, 
 and the action of the states in the union, that each original one, being thor- 
 oughly organised and sovereign, did, by virtue of its sovereignty, through 
 its convention, federate, “ delegating" a part of its governing power to the 
 united states, who, by tlieir agency , constituted in the act of federation, 
 govern for their common defence and general welfare. And each of these 
 great commonwealths passed into the union, exactly as she pre-existed, in 
 her full integrity, with all her faculties, possessed of plenary authority, 
 and acting functionally, in all matters of government, with uncontrolled 
 will. And ever since its sovereignty came by revolution , as well before as 
 since the present federal constitution was formed, it has, at discretion, 
 “ delegated” a supplement of governing authority to an agency for home 
 affairs — this also being done by its convention. 
 
 Unquestionably, then, the nullifying or suspending of the laws of the 
 federation by a party, while staying in, and , enjoying the benefit of the 
 association, is inconsistent with the “ compact and plighted faith" upon 
 which Mr. Webster, as well as every other candid publicist, bases the 
 “articles of union” “between the states” (as the federal conven- 
 tion unanimously cnaracterised them), and the laws passed in pursuance 
 thereof. 
 
 “ THE LOST PRINCIPLE.” 
 
 t If the states ratified the constitution, each for herself, they must be 
 u :the parties to the compact ,” [Hamilton, 85 Fed.] and the only way to 
 show that sections, or groups of states, were a’ so parties, is to show that 
 they exercised their wills, as such, iu becoming so. Among the mislead- 
 ing aod confusing expositions tp be noticed, are tw r o, the first by “ Barba- 
 rossa,” (Hubert E. Scott, of Virginia) in 1860, under the above title; and 1 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 287 
 
 the other by Webster and Curtis, to rid the former of an inconsistency in 
 his speech of 1833. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE FORMER IS, 
 
 that in the convention of 1787, a warm controversy arose between the 
 lanrcr and the smaller, and between the northern and southern states, 
 which was settled by a compact, establishing sectional equilibrium. The 
 theory will be found in the appendix hereof, in the author’s own words^ 
 [See Appendix F.] Among the motives and understandings, this may 
 have had p'ac", but it was not expressed and consecrated, among those 
 institutional balances and checks, that the sworn statesman, or the exposi- 
 tor, must take cognizance of, and to which he must confine himself, 
 
 “ Barlaro. sa ” marvels at Madison not .mentioning this compact of equilir, 
 brium, in the constitutional convention of Virginia, in 1829, of which he 
 [Madison] was a member. I think the duty of stating, then and there, 
 so important a part of our system — if part it had been considered, would 
 not have been shirked. But, I opine, it was no part. The constitution 
 was written, complete, and palpable, and contained — and it contains now — 
 no hint of the momentous compact, w hich “ Barbaro sa” contends bel ngs 
 to it, and “makes the federal system even more complex than it has been 
 generally supposed to be. ’ 
 
 In conclusion of this subject, I submit that the idea of compact is inad- 
 missible, where it is not evidenced by the words and figures of the instru- 
 ment, is not promulgated as a part of the supreme law ; is never mentioned 
 in history, or contemporary annals, but lies occult and unknown for forty 
 years in a secret journal, which might never have seen the light. I should 
 incline to a more positive opinion, but for the fact that Profes or Bledsoe, 
 who is always thorough in reseaich, and alike comprehensive and profound 
 in reflection, thinks the matter involves a practical and binding compact, 
 on wh.ch he promises to treat in a forthcoming history of the late war. 
 [See So. BeV. Jan., 1876.] 
 
 WEBSTER AND CURTIS HAVE THE SAME IDEA. i 
 
 As Daniel Webster had inveighed against Ca’houn’s use of the phrase' 
 “ constitutional compact,” and had been himself a habitual user of tl& 
 phrase ; he had to explain, as did Mr. Curtis — the latter aS follows: “ IIS 
 was spoakmg of a particular clause in the constitution, * * - as founded 
 
 on, a compact between different glasses of states.” . Of course, the myste^ 
 
283 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 rious “compact” is far down, and to judge of it, we must do as we do with 
 mummies: 1st. Bring them from under the pyramid; and 2d. Unfold 
 them a good deal. But I must pass on — referring to the above remarks 
 on “ Barbarossa’s” theory, and to page 227 supra. 
 
 “THE CONSENT OF THE GOYERNEB” 
 
 In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that to secure the 
 rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” governments are 
 instituted, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 
 In a republic of course will — the collective will — is the proper word, con- 
 sent being included ; for Englishmen, Germans, and Russians, give consent 
 to government, just as much as Americans do. A element and gracious 
 king, in doing his own will , always seeks the people’s preference or consent ; 
 and, in England, the wish of the people is a very influential guide to 
 government. But this does not answer. Will is wanted. 
 
 Our public men and press seem to think, that because the southern 
 states submit, they consent; so that the Declaration is satisfied, and the 
 soul of Jefferson content. 
 
 If they be republics their will — the will of the people — the will of the 
 commonwealths must govern. 
 
 “THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY RULES.” 
 
 Is not this phrase of Mr. Jefferson both fallacious and pernicious? I 
 can find no evidence that either he, or any subsequent politician, has delib- 
 erated on the subject; and it seems to be one of the numerous honest, but 
 loose and misleading phrases, that so infest our politics, and confuse our 
 political ideas. 
 
 Will is a unit in the state, and it governs, determining itself by its 
 instruments — votes. The majority of voters is never brought together 
 and organised, so as to make a body for a mind and will to dwell and act 
 in. This simple consideration shows the absurdity of the phrase. 
 
 Instead of electees being servants of the electing party, they are exclu- 
 sively the servants and agents of the commonwealth, to carry out its will. 
 An official swears to support the constitution, i. e. the will of the common- 
 wealth, instead of the party-platform— “ the will of the majority.” 
 
 “To the victors belong the spoils” is alike the plain English, and the 
 practical result. The party is to govern, with their platform as their rule 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 2S9 
 
 of action. It is this which unifies our tripartite government, and destroys 
 our system of absolutely independent checks and balances. If a bad and 
 weak President is put in with corrupt men, he becomes the head of a 
 conspiracy against liberty. The money and power they handle, not only 
 depraves them more, but gives them the means of success. 
 
 Under this doctrine, the simple old-time President seems like a conqueror, 
 dividing among h ; s generals a subjugated empire; or — to use a figure that 
 will suit some people better — like a successful hunter, cutting up and 
 throwing to his' tired and hungry hounds, the victim of the chase. 
 
 “THE CHARTED OF OUR LIBERTIES.” 
 
 King John, in “the great charter,” designated the rights his subjects 
 should enjoy; a_I he and his successors pledged kingly faith, not to take 
 them back. 
 
 King People, in constitutions, constitute governing agencies, and 
 designate the powers they shall use for said king. If charters at all, they 
 are so onily to the governments chartered, or — to use James Wilson’s word 
 — incorporated. In his inaugural address, Washington spoke to congress 
 of “ the great constitutional charter, under which you are assembled.” 
 The fathers all held this view, and ridiculed the idea of the federal consti- 
 tution being the source, or defence, of any private blessings. 
 
 The fathers deemed the bill of rights unnecessary, and out of place, in 
 the federal constitution ; but it was finally inserted as a protestative state- 
 ment, and treaty guaranty, of the chief institutes of freedom — (which were 
 above all constitutions), to allay the suspicions and fears of the people. 
 
 But, in these later, if not better, days, the constitution has become a 
 charter to the people. “ The perpetual charter of freedom for a self- 
 governing nation,” is what the North American Review calls it. Andrew 
 Johnson, and, I think, James Buchanan, used similar phrases. 
 
 Last and greatest, however, Jeremiah S. Black said, in the Milligan case: 
 “I prove my title to my estate ” by a solemn deed: so with “ my right to 
 a trial by jury. There is the charter Ly which we claim to hold it , * * 
 
 the constitution of the united states.” 
 
 Story, Webster, and the federal supreme court, are responsible for such 
 delusions. But that is no defence to us. If these prove to be errors, 
 we should discard them. My right of trial by jury, and other “ blessings 
 
290 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 of liberty, ” have a previous, higher, and more sacred sanction than the 
 federal pact. The solid and undissolvable commonwealth is their citadel ; 
 and the federal pact, with the above guaranty, and the still more impor- 
 tant one, of the integrity and absolute authority of the commonwealth ; are 
 the outer and impregnable wall ! 
 
 SOCIAL COMPACT— CONSTITUTION— BILL OF EIGHTS. 
 
 It may be well here, in order to enable our people to unmix their ideas, 
 and think more clearly on these subjects, to discriminate as follows : The 
 social compact is the agreement or understanding to be and obey the society, 
 in other words, it is the organic law of the society. 2d. The constitution 
 is the fundamental law, establishing, directing and controlling the govern- 
 ment. It does not include the social compact, but implies it, or recognizes 
 it, as a pre-existent entity. 3d. Bills of rights are declarations of society’s, 
 ot the people’s rights — sacred institutes of freedom, never to be invaded 
 by persons or governments. Hence a constitution of government may exist , 
 without including or referring to, either the social compact or a bill of rights, 
 though one or the other, and sometimes both of these, are either expressed 
 or implied in some of our constitutions. 
 
 In our republican form, however, as society governs itself, forming society 
 is ipso facto forming the government — what is commonly called the con- 
 stitution of government, being really and necessarily the constitution of a 
 governmental agency. It is of the nature of a republic to govein itself. 
 Its institution of government is artificial — the making of a machine or 
 instrumentality. The former is God’s, the latter man’s design. 
 
 SECESSION. 
 
 In addition to the rema’ks in Part I, Chapter IV, I beg leave to note 
 one or two errors on this subject. Secession is a natural and instinctive 
 act of a sentient being, which, as to right, comes within the general one 
 of self-preservation. It would be no more ab. urd for a man to promise 
 not to escape, or even flinch, from danger, than for the “moral person’’ — 
 the commonwealth, to bind herself, not to use her mind in settling questions 
 of “defence” and “welfare;” — not to judge between right and wrong — 
 safety and danger — freedom and slavery; not to separate from what she 
 
CONSERVATIVE ERRORS. 
 
 291 
 
 voluntarily joined ; not to repeal what she enacted or ordained; not to with- 
 draw powers she delegated; and not to dismiss the agents she chose— even 
 if they became enemies, and waned, with her own men and means, to 
 subjugate and destroy her! 
 
 But now we have no party, recognizing this vital truth, and no aspirant 
 admitting its correctness. The Southern states have spurned it. The so- 
 called democratic party condemns it — as they might digest'on, sweating, 
 the action of the nerves, or escaping from a house afire. And finally the 
 Rosec-rans “crowner’s quest” in 1868, verdicted: “dead by lawful forcel" 
 and put copper seals on its eyes ! 
 
 WHY IGNORE NATURE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. 
 
 God commands every self-formed, self-governing, self-protecting society 
 — every society or commonwealth, possessing a mind and will of her own, 
 to fight, if necessary, to save her children from injustice and wrong, and, 
 a fortiori , to secede for the purpose, and avoid war. Neighborly kindness, 
 the promotion of mutual interest, and the doing of justice among states, 
 are positive moral forces of cohesion of the strongest character; while the 
 admitted right of secession or, in other words, of sundering unfriendly or 
 hurtful relations, always potently works towards justice aud peace and 
 union ! The spirit of Abraham’s “ Let there be no strife between us ” 
 and that of Grant’s “ Let us have peace,” differ “ by the whole heavens.” 
 To us, especially, “ wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths 
 are peace ! ” In short, if amity be cultivated, mutual interest promoted, 
 and justice done, the union will never be saved, in any active sense, but 
 will last forever ! Men and states naturally cleave to friendship and jus- 
 tice ! 
 
 THE LATE SECESSIONS UNJUSTIFIABLE. 
 
 But let us assume that the states had the right to secede ; and then 
 view the secessions of 1861, on the higher plane of morality, and inter- 
 national conduct. If we look at the defences and remedies within the 
 union ; the vast resources of diplomacy ; the influences always working 
 in favor of justice and peace; aLd above all, the healing in the wings of 
 Time; those acts of the seceding states should be condemned, while the 
 provocations that caused them, should be reprobated with even greater 
 severity. 
 
 Leaders of the people are too prone to assume that right, justice, the 
 
292 
 
 FALLACIOUS EXPOSITION. 
 
 spirit of compacts and plighted faith will ho persistently violated ; and 
 that there is no chance for just settlement in peace and by reason ; and 
 they strive to augment every impulse of fear or anger in the masses, and 
 ride to power on the wave. “ The sober second thought” as Fisher Ames 
 terms it, is seldom or never reached, before decisive and perhaps fatal 
 action ! 
 
 All the counsels and hopes of the fathers were disregarded. Patience, 
 forbearance, deliberation, and waiting for wise diplomacy, and for the 
 healing power of Time, should have been the policy of leaders. But only 
 two conspicuous men in the seceding states, timely gave such advice — 
 Davis and Stephens ; and the very people supposed to be hot with passion, 
 deaf to wisdom, and incapable of hastening slowly, elected them unani- 
 mously as President and Yice President of the confederate states ! and 
 unanimously readopted the constitution of our fathers. [See Appendix B.] 
 
 AMONG THE LESSONS THIS “PART” CONVEYS, 
 
 we should especially note, that we require leaders, who are older and wiser ; 
 less selfish, less partisan, less impulsive, and more thoughtful ; firmer in 
 principle, and more conservative in action; and finally — always endeavor- 
 ing to restrain, or guide aright, the sudden impulses of the people, and 
 trying to bring reflection — “ the sober second thought.” 
 
 That we should as a duty eliminate from the exegesis of our written 
 polity, the errors exposed, which have heretofore prevailed. 
 
 That we should reprobate the teaching, that a sworn functionary of the 
 constitution, may obey his conscience, against its provisions — as substan- 
 tially taught by the North American Beview, and William H. Seward. 
 
 That we should stamp with infamy, the idea that pub ic agents, sworn 
 to use the powers in, and not to use those out of, the constitution, may, at 
 their discretion, use the latter — as Henry Ward Beecher, and Thaddeus 
 Stevens have taught. 
 
 That above all, the fixedness and sacredness of the written defences of 
 our “ blessings of liberty ” should be secure against perversions and unau- 
 thorised changes. 
 
PART IV. 
 
 Sovereignty in the United States. 
 
 “ What constitutes a state ? 
 
 Not high-raised battlements, or labored mound, 
 Thick wall, or moated gate: 
 
 Not cities proud with spires and turrets. crowned j 
 No! men, high-mind- d men! 
 
 Men who their duties know, 
 
 But know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain, 
 Prevent the long-a med blow, 
 
 And crush the tyrant, while they rend the chain. 
 
 These co istitute a state: 
 
 And sovereign law, that state’s collected will, 
 
 Sits empress, crowning good— repressing ill.” 
 
/ 
 
 
 f ■ 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 
CHAPTER I. — The genesis op a state. 
 
 gc« 
 
 4]N the republican form of government, society governs itself; that 
 Jr is to say, the collective people govern the individual people — 
 ? the former being sovereign, the latter subject. Accordingly all 
 the right of government, in our country, is in society, as formed ; and 
 hence the “general government” can have no possible authority, except 
 what is derived from the states — the state, at the institution of the said 
 government, being the only form of society, and being then, as all admit, 
 sovereign. As to sovereignty, or “absolute supremacy,” being in “the 
 government,” Mr. Webster said, in his speech of 1S33 : “No such thing as 
 sovereignty of government is known in North America. * * With us 
 
 the people alone are sovereign.” So said James Wilson, in the Pennsyl- 
 vania ratifying convention : “ The sovereignty is in the people before they 
 make a constitution, and remains in them after it is made.” [See supra 
 
 p. 108.] 
 
 No respectable denial of these statements has ever been made, and no 
 one will dare to deny them. 
 
 The great expounder then admits, as Wilson states, that the constitutors, 
 in constituting government, put no sovereignty whatever in it, but left this 
 in the people. 
 
 And as the people only exist, and have capacity to act in government , 
 as states, the position of both of them necessarily is, that the states are 
 sovereign. 
 
 This should seem to end controversy; but the people, who arc the gov- 
 ernment, must have an understanding, as well as an impression, of the 
 truth, so that when the hydra heads of perversion shall hereafter be cut 
 off, public hate will cauterise the bleeding necks, and ever prevent renewal. 
 
 Therefore, elaborate and instructive presentation is necessary, and herein 
 to he pursued. And in the process, it will be shown that genuine American 
 
296 ^ SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 history and exegesis plainly prove : 1. That the states are sovereign in the 
 union ; and 2. That “ the government ” is a mere agency. 
 
 THE WHOLE SUBJECT IS ONE OF FACTS. 
 
 “ What political system have we?” is, as I have before said — a question 
 of fact, and must be argued as such. The states are facts ; the constitution 
 they made is a fact; and so with the government. An ingot of gold, a 
 bushel of salt, or a quintal of codfish, cannot be more precisely weighed 
 and measured than they. The utterance of statesmen, or even courts, 
 cannot make, unmake, or in anywise change such facts. When once exis- 
 tent, they are beyond even the power of Jehovah ! If, then, a thousand 
 officials, whether political or judicial, were to decide our general system to 
 be a union of individual men , and not a union of states ; or that the 
 sovereignty is in the government, and not in the commonwealths of people, 
 they would speak in vain ; and the question would still remain as one of 
 fact, to be settled by proof. The utterances above italicised are, and must 
 forever remain, true or untrue. Force cannot settle such a question. War 
 never did, or could, make right wrong, truth falsehood, or a fact not a fact. 
 To settle the question, then, we must adduce the evidence that proves the 
 state, or sovereignty, just as we would prove the ingredients of a crime. 
 The facts must fill the technical description. Truth on this subject, in 
 1788, was true in 1860. The foedus was a fact at both epochs. The war 
 did not change it, no matter what politicians say, or the deluded people 
 think 1 
 
 THE STATES THEMSELVES ARE THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 We have heretofore seen that the federal constitution, in articles I and 
 VII, names the thirteen original states as the parties, and treats them as 
 such, while all the rest of the articles are corroborative, and give no sign 
 or hint of change, as to the geography, organization, character, or authority 
 of the said states. I have already shown that the instrument repeatedly 
 characterises the system as a union of states ; that the convention unani- 
 mously declared that “ the government" was to be “ the united states" 
 themselves, and never changed their view; [V Ell. Deb. 377]; that the 
 delegations of power for federal government were (not to the government, 
 or nation, but) to “the united states;” [Amendment X] ; that the word 
 “state,” as to Massachusetts and New York, meant what it did, as to 
 France or Spain — “ a body -politic, or society of men, united together for 
 
TH| GENESIS OF A STATE. 
 
 297 
 
 the purpose of promoting their mutual safety auc! advantage,” etc. [Vattel, 
 Fed. Con., Art. I, § 9 ; III, § 2 ; Amendment XI] ; and finally, that the 
 personnel of the federal agency, must be the citizens and subjects of the 
 said states — each state choosing her own part of them, to aid in the said 
 agency. 
 
 v THE STATES ARE SO MANY REPUBLICS. 
 
 Webster lays down the rule, fhat where well known language is used in 
 the constitution, it must be understood in its well known sense. And, 
 moreover, Webster concedes the very point under consideration, when he 
 says, in the “ Bank of Augusta vs. Earle,” (13 Pet., 584,) that the jus 
 gentium governs all questions not provided for in the constitution — that is 
 to say, these associated nations, or states, have settled, by agreement, all 
 the questions or subjects the constitution includes ; but have left all others 
 to be settled as they arise, by or according to the law of nations. The 
 federal supreme court, in the same case, took the same view. Massachu- 
 setts, then, on becoming independent, was as complete a nation as France, 
 and possessed the same absoluteness of will, as well as supremacy, and 
 exclusiveness of control, over her territory and citizens. Though one was 
 infantile and weak, and the other a first-class power, they were alike and 
 equal, in the eye of public law; they had the same organism and nature; 
 the life or power of each was peculiar, exclusive, vital, and precious to her ; 
 and self-preservation was the first law of nature to each alike, just as it is 
 to men and inferior animals. 
 
 Nay more, Massachusetts, in 1780, promulgated these very ideas in her 
 constitution — as I have shown; and she has maintained them therein to 
 the present day. 
 
 Unquestionably, then, our general constitution of government is a^ague 
 “between the states ratifying the same;” and the government provided for 
 is necessarily an agency of the said states, and subordinate to them, for 
 they were the sole and exclusive actors and sources of authority. Such 
 was, as I have heretofore conclusively shown, the theory of the federalists 
 at the making of the constitution. 
 
 THE CASE EXEMPLIFIED BY PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 The growth or formation of an American commonwealth, and the prin- 
 ciples of political philosophy involved, can well be exemplified and illus- 
 trated by the case of Pennsylvania. Through generations, she grew, and 
 
298 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 finally became complete in organism, independent, and absolutely self-gov- 
 erning — a political and moral being, endowed with perceptive faculties, 
 reason, judgment, and will; incapable of politically acting except as a body; 
 the people who formed her, reserving no shadow of political power, but 
 being governed, in all respects, by the will of her, as a body politic. This 
 authority was exclusive of all other, and, as Mr. Curtis admits, was the 
 highest on earth, as to the people and territory where it existed. There 
 was, in Pennsylvania, no possible chance for any other authority to act, in 
 forming the federal constitution, and commanding her people’s obedience 
 to it; and we si all see that this body, called Pennsylvania, absolutely and 
 finally acted, in becoming a party to the said federal constitution, and giving 
 the federal agency, which was provided fur, directed, and restricted therein, 
 its only authority over her people. 
 
 T1IE ORIGIN OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 In 1681, Charles II, out of personal regard for William Penn, and grati- 
 tude for the services of Penn’s father — the admiral of that name, who, in 
 1665, defeated the Dutch fleet under Heer Yon Opdam, — granted to the 
 said William, his heirs and assigns, “all that tract or part of land in 
 America,” since called Pennsylvania, and did “make, create, and constitute 
 them, the tiue and absolute proprietaries of the country aforesaid; saving 
 always unto us, our heirs and successors, the sovereignty of the said coun- 
 tries.” Penn and his heirs governed, under the sovereignty of England, 
 for nearly one hundred years. 
 
 THE FIRST STEP OF MAKING TIIE PROVINCE A STATE. 
 
 In 1776, fr m the 18th to the 25th of June, a provincial conference 
 was held in Carpenter’s hall, Philadelphia, composed of about one hundred 
 of the leading men of the province, for the purpose of forming a govern- 
 ment to supplant the British. This conference resolved unanimously, 
 among other things, “ That it is necessary that a provincial convention be 
 called by this conference, for the express purpose of forming a new gov- 
 ernment in this province , on the authority of the peop e only.” And 
 & without one dissenting voice,” they agreed: “That every associator in 
 the province, sha'l be admitted to vote for members (f the convention,” 
 provided lie is twenty-one years old ; has resided one year in the province ; 
 has paid taxes, etc. They agreed ako, that the voters, and members of the 
 Convention, “should change their allegiance”— the oath prescribed for the 
 
THE GENESIS OF A STATE. 
 
 299 
 
 members being as follows : “ I., A. B., do declare that I do not hold myself 
 bound to bear allegiance to George III ; * * and that I will steadily 
 
 and firmly oppose the tyrannical proceedings of the King and Parliament ; 
 
 * * and [consent?] to establish and support a government in the pro- 
 vince, on the authority of the people only." On Sunday, June 23d, they 
 did their largest day’s work, and at the conclusion thereof, they adopted 
 an address “to the people of Pennsylvania which commences as follows: 
 “ Friends and countrymen : In obedience to the power we derived from 
 you, we have fixed upon a mode of electing a convention to form a gov- 
 ernment of the province of Pennsylvania, under the authority of the people. 
 
 * * We need not inform you of the importance of the trust you are 
 
 about to commit to them ; your liberty, safety, happiness, and everything 
 that posterity will hold dear to them to the end of time, will depend upon 
 their deliberations.” And on Monday, June 24:h, they declared that 
 George III, “in violation of the principles of the British constitution, and 
 of the laws of justice and humanity, * * hath lately purchased foreign 
 
 troops to assist in enslaving us, and hath excited the savages of this country 
 to carry on a war against us, as also the negroes to imbrue their hands in 
 the blood of their masters, in a manner unpracticed by civilized nations, 
 and hath lately insulted our calamities, by declaring that he will show us 
 no mercy until he reduces us;” and that “the obligations of allegiance, 
 (being reciprocal between a king and bis subjects), are now dissolved on the 
 side of the colonists, by the despotism of the said king, insomuch th t it 
 now appears that loyalty to him, is treason to the good people of this 
 country.” And they further declared as follows: “ We, the deputies of 
 the people of Pennsylvania, assembled * * to form a plan * * for 
 
 suppressing all authority in this province, derived from the crown of Great 
 Britain, and for establishing a government based upon the authority of 
 the people only , now , * * with the approbation, consent, and authority 
 
 of our constituents, unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote 
 of the congress, declaring the united colcnies free and independent states: 
 Provided the forming the government, and the regulation of the iuternal 
 police of this colony, be always reserved to the people of this colony.” 
 
 Ano'her manifesto of this provincial conference “to the Associators of 
 Pennsylvania,” says their design is to “ put an end to their own power in 
 the province,” “by cal'ing a convention to form a government under the 
 authority of the people ; ” and continues as follows: “ You are about to 
 
300 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 contend for permanent freedom, to be supported by a government, which 
 will be derived from yourselves , and which will have for its object, not the 
 emolument of one man, or class of men only, but the safety, liberty, aud 
 happiness of every individual in the community.” 
 
 ■ TIIE STATE OR NATION COMPLETED. 
 
 .The convention provided for was duly elected ; and it met, and del'berated, 
 from the 15th of July to the 28th of September, 1776. The following is 
 the commencement of the organic law established: “ We, the represen- 
 tatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania , in general convention met, * * 
 
 do, by virtue of the authority vested in us ly our constituents , ordain, declare, 
 and establish the following declaration of rights, and frame of government 
 to be the constitution of this commonwealth , and to remain in force therein, 
 forever unaltered, except in such articles as shall hereafter, on experience, 
 be found tonrequire improvement, and which shall, by the same authority 
 of the people , fairly delegated, as this frame of government directs, be 
 amended or improved, for the more effectual obtaining and securing the 
 great end and design of all governments, hereinbefore mentioned.” 
 
 Thus was Pennsylvania established as a state. The people all .assented 
 to the association ; and, as a society , they assumed sovereignty ; — that of 
 Great Britain being ipso facto displaced. They declared, in the above- 
 mentioned organic law, by virtue of their sovereignty, and as matters of 
 original and unlimited right, as follows: We, the people of the common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania , ordain and establish this constitution. * * 
 
 all power IS inherent in the people, and all free governments are 
 founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and hap- 
 piness.” “ The community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasi- 
 ble right to reform, alter, or abolish governments, in such a manner as 
 shall be, hy that community , judged mo-t conducive to the public weal.” 
 “All officers of the government are their trustees and servants , aud at 
 all times accountable to them." [See the Pa. Dec. of Bights.] 
 
 Now where is the national idea, which the Lincolns of the country say 
 originated at this period? No other right of government over the people 
 of Pennsylvania is here recognized than their own as a people. The alle- 
 giance to, and government of, the kiLg, is done away with, and — what is 
 the substitute? “ The government of the people only." What people? 
 “ The people of Pennsylvania." These are the very words. No sove- 
 
THE GENESIS OF A STATE. 
 
 301 
 
 reignty, or original authority whatever, is recognized, an being out of the 
 state. These provisions remain in her constitution to this day, though, in 
 1790, she held a convention, to conlorm the said fundamental law to the 
 federal “supreme law” she had just agreed to — both laws being alike the 
 offspring of her will. 
 
 No candid man can fail to see in Pennsylvania the state or nation. Says 
 Yattel, [Chap I, § 1] : “A nation or state is a body-politic, or society of 
 men, united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and 
 advantage by their combined strength.” This is precisely the description 
 given by Judge Story in his commentaries. [Yol. I, § 207.] 
 
 And to tlfs day, there has never been ordained, or eveft thought of, by 
 the said people, one single line transferring or abating her absolutely 
 sovereign authority of government; but she has merely delegated to her 
 “trustees and servants” — in her federal and state agencies, numerous 
 “powers” of government, which are to be held, and wielded, by her citizens 
 and subjects, for her benefit, she retaining the ultimate governing power 
 over her territory and people, entirely and absolutely. 
 
 As a 1 the people of Pennsylvania consented, actively or passively, to 
 these proceedings and declarations, they consummated, and became bound 
 in, the republican social compact — this being completed, when the inde- 
 pendence of the state was established. This was a union of people, forming 
 a body-politic; and it is the only union of people ever fi rmed. Subse- 
 quently, Pennsylvania, as such body-politic, or commonwealth, associated 
 herself with her sister states, and, with them, made a union of states. 
 How did she do it? She held a convention; she examined the federal 
 plan proposed; it was stated in said convention by Chief Justice McKean, 
 nem. dis., that the convention derived its whole power from “ the people of 
 Pennsylvania," and was elected solely “to ratify,” or “to reject ,” the said 
 federal plan [II Ell. Deb. 530] ; and the ratification was “in the name, and 
 ly the authority of," “ the people of the commonwealth." [I Ell. Deb. 
 319.] Thus, as a body-politic, she gave existence and jurisdiction to the 
 federal government in Pennsylvania. Thus, as a sovereign, she confeder- 
 ated, and became one of “the united states.” 
 
 Webster wrote in 1819: “The only parties to the constitution, contem- 
 plated by it originally, were the thirteen confederated states.” In 1850, 
 he said “the states are united, confederated,” and that “the constitution is 
 the bond, and the only bond, of the union of these states.” 
 
302 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN TI1E UNITED STATES. 
 
 His inconsistent, utterances of 1830-3, were simply the sophistry of the 
 advocate. 
 
 No parties to the constitution but states were ever contemplated. Chan- 
 cellor Pendleton, the President of the ratifying convention of Virginia, 
 expressed in that body, most forcibly the universal understanding : “ If we 
 (the people of Virginia,) find it to our interest to be intimately connected 
 with tho other twelve states, to establish one common government, and 
 bind in one ligament, the strength of thirteen states, we shall find it neces- 
 sary to delegate powers proportionate to that end.” [Ill Ell. Deb. 298.] 
 
 In fine, as Pennsylvania and her sister republics created the federal 
 government, and delegated its entire authority, our general system can but 
 be a confederacy of absolute sovereigns — no authority on earth being above 
 them collectively, or — as they are equals — individually. 
 
 In the next two chapters, I will treat of the social compact, as exhibited 
 in the case of Pennsylvania, and show the absurdity of the modern idea, 
 invented, and sophistically taught by Story, Webster, Curtis, and others, 
 that the federal constitution had the effect of forming a nation, and of 
 consolidating and degrading the states to provinces or counties; or rather 
 dissolving them, and forming their elements into a new nation, for this is 
 the practical result of the modern Massachusetts theory, which every word 
 of the federal pact condemns, while no line of history, or writing of the 
 fathers supports it. 
 
CHAPTER II. — The republican social compact. 
 
 gr* 
 
 ffr HE object of all society is the protection and welfare of the 
 individual members. In a monarchy or hereditary aristocracy, 
 society is preserved, and the members protected, without regard 
 to their will — the man or class that rules, keeping authority by force ; 
 while in a republican society, the members are voluntarily associated, and 
 the society governs itself. The so-called government, being composed solely 
 of representatives, is necessarily an agency, and the sovereignty, or right 
 of self-government of the community, is in no wise impaired by the im- 
 parting, or delegating, of power to the said so-called government. 
 
 A republic is founded on the principle of man’s free moral agency. As 
 God made him, and endowed him with the social instinct, both he, and the 
 society he forms, are God’s productions. As man is finally to account for 
 his action here, he necessarily has the power of self-control — the faculty of 
 choosing between good and evil — the option to obey or disobey. His final 
 accountability were unjust, if he has no free will or volition as to govern- 
 ment. It seems, then, that, individually and collectively, man is capable 
 of, and entitled to, self-government, and that the only divine right of 
 government on earth is self-government. May we not assume, then, that 
 the republic is God’s form of polity? 
 
 The difference, in political condition, between a man in a monarchy, and 
 one in a republic, is that, in the former, he is held by force to an indisso- 
 luble allegiance, while in the latter, he is free to remain a member, or to 
 expatriate himself. 
 
 THE SOCIAL COMPACT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 In the case of Pennsylvania, the citizens participated in, or consented to, 
 the proceedings or declarations set forth in the preceding chapter on “ the 
 formation of a state and, as he was then, and ever afterwards, free to 
 remain a part of the commonwealth, or to expatriate himself, he, by 
 
304 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 remaining, necessarily subjected himself to the social compact, and to the 
 obligations thereof. 
 
 Was he thus free? Let Pennsylvania herself answer: “Emigration 
 from this state shall not be prohibited.” [See her Const’n.] What says 
 Vermont? “ That all people have a natural and inherent right to emigrate 
 from one state to another that will receive them.” [See her const’n.; also 
 const’n. of La. et als.] However, such a declaration is supererogatory, for 
 the principle is vital to a republic, as will be seen. 
 
 CONTEMPORANEOUS EXPOSITIONS. 
 
 I will now present expositions of the fathers on this subject, which no 
 one, in those days, dared to controvert. These are for the double purpose 
 of setting forth these first institutes of freedom, and for confronting the 
 perverters with authorities they cannot deny, or sophisticate away. 
 
 Said Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, in one of his masterly papers imfavor 
 of the plan of the convention of ’87 : “The principle on which free sove- 
 reignties ought to confederate, is quite a new question. * * Most of 
 
 the states being in possession of free governments, some have looked for 
 the same forms in a confederating instrument, which they have justly 
 esteemed in their several social compacts.” He distinguishes clearly 
 between the formation of a society of people, i. e., a commonwealth, and a 
 society of states, i. e., a confederacy. [See Am. Mus. for 1788.] 
 
 . John Dickinson, who had been president of Pennsylvania, and of Dela- 
 ware, and was one of the ablest statesmen and political writers of that 
 period, made, in his powerful arguments in favor of the new federal system, 
 the same distinction that Coxe did, between the constituted league of states, 
 then being formed, and the social compact by which individuals formed the 
 state. [II Pol. Writings.] 
 
 Said Noah Webster, in his American Magazine for 1787-8 : “The whole 
 body of people in society, is the sovereign power, or state, which is called 
 the body-politic. Every man forms a part of this state, and so has a share 
 in this sovereignty: at the same time, as an individual, he is a subject of 
 the states.” 
 
 DECISIVE TESTIMONY OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Passing by the numerous evidences and recognitions of this theory in 
 the constitutions and bills of rights of the other original states, let us quote 
 Massachusetts herself, and let her refute the arguments and assertions of 
 
THE REPUBLICAN SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 305 
 
 her sons, m the preamble to her constitution, she says: “The body-politic 
 is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a social compact, 
 by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, ahd each citizen 
 with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws' for the 
 common good;” and that government is instituted and administered “ to 
 secure the existence of the body-politic,” and protect “the individuals who 
 compose it,” in “ their natural rights, and the blessings of life.” Therefore, 
 in thesr.il organic law she declares as follows : “The people inhabiting 
 the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay, do hereby 
 solemnly aud mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a 
 free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state, by the name of the 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” She further declares that she has 
 “ the sole and exc usive right of governing” heTself as a sovereign ; that 
 she will forever exercise this right; that she can “institute,” “reform,” or 
 “totally change” all government at will; that all citizens are her subjects ; 
 and that all functionaries of government are her. “ substitutes and agents.” 
 
 Here is the deliberate and solemn statement of the members, that they 
 have formed themselves into a body-politic — a commonwealth — a sovereign 
 state. We cannot gainsay or go behind this declaration. They make 
 repeated statements ot their sovereignty. [See constitution of Mass.] And 
 all the states at the same time solemnly agreed, by treaty, that each 11 retains 
 her sovereignty.” 
 
 By “ sovereignty,” I do not mean government, but the right of absolute 
 control in all things, including the right to establish governments, i. e. 
 governmental agencies. It must be kept in mind, that the word sovereignty 
 has but one meaning — that of supreme and uncontrollable authority. [See 
 Webster’s and all other dictionaries.] Hence it cannot be predicated of 
 the so-called government, or powers of government in a republic, for these 
 must always be subject to the organized people — the commonwealth. As 
 sovereignty in a republic necessarily includes the right to establish, amend, 
 and abolish governments, it is simply absurd to say a government in a 
 republic is sovereign. 
 
 It is certain, then, from the testimony of this and other states, that a 
 sovereign commonwealth was formed and consummated by social compact; 
 and that it existed and acted as such, in making the union or federal system. 
 
306 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE TTNTTEP STATES. 
 
 THE RATIONALE OF OUR SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 It is obvious that if a man can chaDge his membership from one com- 
 monwealth to another, he is, by remaining in the first, under the obligation 
 of being a party of it; of being governed by it; and of performing all 
 the various duties which its existence and welfare requires of him ; the 
 reciprocal obligations on the society’s part, being the protection of him in 
 his life, liberty, and means of happiness. This mutual understanding, and 
 the reciprocal obligations thereof, do exist, and are the actual conditions of 
 the society’s existence. They constitute all the elements of a compact, 
 which though only implied, form not the less the political and philosophi- 
 cal entity. By and through such social compact, the republic must exist. 
 
 The members are the community; and each of them is obviously merged 
 in it, and entirely subject to its control. His political status is fixed, and 
 his citizenship is an integral part of the community. From the nature of 
 the case, he can reserve no political rights ; so that the idea of his co-ope- 
 rating with the citizens of all the states, to form a nation by a second social 
 compact, is too absurd for comment. The matter of organizing society 
 had been completed. Each state had every possible characteristic of a 
 nation, and, whether it federated or remained single, it could act as such, 
 for it was a moral person, with all menial attributes, including will. In 
 forming the union, then, the matter in hand was government, not organi- 
 zation of society. Government could but be delegative, and if society was 
 not already completed, and capacitated for political action, it was incapable 
 of doing the delegation. Preformed states did actually do such delega- 
 tion, and they were named in the compact, as the bodies to constitute, and 
 carry on, the federal system of government. The states, then, being per- 
 fect political bodies, the clti :ens were merged completely ; and could, in no 
 way, act again in forming society. 
 
 Aiming to make my argument of tne best possible, and, in the main, 
 undisputed authorities, I quote the following : Yattel, in Book I, Chap. 
 I, after describing the nation or state, proceeds : [§ 2] “ By the very act 
 of the civil or political association, each citizen subjects himself to the 
 authority of the entire body, in everything that relates to the common 
 welfare. The authority of all over each member, essentially belongs to 
 the body politic or state.” 
 
 In Chapter II, § 16, he says: “ In the act of association, by virtue of 
 which a multitude of men form together a state or nation, each individual 
 
THE REPUBLICAN SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 307 
 
 has entered into engagements with all, to promote the general welfare, and 
 all have entered into engagements with each individual, to facilitate for 
 him the means of supplying his necessities, and to protect and defend 
 him. It is manifest that these reciprocal engagements can be no otherwise 
 fulfilled, than by maintaining the political association. The entire nation, 
 then, is obliged to maintain that association ; and as their preservation de- 
 pends on its continuance, it thence follows that every nation is obliged to 
 perform the duty of self-preservation. “ This obligation,” he further says, 
 “ is natural to each individual of God’s creation, and is derived to nations 
 from the agreement by which civil society is formed : * * it supposes 
 
 a human act, to wit, the social compact.” See to the same effect, 1 Black- 
 stone, 47 ; also Lieber’s view [Pol. Eth. Chap. YIII, § 917]. The above 
 statement of Vattel is correct and philosophical, at least as far as the law 
 of being of a republic is concerned. Further, the present author saith not. 
 Rousseau, in his “ Treatise on the Social Compact,” [Ch. YI] most con- 
 clusively sets forth the republican social compact, and states the object of 
 the association to be, “ to protect and defend, with the whole force of the 
 community, the persons and property of each individual.” And Hume, 
 though writing before the British provinces became American republics, 
 forecasted or recognized the very principle of the social compact, which 
 became the law of their being, as states. [H’s Essays, No. XII], And 
 the great Burke said — “ Society is indeed a contract.” [See his French 
 Rev.] 
 
 But let us take a step further. These bodies were formed for self-gov- 
 ernment, and 
 
 GOVERNMENT IS MENTAL AND FUNCTIONAL 
 
 All acts of government are acts of mind, and mind must dwell in a body, 
 and act through its organs. In our system, the only possible body for 
 original governing mind to dwell in, is an organised society of people — a 
 state. And whatever is done in making institutions of government, and 
 putting them in force, through laws and the execution thereof, must be 
 functional (for such acts are precisely what society and its mind were made 
 for) just as thinking is functional to the brain, and digesting to the stomach- 
 Hence such action in no wise touches, let alone impairs or changes, the 
 existence, essentials, or authority of the commonwealth. And it is of this 
 mind and its right of investigating, thinking, reasoning, judging, and will- 
 
'30S SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITER STATES. 
 
 iigr, that sovereignty is alone predicated. And this dwells — not in persons, 
 hut — in the collective mind of the people — in the corporate body called 
 the commonwealth, republic, or state — the “moral person” as Yattel and 
 others call it; “the moral collective body,” to use Rousseau’s phrase. 
 
 CONSTITUTING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT WAS FUNCTIONAL. 
 
 It follows from the above, that ordaining and establishing the constitu- 
 tion, was functional action of the states. They could, and did, through 
 their deputies, meet in “the convention of states,” as Hamilton and others 
 called it; and deliberate upon and mature a plan of union and government. 
 They could and did send the plan to the congress of themselves. They 
 could and did, in congress, send the plan to each one of themselves, for 
 separate adoption or rejection. Each state could and did, of her own 
 motion, in her own time, and wherever she pleased, call a convention to 
 say whether she would join the “ union of states,” and be one of “ the 
 united states,” or not. Each was unlimited as to deliberation, and as free 
 to reject as adopt. All finally adopted, thus doing the only acts history 
 mentions, or even hints at, towards ordaining, establishing, and vivifying 
 the constitution. And afterwards, in the same functional way, each chose 
 and sent her allotted part, or quota, of the personnel of the government, 
 to administer it — those she sent, being her own “members,” “citizens,’ 
 “substitutes,” and “agents,” as all the fathers and all the states considered 
 and called them. And, finally, upon this point, the right to amend — iden- 
 tical with the right to abolish — is to be exercised functionally by the states — 
 [See Article V.] this indicating the continued existence of the state, with 
 the same mental machinery to amend, that adopted, and necessitating the 
 same functional action in the future. 
 
 A CLEAR CONCEPTION OF THE STATES, 
 
 is needed, and by a moment’s thought, the reader can get as precise and 
 clearly defined an idea of them, as he can of thirteen men, horses, dogs, 
 steamboats, or pounds of butter. Thirteen entities, or pre-existent things 
 called states, were named and provided for in the constitution, as the united 
 states. They had already appeared in history, and often acted. Look at 
 their names, and reflect. The word Pennsylvania (or Massachusetts) for 
 instance, means a distinct thing, with area, people, organization, mind, 
 power, right, duty — all distinct and peculiar. Such entities (and there 
 were thirteen of them) were unsusceptible of being made one, without 
 
THE REPUBLICAN SOCIAL COMPACT. 309 
 
 being, ipso facto , destroyed. If their people were then made into one state, 
 they cannot now be united states. This shows why Webster said, in 1850, 
 — near the close of his life — as heretofore quoted : “ The states are united, 
 confederated — not, chaos-like, together crushed and bruised.” “ The con- 
 stitution is the only bond of the union of these states.” See also his 
 remarkable speech in 1853, at Annapolis. 
 
 DIVINE RIGHT. 
 
 The mind and capacity for, and the right to, self-government, are Divine 
 creations and gifts, whether in a person or society ; and such mind is alike 
 the seat of self-government, and of the instinct of self-preservation. Self- 
 control, both of persons and states, and human accountability therefor, 
 are the only ideas on this subject, that consist with the revealed plan of 
 the Almighty Father and Governor. And to assail either person or state 
 with violence, is attacking one of God’s beings, for, as man is created with 
 a social nature, society, not less than man himself, is a creation of Deity. 
 
 The Divinely ordered social instinct, then, causes society. This republic, 
 commonwealth, or state, has the God-given right of self-government, which 
 it exercisc-s through mind, and functionally. ' It and its fellows get together, 
 in federal or leaguc-al compact, voluntarily. When did involuntariness 
 come, so as to make the indissoluble union? 
 
 If named pre-existent bodies of people were united or associated, how 
 did the said bodies lose their separate integrity, so as to become part of an 
 aggregate nation of people? 
 
 If, by the revolution, the communities called provinces, became states, 
 how did they lose the “ sovereignty,” all declared each to possess, and again 
 become provinces or counties? 
 
CHAPTER III. — Social-compact fallacies. 
 
 THE EXPOUNDERS ON THE SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 TORY, Webster and Curtis aim to show that the people of all 
 tp* ^ ie stafces > ky a second social compact, formed a nation, called 
 1 ff) the “ united states” — an absurdity like saying that thirteen 
 persons were formed into a person, called the united persons. Moreover, 
 the forming of such nation of individuals, would require that the constit- 
 uents should be free to act. This could not be, for each was bound, in 
 political matters, to be governed solely by the body-politic he belonged to, 
 and to act only as part of said body. Indeed, his po'itical authority was 
 confined to that vote, which the body delegated to him, to be used as a 
 part of the means of determining her will ; and he actually exercised this 
 privilege by voting for the members of her ratifying convention, through 
 which she willed to adopt the federal pact. The formation of the national 
 society in question, would have necessitated the dissolving of the state 
 and the absolving of the citizen from his obligations. We know this was 
 not done, because the statesare named in the pact, as “ the United States 
 and they went , with their citizens , into the union unchanged. And no cit- 
 izens are recognized in the said pact, hut citizens of the several states. 
 
 The expounders argue that the state constitutions are not social compacts, 
 but fundamental laws. [I Sto. Com. § 333 et sey.] This is entirely true, 
 but the constituting of society is one thing, and the constituting of govern- 
 ment another. The social compact is the law of the society’s or state’s 
 being, whilst the constitution must be the law of the government’s being, 
 or in other words, the law creating, directing, and controlling the govern- 
 ment of the said society, which is the pre-existent and law-making body. 
 History plainly distinguishes the law of being of the community, from the 
 law of being of the government; for when the first constitution of Massa- 
 chusetts — that of 17S0 — was formed, she had been a perfect community — 
 a body-politic, for many generations, requiring nothing but independence- 
 
S 0 C I A L-C OMPACT FALLACIES. 
 
 311 
 
 to make her a sovereignty; and when Pennsylvania’s first constitution was 
 formed in 1776, she had, far about one hundred years, been a complete 
 body-politic, governed by William Penn and successors, under the sove- 
 reignty of the Biitish crown, merely lacking the independence which the 
 war consummated, to make her a perfect, sovereign, and uncontrollable 
 state, hirst, then we have, as a fact , the complete and absolute state — 
 identical with its members — they voluntarily associated. Essential to this 
 state is a political will. Second, we have, as a fact, the government — state 
 or federal — the creation of the state’s will. To make the former agency, 
 the states acted severally; to make the latter, federally. The constitution, 
 in either case, is the expression of the will of sovereignty, the law of being 
 of the government, and the evidence of its existence and “ powers.” 
 
 A MISSTATEMENT EXPOSED. 
 
 It is, then, a mere subterfuge of the expounders, to assume that some- 
 body regards the constitution as a social compact, [I Sto. Com. § 333], and 
 proceed to show, as if in refutation, what nobody denies, to-wit : that it is 
 a fundamental law, and not a social compact. On this point, as usual, 
 Massachusetts, their own cherishing mother confounds them, as I shall now 
 show, exposing, at the same time, a grossly deceptive misquotation. Story 
 says [Ibid.] that she declares, in the preamble to her constitution, that 
 “ government is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants 
 with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole government.” 
 
 This is a false quotation. The true one is to be found on page 305, 
 supra. She says “the body-politic is formed” by “a social compact” — 
 not that “government is a social compact;” and she states the compact to 
 be by “each citizen with the whole people” — not with the “ government.” 
 He seldom, if ever, quotes correctly, or argues fairly, on these subjects. 
 
 After stating the compact, the body, and the object in view, she contin- 
 ues: “It is the duty of the people [i. e. the preformed body] therefore , in 
 framing a constitution of government, to provide for” just laws; “for an 
 impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them.” Her idea, 
 then, was that the preformed body was to establish the constitution of gov- 
 ernment: [See Constitution Mass.] 
 
 Nay more, both she and Pennsylvania declare that the people [i. e. the 
 pre-existent body-politic] have the inherent right to institute, amend, or 
 abolish government, or constitutions of government — thus again showing 
 the social compact to be one thing, and the constitution of government 
 
312 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 auother. And they never dreamed that abolishing the government of 
 their creation, was abolishing society, or abdicating self-go verntnent, and 
 bringing anarchy and chaos, as some pretend to think; for they were con- 
 scious of being republics, formed independently of, and remaining above, 
 their constitutions of government. They were thems Ives the real govern- 
 ment, and hence there could be no interregnum resulting from a change of 
 mere agencies. Indeed, lightnmg might strike and destroy either federal 
 or state government, and leave the state herself uninjured, and even unjar- 
 red, to proceed, for her safety and welfare, to make another. In fine, the 
 two ideas of a man, and his self-control, are not more separate than the 
 two ideas of a society, and its self-government. 
 
 For the want of information, and clear and unprejudiced thought, on 
 these subjects, in 1861, many clergymen went almost wild. Rev. Dr. 
 Breckinridge said : “Secession is a proceeding, which begins by tearing in 
 pieces the whole fabric of government, both social and political.’'’ “ Its 
 very design is * * to annihilate the institutions of the country,” etc. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, argued similarly. Rev. Dr. Jumkin filled 
 a considerable book with such matter, and properly called it “Political 
 Fallacies,” for one more trae to its title was never published. 
 
 SPECIMENS OF EXPOUNDING ON TIIIS SUBJECT. 
 
 It is well to group here two or three of the extraordinary expoundings 
 on this subject. It is fatal to the “school,” that the original republican 
 society must exist by the consent of the members to be, and act, as a society ; 
 and that lienee, the states must be independent in existence, and sovereign 
 in w ;]j — our general system being a republic of republics, or federation of. 
 republican states. 
 
 Therefore, they pretend to explode the actual social compact, and assert, 
 in substance, that the constitution of the united states is the constitution 
 of a state, or nation of people, in which the quondam states have become 
 subdivisions, while their rights and powers aic reserved to them, by the 
 said nation, in the said constitution. They more than intimate, that the 
 people of all the states, “in the aggregate,” formed a second social compact, 
 doing away with all the original ones, and making themselves one state.* 
 
 ♦Mansfield in his Political Grammar ; Brownson, in h'S American Republic; Jameson, in his Con- 
 stitutional Convention; Draper, in his Civil War; Greeley, in his Ameiican Conflict, and others of 
 that school— all seem to deny that the original communities or republics were termed l y . octal com- 
 pacts ■ and affirm tha: the nation was so formed. Their theories are remarkably varied and incon- 
 sistent, showing the want of facts. But to such arguers, tacts are trammels. They prefer figments! 
 
6 0 C I A L-C OMPACT FALLACIES 
 
 313 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS GOES FARTHER BACK. 
 
 Tliis, in substance, is the contention of Story, Webster, and Curtis, to 
 which I will add the surprising statement of that wiser politician, John 
 Quincy Adams. Seeing the pre-existence and continuation of the states 
 to be fatal to the national theory, he concluded to have them strangled at 
 their birth by the iniant Hercules of American nationality; so, at Boston, 
 on the 4th of July 1831, in Fanucil Hall, he discordantly orated as fol- 
 lows: “The Declaration of Independence was a social compact, by which 
 the whole people covenanted with each citizen, and each citizen with the 
 whole people, that the united colonies were, and of right ought to be, free 
 and independent states.” 
 
 This remarkable assertion is entirely unfounded. The instrument pro- 
 mulgates great general principles, and after detailing reasons therefor, 
 simply declares the independence of the states, who, in congress, make the 
 declaration. 
 
 HUME’S EXPLOSION. 
 
 The expounders, determined to show that the people were lying loose, 
 so that the fathers could, in 1787, herd or aggregate them into a nation, 
 assert that Hume exploded the social-compact theory, thus depriving our 
 states of their law of being. We have already seen that his explosive 
 dynamics did not blow the social-compact idea out of the Massachusetts 
 organic law ; and we will now see that he did not affect our precious social 
 ties at all. 
 
 In his Essay No. XII, written in 1752, after exposing the fallacy of 
 various European theories on this subject, he proceeds to say: “My intention 
 here is not to exclude the CONSENT of the people from being one just foun- 
 dation of government. It is surely the best and most sacred of any.” 
 
 Here then was forecasted, by that great man, the very law of republican 
 being, the vitality and cohesive force of every commonwealth — the “ con- 
 sent or will of the persons forming it. Indeed the whole philosophy 
 of the republic is comprehended in that one sentence. Such, too, was the 
 theory of Edmund Burke. 
 
 The true idea of the Declaration seems to have passed away with the 
 fathers — there not being virtue and understanding enough in Am Tic n 
 politicians to keep it alive. The consent, which was declared to be the 
 only just foundation to government, was the consent of the party to a con- 
 
314 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 tract. The consent of the people, as heretofore remarked, means the will 
 of the people. 
 
 Think of it! “ consent of the governed” is a phrase of no value, except 
 in the sense I mention. Poland, Venetia and Ireland, yielding to tyranny 
 consent. All slaves consent. Order reigned in Warsaw because of consent. 
 And, finally, wherever peace has been made by desolation , the trembling 
 wretches, hid in caves, were willing to consent to any terms. 
 
 No ! no ! Messrs. Politicians, when the American people, as they are 
 organ ; zed, and capacitated to act, do absolutely govern themselves, both 
 domestically and federally, then will be restored the consent of the social 
 compact, and of the declaration of independence, but never before 1 
 THE STATE RULES IN ALL THINGS. 
 
 The change, by independence, from a province to a state, was necessarily 
 a change from subordination to supremacy. Sovereignty is the very thing 
 that distinguishes a state from a county or province. We have found that 
 Massachusetts was formed by social compact of her people ; that as a com- 
 monwealth, she is absolutely sovereign, and that her citizens are completely 
 her subjects. The citizen, then, being merged in, and controlled by, the 
 state, could, by the state only, be subjected to the federal pact, government 
 and laws ; and he obeys these solely because the state commands it. 
 
 THE GERM OF THE REPURLIC. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the states of America reversed the monarchical 
 principle of indissoluble allegiance — “once a subject, always a subject” — 
 and established the one that each individual could, of inherent right, migrate 
 and establish new social relations at pleasure; and, consequently, that his 
 obligations to the community rested solely on his voluntary engagements. 
 This necessitates the social compact, and shows it to.be the germinal idea 
 of the republic, and this body to be self-organized and self-governing. And 
 it is further evident, that the germ of political freedom is in the member 
 of the society. 
 
 THE SOCIETY GALLED PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 We see, then, that Pennsylvania, composed of her voluntarily associated 
 members, on becoming free from England, became sovereign herself; and 
 that afterwards, with entire individuality, and with sovereignty unabated, 
 she federalised herself in the present union. 
 
S 0 C I A L-C OMPACT FALLACIES. 
 
 315 
 
 THE POLITY IS SELF-GOVERNMENT OF SOCIETIES. 
 
 Not a line in all American history even hints at the formation of any 
 other societies, communities, and commonwealths of persons, than states ; 
 or of these bodies having any limitation whatever, on their capacity or 
 power. These states were organized and complete — were pre-existent 
 bodies, at the time of federation. They met in the convention of ; 87 ; 
 planned the federal constitution of government; and, by their respective 
 sovereign wills — evidenced by their respective ordinances of ratification — • 
 gave to it all the life and power it ever had, or could possibly have ; and 
 they put it in operation, by electing and sending their citizens and subjects, 
 to exercise, as “ substitutes and agents,” the powers they, the said states, 
 delegated. 
 
 Then, as each state made lier home government, it is certain that the 
 American polity teas the government of states by themselves — -jointly in 
 general affairs, and severally in domestic ones. 
 
 And it must strike the reader, that if these societies are still provinces 
 or counties, or under external control, in any sense or particular, they revo- 
 lutionized against Britain in vain ! If their only status and powers are, 
 (as “the school,” through Lincoln, assert) fixed by the nation, in its con- 
 stitution ; not only the several states are provincialised, but “the united 
 states” — the very association declared to be “ the government ,” — are 
 subjected to the nation, and are under the arbitrary power of that nation’s 
 agency, which, according to Webster and Curtis, decides finally on all 
 questions as to its own power. [See pp. 175, 220, supra. ] Appeals to 
 the nation, even if possible, would not be prompt and practical. It has no 
 will, and no capacity for action. Remedy should be right at the heels of 
 wrong, especially in such matters as liberty and sovereignty. Civitas ea 
 in libertate est posita, qv.se suis stal viribus, non ex alieno arbitrio pendet.* 
 [Livy.] 
 
 * “ That state alone is free, which stands upon its own strength, and does not depend on the 
 arbitrary will of another." 
 
CHAPTER IY. — Societies are sovereign. 
 
 ^ LL our history and governmental philosophy teach, as we have 
 
 1 !• That republican sovereignty resides in, and never leaves, 
 
 the people ; 
 
 2. That, “the consent of the governed,” referred to in the declaration 
 of independence, as the only just basis of the government, is the consent or 
 rather will, that forms society, and institutes government. The people 
 consented, or rather willed into being, agencies both for their federal and 
 their state affairs ; 
 
 3. That “the people of the united states” politically exist and act, only 
 as commonwealths ; 
 
 4. That, as commonwealths, they “ratified,” and thereby “ordained 
 and established,” the constitution ; 
 
 5. That they federally ass’oeiated, in the character of sovereign com- 
 monwealths, to govern themselves, conjointly in general affairs, i. e. to act 
 as a union of republican states, or a “republic of republics;” while each 
 continued to govern herself in all home affairs. 
 
 All our history is consistent with this view — especially the unanimous 
 declaration of opinion of the convention of states of 1787, that “the united 
 states ” are the government and that the name “the united states” means 
 the people as states, and not the people as a state or nation. [V Ell. Deb. 
 
 377, 382.] 
 
 Now having seen precisely where sovereign mind or will is ; having, in 
 other words, seen the body in which it dwells, and the exclusively functional 
 character of its action, let us note how it manifests itself in our republican 
 government. Look at the necessary 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 317 
 
 GRADES OF AUTHORITY. 
 
 All people agree that sovereignty made the constitution, federal as well 
 as state ; and that this instrument provides for, directs, and controls the 
 government, which in turn rules the persons and things subject to it, i. e. 
 the people and their belongings. To illustrate, I will draw four horizontal 
 lines, to represent the different grades spoken of: 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY— THE PEOPLE. 
 
 THE PEOPLE AS SUBJECTS: 
 
 We see here that the people govern, and the people are governed. This 
 necessitates, in each republican citizen, two capacities, one corporate and 
 political, and the other personal. In the former, he is a member and an 
 integral part of society, and therefore a part of the governing authority, 
 and in the latter he is a subject. It is, however, only as a commonwealth, 
 that the citizens have political sovereignty, this being only predicable of an 
 organised community. 
 
 AN AMUSING MISTAKE. 
 
 Owing to ignorance or forgetfulness of this double capacity of citizens, 
 our modern so-called statesmen, in their expositions of the constitution, 
 make most amusing mistakes. Mr. William M. Evarts, in defending 
 president Johnson against impeachment, in 1868, thus alludes to the peo- 
 ple: “ Masters of the country, and masters of every agent and agency in 
 it, they bow to nothing but the constitution.” By not heeding the above 
 distinction, he makes the people, in their governing capacity, bend the 
 knee to their own authority — a genuflexion impossible even in Utopia, and 
 the very one alluded to by Gov. James Sullivan, of Massachusetts, as fol- 
 lows : “ You may a3 well attempt to erect a temple beneath its foundations, 
 as to erect a government with coercive power over itself.” (Amory’s Life 
 of Sullivan, Yol. I, p. 231.) Hon. A. H. Stephens makes the same error 
 in his War between the States, Yol. I, p. 40: “The exercise of supreme 
 law-making power, even over the authority delegating it, may be legitimate, 
 so long as the delegated power is unresumed.” This simply means that so 
 
318 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 long as sovereignty allows its delegations to remain in its created agency, 
 it is subject to the government and coercion of that agency. By parity 
 of reasoning, if Mr. Stephens were to give his son, or head-servant, author- 
 ity over his household affairs, it could be used to ccmmand him, and 
 coerce his obedience. But Mr. Stephens only follows, though he does not 
 cite, illustrious authority. The supreme court of the united states, in 
 McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316,) says: “ The government of 
 the union is a government of the people. It emanates from them ; its 
 powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and 
 for their benefit.” Becently, the so-called national supreme court have put 
 the matter more grossly; and while fastening the blunder on themselves, 
 they make it a subject for “national” derision, as follows: “ Citizens are 
 members of the political community to which they belong. They are the 
 people who compose the community, and who, IN their associated 
 capacity, have established, or submitted themselves to the domin- 
 ion of a government,” etc. In other words, they are subject as states, and 
 as united states, in the same degree that they are as individual men, to the 
 dominion — i. e., the “absolute supremacy” of the government! Many 
 similar quotations might be given, for this idea is very common with “ the 
 expounders, ” and their thoughtless followers. It is, indeed, an essential 
 part of the expounding theory ; and it is a mystery how Mr. Stephens, 
 who is really on the opposite side, could have mixed such an error with 
 his truths. The advocates of this theory dare not reason about the two 
 capacities of citizens, for it suggests two lines of thought, both of which 
 lead inevitably to the body-politic, in which the citizen is absolutely merged, 
 and in which sovereignty must dwell ; to the fact that the state is the only 
 such body ever formed ; and to the conviction that the said “expounders” 
 intended fraud in promulgating such theory, or did not understand the 
 «, subject. 
 
 tue people govern the people. 
 
 They, as sovereign society, govern themselves as subjects. Any member 
 of an ordinary corporation who can think, will readily see the two capac- 
 ities, because he is a constituent or integral part of the moral or jural 
 person, which the body corporate is, while he is, as a natural person, sub- 
 ject to whatever authority the corporation has ; and holds no right what- 
 ever to the franchise, and the property of the body; and he has simply a 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 319 
 
 right to vote, to help make up the mind, and express the will, of the said 
 corporation. So, in the republic, the member is an integral part, and votes 
 to help express the will of the body-politic or commonwealth, while, in 
 every ether respect, he is merely a subject. 
 
 The federal constitution itself, as I have shown, recognises every person 
 .who has a civil cr political status, as a member and citizen of a state. 
 Hence I divide the upper line, representing the people, i. e. the sovereignty, 
 into thirteen parts, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Hhode Island, 
 Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
 Virginia, Noith Carolina. South Carolina and Ceorgia: and draw a line 
 from each to the constitution, to indicate the imputation of life and 
 validity to that instrument. Then, the above illustration would be thus 
 modified : 
 
 tHE PEOPLE AS SOVEREIGN COMMUNITIES. 
 
 |n. n. MASS. R. I. [ CT. 
 
 N. T. | N. J. | PA. DEL. | MD. | VA. | N. C. | S. 
 
 C. GA.j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE 1 CONSTITUTION. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 aSBaHHEB8BBgBglMlBMM3 MHEaSB3i85Sigg3Bi 
 
 THE PEOPLE AS SUrjEGTS. 
 
 This precisely shows the sy tem contemplated. The republics were to 
 remain uppermost, unconsolidated, sovereign, and self-joined. They them- 
 selves were to govern, and the institutions of government were the consti- 
 tutions of so many agencies. There can be no evasion or denial of this 
 statement, for the absolute and independent act of each states' wdl, through 
 her convention, ratifying and establishing the ( o istitution, as to herself, 
 and her people, is shown in Part II ; and thi se im e endent acts, at differ- 
 ent times, during three years, are shown tube the only acts giving exist- 
 ence to the federal system. The system, therefore, is to be treated as the 
 offspring of the mind and will of the people, whom God has commissioned 
 to govern themselves; and is to be regarded as the most sacred of earthly 
 things — the very ark of the covenant ! 
 
 THE PEOPLE THEN, ARE SUBJECTED, 
 
 if the treasonable theory under nodee be carded out; and the f nee — to use 
 a homely but expressive figure — must be reset, according to the iormuia of 
 
320 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES.' 
 
 tlie “school;” according to the guesses of Lincoln; and according to the 
 Philadelphia conclave of 1866, as follows: 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT ^“ABSOLUTE SUPREMACY ”). 
 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 
 
 
 
 |theq!uond 
 
 AM ST ATES. 
 
 
 | | 
 
 
 |n. H.|mASS.| R. I. | CT. | N. Y. | N. J. | PA. | DEL. MD. | VA. | N. C. | S. C. | GA. j 
 
 
 the people as subjects. 
 
 
 
 
 Not a word in history favors such a collocation of the grades of author- 
 ity; and, as the 6tates individually covered the whole ground, and collect- 
 ively devised, and afterwards individually ratified, and thereby “ ordained 
 and established ” the constitution, and delegated powers to its agency, it is 
 absolutely impossible that a nation, or republic composed of the self-same 
 people, should have done the same thing, at the same time. 
 
 Besides, as Webster admits, “ sovereignty in government is unknown in 
 North America.” The real government is the republics, wherein sove- 
 reignty ever dwells. They said : “We will unite, and govern ou? subjects, 
 as if a nation, in a certain number of respects; but the quasi nation is, of 
 course, the offspring of our sovereign wills.” Just as they did, the sove- 
 reigns of Europe could do, without placing the agency above themselves, 
 or making an indissoluble union. What is to prevent their governing their 
 aggregate people, as if a nation ? Sovereignty is always and everywhere 
 of the same nature, and supreme. 
 
 All publicists speak idem sonans on this subject. Says Vattel : “ Several 
 sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together, by a per- 
 petual confederacy, without each, in particular, ceasing to be a perfect 
 state.” Their “ deliberations in common,” he continues, in no wise abafe 
 “the sovereignty of each member,” though “the exercise of it” may be 
 diminished, “in virtue of voluntary engagements." Montesquieu, Brough- 
 am, De Tocqueville, and Lieber, speak to the same effect. 
 
 THE SUBJUGATION OF THE COMMONWEALTHS, 
 
 above depicted, has been wrought by their members, their citizens, their 
 subjects, their “substitutes and agents” — “bone of their bone, and flesh 
 of their flesh!” These traitors say that “the government” — meaning 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 321 
 
 themselves, has “absolute supremacy” over people and states, so far as its 
 powers go, it being itsolf judge of how far that is, and having the right to 
 preserve itself ; that the states are counties, with no status or rights, except 
 what “the nation reserves to them, in its constitution.” 
 
 In short, they say precise'y what the above illustration docs; and we, 
 the victim-people, are reprovincialised; while all the fourth-of-July thun- 
 ders of the last hundred years, have become as unmeaning as they were 
 harmless. Britain holds provinces only for commercial advantages. She 
 wants these, without the burden of government and protection. She has 
 precisely the politico-commercial arrangement she wants, while we — happy 
 people — have the glory of a corporate — in exchange fora personal — king! 
 
 “ NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY ” NO BETTER. 
 
 The perverters gain nothing by saying; We mean national, instead of 
 governmental supremacy ; because no power or means was ever provided, 
 or contemplated, for its enforcement over states, by coercion of any kind ; 
 while«not only was such coercion intentionally kept out of the system, but 
 was severely reprobated, and most carefully guarded against, as will be 
 seen. The fathers strongly condemned this very idea of coercing states 
 whenever it was presented, especially in the convention of 17S7, as well as 
 in the several ratifying conventions, and carefully excluded it from the 
 constitution. Moreover, fearing its possible rise from implication, they 
 counselled and induced the states to adopt the IX., X., and XI. Amend- 
 ments, to forefend the danger. But this important matter will be distinctly 
 treated, for it involves absolute and independent proof of the sovereignty 
 of the states in the union, while as a crucial argument, testing, as it were, 
 previous ones, it will be found invincible. 
 
 Though the above theory of the expounders is testified to by a “cloud 
 of witnesses,” namely, all American politicians, yet any child — of larger 
 or smaller growth — will see, by looking thoughtfully at the above illustra- 
 tion, and what the four lines symbolise, that it is as impossible for govern- 
 ment to get above and control sovereignty as it is for Mr. Stephens to 
 carry himself, a girl baby to be its own mother, or a bottom-rail, ex proprio 
 vigore , to get on top. The simplest mind can readily see that it was, with 
 the fathers, an accepted principle, that the states are not subjects of 
 government, but are themselves the government — being republics or self- 
 governing peoples, acting through representatives, i. e. “substitutes an<j 
 
322 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 agents;” and that this was why they kept coercion of states out of 
 the constitution. And such mind, even with cursory reading, must see 
 that Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and all the rest of the fathers, 
 considered “ TnE people of the united states,” as organised, as the top 
 rail, (to repeat the striking figure ;) the constitution as the second ; 
 the government as the third ; and the people and their belongings, as 
 the bottom one; and must, therefore, despise the statement that “the gov- 
 ernment” has, in any. sense, or over anything whatever, “absolute suprem- 
 acy,” as was asserted by the Philadelphia convention of 18G6. Nay more, 
 such mind, will insist on “the expounders” proving the when and the how 
 of the change, from the admitted voluntariness of tne “uuiou of states,” 
 to the present alleged involuntariness thereof 1 
 
 “THE GOVERNMENT” CLAIMS TO BE PARAMOUNT. 
 
 To realise the enslavement of the states by the corporate despotism, read 
 the following from the Philadelphia convention’s address of 1866, in the 
 light ot Lincoln’s views, the legislation of the last decade; and the recent 
 dicta of the federal supreme court — to be presently quoted : “In two most 
 important particulars, the victory achieved by the national government 
 has been final and decisive. First, it has established beyond all further 
 controversy, and by the highest of all human sanctions, the absolute 
 supremacy of the national government, as defined, etc., and the permanent 
 integrity and indissolubility of the federal union,” etc. 
 
 Furthermore, not only have the congress and the President, without the 
 warrant of the constitution, or even of the amendments — old or new — 
 claimed supremacy over the states, single or united; but the federal supreme 
 court — the last hope of state defence — decides, that the government is “a 
 government of the states in tlmir political capacity” — “ is supreme and 
 above the states” to the extent of its powers — that extent, according to all 
 these perverters, to be determined finally by the government itself. [United 
 States vs. Cruikshank, 1876.] 
 
 TIIE PREAMBLE AND ARTICLE VII., 
 
 with the ellipses filled(according to fact, would be as follows: “We, the 
 people of the united states, [as socially organised, and capacitated to act, 
 each state exercising her sovereignty,] in order to form a more perfect 
 union [of such states, than the previous one,] establish justice, ensure 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 323 
 
 domestic tranquillity, provi !e for the common defence, promote the general 
 welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
 do ordain and establish this constitution for the [said] united states of 
 America.” Article YII is consonant. “The ratifications of the conven- 
 tions of nine [of the thirteen] states, shill be sufficient for the establish- 
 ment of this constitution, between the states so [i. c. by convention] 
 ratifying the same.” 
 
 SOCIETIES OF PEOPLE UNQUESTIONABLY RATIFY, 
 
 and thereby “ordain and establish” the constitution; and hence, before the 
 supreme sovereignty of the people, as commonwealths, the fasces must 
 always be lowered. It is as true as Heaven or Deity, that these states, of 
 their own volition, federalised themselves. It is equally true that, as the 
 states voluntarily bound themselves as united states, so bound must they 
 remain, if they be republics — free states — self-governing people. How is 
 it that, in 1788, these states were in the top grade of authority, when 
 1861 found them in the third? What words, figures or meanings of the 
 constitution were changed between the two epochs ? 
 
 EXPEIilMENTUM CRUCIS. . 
 
 The truth of the above collocation of grades can be strikingly and deci- 
 sively proved to the simplest mind by an experiment — a crucial one. Let 
 him trace the authority of a constable, or United States marshal, through 
 all the links up to the original source, keeping it in mind that at or before 
 the adoption of the state or the federal constitution, the people were never 
 organised except as states, and had no capacity whatever for political 
 action, except as such. The said state (i. e. the collective people) investi- 
 gates, reasons, judges and wills through a convention. This, by vote, 
 determines and speaks her will as an independent political unit. Thus a 
 convention adopted a federal constitution for a given state, and a conven- 
 tion adopted the state one. Hence the chain in the two cases will appear 
 pictorially as follows: 
 
324 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 To establish their respective state constitutions, the states acted sepa- 
 rately. To establish the federal one, they acted independently in power, 
 time and place, but conjoining their wills in the ordaining of it. The last 
 has no other life and power than that derived from the states. History } 
 by showing this, proves the system to be a federation of sovereignties. 
 
 If we, in the above mode, start from any federal institution or functionary, 
 and go up through the chain of actual and historical impartations of power 
 to the source of all authority, we shall inevitably reach the self-organised 
 and self-governing commonwealths of people. Look at that stupendous 
 enginery of power, the army and navy, for instance. They arc controlled 
 by their officers, and these by the commander-in-chief. Is he sovereign ? 
 No; he and they are alike under a law, hired, told what to do, and paid 
 wages. Is “the government” — the legislative part of which made the 
 ] aw — sovereign? No; the congress and president, as well as the judiciary ? 
 are provided for and authorised in the constitution, and are engaged, as 
 persons, for service, at stated wages, told what to do, and paid for their 
 work. Is it the constitution, then, that is sovereign ? No ; this is a fun- 
 damental law, ordained by conventions. Are (or were) these sovereigns ? 
 No; they were mere dclegative bodies, acting for the people, i. e. the states 
 — the said people being only organised and capacitated to act, as state . 
 As such, they exercised their wills upon a plan or system they had had 
 prepared, and ordained and established the same as their federal (or 
 league-al) constitution. Such wills existed and operated within them, and 
 survived the act of establishment, to watch the workings of the system, 
 and amend (according to the pact), or abolish, as might be deemed neces- 
 sary. Each, according to its nature, must act for itself. It cannot bind 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 325 
 
 itself not to act — cannot, indeed, relinquish the right of reversing its will, 
 and dissolving its self-imposed tie. 
 
 COMPLETE CORROBORATIONS. 
 
 Whenever the above test is applied, the states themselves will appear as 
 the real sovereignty and government of the country. They must be the 
 government , because they are republics, that is self-governing bodies of 
 people. And the federal pact entirely corroborates this view, by calling 
 the system “the united [t. e. associated] states, ”Jand the agency of it, “ the 
 government of [£. e. belonging to] the united states to say nothing of 
 the fact heretofore mentioned, that the convention of ’87 unanimously 
 declared that the government under the constitution was to be “ the united 
 states." [ supra 219.] 
 
 The government, then, is states — “the united states,” and the institution 
 at Washington necessarily an agency or joint-commission. The right of 
 this thing to be, and act, was “written by the mighty hand of the people,” 
 [federal supreme judge, Patterson,] and, if it swerve one hair from its 
 authorisations, the mighty foot of the people should crush it ! 
 
 Again, as above shown, the constitution and amendment X, prove that 
 there are no powers out of the people but delegated ones ; so that the 
 whole government must be acting with “powers,” not its own, but be- 
 longing to superior authority — i. e. the people — whether as a nation, or as 
 states.* 
 
 Again, the persons who compose “the government,” are members and 
 citizens of the separate states, who emerge from the people, to serve as 
 agents of the commonwealths, during a term, or good behavior, and then 
 are lost as drops in the sea. And it is these ephemera — “ insects of the 
 hour” — who claim absolute supremacy over, and the allegiance of, the very 
 commonwealths that breathed them into being ! It is these creatures that 
 claim the right to draw from their sovereigns and creators, the men and 
 
 * What is a “power?” In a procuration, a commission, a compact, a deed, a constitution, a will, 
 a lease, or any other instrument, it is an “authority, which enables one person to do an act for an- 
 other.” [See Burrill’s Law Die.; Sugden on Powers ; Kent’s Com.] The only valid acts, then, of “ the 
 government, consist in using the powers of, and acting for, the superior authority ii represents, i. e. 
 the people. 
 
 The first federal chief justice, John Jay, not only recognised that the delegations of power were 
 made by the state to the united states, and not to the government, but he declared that this joint" 
 agency received “that part of the people’s business ” entrusted to them, “ not for themselves , but as the 
 agents and overseers for the people." These are his very words. [See his address to the people of N. 
 Y n I Ell. Deb. 496.] 
 
326 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 means to subjuguate them with. It is they who claim the sovereign and 
 final right to decide the extent of their own powers, and the right, in cases 
 of necessity, of which they are to judge, to exercise all the powers outside 
 of the constitution. 
 
 A FIT SUMMING UP HEREOF, BY JAMES WILSON. 
 
 This government by the commonwealths, of their people, is our polity, 
 which the school have long tried to conceal. James Wilson, one of the 
 profoundest statesmen and jurists of the era of the constitution, presented 
 the grades I have indicated, as follows [II Ell. Dab. 432 :] “ To control 
 the power and conduct of the legislature, by an overruling constitution, 
 was an improvement in the science and practice of government, reserved 
 to the American states. Perhaps some politician, who has not considered 
 with sufficient accuracy our political systems, would answer, that in our 
 governments the supreme power was vested in the constitutions. This 
 opinion approaches a step nearer the truth, but does not reach it. The 
 supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As 
 our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior 
 to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much 
 greater, for the people possess, over our constitutions, control in act, as well 
 as light. 
 
 “The consequence is. that the people may change the constitutions when- 
 ever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive insti- 
 tution can ever deprive them. To the operation of these truths we are to 
 ascribe the scene, hitherto unparalleled, which America now exhibits to 
 the world — a gentle, a peaceful, a voluntary, and a deliberate transition 
 from one constitution of government to another. * * * Oft have I 
 
 marked with silent pleasure and admiration, the force and prevalence 
 through the united states, of the principle, that the supreme power resides 
 in the people, and that they never part with it.” 
 
 He referred alone to the people as commonwealths, and characterised 
 them as “ thirteen independent sovereignties,” in his great speech of 
 October 6th, 1787 — the first, most conspicuous, and most important speech 
 that was made in advocacy of the federal system, after its promulgation on 
 the 17th of the previous month. [See Am. Mus., Yol. I; Mass. Cent., 
 Oct. 24, 1787.] 
 
 We have presented to us, then, by this great constitutionist — and all the 
 
SOCIETIES ARE SOVEREIGN. 
 
 327 
 
 leading fathers were consistent with him— precisely the grades of authority 
 X have set iorth : 
 
 1. The people, as sovereign states; 
 
 2. Their federal constitution ; 
 
 3. The government provided for in it; 
 
 4. The people as subjects, and their belongings. 
 
CHAPTER Y. — Sovereignty one and indivisible. 
 
 c A-W HATEVER was done in establishing the constitution of gov- 
 ernment, must have been done by sovereignty. Of course I 
 ? speak of voluntary action, i. e. free exercise and effectuation 
 
 of will. So that if any sovereignty was put in the federal pact, sovereignty 
 must, ex mero motu, have divided itself. It must have exerted its will, 
 whether it intended to divide itself, or delegate powers. When this will 
 was exerted, the constitution was made and established, and the said will 
 necessarily existed through the act. We know, then, that it was not sove- 
 reignty, but something else that was put, by sovereignty, in the federal pact. 
 The instrument itself says it was “powers,” and that they were “ delegated.” 
 “ Powers,” then, were transferred, while the will that did it remained 
 untransferred, in the moral person or persons that acted. We know it did 
 thus remain, for it was exercised by each state on the proposed amend- 
 ments, several years afterwards. Here, then, we have absolute proof that 
 there is wo sovereignty in the constitution ; and that sovereignty is out oj 
 it , and in the states who ratified and ordained it. 
 
 IMAGINE KAISER WILLIAM’S AUTHORITY DIVIDED. 
 
 According to philosophy and common-sense, the essential idea of the 
 superlative word “sovereignty,” is of a will that rules over everything in 
 its territory ; and this will presupposes all the other attributes of a perfect 
 mental unity, through which those conclusions of judgment shall be made, 
 and those determinations of will reached, which are indispensable in gov- 
 ernment. Through just such a mental unity, William of Prussia com- 
 mands every person and thing in his kingdom. His right of command 
 must be a unity ; and to think of what can be maintained in defiance of 
 his will, in his own realm, is to think of what does not divide, but destroys 
 sovereignty; for even if the cap of Gesler can be kept in the market-place, 
 as an emblem, against his will, he is not sovereign, for an opposing will 
 
SOVEREIGN TT ON® AND INDIVISIBLE. 329 
 
 has risen above his own, with all infinitude to expand in. for domination! 
 over what is beneath. The sovereign entity, i. e. the mind or soul having 
 the right of command, is the same (with its perception, reason, judgment, 
 and will) in an aristocracy, and a republic, as in a monarchy. 
 
 WHAT SAT THE PUBLICISTS? 
 
 As they all agree, one or two quotations from those of the highest repute 
 will suffice. Yattel says [Book I, § 65]: “Every sovereignty, properly so 
 called, is, in its own nature, one and indivisible.” Lieber in his civil liberty 
 and self-government, [chap, xiv] says : “ What, in a philosophical sense, 
 can truly be called sovereignty, can never be divided.” In his Political 
 Ethics [§ 63] he says : “ Society can never delegate or pledge away sove- 
 reignty ;” and that “ being inherent naturally and necessarily in the state, 
 it can never pass away from it, so long as the latter exists.” See also 
 Montesquieu, Locke, Puffendorf, Burlamaqui, Rutherforth, Rousseau and 
 others. 
 
 Enough is now said and quoted, to exhibit the mental unity, the moral 
 person, whichjdwells in one of our societies or states as its soul — this being 
 sovereign, and acting so continually, through the mental organism and 
 faculties already brought to view. 
 
 Any thinking man can see that sovereignty’s exercise of its right of 
 government is functional, "and involves no change of itself, in place, nature, 
 or right, much less does it divide and conquer itself — committing felo de 
 se. The British sovereignty — the Queen and Parliament — remains at 
 home, in its institutional body, while its governmental agents, and agencies, 
 go all over the world, bearing and executing “powers.” Sovereignty is 
 ever with and in the Czar of Russia, while his agents, with “ powers,” 
 govern throughout the empire. That of Prussia went to oversee the 
 pounding of France with Thor’s hammer. But though its presence may 
 have increased directing intellect and moral force, it made the shot and 
 steel no more deadly. While one set of sovereignty’s agents were using 
 its “powers,” to kill and conquer abroad; another set were using its 
 “ powers ” to govern at home. Of course, republican sovereignty must 
 act in the same way, through “powers,” given to agents, to be executed by 
 them. Said Chancellor Pendleton: “The people are the fountain of all 
 power. They must, however, delegate it to agents , because * * they 
 
 cannot exercise it in person.” [Ill Ell. Deb. 298.] 
 
330 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 RIGHTS AND POWERS ARE NOT SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 All difficulties would disappear from this subject, if we would discard 
 the idea that sovereignty is composed of, or can be divided into, rights and 
 .powers. 
 
 The general notion of the expounders seems to be, that sovereignty is 
 the sum of all rights and powers — “the embodiment of all powers,” to use 
 Mr. A. II. Stephens’ expression. They, (and he too, unfortunately,) con- 
 found it with the powers which, by delegation and in writing, it entrusts 
 to the governmental agency it creates. They admit the transfer to be by 
 delegation, but say this is a ceding of a part of sovereignty, and irrevocable. 
 Witness the absurdity. The people cannot govern directly: they can do 
 it only by and through this very process of delegation. Now supposing 
 all their governing powers, federal or state, to be in exercise, the result of 
 such theory would be as follows: If they put one-th rd of them in the 
 federal constitution, one-third of their governing power is “ irrevocably ” 
 gone. The residue of two-thirds being vested in the state governments, 
 by precisely the same process, through state conventions, the people have 
 abdicated all of sovereignty; put an end to the republican form of govern- 
 ment, (which can only exist where they have the sovereignty, and govern 
 absolutely at all times and in all things,) and reduced themselves to alle- 
 giant subjects of agenexs, which they themselves created and empowered 
 — the federal one being paramount, imperial! 
 
 The effectuation of this theory, then, is the annihilation of sovereignty. 
 This is the reductio ad ahsurdum ; for sovereignty, whether it is that of a 
 nation, or of states, must always be supreme over every person and thing; 
 and, as long as the republic lasts, it must rema’n in the people as organised, 
 they choosing to politically exist as states, and to govern themselves as 
 such — separately as to domestic affairs, and conjomtly in general and com- 
 mon ones. This is the view of all the fathers. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT QUA LIFI ABLE OR LIMITABLE. 
 
 The dogma that the states have sovereignty, except so far as they have 
 ceded it, it not intended as a deception, is a gross and deplorable blunder; 
 and the following expressions, to be found in the speeches and writings of 
 all American politic. ans of note, are both amazing and amusing for th A ir 
 solecistie absurdity : “ Divided sovereignty,” “ delegated sovereignty,” 
 “qualified sovereignty,” “limited sovereignty,” “representative soveivign- 
 
sovereignty one and indivisible. 331 
 
 ty ” “ fcdcial sovereignty,” “ sovereign powers vested in the government,” 
 “ surrendering essential parts of sovereignty,” “ dividing sovereignty be- 
 tween the federal and state governments,” “ the states are sovereign, except 
 so far as they have de'egated specific sovereign powers,” [Webster] “each 
 state is absolutely sovereign, except as to the limited supreme sovereignty 
 conferred up n the national government” [Story]; and so on, through an 
 immense number and variety of expressions, all absurdly coupling sove- 
 reignty with some qualifying word or phrase, or treating of it as susceptible 
 of infinite division, in contempt of the great philologists of the age, who 
 all unite in considering the toord superlative in signification, and the entity 
 referred to, as indivisible and inalienable. [See also the opinions of Judges 
 Taney and McLean, 5 How. 588; 2L JIow. 516.] 
 
 We shall soon see that sovereignty is indivisible, and is not composed of, 
 or identical with, rights or powers. Society’s sovereignty must be its 
 supreme will over, and, so to speak, ownership of ail persons and things 
 that are put therein. Like ownership, it involves the right of control and 
 command, as well as — to a certain extent — the jus disponendi. Will must 
 be exercised, and must have its mental adjuncts — perception, reason, and 
 judgment. Can this mental unity be disintegrated, so that a part of the 
 faculties can be alienated, and the rest retained? Can the subject persons 
 and things be partitioned, so that some can be under one supreme will, and 
 some under another? Can a citizen yield his obedience to more than one 
 ultimate authority? Common-sense answers these questions negatively 
 Two sovereigns cannot have the same subject. No man can serve two 
 masters. But one paramount authority can exist in any country. In a 
 republic, this must reside in the state. It does so in the united states. 
 New York, Texas, or Illinois, is, ol right, as absolute as King Wiliiam, or 
 the Grand Turk. 
 
 ONLY ONE SOVEREINGTY OVER ALL PERSONS AND THINGS. 
 
 To illustrate this, let us first draw a line from A. to B., to represent the 
 domain on which sovereignty is to act: let C. represent the national gov- 
 ernment, and D. the state one. Assuming each to have sovereignty over 
 the same territory, as the following figure indicates ; inasmuch as they are 
 human, A. to B. must be a debateable ground — must comprise many 
 points of controversy — and must, finally, become “a field of blood.” 
 
332 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED 
 
 STATES. 
 
 C D 
 
 Our fathers wore guilty of no such folly. They always considered the 
 people, and not the governments, as sovereign. They, like Daniel Webster, 
 said: “ Sovereignty in government, is unknown in North America.” Hence 
 the diagram is reproduced and extended as follows, E representing the 
 people i. e. the sovereignty — the source of all government, and C. and D. 
 its governing agencies. 
 
 E 
 
 Between the two governments, there can be no conflict that requires the 
 ultima ratio, to settle the question of sovereignty, lor they are both sub- 
 o rdinate agents of the people, who themselves have the jura summi imperii , 
 [Blackstone,] in their respective political organizations. Each is employed 
 and paid to exercise its agency over the whole state, just as two servants 
 might be set at work in the same field; and the said sovereignty can, as to 
 both agencies, assign duties, control and prevent conflicts. This was the 
 view of the fathers. For example, Madison said — no one dissenting — -that 
 “ the federal and state governments, are, in fact, but different agents and 
 trustees of the people, instituted with different powers,” [Fed. 46] — the 
 said people “ composing thirteen independent sovereignties,” and making 
 
SOVEREIGN TY ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
 
 333 
 
 the constitution in such sovereign capacities. [39 and 40 Fed ; III Ell. 
 Deb. 94.] Chancellor Pendleton, in the Virginia convention explained in 
 the same way: so did Chancellor Livingston and Alexander Hamilton, in 
 New York. ’[Supra 99, 100, 117.] Both constitutions of government 
 were considered parts of the fundamental law of a commonwealth, and the 
 two were characterised as “a great political machine.” 
 
 Sovereignty then cannot divide itself. Nothing can be excepted from 
 its jurisdiction. And, especially, it cannot become subject to the coercive 
 authority of its own delegations ; and it is only enemies or pcrverters that 
 could pretend that the commonwealths, called the united states, have 
 become so subject. If sovereignty can be divided, it can be done in an 
 aristocracy or a monarchy, as well as a republic, for, in each and every case 
 it dwells in a unity, or “ moral person.” The king is the state; the queen 
 and parliament are the state ; the aristocracy is the state ; and the republic 
 is the state. In each there must be a will, a sovereign one, or there is no 
 state. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY’S DELEGATIONS. 
 
 It is obvious that the rulers in our system must be. “ substitutes and 
 agents ” of the people, as all the fathers, and all the people, in their con- 
 stitutions, and bills of rights declared them to be. 
 
 Massachusetts said, in her first constitution, as she has done in all of 
 them since: “All power residing originally in the people, and being derived 
 from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with 
 authority, whether legislative, executive or judicial, are their substitutes 
 and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.” 
 
 These “ substitutes and agents,” being and acting in a representative 
 capacity, must, in all their legitimate actions, as such, have used “powers,” 
 not their own, but belonging to those, whose “ substitutes and agents” they 
 were, and whose members, citizens, and subjects they must have been — 
 that is to say, the commonwealths. 
 
 Remembering, then, that the commonwealth, i. e. the people-government, 
 aimed to govern itself in the most methodical, and the safest way, let us 
 suppose that she, by virtue of that sovereignty which all the states agreed 
 that each possessed, [First Fed. Const., Art. II,] and with a view to rule 
 through her agents, had .caused her powers to be carefully prepared, in 
 written form, by her ablest jurisconsults, and labelled, numbered, and 
 
334 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 pigeon-holed. The following diagram will present the conception. When 
 the process of constituting government, and endowing it with trusted 
 powers, begins, the repository, or treasury, is full, and contains 120 formu- 
 lated “ powers.” 
 
 Now suppose the commonwealth, which thus chooses, to have a treasury 
 of prepared powers, which she may as easily have, as a coffer for her money, 
 or a strong-box for her titles, puts in her state government 67 powers ; 23 
 in the agency of herself and sisters for federal government ; and retains 
 the rest — prohibiting the use of all powers not thus entrusted, and exacting 
 an oath of every official to USE and NOT TO USE “ powers,” just as the 
 said organic law requires. Keep it in mind that every official is a member, 
 a subject, and a chosen agent, of a commonwealth. And every delegated 
 power is an entity , and a trusted delegation of a commonwealth. 
 
 The “powers” numbered 1 to 67 inclusive, are trusted to the state gov- 
 ernmental agency, thus really forming the state constitution ; and those 
 numbered 68 to 90 inclusive are trusted to the united states, to he adminis- 
 tered by their agency ; the rest remain in the repository, as indicated by 
 the little figure in each pigeon-hole from 90 to 120 inclusive. [Sec illus- 
 tration on opposite page.] 
 
 THE FOLLOWING COROLLARIES 
 are so plain that he that runs may read : 
 
 1. “Reserved” or “retained” [see fed. const., amendments 9 and 10,] 
 necessarily means Icept out of the constitution and in the repository. Hence 
 the absurdity of state rights and powers, not delegated, being reserved in the 
 federal pact, and of “state-sovereignty being effectually controlled” thereby 
 
 2. As the same mind creates both agencies, and delegates both sets of 
 powers, conflicts of jurisdiction should seldom occur. 
 
 3. If a ruler take a prohibited power from a state’s repository, it seems 
 — like theft or burglary — a crime ! 
 
 4. Moreover, the use by rulers, of reserved powers, is perjured usur- 
 pation ! 
 
 5. The status of the commonwealth is not changed by the federal pact, 
 and she has all the authority she ever had — the only powers out of her 
 being temporary delegations or trusts. 
 
 6. President Lincoln, misled by Story, Webster and Jackson, was 
 grossly in error in thinking states like counties, with only such status and 
 rights as are “ reserved ” to them, by the federal constitution. 
 

 
SOVEREIGNTY ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
 
 335 
 
 7. President Jackson was mistaken in thinking that the mere delega- 
 tion of powers to trustees and agents by a commonwealth, was a transfer of 
 citizenship, and consequently a dissolution of the state ; for the citizens are 
 the state, and the state is the citizens. 
 
 The investigating and thoughtful reader will find entire support to the 
 above illustration in the following authorities: 
 
 Amendment 5. of the constitution decla. ea that “ all powers not delega- 
 ted to the united states ” * * are reserved, etc. — showing, 1st. That 
 
 no powers but delegated ones are in the instrument. 2nd. That the only 
 delegator must be the then sovereign state that was to ratify, and thereby 
 establish. 3d. That there was no delegatee but the united states, and that 
 hence the acting government is an agency. 
 
 Next read the unanimous letter of the convention to congress, character- 
 ising the whole federal instrument as “ the delegating of an extensive 
 TRUST.” 
 
 Next read Chancellor Pendleton, svpra 117 ; III Ell. Deb. 298, 299^ 
 301 — the last especially; also Madison, Federalist 39, 40, 46, and Marshall, 
 III Elliott’s Debates, 227, 233. 
 
 Next read Gov. Bowdoin and Theophilus Parsons, supra 89. 
 
 And finally, look at the statements of the three greatest of New York's 
 sons, in the light of the following, which she has declared and redeclared 
 from 1776 to this day, and which every true son of New York will defend, 
 and ought to defend, to the death : “ No authority can, on any pretence 
 whatsoever, he exercised over the citizens of this state, hut such as is, or 
 shall he, derived from , or granted by, the people of this state. [Const. N. 
 Y. Art. I. § 1.] 
 
 Read Chancellor Livingston, supra 99 ; Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 
 85, and II Elliott’s Debates, 353 et seq; and John Jay, supra 98. 
 
 The sure conclusion of every line of honest and logical thought, is, as 
 John Jay expresses it, that the government receives “ the part of the peo- 
 ples’ business, entrusted to them, not for themselves, but as the agents and 
 overseers of the people’’ — the true idea being that the individual sovereign 
 states delegated all the powers granted, to themselves, as associate sov ere 'g n 
 states — the latter necessarily administering them through an agency or joint 
 commission of their subjects, chosen by themselves respectively. 
 
 Sovereignty owns all the “ powers ” of government ; it governs through 
 
336 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 mind and by will ; it delegates its powers in trust, and for its own use, to 
 its chosen subjects and agents. 
 
 The powers it does ' not delegate, it keeps back ; and it is a crime for 
 agents and servants to take and use them. 
 
CHAPTER VI. — Erroneous views op sovereignty. 
 
 JjjL FTER careful reading of the constitution, in the light of history, 
 sur P r * se readin S Story, and the paraphrases of him by 
 7 Lincoln, in 18G1, by the Philadelphia convention, in 1866, 
 and by the federal supreme court more recently ; is only equalled by the 
 pain of seeing their general promulgation, vast following, and ruinous con- 
 sequences. The confiding masses readily yield assent to misstatements and 
 untruths, if leading men — great or small — constantly string them on a 
 plausible thread of sophistry; while those whose duty it is to find and 
 proclaim the truth, seem to stand in criminal silence, or abject discourage- 
 ment, forgetting the eternally salutary rule, of telling the truth, and doing 
 justice, and leaving results to God. 
 
 It seems absurd to meet by analysis and argument many of the dogmas 
 of consolidation, that really must be examined, and tested by truth, under 
 the very eye of the people, so that falsehood and sophistry, as well as their 
 advocates, can be put under the ban of public hatred and scorn. 
 
 THE TEACHING THAT THE STATES ARE MERE COUNTIES, 
 
 runs about as follows : “We, the people ” as a nation made the constitution. 
 It is “ the supreme law of the land,” and it “reserves to the states, or to 
 the people,” all “powers not delegated to the united states.” Hence, the 
 states have no status or rights, except what the nation has “reserved to 
 them,” in its supreme law. Judge Story puls it as fellows: “There is a 
 limited supreme sovereignty conferred upon the national government by 
 the constitution of the united states.” [Bills of Exchange § 23.] The 
 Philadelphia convention’s claim that u the government ” holds the states 
 under allegiance , and the federal supreme court’s dictum , that the said 
 government “ is supreme and above the states," have been heretofore stated. 
 The complement of all this treason is, that the right of deciding finally on 
 all disputed jurisdictions, belongs to the said government — this, of course, 
 
338 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 sealing the subjection of state authority and existence, [supra, 175.] 
 
 Amazing as this may seem, there are thousands of so-called republicans, 
 and so-called democrats, who actually have minds — shave beards — talk- 
 politics, and assume to lead, who stand upon the false doctrine, and say 
 they are “state-rights men ” — poor dupes! 
 
 DEFENCES CHANGED TO MEANS OF ATTACK. 
 
 The above is really the most pernicious expounding we have, because it 
 bears a semblance to fair exposition, and deludes the people into the idea, 
 that their beloved commonwealths are impregnably fortified by the consti- 
 tution, while, in reality, that constitution, with its forces, is perverted into 
 an engine of destruction, that will grind them to powder. To use the 
 figure of Fisher Ames, the states are on “ the naked beach ; and the union 
 is the dyke to fence out the flood.” As long as it is admitted that the 
 states are the makers, owners, and controllers of the dyke, it is all right ; 
 but the prevailing idea is, that a superior power, with their safety in charge, 
 dyked them in, and can, by construction , increase that dyke to the walls of 
 an impregnable fortress, and can, at will, and on the pica of necessity, turn 
 its guns inward upon the states ! Offence aud defence are relative, and 
 walls can be used for protection, or restraint! History is full of instances 
 of citadels becoming prisons to the owners ; — useful machines proving to 
 be traps, and “ engineers hoist with their own petards. ” At all events, 
 the people, under this treason, are losing liberty ! 
 
 ••THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN, EXCEPT,’’ ETC. 
 
 Let us now proceed to expose the flagrant error (or blunder) of the 
 “ expounders,” on this subject. Judge Story, in his Bills of Exchange , 
 § 23, thus sets it forth : “ Each state is absolutely sovereign in its political 
 organisation and government and dominion, saving and excepting only so 
 far as there is a limited supreme sovereignty conferred upon the national 
 government, by the constitution of the united states.” 
 
 Webster, in a letter to Baring Brothers & Co., October 16, 1839, said • 
 “ Every state is an independent sovereign political community, except in 
 so far as certain powers, which it might otherwise have exercised, have 
 been conferred on a general government, established under a written con- 
 stitution.” 
 
 Hon. A. H. Stephens, in his War between the Stales, vol. i, p. 403, 
 
ERRONEOUS VIEWS OP SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 339 
 
 claims that Mr. Webster in the above, and in his argument in the “ Bank 
 of Augusta vs. Earle,” (13 Peters, 599), fully admits that “the states are 
 sovereign, except in so far as they have delegated specific sovereign powers.” 
 It is difficult to see how this so-called admission helps Mr. Stephens’ argu- 
 ment, or proves a change in Mr. Webster’s views between 1833 and 1839. 
 I fancy Mr. Webster might cogently, if not conclusively, reply as follows : 
 “ You state my admission correctly. I made it in ’33 as well as ’39 ; and 
 on the former occasion I added, as on the latter I implied, that so far as 
 those ‘specific sovereign powers’ go, ‘so far state sovereignty is effectually 
 controlled.’ By claiming my admission of your statement, you admit 
 mine. We agree, then, that as to the ‘specific sovereign powers’ the 
 states are not sovereign, and that hence ‘so far state sovereignty is effec- 
 tually controlled.’ ” Should not Mr. Stephens to escape, change his base, 
 and say he did not mean sovereign powers? In truth-, there are no such 
 in the constitution — all being subordinate. However, all the writers of 
 the Massachusetts school state the doctrine exactly as Mr. Stephens, (incon- 
 sistently with his theory) seems to admit the same. 
 
 I will present here two more expressions, because of their representative 
 character, and because they show that as to constitutional views, there is 
 little or no difference between the great parties of the day. George H. 
 Pendleton said in a speech at Bangor, Maine, in 1868 : “ The men of 1787, 
 * * committed to the federal government ir.ter-state and international 
 
 affairs. All the rest they reserved to the states themselves. Within this 
 narrow sphere they made the federal government supreme. All beyond 
 remained to the unimpaired sovereignly of the several states.” -Further 
 along, he calls our system “ a union of states , * * sovereign, except in 
 
 so far as they have delegated the exercise of some powers,” etc. Is there 
 any difference between Mr. Pendleton’s statement, and that of Mr. Stephens? 
 And the New York World agrees with its neighbors, the Tribune and the 
 Times, on this point. Its expression is that the states are u not sovereign 
 except as to their reserved rights.” By “ reserved rights” it means such as 
 are reserved to the states in the general constitution. 
 
 Do not these expounders all stand upon Lincoln’s dogma, that the states 
 of the union are but counties or municipal divisions of a great nation, with 
 no rights at all except what the said constitution reserves to them ; or 
 Webster’s equivalent, that “ the nation” “ ordained" “the constitution,” 
 “and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their 
 
340 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 general government, and their several state governments?” Obviously, the 
 only respect in which Webster et als differ from Linco’n, is that this 
 “expounder” blurts it out that states are counties, while those merely 
 imply — but as certainly mean — the same. Indeed, one of the ablest writers 
 of this school said in the North British Review, for January, 1870, that 
 “the history of state tovereignty ends, and the history of state rights 
 begins, at the federal convention of 1787,” — meaning by state rights those 
 provided for and guaranteed in the federal constitution.* Practically “the 
 school ” seem to teach, or believe, that the states have no status or rights 
 whatever, independently of the general constitution; and this is, logically, 
 Webster’s view of 1833. It should seem inexpressibly absurd to say, that 
 rights and powers “retained,” or “reserved,” [see Amendments IX and 
 X] were not kept out of the constitution, and in the pre-existent states, 
 that ratified, and thereby ordained and established it. “ Well-known words 
 must be taken in their well-known sense,” says Webster. 
 
 As this weak and fallacious dogma is the corner-stone — nay the whole 
 foundation of the expounding “school,” the reader may wish to see it in its 
 most respectable dresses. Let him look, then, at Brownson’s American 
 Republic , Draper’s Civil War, Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations , Gree- 
 ley’s American Conflict, Jameson’s Constitutional Convention , Lunt’s 
 Origin of the War, Parker’s Harvard Lectures of 1865-6, etc., etc. 
 
 DELEGATING IS IRREVOCABLY GRANTING. 
 
 With amusing naivete, Mr. George T. Curtis, while declining, in a recent 
 controversy with Mr. A. H. Stephens, to defend Mr. Webster’s views on 
 “political sovereignty,” sets them forth as follows: “When the states rati- 
 fied the constitution, they parted with a part of their sovereignty , and yet 
 remained states. * * The sovereign powers of a people are divisible, 
 
 so that a portion can be granted irrevocably, and a pare retained.” [See 
 his letter in N. Y. World, August 23, 1869. See also the World of June 
 
 * This writer like many — yes, thousands, argued ably on a subject he did not understand — not 
 knowing the facts. Another of his expressions is the following: “The united states conslitution 
 etarted into life, with a lull recognition of state sovereignty in the senate, a d of national sove- 
 reignty in the house of representatives; and the problem how to harmonize the two, was the legacy 
 of the federal convention to the American people.” 
 
 Such legacy was never thought of, much less left. The commonwealths of people were to govern 
 themselves, jointly and severally. Having the right to do so from God, they had sovereignty in 
 them. “It never leaves them.” [Wilson.] The senators and representatives of a state, were the 
 delegation of that state. All those delegations made the congress of the states, which are the 
 sovereignty as to general affairs — a joint-sovereiguty of commonwealths. 
 
ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY.. 
 
 341 
 
 3, 1868.] The reader will please notice here that the “sovereign powers” 
 to be parted with, or reserved, are treated of as identical with “ sovereignty.” 
 
 The above expression may be taken as the views of Dane, Story, Webster, 
 Curtis, Gr. H. Pendleton, and in short of the whole Massachusetts school. 
 They admit, strange to say, that the states as sovereign political communi- 
 ties, ratified and established the constiiution ; but they audaciously assert 
 (and in doing so, violate truth and common-sense) that the said states 
 thereby excepted out of their sovereignty, a national sovereignty which 
 effectually controls them. Audaciously, I say, for the very constitution 
 itself with its “ plain tale juts them down.” * What they falsely and sophist- 
 ically call exc- p ions out of sovereignty, are expressly characterised by the 
 constitution itself, as delegated powers. And it contains no powers but 
 delegated ones ; these, as the phrase solely means, being confided to agents 
 or representatives for the use and behoof of the delegators or sovereigns. 
 
 ARGUING FROM FALSE WORDS. 
 
 As the constitution contains, and contemplates, no other “powers” than 
 those “ delegated,” these must necessarily be used by agents or trustees, i. 
 e. persons who act for the supreme authority that the said poweis belong 
 to. So when the Danes, Storys, Websters, Jacksons, Curtises, Parkers, 
 Brownsons, Drapers, Pendletons, Lincolns, Jamesons, Greeleys, Johnsons, 
 and others, talk and write ot “ ceding,” “ transferring,” “ parting with ” 
 “relinquishing,” “surrendering” — all in the sense of alienating — sove- 
 reignty, and say it is done “ irrevocably, ” while they suppress the real 
 constitutional language, which bears a totally different meaning, they only 
 escape the imputation of ignorance, by incurring a worse one ; and those 
 ot them, officially sworn to support and preserve the constitution, must, if 
 they escape the former alternative, meet the additional charge of perjury. 
 
 It is certain that neither the constitution, nor the sacred teachings of 
 the fathers, contain any warrant for such a doct line as the states committing 
 suicide, or as their contemplating any other sovereignty to amend the con- 
 stitution, than that which established it, namely, their own. Hence the 
 immortal Washington wrote, “ by unanimous order of the convention,” 
 that making the constitution was the '■'■delegating" of an “extensive trust” 
 —this agreeing strictly with the instrument itself, which expressly and 
 exc usivcly, provides for “ powers delegated,” and for none whatever that 
 are '•'■granted IRREVOCABLY.” And hundreds of pages Irom the fathers 
 
"42 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 could be here quoted, to show the falsity of the idea that sovereignty was 
 transferred at all — let alone “ irrevocably,” — but not a line in its favor. Nay 
 more, I will venture to say, that as no man can believe an obvious untruth, 
 the great mind of Webster never believed, and Mr. Curtis does not now 
 believe, that the sovereignty of the people is “ divisible, so that a portion 
 can be granted irrevocably, and a part be retained.” 
 
 Is not this particular expounding now degraded to the rank of a mis- 
 statement, and made to appear so absurd, that any mere sophist, upon being 
 convicted of it, would rather say: “I aimed to cheat with it,” than “I 
 believed it.” ? 
 
 THE FATHERS NEVER HELD SUCH DOGMAS, 
 
 though they sometimes used the word sovereignty in the sense of govern- 
 ment, rather than the right of government. But they nowhere say or 
 hint that the states, as political bodies, are “sovereign, except so far” as 
 they are not sovereign — this being precisely the idea of all these modern 
 expounders. In those days of political experiment, the fathers were to be 
 excused for misnomers, for the subject was new to them, and all their polit- 
 ical ideas and language came from European sources, where sovereignty is 
 held of original right, and wielded by, the visible government, this being 
 monarchical; while in the united states, the government has no original 
 rights and powers whatever, and the sovereignty dwells down in the people 
 always, and is only manifested through “ substitutes and agents.” More- 
 over, the powers of making war, peace, treaties, coinage, and of taxing, 
 etc., were commonly called “ sovereign powers ; ” and the fathers, to be 
 intelligible, spoke to the people in common parlance, not dreaming that 
 their language would make confusion of ideas, and furnish pretexts for 
 fraudulent exposition in the future. At all events, they nowhere hint the 
 idea of Webster, that “ so far as the delegated powers in the constitution 
 go, so iar state sovereignty is effectually controlled.” 
 
 POLITICIANS, LIKE SHEEP, FOLLOW A BELL. 
 
 It is doubtful if any man ever lived, who was capacitated to entertain 
 the idea of a sovereignty delegating a sovereignty, which could rightfully 
 coerce the sovereignty that did the delegating — at least until office-seeking 
 came to be a profession, and facts, falsehoods, sound arguments, sophistries, 
 and frauds, equal cards in all political games. Politicians adopt and follow 
 
ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY. 343 
 
 the doctrines of leaders and conventions, as thoughtlessly as sheep follow 
 bell-wethers. They all start from Story and Webster’s dogmas, as from pos- 
 tulates or premises. If they delve at all in the mine of constitutional 
 history, they pass by a thousand proofs of the falsehood of those dogmas, 
 to cull a few seeming evidences of their correctness. They dare not bring 
 out the truth, for although it may “ run and be glorified,” it runs slowly, 
 and they cannot go into the next generation, to run for office on it. Would 
 Seymour have received a vote in the convention of 18G8, if he had ex- 
 pressed the views of Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison? 
 Would George H. Pendleton be thought of for the presidency, if his was 
 the faith of the fathers (for instance, the ideas of Chancellor Pendleton in 
 the Virgin’a ratifying convention) instead of the Massachusetts school? 
 The modern Pendleton thinks the powers delegated by the states, can be 
 used by the subjects of the states, to coerce these bodies into obedience to 
 the said powers. And, mirabile dictu ! Hon. A. H. Stephens “ leaves his 
 own to stand on foreign ground,” and strays into the flock. Let us see. 
 Of course he concedes that all the powers of the federal constitution are 
 to be enforced. Then the “ specific sovereign powers ” he speaks of, are to 
 be enforced “ over the authority delegating ” them, so long as they “ are 
 unresumed .” Hence, Mr. Stephens’ own words assert a coercive power in 
 the federal pact over the states. The theory of his book, however, is, or 
 seems to be, the one unanimously held by the fathers, to-wit : that the 
 states were to associate, and conjointly act, in general government, with 
 entire voluntariness, and that this inconsistent and mischievous war-power 
 of coercing states was to be carefully excluded. 
 
 HON. A. H. STEPHENS AND OTHERS ON SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 Mr. Stephens, in his War between the States, expresses 6ome views utterly 
 inconsistent with his general theory. I purpose now to notice these, some- 
 what, together with kindred views of other most eminent conservative 
 politicians. In his War between the States, [Yol. I, pp. 488-9], he says 
 that “sovereignty is the highest and greatest of all political powers; that 
 it is the source , as well as the embodiment of all powers that it is suscep- 
 tible of partition and transfer; that “if sovereignty is not parted with, by 
 the states, in express terms, * * it is still retained and reserved to the 
 
 people of the several states, in that mass of residuary rights, which was 
 expressly reserved in the constitution itself and finally, that it was “ not 
 
344 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 expressly reserved in the constitution at first,” but was “soon after” 
 “expressly reserved” in the Tenth Amendment. 
 
 This all means that sovereignty, which must be the peculiar and essen- 
 tial characteristic of a state — the very oue that causes it to differ from a 
 country or a province, which consists of the right of command over every- 
 thing, and which was supposed to be above all rights and powers, and to 
 have the absolute disposal of them — is divisible, and subject to grant or 
 reservation ; and that — though it might have been parted with — it is 
 actually reserved to the states in the Tenth Amendment of the federal 
 constitution — this being the sole source of, and their only title to, their 
 sovereignty ! Moreover, he calls these alleged fractions cf sovereignty, 
 “ specific sovereign powers. ’ All this resembles the doctrines of Dane, 
 Story, Webster, Curtis, G. H. Pendleton, and the New York World ; but 
 not those of A. H. Stephens. 
 
 The former could say to Mr. S. : “As you assert, the sovereignty of the 
 states ‘ was not expressly reserved in the constitution at first,’ but was 
 afterwards ‘ expressly reserved ’ in the Tenth Amendment. Did not the 
 constitution thenceforward provide the practical means of preserving that 
 sovereignty? Did not the guaranty of a republican form of government 
 [Art. IV, § 4,] and the amendment in question, aided by other clauses, 
 empower and charge the government, to see that the states are protected in 
 their rights as reserved — including this right of sovereignty? As sove- 
 reignty is thus placed in and under the constitution — as you admit — it must 
 consist with the ‘ specific sovereign powers ’ which you say are granted in 
 the other parts of the instrument. Do you not, therefore, admit that Mr. 
 Webster is right in his dictum , that ‘so far as the constitution goes, so far 
 state sovereignty is effectually controlled’ ?” 
 
 Does not Mr. S., then, seem entangled in the meshes of his own logic, 
 so that his only escape is to admit that the constitution does not involve 
 state, or any other, sovereignty ; but that the pact — including the govern- 
 ment it provides for — remains, as a created instrumentality, beneath, and 
 subject to, the authority of the states which established it, as the terms of 
 their association? This indeed seems to be the general theory of his 
 book. * 
 
 * In order not to do Mr. Stephens injustice, I here quote him at considerable length 
 
 * * One of the main objects in forming the compact, as before stated, and as clearly appears 
 from the instrument itself, was to preserve and perpetuate separate state existence. The guaranty 
 to this effect, from the very words used, implies their sovereignty. There can be no such thing as a 
 
ERRONEOUS VIEWS OP SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 345 
 
 SOVEREIGN AMERICAN CITIZENS. 
 
 Our politicians affect fanciful, attractive, and startling ideas, especially 
 such as flatter the people. Every citizen is a sovereign. Often the idea 
 
 perfect state without sovereignty. It certainly is not parted with by any express terms in that 
 instrument. If it be surrendered thereby, it must be by implication only. 
 
 He shows that this cannot be, and proceeds : — 
 
 For sovereignty is the highest and greatest of all political powers. It is itself the source as well as 
 embodiment o’f all political powers, both great and small. All proceed and emanate from it. All the 
 great powers, specifically anil expressly delegated in the constitution, such as the power to declare 
 war aud make peace, to raise and support armies, to tax and lay excise duties, etc., are themselves 
 but the incidents of sovereignty. If this great embodiment of all powers was parted with, why were 
 any minor specifications made ? Why any enumeration ? Was not such specification or enumeration 
 both useless and absurd ? 
 
 All the imp ications are thb other way. The Dare fact that all the powers parted with by the states 
 were delegated only, as all admit, necessarily implies that the greater power delegating, still continued 
 to exist. 
 
 If, then, this ultimate absolute sovereignty did reside with the several states separately, as without 
 question it did, up to the formation of the constitution; and if in the constitution, sovereignty is 
 not parted with by the states, in express terms; if, as Mr. Webster said in 1839, there is not a word 
 about sovereignty in it, and if, further, this greatest of all political powers cannot justly be claimed as 
 an incident to lesser ones, and thereby carried by implication, then, of course, was it not most clearly 
 still retained and reserved to the people of the several states, in that mass of residuary rights, in 
 the language of Mr. Jefferson, which was expressly reserved in the constitution itself? 
 
 It is true it was not so expressly reserved in the constitution at first, because it was deemed, as the 
 debates in the federal convention, as well as the state conventions, clearly show, wholly unneces- 
 sary; so general was the understanding that it could not go by inference or implication from 
 anything in the constitution, or, in other words, that it could not be surrendered without express 
 terms to that effect. The general understanding was the universally acknowledged principle in 
 public law, that nothing is held good against sovereignty by implication. But to quiet the appre- 
 hensions of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and the conventions of a majority of the states, this 
 reservation of sovereignty was soon after put in the constitution, amongst other amendments, in plain 
 and unequivocal language. * * * • 
 
 This amendment, which was promptly agreed to by the states, unanimously declared that all 
 powers not delegated were reserved to the states respectively. This of course includes , in the reservation , 
 sovereignty, which is the source of all powers, those delegated as well as those reserved. This reservation, 
 Mr. Samuel Adams said, we have seen in the Massachusetts convention, was consonant with the like 
 reservation in the first articles of confederation.” [I Stephens’ War, etc., pp. 448-9.] 
 
 Let us stop a moment to analyse and look closely at this statement: 
 
 1st. Of twenty different-sized “ political powers,” for example, “ the highest and greatest ” would 
 be “ sovereignty.” What would the rest be ? 
 
 2d. But sovereignty is no power at all, for “ it is the source of all political powers” — the spring, 
 which remains, while the rill flows out forever. Good figure and true! Mr. S. should have stuck 
 to it. Sovereignty is the source of all political powers. 
 
 3d. He changes, however, and says sovereignty is powers, i. e., “ the embodiment of all powers!” 
 
 4th. But he changes again, and says that even the highest and greatest of them (the same he 
 has just asserted to be sovereignty, as the war-power, the tax-power, etc.) are the mere “ incidents of 
 sovereignty," and, of course, not sovereignty itself. 
 
 5th. He says that as “all the powers parted with by the states, were delegated,” by sovereignty 
 it “implies that this greater power delegating , still continued to exist.” 
 
 6th. He finally says— citing Mr. Jefferson — that sovereignty was in “a mass of residuary rights, 
 expressly reserved in the [original] constitution ;” but that, not being itself expressly resowed, it was — 
 several years afterwards— expressly reserved in the Tenth Amendment, which — we find — simply declares 
 
 that ALL POWERS NOT DELEGATED ARE RESERVED* 
 
 The plain truth is, that neither the constitution nor the tenth, or any other, amendment, has 
 aught to do with sovereignty, for this entity is not subject to either delegation or reservation, as has 
 been shown. It dwells permanently in bodies-politic, acting through their organs, in delegating or 
 reserving powers, all that are delegated being put by sovereignty in, and all not delegated being 
 kept, by sovereignty, out of, the constitution. 
 
346 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 comes up in a form and place to blush for. For instance, Anson Burlingame, 
 of Massachusetts, claimed, in Europe, on the basis of personal sovereignty, 
 the equality of an American citizen with European crowned heads. Gov- 
 ernor William Allen, of Ohio, not only seems to think that we have just 
 the number of sovereigns that we have voters ; but that they desovereignise 
 themselves at every election. Witness the following, from his speech at 
 Columbus, August 20, 1873 : When you elect a representative to congress, 
 M you divest yourselves of your sovereign power, and put it all in the hands 
 of one man.” “ At six o’clock in the morning, these 10,000 men are the 
 sovereign people.” “ At six o’clock in the evening,” they have completely 
 “ divested themselves ” of sovereignty, and “ concentrated this tremendous 
 power in the hands of one man.” In other words, sovereignty does not 
 dwell fixedly in the people as organised, i. e. in the mind and will of the 
 state, hut bobs up and down with the successive delegations and withdrawals 
 of power, like the hammers of a piano, or the “ merry dancers ” of the 
 Aurora Borealis. 
 
 SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 Again, Gen. Cass and Judge Douglass, two democratic candidates for 
 the presidency, seemingly ignoring the pre-established sovereignly of the 
 American united societies — the associated commonwealths, over the terri- 
 tory they jointly owned, held that these personal sovereigns could go and 
 associate themselves for self-government, on such part of the public domain 
 as they pleased, and, ipso facto, become sovereign and exclusive. If 
 nomadic, of course, their lines might rightful y fall in any and all pleasant 
 places they might from time to time pre-occupy. 
 
 The fact that these astute politicians labelled their theory “ popular sove- 
 reignty,” which is precisely the theory of this book, did not make it res- 
 pectable, or even worthy of refutation. 
 
 ONLY IN ORGANIZATION, DAVE THE PEOPLE SOVEREIGNTY; 
 and they are organised, and capacitated to act, in political affairs, only as 
 commonwealths or states — as we have seen. As such, they have estab- 
 lished a league “between the states,” i. e. themselves; and at the same time, 
 and in the same instrument, constituted a governmental agency to rule their 
 •ubjects for them. Their law — whether the “ supreme ” fundamental one, 
 or the state constitution — is the harness or machine, in which work these 
 agents, who are selected by the said sovereign people from among their 
 
E R RONEOUS VIEWS OF SOVEREIGNTY. 347 
 
 subjects, and commissioned, and sent, and sworn, to do certain written 
 duties, and to abstain from all not written, or implied. This is plain 
 common sense. 
 
 In conclusion of this chapter, to aid honest reflection, I will present 
 SOME DECISIVE DEFINITIONS. 
 
 As Daniel Webster, in his speech of 1833, says that “well-known words” 
 thould be taken in their “ well-known sense ” in expositions of the consti- 
 tution, I will invite Noah to “come to judgment” and correct Daniel with 
 the “well-known sense” of the leading words herein used. The hundreds 
 of dictionaries in the library of the British Museum all agree with the 
 impartial and decisive judgment (for such it may be considered) of the 
 great American lexicographer. I quote from a genuine edition. 
 
 “Sovereignty, n. Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of the 
 high -st power, or of uncontrollable power.” It is obvious that the word 
 has but one meaning; and that it is a superlative and unqualifiable word. 
 This definition shows all the phrases quoted at the beginning of Y chapter 
 to be gross errors. 
 
 “Will, n. 1. The power of choosing; the faculty or endowment oj 
 the soul , by which it is capable of choosing; the faculty of soiecth g or 
 preferring one of two or more objects. 2. The choice which is made; a 
 determination or preference which results from the act or exercise of the 
 power of choice; a volition. 3. The choice or determination oi one who 
 has authority ; a decree ; a command , decretive pleasure.” [Web. Die. 
 Lst ed.] 
 
 In his edition of 1859, under “Will” is the following: “The will is 
 directed or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason com- 
 pares different objects vhich operate as motives; the judgment determ nes 
 which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue. In other wm-ds, 
 we reason with respect to the value and importance of things: we then 
 judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. 
 These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of 
 nan.” [See also Locke Und., B. II. c. 21.] 
 
 The irror of the writers herein criticised, seems to result from their not 
 always keeping it in mind that “ will ” and “power” are totally different 
 entities; and that “sovereignty” is supremacy of will, while power or 
 powers reierto the faculty or ability of doing, or the authority to do, what 
 
348 SOVEREIGNTY IN TIIE UNITED STATES. 
 
 effectuates will. A paralytic may have will without power, and an idiot 
 power witnout will. Hence we see that either of the said entities can 
 exist without the other. Legislation is sovereign will in the shape of law, 
 though it is ineffectual without executive power. 
 
 “Delegation, n. A sending way; the act of putting in commission 
 or investing with authority to act for another ; the appointment of a dele- 
 gate. 2. The person deputed to act for another or for others. Thus the 
 representatives of Massachusetts in congress are called the delegation , or 
 whole delegation'' 
 
 “Delegate, v. t. ] To send away; appropriately, to send on an 
 embassy ; to send with power to transact business as a representative. * * 
 2. To entrust; to commit; to deliver to another's care and exercise ; as, 
 to delegate authority or power to an envoy, representative, or judge/' 
 
 Here then is the plain teaching — “the well-known sense” — of these 
 important words : — 1. The sovereign mind (whether residing in a monarch, 
 an aristocracy, or a state), in governing, tv ills. 2. Powers arc, by it, dele- 
 gated to agencies to effectuate its will. 3. All tho powers of the constitu- 
 tion of the united states are delegated , and are so many specific authorisations 
 to “substitutes and agents” to carry out sovereign will. Such will must 
 ever reside in the people as states, for only thus did they ever organise 
 themselves. Republican sovereignty cannot be in constitutions or govern- 
 ments, not only because it must be in the people, who have ever the right 
 of government, but because the so-called governments are, by the people , 
 created , and endowed with “ delegated ” authority, and are administered 
 by the people’s representatives , who must be members and citizens, and, 
 necessarily, subjects of states. 
 
CHAPTER YIL — The United States are sovereigns yet. 
 
 44ft 
 
 Trills - 
 
 united states,” and “the people of the united states,” are 
 
 y* identical, the people being named in the instrument consti- 
 tuting the federal government, and delegating to it the powers 
 it is to exercise, as New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, 
 Pennsylvania, Virginia, et als. ; being provided for throughout the 
 said instrument as such states; and being recognised, in the seventh 
 and last article, solely in the character of states, and as exclusively 
 ratifying, and thereby ordaining and establishing, the constitution, 
 and giving the only life and authority thereto. 
 
 And we have seen that in all their contemporaneous explana- 
 tions, the leading fathers asserted, nem. con., that the bodies of 
 people called states were “ the parties to the compact,” [Hamilton, 
 Eed. 85], and were in the status and character of sovereigns [Parti, 
 ch. vii.]. No change in the said states was ever intended or 
 thought of; for they were considered to be, as Hamilton said, the 
 “ essential component parts of the system,” the destruction of 
 which would be “political suicide.” These are his own remarkable 
 expressions. 
 
 We have seen that each body had a mind ; that government is 
 essentially mental and functional action ; that no nation, or na- 
 tional society, could supplant the states, because forming government 
 for preformed society, and not forming society itself, was the subject 
 of action m 17S7 ; that the sovereign wills that ordained the con- 
 stitution, had to subsist through the making , and afterwards, to 
 secure the obedience of their subjects thereto ; and, finally, that 
 their continuance, in sovereign individuality, throughout the dura- 
 tion of the pact, is necessitated by article V., in which it was agreed 
 by “ the parties to the compact ” that “ three-fourths of the several 
 states” shall, by “ratification” of amendments proposed in proper 
 form, amend the constitution. 
 
 every step of progress hitherto, we have seen that “the 
 
 349 
 
350 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 THE PEOPLE, AS STATES, HAVE ALWAYS AMENDED. 
 
 And accordingly, throughout their federal history, and in pursu- 
 ance of their federal agreement, the states have amended then- 
 constitution, when they thought '‘the common defence” and 
 “general welfare” were not well enough “provided for” and 
 “promoted.” This power of amendment or change is the power of 
 abolition or repeal ; and it shows the states, i. e. the collective 
 people, to be above their federal “ supreme law.” 
 
 A cursory view of the early as well as the later amendments, 
 will corroborate fully the view here taken, and settle forever, in 
 any thoughtful reader’s mind, the supremacy of the states, whether 
 united or single, over the tripartite agency constituted by them, 
 to do their federal business. 
 
 THE FIRST TWELVE AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Before 1865, twelve amendments had been adopted by the 
 states, and added to their constitution, according to the mode 
 agreed on in article V., just cited. This power of amendment, 
 alone, shows that the states are supreme above the constitution, 
 and the federal government; and that they are not in allegiance, 
 but only bound by self-imposed obligations. 
 
 Following the lead of Massachusetts, all the principal states, 
 when they ratified, insisted upon amendments; khd^main one re- 
 ferring to the reservation of all powers not delegated. 
 
 Congress, acting as the agent of the associated states, took early 
 action, and proposed to each state, for her adoption or rejection, 
 the first ten of the amendments. Here is the record: 
 
 “Congress of the United States, begun and held at the city of 
 New York, March 4th, 1789. 
 
 “ The conventions of a number of the states , having, at the time of 
 their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to pre- 
 vent misconstruction, or abuse of its powers, that further declara- 
 tory and restrictive clauses should be added; and, as extending 
 the ground of public confidence in the government will best ensure 
 the beneficent ends of its institution — 
 
 “.Resolved, * * that the following articles be proposed to the 
 legislatures of the several states, as amendments to the constitution 
 of the united states ; all or any of which articles, when ratified by 
 three-fourths of the said legislatures, to be valid to all intents and 
 purposes, as part of the said constitution.” 
 
THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGNS YET. 351 
 ADOPTION BY SEPARATE STATES^. 
 
 The said ten amendments were ratified as follows by the states, 
 viz : — By New Jersey, Nov. 20, 1789 ; by Maryland, Dec. 17, 1789 ; 
 by North Carolina, Dec. 22, 1789; by South Carolina, Jan. 19, 
 1790; by New Hampshire, Jan. 25, 1790; by Delaware, Jan. 28, 
 1790 ; by Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790 ; by New York, March 10, 
 1790 ; by Rhode Island, June 15, 1790 ; by Vermont, Nov. 3, 1791 ; 
 by Virginia, Dec. 15, 1791. The following is the introduction of the 
 said ten articles, as promulgated by congress : — “Articles in addi- 
 tion to, and amendment of, the constitution of the United States 
 of America, proposed by congress, and ratified by the legislatuies 
 of the several states, pursuant to the fifth article of the original 
 constitution.” 
 
 In 1798 and 1804, the eleventh and twelfth amendments were 
 established; the former being the last of several most studied and 
 careful endeavors to prevent the states from being subordinated, 
 and subject to coercion. [Amendments IX., X. and XI.] 
 
 THE LATER AMENDMENTS. 
 
 About seventy years after the first ten were adopted, viz., after 
 the war “between the states,” “the people of the united states” 
 again amended, adding the XIII., XIV. and X"V ; and doing it in 
 the mode prescribed by their aforesaid article Y* 
 
 •amendment of 1865. 
 
 Article XIII.. section l.— Neither slavery nor Involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for 
 crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist wilhin the united states, or 
 any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
 
 Section 2.— Congress shall have power to enforce this article, by appropriate legislation. 
 
 AMENDMENT OF 1868. 
 
 Article XIV , section 1.— All persons born or naturalised in the united states, and subject to the 
 jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states, and of the state wherein they reside. No state 
 shall malte or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
 united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process 
 of law : nor deny to any person within Its jurisdiction he equal protection of its laws. 
 
 Section 2.— Provides for apportionment of representatives , and for a reduction of them In propor- 
 tion to the numerical reduction of voters. 
 
 Section 3.— Disqualifies for federal office those who have taken federal oath, and afterwards aidid 
 reb I'.ion. Du; congress, by two-thirds vote, may remove disability 
 
 Section 4 —Provides that the validity of the war debt Bball not be questioned. But neither the 
 united states, nor any state, shall assume the rebel debt, or pav for the less of slaves. 
 
 Section 5.— The congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of 
 this article. 
 
 AMENDMENT OF 1870. 
 
 Article XV., section 1. — The rights of citizens of the united states to vote, shall not be denied or 
 abridged by the united states, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition ot 
 servitude. 
 
 Section 2.— The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 
 
 Though the. stating offsets, and not commentary, Is here my object, I must say en passant, that 
 these amendmenisslmp’y extend civil jurisdiction, and are to be enforced by t he usual civil, and not 
 by military coercion ; the latter being usable in the state, against “ domestic violence," only on cad 
 of the legislature thereof, or when Ifcannot be convened,*' “ of the executive" Outside of this 
 narrow and to be strictly construed basts, even a Washington would have been perjured, If he had 
 sent coercing federal soldiers to Pennsylvania, whether he acted before or after the amendment. 
 
352 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 So that we find that the states named in the pact, and those 
 they have associated with them, have ratified and ordained the 
 constitution, and all the amendments thereof, from the beginning 
 to the present day; and that in so doing, they have acted func- 
 tionally in self government, with their respective minds and wills. 
 In other words, the constitution, the amendments thereof, and all 
 the authorities thereunder, are the offspring of the wills of the 
 states. 
 
 The conquerors could have dictated amendments, and even pro- 
 vincialised or dissolved states; but they chose to accept the sub- 
 mission of the seceders, and receive them into the same old asso- 
 ciation of equal commonwealths, where each has the solemn, sacred, 
 and sworn guaranty of all, that she shall have “ a republican [and 
 not a provincial or municipal] form of government”; or, in other 
 words, that she shall be a republican commonwealth, or self-gov- 
 erning people in all respects. 
 
 We see, then, that the people pre-existed as states; they were 
 recognised and provided for in the pact as states ; they ratified 
 and ordained as states ; they have always amended as states ; and 
 they now exist as states, the self-same political entities that con- 
 vened in 1787 to plan the constitution, and that subsequently rati- 
 fied and ordained the same by their respective conventions, ac- 
 cording to article VII. 
 
 WHEN AND HOW DID A STATE LOSE SOVEREIGNTY? 
 
 Of course Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, the most respectable of 
 the “school” under review, and the representative of Story and 
 Webster, can tell when the states ceased to be such, and became 
 provinces, departments, or counties of a nation. 
 
 He has a chance now to settle the great American question 
 forever. 
 
 He admits fully that the states were respectively sovereign and 
 absolute, before the present federal constitution was formed. Let 
 us substantiate this admission at the outset. 
 
 “ When the revolution was fairly accomplished,” said ho, “ the 
 state [of Rhode Island] assumed its position of absolute sovereignty.” 
 [II. Hist. Const. 699.] 
 
 Again — “The meeting of the states [to form a constitution] was 
 purely voluntary: they met as equals, and they were sovereign 
 political communities, whom no power could rightfully coerce into a 
 
THE UNITED STATE8 ARE SOVEREIGNS YET. 353 
 
 change of their condition ; and with whom such a change must be 
 the result of their own free and intelligent choice.” [Ibid.] 
 
 “ The source of fundamental law is found in the sovereign 
 authority of the people of a distinct state, to order the political 
 conditions of society. It cannot be doubted but this is the very 
 highest of all human authority.”* [His letter to N. Y. World, 1869.] 
 
 “The relations of the individual to the political society of which 
 he is a member, * * came into existence as soon as a sovereign 
 American state was formed out of a revolted British colony.” — 
 [Ibid.] 
 
 Enough : these strokes of his potent pen quash forever his 
 magnum opus — “ the History of the Constitution.” They exactly 
 contradict that book, and fully sustain this. His admissions derive 
 additional force, not only from his ability and opportunity for 
 knowledge, but from his being the disciple of Story and Webster ■ 
 from his representing the “school” as their historiographer; and, 
 finally, from his most conspicuous wish to discover, under the 
 present federal polity, some evidence of the revolutionising of the 
 republics into one grand state — some sign of sovereignty out of the 
 states, and in a nation comprising them. And his fatal admissions 
 fully accord with the treaty declaration of the first federal instru- 
 ment — “ each state retains its sovereignty with each state’s own 
 claim of equal sovereignty from the beginning to the present ; with 
 the acknowledgment of George III., made at the instance of the 
 states’ commissioners, of the sovereignty of each by name; and 
 with the unquestionable independence, sovereignty, and freedom 
 of will with which the states ordained the constitution, and acted 
 under it thereafter. 
 
 A few words more as to Mr. Curtis’s admissions will be aidful. 
 To cap the climax of self-stultification, as it were, he quotes, with 
 high approval, the language of Judge Wilson in the ratifying con- 
 vention of Pennsylvania, that “it has been incontrovertible since 
 the revolution, that the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power 
 is in the people, before they make a constitution, and remains in them 
 after it is made.” Furthermore, he states it as the “American 
 doctrine,” “that all supreme power resides originally in the 'people ; 
 and that all governments are constituted by them to be the deposi- 
 taries and agents of that power” — so far, of course, as the people 
 
 *Mr. C. repeats that “ we can go to nothing that is higher [than state authority], and at the same 
 time human.” But he proceeds then to develop the idea of a second society being formed, supplant- 
 ing, or rather, absorbing the first ; and of a government dominating the states that created it ; but he 
 only succeeds in making his fallacy more and more conspicuous as he proceeds. 
 
354 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 choose to impart it. “And,” continues he, “the'people can with- 
 draw at their pleasure, ’’ the power “ deposited with a state govern- 
 ment,” and “vest it in another class of agents [the federal ones], 
 leaving the authority of the former undiminished except as to the 
 particular objects of the powers withdrawn.” 
 
 Now, let us come down to, and consider, the single point of a 
 state’s losing, being divested of, or alienating sovereignty ; and, for 
 use in illustration, let us make a row of symbolical figures, to repre- 
 sent a given state (say Ehode Island) at the different dates indi- 
 cated — each figure with a star in it, to represent sovereign will, as 
 follows : 
 
 I I I 1 I | | | 
 
 1776 1786 1796 1806 1816 1826 1836 1846 1856 1866 1876 
 
 Of course, so stupendous a change as desovereignising a state, 
 and making a subjugated province or county of it, must be marked 
 by some easily citable fact of history, or document, or many of 
 them • and Mr. Curtis, whose researches have been most exten- 
 sive, should be asked for, and required to point out the evidences 
 of such change, so that we can admit or controvert such 
 momentous averment. Let us know the precise time when the 
 name, geography, people, organism, or inherent political authority 
 of any given commonwealth underwent that essential and radical 
 change, of state to province or county, and from sovereignty to 
 subordination, which he teaches in his works. 
 
 At what epoch should the star be left out of the above illustra- 
 tion? Let us have the facts proving the change, so that they can 
 be examined. 
 
 ADMISSIONS OF EVERETT, J. Q. ADAMS, AND WEBSTER. 
 
 These other most distinguished sons of Massachusetts, who, at 
 times, perverted her faith and endangered her statehood, also 
 prove, by forceful admissions, alike their amusing and confusing 
 inconsistency, and the doctrine of this book. 
 
 Edward Everett wrote to Jefferson, in 1826, that “the constitu- 
 tion of tbe united states is a compact of independent nations” — • 
 this being also tbe view of Jefferson. [J.’s Works, vol. vii ] To 
 Washington Hunt he wrote, on May 29, I860: — “Our union of 
 co-equal sovereign states requires, as its basis, the harmony of its 
 members, and their voluntary co-operation in its organic functions.” 
 
THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGNS YET. 355 
 
 John Quincy Adams said, in his discourse on the constitution, 
 delivered in 1839:— “To the people alone is there reserved, as well 
 the dissolving as the constituent power, * * and the people of 
 
 each state * * have a right to secede from the confederated 
 
 union.” 
 
 Daniel Webster, as heretofore stown [p. 228], called our union 
 “the American confederacy”; said that it was voluntary, and that 
 “the only parties to the constitution contemplated by it origi- 
 nally, were the thirteen confederated states”; and declared that the 
 individual states had “the exclusive possession of sovereignty.” 
 And in Annapolis, in 1852, just before his death, he said as to the 
 states, that “it never entered into their conceptions that they 
 were to consolidate themselves into one government — that they 
 were to cease to be Maryland and Yirginia, Massachusetts and 
 Carolina. * * The objects of the common defence and the general 
 welfare, and afterwards the objects connected with commerce and 
 revenue, * * were all they adopted as principles and objects of 
 
 union and association, nothing beyond that. * * * Gentlemen, 
 
 I hope, for one, never to see the original idea departed from.” 
 
 William JI. Seward, at Cleveland, in 1844, said:. “This union 
 must be a voluntary one, and not compulsory. A union upheld by 
 force would be a despotism.” Twenty-one years thereafter, viz., 
 October 20, 1865, in a most elaborate address on the then condition 
 of things, and speaking in direct reference to possible claims of 
 change in our system, by the war or otherwise, he said: — “This 
 absolute existence of the states which constitute the republic, is the 
 most palpable of all the facts which the American statesman has 
 to deal with. * * In a practical sense, at least, the states were 
 
 before the American union was. * * Our federal republic exists, 
 
 and henceforth and forever must exist, through * * the combi- 
 nation of these several free, self-existing, stubborn states. * * 
 
 They are living, growing, majestic trees, whose roots are widely 
 spread and interlaced within the soil, and whose shade covers 
 the earth.” 
 
 And even the Philadelphia Convention of 1866 admitted that 
 no change of the constitution of the government, or of the char- 
 acter and authority of the states, had been made by the war; as 
 did the centennial orator, William M. Evarts, in his address at 
 Philadelphia, July 4, 1876. 
 
356 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 SOPHISTS ALWAYS STULTIFY THEMSELVES. 
 
 So it. is with all the leading consolidation advocates. Truth’s 
 wand, like Ithuriel’s spear, makes each in turn helpless and pitiable ; 
 the paralysis being sent down his spinal marrow by his own hand 
 and pen.* All sophists must, at times, impulsively tell truths, 
 despite their habitudes of art and craft. Truth and honesty are 
 natural, and they often “out,” while deceit and fraud are asleep 
 or “ off watch.” 
 
 The above expressions of the sophists precisely accord with the 
 history and records of the country, and with the fathers as cited 
 in Part I, chap. vii. 
 
 THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS. 
 
 The two greatest of the age speak as follows : 
 
 Lord Brougham says, “it is plainly impossible to consider the 
 constitution ” as anything “ other than a treaty ” forming a 
 “ federacy of states.” 
 
 De Tocqueville says the union is a “ voluntary agreement of 
 the states,” which have respectively not “ forfeited their nation- 
 ality ” and become “ one and the same people.” 
 
 John Stuart Mill writes of it in the same way. 
 
 Vattel and Montesquieu forecasted our polity as follows: 
 
 Said the former: — “Several sovereign and independent states 
 may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without 
 each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form 
 together a federal republic.” “ The sovereignty of each member,” 
 continues he, “ is preserved,” though there is “constraint on the 
 exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements,” i. e. the members 
 bind themselves to voluntary functions in the union. 
 
 Said the latter — describing what he calls the “ confederate repub- 
 lic,” or the “republic of republics”: — This is “a convention [<. e. a 
 coming together], by which several small states agree to become 
 members of a larger one, which they intend to form. It is an 
 assemblage of societies that constitute a new one [which is his 
 “ republic of republics ”], capable of increasing by new associations. 
 * * The confederacy may be dissolved and the confederates 
 
 preserve their sovereignty.” He further remarks, that “ as this 
 government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal 
 
 •“Him thus intent Ithnriel with his spear 
 Touched lightly, lor no falsehood can endure 
 Touch of celestial temper; but returns 
 Of force to its own llkenesB.” 
 
THE UNITED STATES ARE SOVEREIGNS YET. 357 
 
 happiness of each,” while by “the association,” it has “all the 
 advantages of large monarchies.” 
 
 ISSUES OP FACT TENDERED. 
 
 Passing by the facts that the bodies of people were called states 
 in 1776 and 1787, in the then meaning of the word, and in the 
 same sense as Sjiain and Franco; and that sovereignty was that 
 which alone distinguished them from provinces or counties: passing 
 by, too, the fact that these bodies were not created, or provided for, 
 by any law or constitution, as are counties or other subdivisions 
 of a state ; but that each pre-existed as an organised political 
 being, absolutely without a superior on earth, and the peer of every 
 other state, and hence sovereign : passing by, finally, the fact that 
 each was declared and guarantied by all to be sovereign, and was 
 acting as a sovereign, throughout the framing and ordaining of 
 the constitution in 1787-90; let us respectfully but defiantly tender 
 decisive issues, and throw down the gage. If the pros are truths, 
 must not the cons be falsehoods? 
 
 1. The people of the united states politically exist, and are 
 capable of political action, only as republican commonwealths 
 called states. 
 
 2. Each state is a distinct and independent body of people, with 
 its own name, inhabitants, geography, and political organism ; and 
 is as separate and complete in existence, as a man, an island, or a 
 star. 
 
 3. Each of these commonwealths has a mind, which it exercises 
 in all acts of government; and it gathers information, reasons, 
 judges, and wills, as to defence and welfare, just as a man does. 
 
 4. The action of this mind, in constituting and administering 
 government, is functional, just as the self-governing action of a 
 man’s mind is. 
 
 5. Hence, as separate minds cannot unite by welding themselves, 
 but must associate and co-operate, the union of states called “ the 
 united states” is necessarily a federation or league of states. 
 
 The denial of these propositions is untruth. The “ moral 
 persons” do yet exist intact, and their continued existence is 
 essential to the continuance of American institutional liberty. 
 
 “FREE, SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT.” 
 
 This phrase, so often used unqualifiedly in our history, as to tho 
 
358 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 status of a commonwealth [ e . g. in the constitution of Massachu- 
 setts ; first federal constitution; treaty of 1783; act of Virginia 
 ceding N. W. territory; ordinance of 1787 as to same; several 
 state constitutions], means that she is “ free ” in mind, to think and 
 determine as she pleases; “ sovereign ” in -will, and beyond all 
 earthly control; and “independent” in organism and existence: so 
 that — without coercion — any other union or association than a 
 voluntary one is a moral and political impossibility. 
 
 Nay more, the word “state,” as we have seen, means, when 
 applied by the fathers and the constitution, to New York or Dela- 
 ware, precisely what it does when it refers to England or France. 
 “When the constitution uses well-known words,” says Webster, it 
 uses them “in their well-known sense.” [See constitution, art. 
 III. §2 ; amendment XI.] 
 
 THE STATES NOT UNDER CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 They alone have inherent and original right of existence and 
 authority. The institution called “ the government ” has no right 
 of control over them, because it springs from their will, and has 
 only the authority they delegate ; besides that it is personally 
 composed of their subjects, and must use their own men and 
 means to execute coercion upon them. 
 
 As heretofore quoted [p. 37], Daniel Webster declared, that, in 
 North America, sovereignty is ever in the people, and never in the 
 government. And George T. Curtis says, “the American doctrine 
 is, that all supreme power resides originally in the people, and that 
 all governments are the depositaries and agents of that power.” [Hist. 
 Constitution.] 
 
 BUT “CHANGE” BY USURPATION THREATENS US. 
 
 I submit, in conclusion of this chapter, that the “change” so 
 persistently asserted by Story, Webster, and the federal supreme 
 court, from a federation to another systehi, neither was nor could 
 be made; but that through perversion, fraud, and perjured usurpa- 
 tion, the factitious and fraudulent change is coming over us, that 
 Burke, as heretofore quoted, speaks of — that “change from a state 
 of procuration and delegation , to a course of acting as from original 
 power — the very way,” continues he, “in which all the free nMgis- 
 tracies of the world have been perverted from their purposes”! 
 
CHAPTER VIII. — The States act as Sovereigns in the Union. 
 
 j||UDGIHG from Hew York’s declarations and action, under 
 p|[Jp our federal polity, she may well be called, in a second sense, 
 Y “the empire state”; for surely no power of earth did ever 
 more imperially assert herself, or act with more absolute sov- 
 ereignty, than she has done in the federal union. Indeed, her 
 whole history and record, and all her action — as will be seen — 
 consist with and support the doctrine of this book. 
 
 I have already illustrated, in the case of Pennsylvania, [see 
 ch. i. of this Part] the transition from colonial or provincial depen- 
 dence to statehood; and shown that it is precisely the acquisition 
 of “freedom, sovereignty, and independence,” that distinguishes a 
 state from a province or other dependency. 
 
 NEW YORK’S RECORD ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 She had been an organised society, governed with entire sepa- 
 rateness from every other, for over one hundred years, when she 
 established her first constitution, in the year 1777. She then held 
 a convention for this purpose, exclusively elected and empowered 
 by herself. Asserting and acting with supreme authority, she 
 then declared herself to bo the supplanter of the whole British 
 sovereignty — king, lords, and commons. That constitution — 
 after recounting the steps towards sundering the ties of Hew York 
 to Britain — introduces the declaration of independence as part of 
 her fundamental law. In that declaration, her delegates, and 
 those of her sisters in congress assembled, declared that their 
 thirteen constituents are ot right “free and independent states 
 are absolved from all political connection with, and allegiance to, 
 the British crown; and “have tull power,” as “free and inde- 
 pendent states, to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, 
 establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which inde- 
 pendent states may ot right do.” This could be predicated of 
 each state only, because there could be no mind to do such things 
 
 . 353 
 
360 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 except in the “moral persons ” then existent, and by name desig- 
 nated. We must keep it in view, that all affirmations in the 
 history and records of these matters, refer to certain entities — 
 political bodies — “moral persons,” that then included all the 
 people and covered all the territory, leaving thereout no powers, 
 people, or acres, to make a nation of; and that these bodies, which 
 have existed through all our history, do exist now, as distinct as 
 trees in a grove, islands in the sea, stars in a group, or men in a 
 corporation. These ideas once held, we require proof of the end or 
 change of such entities. The onus is on the “ school.” 
 
 Here is the proper place to brand a certain falsehood, now-a-days 
 commonly taught, viz. that the understanding was, that the 
 nascent states were to be “sovereign, free, and independent” 
 only as united states — each and all the states being subordinate 
 to The United States, or the nation. If such understanding ever 
 existed, it would have been done away with, by the second article 
 of the confederation of 1778, declaring that “ each state retained 
 its sovereignty.” But it is entirely false, as Hew York herself 
 shows, in the following continuation of the said instrument: 
 
 “And whereas, having taken this declaration [of independence] 
 into their most serious consideration, [they] did on the 9th day of 
 July last past, unanimously resolve, that the reasons assigned by 
 the continental congress for declaring the united colonies free and 
 independent states, are cogent and conclusive ; and that while we 
 lament the cruel necessity, * * we approve the same, and will at 
 the risk of our lives and fortunes, join with the other colonies in 
 supporting it. By virtue of which several acts, declarations and 
 proceedings, mentioned and contained in the afore-recited resolves 
 of the general congress of the united American states, and of the 
 congresses or conventions of this state, all power whatever therein 
 [?. e. in the state] hath reverted to the people thereof [i. e. of the 
 state], and this convention hath by their suffrages and free choice 
 been appointed, and, among other things, authorised to institute 
 and establish such a government as they shall deem best calculated 
 to secure the rights and liberties of the good people of this 
 state * * * 
 
 “ 1st. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority 
 of the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine, and declare: 
 That no authority shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised 
 over the people or members of this state, but such as shall be 
 derived from or granted by them." 
 
THE STATES ACT AS SOVEREIGNS IN THE UNION. 3G1 
 
 “ All powers whatever ” “ reverted to the people ” of New York ! 
 and “no authority” “on any pretence whatever” was to “be 
 exercised over the people or members of this state,” but their 
 own ! * 
 
 NEW YORK NOW SOVEREIGN. 
 
 We shall now see that New York retains this very self-assertion 
 in full iorce to-day, and holds herself to be the absolute sovereign, 
 who gives the federal agency its sole existence and authority on 
 her domain, and uses it and its means as her instruments, and for 
 her purposes; and that the said government has no right to exist, 
 no right to act, no jurisdiction or control over citizens, and no 
 right to hold, administer, or use property — even for federal pur- 
 poses — without the sovereign authority, the grant, and the per- 
 mission of that state, and subject to her conditions and her 
 defeasance. 
 
 Through her deputised subjects in federal convention, she 
 assisted in devising the federal compact. In her own home conven- 
 tion she carefully examined it, asking herself if it was to her 
 interest, safety, and welfare to adopt it; and finally, after due 
 deliberation, her judgment barely inclined her will to make it her 
 “ supreme law,” and to command her “ members ” (i. e. her citizens 
 and subjects) to obey it. Barely, I say, for the majority in her 
 convention was only three, after a long and excited contest. 
 
 Her ordaining words were as follows: — “We, the delegates, * * 
 in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New York, 
 do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said constitution.” 
 
 Hereby, the only vitality and validity the said compact ever had 
 or could have, in the state of Now York, was given. Thencefor- 
 ward, her subjects were to obey the federal agency by her com- 
 mand; for, standing then in her imperial law was the declaration, 
 that “ no authority” but her own, was to “ be exercised over ” her 
 “people or members,” “on any pretence whatever.” 
 
 WHAT SAY JAY, HAMILTON AND LIVINGSTON ? 
 
 These greatest sons of New York were most influential in 
 
 *Poor Mr. Lincoln — misled by New York and Massachusetts expounders— said theunionmade 
 New York a state, and that she had no status or rights what evei except whattbe national constitu- 
 tion reserved toiler. Professor Jameson of Chicago may have taught him — or vice versa. The said 
 professor also teaches, that in making their constitutions, and governing themselves, the states 
 perform for the nation, and under itsauthority, delegative functions: and it is more than intimated, 
 by some, and perhaps by himself, that they have done so from the beginning. It is a waste ol time 
 however, even to notice such contentions. He and Professor Mansfield of Cincinnati more than 
 intimate that states are unnecessary except in the capacity of counties. 
 
362 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITER STATES. 
 
 causing her to fcderalise herself. They probably knew as much of 
 the character of the proposed system, and the intent of New York, 
 as any of her later “expounders” and so-called “historians.” 
 
 Jay said “a union of states” was being formed, and that the 
 federal functionaries were “agents and overseers of the people.”* 
 
 Hamilton said the union was “ a confederacy,” the constitution a 
 “compact,” the states the “parties to the compact,” and “the people 
 of this state [Hew York] the sovereigns of it.” And Chancellor 
 Livingston said the constitution provides for “a league of states,” 
 thus forming a “federal republic” — the very idea of Montesquieu, 
 heretofore referred to. For a more extended citation of Jay et als., 
 see supra p. 98, et seq. 
 
 Ho dissent is anywhere found. Her greatest men asserted her 
 and her sisters to be “ a confederacy ” of sovereigns — a league of 
 states — each the highest aui hority on earth. They considered the 
 constitution to be the breath of the said monarchs, and “ the gov- 
 ernment” their creation, agent, and servitor. How could it be 
 otherwise when these sovereigns created its existence, “ delegated ” 
 to it all of its “powers,” and chose and commissioned their members 
 and subjects to administer it ? In the nature of things, their union, 
 as associated bodies or “ united states,” was impossible except by 
 federation. The “moral persons,” each with her will, must act, and 
 must survive the act. 
 
 SHE NOW CLAIMS SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEOPLE AND SOIL. 
 
 After declaring her boundaries in her constitution, Hew York 
 says : — “ The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all 
 places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding 
 title; but the extent of such jurisdiction over places that have 
 •been or may be ceded to The United States shall be qualified by 
 the terms of such cession.” [Sec present constitution of H. Y.] 
 
 She also declares it to be “the duty of the governor and of all 
 subordinate officers of the state, to maintain and defend its 
 sovereignty and jurisdiction.” [I. H. Y. Eev. Stat. chap. I., tit. 2. 
 §§1,2.] 
 
 She also declares, in as autocratic a manner as Kaiser William 
 
 * Contrast, now, these views of the first Chief Justice and his compatriots with those of the pres* 
 ent Chief Justice, who dares to say of the same constitution in the very capital of his leagued 
 sovereigns, that he and the other federal ephem ra , (his co-agents and co-servants) are supreme over 
 thesaid sovereigns, i. e. over the states ao stairs— in consonance with the treasonable derlaraiion of 
 the Philadelphia convention of 1866, that the government “has absolute supremacy ” over allegiant 
 states. 
 
THE STATES ACT AS SOVEREIGNS IN THE UNION. 363 ' 
 
 could possibly do — declaring to-day what she declared at first — 
 that “ no authority can, on any pretence whatever, be exercised 
 over the citizens of this state, but such as is, or shall be, derived 
 from, and granted by, the people of this state.” [Ibid. ch. IY. §1 ] 
 
 Mark the words, “citizens of this state”; and to show how 
 completely this harmonises with the federal constitution, and agrees 
 with the theory of this work, see articles III. §2, IY. §2, and 
 amendment XI. of the federal pact; and article I. §1 of her own 
 constitution, ordained in 1846 — the latter reading as follows: — “ No 
 member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of 
 the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by 
 the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” 
 
 Note that she calls “the people” the “members of this state” 
 (just as the federal pact calls “the people” the citizens of the 
 several states ”), assumes to be their sovereign, and to be obliged to 
 protect their liberty and rights. “The people” are New York, 
 i. e. a commonwealth so named, which is formed by sdcial compact, 
 wherein each member agrees to be governed by all. Precisely thus 
 does Massachusetts set forth this republican social compact (see 
 the preamble to her constitution) ; and, consistently, she calls her 
 citizens “ subjects of the commonwealth.” And even the federal 
 supreme court recently declared (in the Cruikshank case, 1876), 
 that “citizens are members of the political community to which 
 they belong.” Hence, under the concurrent declarations of Queens 
 New York and Massachusetts, to say nothing of the united 
 sovereigns and their supreme court, we may consider “member, ’ 
 “citizen,” and “subject” as convertible terms; also, that the only 
 allegiance of the citizen is due to the society of which he is an 
 integral part; also, that the only tie of allegiance in “the united 
 states” is the social compact, especially as no king, prince or feudal 
 lord can be found there. At all events, government in a republic, 
 being created, delegative, and vicarious, and being administered 
 solely by citizens and subjects of the sovereigns, it cannot possibly 
 be the object of allegiance or treason, as will be duly and more 
 lucidly shown. Treason is a crime against the state or the states. 
 
 UNCLE SAM’s STANDS IN NEW YORK ONLY ON HER GRANT. 
 
 Seeing the pronounced absolutism of New York, we cannot bo 
 surprised to find the poor federal agency under her queenly thumb. 
 Indeed, she never seems to tire of reminding the concern that 
 
364 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 does “ business ” on Goose Creek, that it is the “business” of her 
 and her sisters that is done, and that those who “receive that 
 business to manage,” do it (as Jay above says) “not for themselves , 
 but as the agents and overseers of the people.” 
 
 Naj’, more, she over and over again declares or implies — as we 
 shall see — that the limited agency calling itself “the govern- 
 ment” can have no foothold or jurisdiction on her soil, except 
 with her permission, and on her conditions. Greek and Eoman 
 proprietors, if leagued for joint government and protection of their 
 estates and families, could not have had a more masterly and 
 owner-like control over their owned administrators than these 
 associated moral persons called the states have over their admin- 
 istering and managing subjects. And it is preposterous to suppose 
 that these agents, who are appointed by the state for her purposes, 
 who have only her powers, and are her subjects, should, against 
 her consent, and for some outside authority, enter, of right, on her 
 soil, occupy h'er strong positions, and gain all points of vantage, so 
 as to be able to encompass her attack and destruction , instead of her 
 “ defence and safety .” 
 
 NEW YORK ON TITE LORDSHIP OF THE SOIL. 
 
 She considers that all rights and powers spring from the 
 commonwealth, and fall thereto when they lapse. As to the soil, 
 she says in article I. §2 of her present constitution : — “ The people 
 of this state, in their right of sovereignty, are deemed to possess the 
 original and ultimate property in and to all lands within the juris- 
 diction of this state ; and all lands, the title to which shall fail from 
 a defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the people.” 
 
 Virginia in her constitution expresses it as follows: — “All 
 escheats, penalties and forfeitures, heretofore going to the king, 
 6hall go to the commonwealth.” 
 
 Judge Kent thus states the American and republican idea, in IV. 
 Com. 424: — “The state steps in plaoe of the feudal lord, by virtue 
 of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the 
 lands within its jurisdiction.” 
 
 So wo see that New York now considers herself as having upon 
 her soil displaced the former sovereignty, that of Britain. And, 
 consistently, she declares that “ all grants of land, and charters of 
 incorporation made by the king of Great Britain, or by his 
 authority, after October 14, 1775, shall be null and void.” [Const. 
 N.Y.] 
 
THE STATES ACT AS SOVEREIGNS IN THE UNION. 365 
 THE CONDITIONS FEDERAL FOOTHOLD IS GRANTED ON. 
 
 It will now be seen, that the foothold of the federal agency in 
 New York is held under her grant, and solely on the conditions 
 she imposes. Nay more, the said agency accepts those conditions, 
 in behalf of their principals, the united states. 
 
 On this point, please note in the first place the clause o£ art. 
 I. §8 of the federal pact, providing that the congress shall legis- 
 late over such ten-mile-square district as shall be 11 ceded by si par- 
 ticular state," and accepted by congress, for the seat of the govern- 
 ment; and shall “exercise like authority over all places, purchased 
 by the consent of the legislature of the state, in which the same shall 
 be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and 
 other needful buildings”: note also the act of congress of March 
 20, 179-t, §3: — “It shall be lawful for the president of the 
 united states to receive from any state (in behalf of the united 
 states) a cession of the lands on which any of the fortifications 
 aforesaid * * may be erected,” &c. This referred to sites of 
 forts, arsenals, &e., generally. 
 
 The action of New York in the matter, is shown in 157 different 
 acts, to be found in the revised statutes of 1859, in which she 
 grants to the united states, as to any other owner, as many 
 different tracts of land, under conditions which she as a sovereign 
 grantor imposes, and which are in every case accepted. The fol- 
 lowing, which is in the act ceding the use and jurisdiction of lands 
 adjoining the Brooklyn navy-yard, is a fair specimen: — “The 
 united states are to retain such use and jurisdiction so long as said 
 tract shall be applied to the defence and safety of the city and 
 port of New York, and no longer.” “ But the jurisdiction hereby 
 ceded, and the exemption from taxation herein granted, shall 
 continue, in respect to said property, and to each portion thereof, 
 so long as the same shall remain the property of the united states, 
 and be used for the purpose aforesaid, and no longer.” 
 
 So with the federal “jurisdiction over * * a tract in the town 
 of Watervliet” — the site of the great arsenal : — “ The united states 
 are to retain suck jurisdiction so long as the said tract shall be applied 
 to the use of providing for the defence and safety of the said 
 state, and no longer .” 
 
 Further quotation is unnecessary. It is hoped the reader will 
 refer to and read some of the 157 statutes aforesaid. 
 
366 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 NEW YORK, THEN, IS ABSOLUTE ON HER SOIL. 
 
 it is certain, then, that as the United States is a party to these 
 proceedings, declarations, and grants made by New York, long 
 after the present federal constitution was established, never 
 objecting or protesting, but accepting the conditions, there has 
 never been the slightest abatement of the sovereignty of that 
 commonwealth; and that the united states enters upon her soil 
 solely by virtue of her authority, with her permission, and for the 
 exclusive purpose of promoting her defence and safety. And New 
 York receives the united states in two capacities: — 1st. As a simple 
 property-holder on the same footing with other owners ; 2d. As a 
 sort of viceroy or commission of the sovereigns in league, to do the 
 “business,” of their “defence” on their respective territories, and 
 with their authority and means; the said Uncle Sam to continue 
 doing this “ business,” as long as he uses the said foothold, 
 authority, and means, in “providing for the defence and safety of 
 the said state, and no longer 
 
 Surely no king of earth was ever more of a sovereign than New 
 York! If Fort Lafayette, standing on her conditional and defea- 
 sible grant, menace her with attack and destruction, if she do not 
 yield her will at the command of the said Uncle Sam, should she 
 and would she not with guns speak her judgment, annulling the 
 federal tenure? If she cannot rightfully act so in such an exigency, 
 she is a province and not a state, a subject and not a sovereign, 
 having returned to the condition she held under Britain, and 
 nullified the American to a shaml 
 
CHAPTER IX. — Other Sovereigns like New York. 
 
 ^IllpE'W" YORK, then, exhibits herself and appears, in the 
 f&fs present federal system, as the absolute sovereign within 
 ■f" her boundaries: and the association called “the united 
 states/’ so far as relates to its foothold, to its use and occupation 
 of property, and to its governmental jurisdiction on the soil of 
 New York, appeal’s simply and only as her agent and grantee. 
 Nay more, all of New York’s grants of sites for forts, navy-yards, 
 lighthouses, &c., are accepted from her, by the said associated 
 states, on the express condition, in each case, that they “are to 
 retain such use and jurisdiction so long as the said tract shall be 
 applied to the use of providing for the defence and safety of the said 
 .state, and no longer .” 
 
 On New York’s soil, federal authority is solely her own authority 
 delegated for her own purposes; her safety, and the security of her 
 sovereignty or right of self-government, being the vital objects-; 
 and those who act in wielding the same, only appear as “ repre- 
 sentatives,” “ agents,” “ servants,” and “ trustees,” as the fathers 
 all habitually called them. 
 
 There can be no possible question that this is the correct view, 
 for New York has, from the beginning to this day, kept the solemn 
 declaration in her fundamental law — and she entered the union 
 with it — that: — “No authority shall, on any pretence whatever, be 
 exercised over the people or members of this state, but such as is, 
 or shall be, derived from, and granted by, the people of this state.” 
 
 I cursorily review New York’s case at the opening of this 
 chapter, because it is, in principle, that of the rest, as will now be 
 seen. 
 
 QUEEN MASSACHUSETTS SPEAKS IDEM SONANS. 
 
 This federalised or leagued sovereign, like New York, grants 
 the sites of forts, navy-yards, lighthouses, &c., which she thinks 
 necessary for the “business” of “providing for” her “defence” 
 and “welfare,” to the associated states, to be held so long as the 
 
 867 
 
368 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 said “ business” remains entrusted to said states. Her conditions 
 are the same as New York imposes. Her status is precisely that 
 of New York. Her fundamental law and her whole history show 
 that all federal authority exercised on her soil is delegated by her, 
 and remains hers; and that all federal sites and jurisdiction are to 
 be used solely for her “ defence and safety,” leaving her sove- 
 reignty unabated. For example, in the act of June 25th, 1798, she 
 cedes Castle Island, in Boston harbor, to “the united states,’ 
 declaring that “all civil, and such criminal process as shall issue 
 under the authority of this commonwealth, * * may be executed 
 therein, in the same way and manner as though this cession and 
 consent had' not been made and granted.” See also the act of 
 June 17th, 1800, “authorising the united states to purchase the 
 site for the navy-yard at Charlestown and the acts of June 20th, 
 1795, and June 20th, 1816. These sites are to be used for “the 
 defence and safety of the state and the sovereign declares in 
 some, if not all, of the acts, that when the federal foothold ceases to 
 be used for the purposes contemplated, the grant of it is to be 
 “ void, and of no effect.” 
 
 In her revised statutes of 1836, page 56, will be found the fol- 
 lowing ; — “Of the jurisdiction of the commonwealth, and of tho 
 concurrent jurisdiction of the united states over places coded by 
 the commonwealth: — Section 1. The sovereignty and jurisdiction 
 of the commonwealth extend to all places within the boundaries 
 thereof; subject only to such rights of concurrent jurisdiction as 
 have been, or may be, granted over any places ceded by the common- 
 wealth to the united states. Section 2. The several places here 
 following, which have been ceded to the united states for forts, 
 arsenals, dockyards, lighthouses, hospitals, and other purposes, 
 and over which concurrent jurisdiction has been granted to tho 
 united states, shall continue to be subject to such concurrent 
 jurisdiction, according to the tenor and effect of the respective 
 laws of this commonwealth, by which they were so coded.” Then 
 follow designations of about fifty federal sites. 
 
 THE VOICE OF PENNSYLVANIA ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 In her cession of Mud Island she specifies the use, makes the 
 grant void if not within a year accepted, with conditions ; and 
 provides that “ the jurisdiction of the stato of Pennsyl vania over 
 the said island, in civil and criminal cases, be the same as before 
 
OTHER SOVEREIGNS LIKE NEW YORK. 
 
 369 
 
 the passage of this act.” See also act of assembly, February 1st, 
 1796. 
 
 The act of April 18, 1795, provides for the survey and cession of 
 several tracts at Presqu’ Isle on Lake Erie, “ for the accommodation 
 and use of the united states, in erecting and maintaining forts 
 thereon” — to be held by “the united states so long as they shall 
 actually maintain a fort thereon, and no longer.” This act contains 
 the following : — “ And it is the express intent and meaning of this 
 act, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed, construed, or 
 in anywise taken to cede and transfer unto the united states the 
 jurisdiction or right cf soil in and to the said three last-mentioned 
 lots, but only the occupancy and use thereof, for the purposes afore- 
 said.” 
 
 Pennsylvania then shows herself to be absolute in her territory, 
 and she only admits the federal government therein as the agent 
 of the federation, to occupy and use definite portions of her soil 
 for her “ defence and safety,” while she keeps her sovereignty and 
 jurisdiction unabated. 
 
 OLD VIRGINIA ACTED IN THE SAME WAY. 
 
 In her code of 1849, is found an enumeration of the sites for the 
 erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c., the jurisdic- 
 tion over which is granted by her to the united states. There are 
 nearly a score of them, including Old Point Comfort and the Eip 
 Eaps. The chapter concludes as follows : — “ and the transfers of 
 property, andjurisdiction, authorised by the said acts, being subject 
 to certain terms and conditions therein expressed ; and with 
 certain restrictions, limitations, and provisions therein set forth: 
 It is hereby declared that this state retains concurrent jurisdiction, 
 * * * and its courts, magistrates, and officers, may take such 
 cognisance, execute such process, and discharge such other legal 
 functions within the same, as may not be incompatible with the 
 true intent and meaning of the said acts.” 
 
 The act ceding soil and jurisdiction at Old Point Comfort 
 (Fortress Monroe), contains the usual limitations, conditions, and 
 reservation of jurisdiction, and concludes as follows “ And be it 
 f urther enacted, that should the united states at any time abandon 
 the said lands and shoals, or appropriate them to any other purjiose 
 than those indicated in the preamble to this act, that then, and in 
 that case, the same shall revert to, and revest in, this common- 
 wealth.” 
 
370 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 THE UNDERSTANDING OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 President Jefferson reported to congress, February 3, 1806, 
 “ an act of cession, of the state of South Carolina, of various forts 
 and fortifications, and sites for the erection of forts, in that state, 
 on the conditions therein expressed.” 
 
 Her act of December 19, 1805, provides that hereby is granted 
 to The United States of America all the right, title, and claim of 
 this state to the following forts and sites for the erection of forts, 
 &c. : — 5 acres at Fort Moultrie ; 20 acres at Fort Johnson ; 3 acres 
 at Fort Pinckney; 2 acres of “ the sand-bank marked ‘ C ’ in the 
 plan of Charleston harbor,” &c. It is provided that commissioners 
 are to survey and locate ; that if the united states shall not repair 
 the present and build certain new fortifications, “ this grant or 
 cession shall be void and of no effect,” and that “ all process, civil 
 or criminal, issued under the authority of this state, or any 
 authority thereof, shall and may be served and executed on any 
 part of lands, sites, forts, and fortifications so ceded by this act, 
 and on any person or persons there being, and implicated in matters 
 of law.” 
 
 The act, then, requires that “the United States” “shall, before 
 possession be taken of said sites, * * pay due compensation to 
 the owners”; and it exempts in favor of “the United States,” the 
 property it thus allows that association to acquire, occupy and use, 
 from taxation.* 
 
 How distressing this revelation must be to the Websterian 
 expounders of the day, such as Curtis, Pendleton, Adams, Seymour, 
 Jameson, Greeley, Lincoln, etals. What! must this great “nation,” 
 or great “union,” or great “united states,” go only as an agent 
 into South Carolina and under her grant? Must this mighty and 
 august “union,” or association, acquire its property in South 
 Carolina just as John Smith does ? Hoes it have no right of occu- 
 pancy, use, or jurisdiction on the soil of South Carolina but what 
 it suits her to grant ? Must Uncle Sam be exempted from taxation 
 just as Uncle Tom or Aunt Sally would be? And must this 
 potentate hold his occupancy, use, and jurisdiction in South 
 
 * For numerous acts of cession on conditions, and defeasible; see X Stat. of S. C., pp. 74, 589 el seg. 
 After much inquiry and considerable research, aided by friends of ability in South Carolina, am 
 almost forced to the conclusion that the united states has never had any title to the site of Fort 
 Sumter. One of them says : The view that this fort has never been ceded is much strengthened by 
 the ordinance of April 18, 1861, which makes a general grant to the Confederate States of the " occu- 
 pation and UBe,” of all the forts, &c., &c., “ lately in possession of the united states, ’ “ together with 
 Fort Sumter," &c. Is It possible that Uncle Sam was on Miss Carolina’s premises by her permission, 
 and for her useB, and that he threatened to shoot her if she did not let him be master ? 
 
OTHER SOVEREIGNS LIKE NEW YORK. 
 
 371 
 
 Carolina “so long as” he uses them “for the defence and safety 
 of this state, and no longer ” ? 
 
 Are all these grants or cessions to be “ void and of no effect,” if 
 the conditions aforementioned be violated ? And are they primarily 
 for her benefit, and subject to her will, so that she can raise her 
 little foot and (with no other restraint than the fear of getting 
 whipped) kick the said avuncular relative out of her premises, if 
 he violate her conditions, insult or menace her, or attempt her 
 harm or destruction ? 
 
 And when it is tritely said that “the military is subordinate to 
 the civil power,” do we mean that federal soldiers and officers, to 
 wit, “the army and navy of the united states”! and “the 
 commander-in-chief” ! ! are subordinate to, and never above, the 
 civil power of South Carolina — i. e. her sovereignty and right of 
 government ? 
 
 All these questions are to be answered in the affirmative. And 
 history shows that these were the views of the fathers, so far as 
 they expressed themselves on ultimate sovereignty and final 
 remedies. 
 
 All historical evidence shows South Carolina to have been, and to 
 have intended to remain, an absolute sovereign ; to have used her 
 own exclusive reason, judgment, and will, in making a voluntary 
 union with her sister states to “provide for” her and their 
 “ defence and safety and finally, like New York, Massachusetts, 
 and Pennsylvania, to have confided her powers, men, and means, 
 and permitted federal foothold on her soil, on the express condition 
 that “the United States” was to hold and use them “so long” as 
 they were “used for the defence and safety of the state, and no 
 longer.” 
 
 SO SAY THE NEW STATES. 
 
 As the universally accepted principle was that new states, 
 admitted by the congress of the states from time to time, into the 
 union of states, [Art. IV. §3] became equally “sovereign, free, and 
 independent,” they are naturally to be expected to have similar 
 records as to the subject in hand. For instance, Alabama provides 
 that “the united states may acquire and hold lands within the limits 
 of this state, as sites for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c., 
 as contemplated and provided by the constitution of the united 
 states,” [Ala. Code, art. III. §21 p. 61], §22: “The Governor * * 
 
 is authorised, on the part of the state, to cede the united states 
 
372 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 jurisdiction over such lands, to hold, use, and occupy the same for 
 the purposes of the cession, and none other. The jurisdiction thus 
 ceded does not prevent the execution, on such lands, of any process, 
 civil or criminal, under the authority of this Btatej nor prevent 
 the laws of this state from operating over such lands.” Alabama 
 then proceeds to provide for the security of united states property 
 and exempt it from taxation. 
 
 Surely, where the only foothold and jurisdiction the union of 
 states can have in a state, is granted by the latter on conditions 
 that the same is to be used for certain purposes, and no others, 
 and be held just so long as used for the defence and safety of the 
 state, and no longer ; the proper conclusion or principle is, that the 
 state is sovereign, and that the governmental agency of the united 
 states (the said states being themselves the government) is subor- 
 dinate to, and without control over, the state. 
 
CHAPTER X. — The Ultimate Arbiter. 
 
 the questions of ultimate supremacy and self-preservation, 
 tie fathers seldom did more than incidentally speak, but, as 
 ir as they went, they spoke plainly; and all the history of 
 establishing the American federal polity shows, that, in devising 
 the system, they assumed the existence, integrity, and sovereignty 
 of the states, as pre-existent and indestructible facts or entities. 
 The great aim of all was to preserve the said communities, and unite 
 their authority in the general government of their subjects, and 
 their strength in their common defence. To these ends, the said 
 thirteen communities which the people were, federally made an 
 agency, and charged it with a few important specific duties. As 
 to such matters as prevention, defence, and remedy against evils, 
 dangers, attacks, and hurts, local and internal ; these pre-existent 
 commonwealths, each with full mental and governing faculties, 
 original right, and unlimited power, took natural cognisance, and 
 made full provision. The capacity, the authority, and the duty of 
 self-defence, must be where dwells the original and inherent mind ; 
 for the idea of direct mental, or instinctive, control of physical 
 force is necessitated: and, as attack and hurt are local, the original 
 right, the self-capacity, the self-power, and the sense of duty, must 
 be on the spot, feeling, knowing, and acting at once, and directly, 
 for defence or repulsion. Where harm can come, the power and 
 duty to protect and remedy, should be near. 
 
 NO FEDERAL CAPACITY OR DUTY FOR DIRECT LOCAL DEFENCE. 
 
 On the other hand, the federal “ agents and servants,” as the 
 fathers called them, are far removed from the troubles; they only 
 act with delegative authority, and as directed in writing; they are 
 charged with a few important general affairs, and prohibited from 
 meddling with local ones ; they are not in duty bound even to 
 know of, originally, much less act on, danger or harm in a state, 
 but must await official advices of it, as well as a formal official call 
 
 373 
 
374 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 for aid — if this be needed — a call not made on them, but on asso- 
 ciated sovereigns, under a treaty stipulation — a call which the 
 government can respond to, only as an agent and servant. A 
 million cases of domestic violence might occur, without the power, 
 duty, or even attention of the federal agency being required ; and 
 in eighty-eight years of federal history, we have had but two or 
 three such exigencies. 
 
 It is obvious, then, that all the essentials and ideas of ultimate- 
 ness are concentered in the commonwealth, where the inherent 
 and original mind dwells, and, in self-defence, directly and func- 
 tionally acts with its own organs and instruments, and where 
 Jehovah has placed both the power and the duty of self-preserva- 
 tion. And it seems to follow necessarily, that the state is the 
 ultimate arbiter on all questions except those selected and stated 
 in the federal instrument; certainly, on all that touch her exist- 
 ence, integrity, and sovereignty. 
 
 But let us proceed further on this line, and ask the question, in 
 reference to the “terms of union,” as the fathers called them, or 
 the “articles of union,” to use the federal convention’s phrase: 
 
 WHO IS TO JUDGE OF BROKEN CONDITIONS AND FORFEITURES? 
 
 On reflection, we shall see that when South Carolina (or Massa- 
 chusetts) federalised herself, she was acting with her own will, 
 from the instinct and with the duty of self-preservation, under the 
 direct authority of God, Who, by making the social instinct a part 
 of man’s being, caused society as much as lie did man, and made 
 “self-preservation the first law of nature” for both. 
 
 Self-preservation of the state, then, being the object of both the 
 grants and the conditions, who is to judge as to the violations of 
 the conditions, and the forfeiture of the grants, the grantor or the 
 grantee? the sovereign or the subject? the principal or the agent? 
 the master or the servant? The question needs no answer. The 
 God of nature has determined it as to any state — for instance, 
 South Carolina, ISTew York, or Massachusetts — by making self- 
 preservation the first, best, and most imperative law of her being, 
 and giving her a distinct and independent intellect with which to 
 investigate, reason, judge, and will. The possession of mind con- 
 stitutes the moral being, and implies moral obligations. The state’s 
 instinct and duty of self-preservation, like her bodily and mental 
 individuality, continued unchanged after the union was formed, so 
 
 i 
 
THE ULTIMATE ARBITER. 
 
 375 
 
 that she was morally compelled to consider and decide — and 
 especially in the last resort — any and all questions affecting her 
 being, her integrity, and her right of government. And under the 
 reciprocal obligations between Massachusetts (or South Carolina) 
 a 3 a body, and the members composing her, she is to govern and 
 protect them, and they are to obey and support her. These duties 
 are essential to the republican social compact. Her statehood and 
 sovereignty involve their liberty. They are she, and she is they. 
 This compact is the only possible tie of allegiance, for the state 
 stands in place of king, prince, or feudal lord [IV. Kent, 424]. 
 They are bound to defend her, and she them, to the death. This 
 is the law of their nature and of God. She cannot delegate the 
 power to decide in the last resort, but must exercise it herself. If 
 she do not, she abandons statehood, and becomes a province or 
 county, gives up her mental nature and will, neglects the highest 
 of moral duties, violates the sacred law of her God-given being, 
 and, in a word, commits the heinous crime of suicide. Hamilton 
 himself, in defending the present federal pact against the charge' 
 of consolidating the states, or abating their ultimate sovereignty, 
 said: — “The states are the essential component parts of the new 
 system “ The destruction of the states would be political 
 suicide ” [II. Ell. Deb. 304, 353]. And he further said “ The state 
 governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete 
 security againt invasions. of the public liberty by national authority. 
 In a confederacy , the people, without exaggeration, may be said to 
 be entirely masters of their own fate” [Fed. 28]. 
 
 THE PACT ITSELF AGREES WITH THE ABOVE PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 In the first place, the constitution recognises throughout, the 
 distinctness of individuality and absolute independence of organism, 
 mind and will of the states ; and winds up by providing that the 
 said wills are to “ ratify,” and thereby “ ordain and establish,” the 
 instrument and the government under it ; each will to be declared 
 by a convention. [See article VII. of the pact]. 
 
 In the second place, it provides that the wills of states are to 
 amend. The will to do, and that to undo, must be equal. Tho 
 power to repeal is precisely commensurate with that to ordain and 
 enact. The will which “ordained and established,” necessarily 
 lived through the act, and continued unimpaired, so that it could, 
 as it was in duty bound to do continually, consider whether the 
 
376 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 constituted government did actually “provide for the common 
 defence,” and “promote the general welfare.” The wills of the 
 states necessarily survived, looked back on the system, pronounced 
 it good, and must have intended to amend, or in the last resort 
 abolish, if it did not continue good, for they provided for the power 
 to amend (in article Y.), which includes in its nature the power to 
 abolish. If the states are compelled to keep that which their 
 respective judgments originally approved, and their wills adopted, 
 but which the said judgments afterward find to be bad and 
 destructive, surely “tranquillity,” “justice,” “defence,” “welfare,” 
 and “liberty” cannot be thereby “provided for” and “promoted.” 
 [See the federal preamble.] 
 
 Both political philosophy and the constitution, then, show 
 Massachusetts (or South Carolina) to be a complete state with a 
 sovereign will. Her right and duty of self-preservation are abso- 
 lute. If endangered, she is bound to defend herself — “peaceably 
 if she can, forcibly if she must.”* 
 
 This is plain common-sense ; for these wills having voluntarily 
 ordained, could, if not enslaved, respectively undo what they had 
 respectively done. It was never denied that the union was volun- 
 tary when made. When, and by what act, did it become invol- 
 untary? When the indissoluble union begins, voluntariness and 
 freedom end, and the states are back precisely to the provincial 
 condition they held under Britain. So that, as to South Carolina, 
 if the powers she putin the constitution, and the forts she quali- 
 fiedly granted the sites of, and permitted to bo built, were used, or 
 attempted to be used, for her harm and destruction, instead of her 
 “defence and safety,” she was in duty bound to investigate, judge, 
 and will. The gun fired at Fort Sumter spoke her decree annulling 
 the federal tenure ! It was rightful and righteous 1 God made her 
 fire it ! 
 
 THE EXPOUNDERS VIRTUALLY ADMIT THIS THEORY. 
 
 Webster and the federal supreme court have often unwillingly, 
 or perhaps unwittingly, admitted the statehood and sovereignty of 
 the American commonwealths, and their consequent absolute right 
 
 •In 1868, at the Virginia White Sulphur Springs, A. H. Stephens, Gen. Lee. and others, issued a 
 political document tu influence the then pending election. Among other thingsit deciaied that the 
 South had given np forever the right ofsecession. In other words, they had alienated or parted with 
 what God had incorporated in their natures, and made inalienable. 1 1 is evident that the declarants 
 did not understand the source and nature of the right. However, political declarations in America 
 are intended more to attract votes than to promulgate truth. Is it not so wherever candidates are 
 allowed to solicit them? 
 
THE ULTIMATE ARBITER. 
 
 377 
 
 of self-preservation, and especially in “ The Bank of Augusta vs. 
 Earle” [13 Peters, 519.] In this case they said the federal 
 compact only included and settled the questions it provided for, 
 leaving all others outside, to be settled under and according to the 
 jus gentium, i. e. by diplomacy or force. This admits sovereign 
 states, and that every question involving the integrity or sove- 
 reignty of a state must be for her decision. If not, she is a slave, 
 and not a sovereign ; and she violates her nature if she declines 
 the decision, or the enforcement of it. 
 
 The sovereignty of the united states then, to use the expressions 
 of James Wilson, who stated the views of the fathers on this 
 subject, “resides in the people” as they are organised, i. e. it 
 dwells in commonwealths; “it never leaves them” ; it is “in the 
 people before they make a constitution, and remains in them after 
 it is made.” [II. Ell. Deb. 432, 456.] It is well to repeat here 
 Mr. Weoster’s admission that sovereignty with us has never left 
 the people, and that sovereignty cannot be in the government : also 
 Curtis’s admission, that our governments are only “agents and 
 depositaries ” of authority. 
 
 THE GUARANTY OF ALL TO PRESERVE EACH. 
 
 The following clause (art. IY. §4) was especially designed to 
 secure the absolute integrity and sovereignty of each common- 
 wealth: — “The united states shall guarant} 7 to every state in this 
 union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of 
 them against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of 
 the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against 
 domestic violence.” This clause can but mean that all the states 
 guaranty each to be and to remain a republic ; in other words, 
 that she (i. e. “the people”) shall govern entirely and absolutely. 
 “ A republican form of government” means a republic ; and there 
 can be no republic unless the people govern themselves in every- 
 thing.* 
 
 The above-quoted clause means precisely what the second article 
 of the first federal constitution meant, to wit, that “ each state 
 retains [and its associates are to guaranty] its sovereignty, 
 freedom and independence.” It means that the state is to govern 
 
 ♦The U-oerticides of America pretend that keeping: up the “form” satisfies the obligation. 
 So they rule states from Washington, while keeping up simulacra for republican governments. 
 All but fools or knaves will admit that a monarchical form means a monarchy ; an aristocratic form 
 an aiistocracy ; and “ a republican form” a republic. 
 
378 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 herself as to her home affairs, and that the states are to govern 
 themselves as to their general affairs ; and finally, it means that 
 state wills are always to be supreme, and are to be bound in union 
 only by virtue of voluntary engagements. 
 
 The reader cannot fail to notice that it is everywhere protection 
 and defence , and not attack and injury, of states, that the federal 
 polity is intended for. I have heretofore shown how the consti- 
 tution provides for “defence” of the states, — to use the word of 
 the preamble. We have heretofore seen that the cessions of 
 occupancy and use of the sites of foi’ts, &c., made by the states and 
 accepted by “the united states,” are expressly for “the defence 
 and safety of the state”; the first part of the clause under con- 
 sideration “guaranties” the continued existence and absolute self- 
 government of every state; and finally, the latter part of the 
 clause requires “the united states” to “protect” each of the states 
 “against invasion” and “against domestic violence.” In short, 
 the states , in making the constitution, and giving powers to their admin- 
 istering subjects, could but intend self-preservation and self-defence. 
 
 EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS. 
 
 The expression of a case or cases where the, agency can enter 
 the state with force and arms, is the exclusion of all other cases. 
 The government, which lives, moves and has its being through 
 state will, and is subordinate, can only enter states vi et armis, for 
 the purposes of “ defence ” and “ protection ” they have specified : 
 
 1. to protect the states “ against invasion ” or external violence ; 
 
 2. to protect them “against domestic violence.” This latter is 
 only to be when the state legislature, or (if it cannot be convened) 
 the state executive, calls for it. 
 
 It is certain then that “protection” and preservation of the 
 state, are held in view throughout the federal polity, and the 
 history of it. Every act of the government must be in favor of, 
 and not against the state. This all the fathers taught, and all the 
 states intended. 
 
 “ THE GOVERNMENT ” HAS NO RIGHT TO HOLD THE STATES. 
 
 The pretence that there is in the general government a superin- 
 tending and constraining power over states, is false and unphilo- 
 sophical, for sovereignty “ resides in,” and “ never leaves,” “ the 
 people ”; and hence the government constituted by “ the people,” 
 
THE ULTIMATE ARBITER. 
 
 379 
 
 must be subordinate to them, whether they acted as states or as a 
 nation. The audacious utterance of the Philadelphia convention 
 of 1866, that “ the government ” has “absolute supremacy” over 
 allegiant states, is alike false, unconstitutional, and treasonable. 
 
 To make out its case, “the government ” first assumes that the 
 union is indissoluble ; and secondly, that it has the right and duty 
 of preserving the said union; that is to say, the states by their 
 wills voluntarily united themselves, and in the same act created an 
 agency to keep them together despite their wills, by Shipping 
 them with their own men and means. Virtually “the govern- 
 ment ” says to “ the people,” whose creation and instrument it is: 
 “ You, as bodies, came freely and voluntarily together ; but you 
 shall henceforth be pinned together by bayonets, and shall use 
 your minds and wills no longer, except ‘ so far as ’ * the supreme 
 law ’ which gives ‘ the government ’ ‘absolute supremacy’ over 
 you, permits.” 
 
 Any semblance of governmental control of the political people is 
 unprincipled, and the exercise of such control is usurpation and 
 flagrant wrong; for the American polity is founded solely on man’s 
 right of, and capacity for, self-government. This necessarily 
 implies self-organisation and self-rule of commonwealths, and the 
 right to fail in and abandon, as well as that to succeed in and 
 continue, any given political or other experiment.* Such enforced 
 supremacy of “ the government ” reduces the states to counties, 
 nullifies their revolution of 1776, and remands them to colonial 
 or rather provincial vassalage. 
 
 * Washington, Franklin, and all the fathers considered and called the present federal system an 
 experiment Indeed, all human systems must he such, owing to the finite wisdom which makes 
 them. This is why Massachusetts and other states declare, what Indeed common-sense teaches: that 
 “ the people alone have an lncontestlble, Inalienable and indefeasible right to ] nstitute government, 
 and to reform, alter or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity and happi- 
 ness require it.” 
 
CHAPTER XI. — The True Character oe the Government. 
 
 |Y the action of their wills, the states give existence, life and 
 power to the visible government, and at the same time, and 
 in the same act, they federalise themselves. No possible 
 political will could delegate or grant, but that of the state, while 
 the only possible grantee is the federation of states. “ The gov- 
 ernment” — so called — cannot have any capacity to be a grantee, 
 for decisive reasons which will now be presented. 
 
 “ The government of the united states,” like that of any state, is 
 tripartite, i. e. three institutions co-existing, but independently 
 acting. It was not constituted a unit, so as to be a moral person, 
 with a mind and a will. The “unity of government” which 
 Washington spoke of, simply meant one system for all the states — 
 without reference to its character — which should effectually 
 provide for the “common defence” and “general welfare” of “the 
 people ” as organised. 
 
 To get a definite conception of the system, let us see how 
 distinct and exclusive these institutions appear in the federal pact. 
 Article I. declares that “all legislative powers herein granted shall 
 be vested in a congress of the united states Article II. declares 
 that “ the executive power shall be vested in a president of the 
 united states”; and article III. declares “the judicial power of the 
 united states shall be vested in one supreme court ” and subordi- 
 nate courts. 
 
 Keeping these articles under view, the following diagram enables 
 the mind to see the individuality of these created entities to be as 
 distinct, and their action as independent, as if they were separated 
 by adamantine walls, and each harnessed in steel. 
 
 Executive 
 
 Legislative 
 
 Judicial 
 
 Department. 
 
 Department. 
 
 Department. 
 
 380 
 
THE TRUE CHARACTER OP THE GOVERNMENT. 381 
 
 The founders of institutional liberty, knowing the tendency of 
 all government towards tyranny, recognised this natural separate- 
 ness of these governmental functions and agencies, and in some 
 constitutions expressed and carefully guarded it. [See the consti- 
 tution of Massachusetts.] Their aim, especially in forming the 
 federal government, was to subject every measure of the rulers to 
 several successive and independent examinations, tests and vetoes, 
 so as to ensure the wisest and most efficient, and at the same time, 
 the most conservative efforts to secure “tranquillity,” “justice,” 
 “defence,” “welfare” and “liberty,” and above all, to prevent the 
 injury or destruction of the great palladium of all these blessings — 
 the American constitutional polity. This is precisely the theory 
 of those “ checks and balances ” so many talk of, and so few seem 
 to understand and properly appreciate. 
 
 The three agencies under review are the mere mouth-pieces, 
 instruments, tools, or slaves of their creator, owner, master and 
 sovereign — the league of commonwealths, “ the united states,” 
 “the people” — to speak and effectuate the legislative, executive 
 or judicial will, as the case may be, of the said sovereignty. 
 
 THE UNHEEDED FORM OP CONSOLIDATION IS THE WORST. 
 
 Mow the most dangerous form of consolidation in America is 
 that which is least noticed and guarded against, if ever thought 
 of, and that is the breaking down, by these agencies, of the walls 
 separating them ; their getting together and acting covertly with 
 one mind, under the greatest temptations, without check and 
 without responsibility; or what amounts to the same, the gradual 
 gaining by one of them of a mastery over the others so as to get 
 undivided sway. In either case “the government” becomes a 
 unit and a corporate despot of the vilest imaginable character. 
 If it did not, it would be superhuman. 
 
 REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE A GRANTEE. 
 
 The only seat of that “endowment of the soul” called “will,” 
 which must be used in government, is in “the people ” as 
 organised, and “it never leaves them.” Their right of freely 
 exercising it is sovereignty. Not only is this “faculty of the 
 soul” resident in the people, but the government has no will, 
 because it has no unity, and no corporate mind. Hence it cannot 
 be a grantee of powers, rights, or anything else ; but its capacity 
 
382 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 is simply that of an agent, or trio of agents, who hold nothing of 
 right, must do as told, and remain abjectly submissive, so that 
 without resistance, or even murmur, it, or they, can be kicked out 
 of the way whenever the mighty mind of the people shall move 
 their mighty foot to that end.* 
 
 Again, “the government” is never mentioned as grantee, while 
 “the united states” always is. All titles to federal property, and 
 to the occupation, use and jurisdiction of federal footholds — as has 
 been shown — are made by the respective states, and to the “united 
 states.” Nay more, the tenth amendment declares expressly that 
 all the powers in the constitution are “ delegated to the united states.” 
 
 Again, there is no grant whatever in the sense of alienation; 
 but powers are delegated, i. e. entrusted to be used for the owners, 
 “the people ” — the users necessarily being “agents” and “ser- 
 vants.” The expounding words “cede,”- “surrender,”- “part with,” 
 “relinquish,” &c., that mean alienate, are quibbles, subterfuges, 
 and falsehoods; and they are found in the writings of every 
 “ expounder.” 
 
 Again, the language of the pact shows everything still to belong 
 to the states. Note the numerous possessive phrases — “the 
 government of the * states ”; “ the treasury of the * * 
 states”; “ the army and navy of the * * states”; “the territory 
 and other property of the * * states,” &c., &c. 
 
 Again, the government could not be the grantee, because it did 
 not have a being till long after the constitution had been com- 
 pleted by the only parties that then existed, or could exert will 
 upon it, and the association of states had been ipso facto formed. 
 In the fall of 1788 the congress of states declared the new 
 federalising instrument to be complete, according to its tenor, by 
 “ the ratification of the conventions of nine states * * between 
 
 the states so [i. e. by convention] ratifying the same ”; and the 
 said congress provided for carrying it into effect, by notifying 
 their constituents, the states, of the “sufficient ” “establishment ” 
 and recommending that they should elect their government. 
 Whereupon the respective state legislatures passed laws for elec- 
 tions. In accordance therewith, the states elected their own 
 subjects as senators; their own subjects as representatives ; their 
 own subjects as electors to elect the president. And when the 
 
 *The federal supreme court said “the constitution -was -written by the mighty hand of the 
 people.” Why then can they not have and use a mighty foot? 
 
THE TRUE CHARACTER OE THE GOVERNMENT. 383 
 
 elected persons, as subjects, representatives, and agents under the 
 law, had organised themselves to work in the vocation whereunto 
 called, the government for the first time existed; and, as shown, 
 it had no unity of body or mind, no will, no inherent and original 
 rights and powers, but was composed entirely of subjects and 
 agents who remained individually and collectively under the law, 
 whether home or general, constitutional or statutory. 
 
 What! are these mighty “government” men under state con- 
 stitutions and laws? Yea, verily, even under the laws of town- 
 councils if applicable. Let the president, or all his government, go 
 into Gettysburg and violate an ordinance, and he would learn the 
 fact. The wills of the states have declared the federal law to be 
 supreme. What conflicts, is no law. What does not conflict, is 
 law, and binding even on the proudest magnate or corporation in 
 the land, whether governmental or not. 
 
 How then could this poor agency, instrument, or machine, be a 
 party to the compact, and the grantee of delegations, of federal 
 tenures of property, and of the use and' occupation of sites for 
 forts, navy-yards, &c. ? The idea is absurd. It was the league or 
 federation that was grantee. Each state granted to the states , as is 
 proved by the tenth amendment, providing that all powers not 
 delegated to the united states, are reserved. And, I repeat, every 
 grant was a delegation or giving in trust, and not an alienation. 
 As Judge Parsons said, “The people divest themselves of nothing .” 
 Said Judge Marshall, in the ratifying convention of Virginia: 
 Federal and state officers are alike servants of the people, who 
 “ hold their powers in their own hands, and delegate them 
 cautiously for short periods, to their servants, who are account- 
 able for the smallest maladministration.” [II. Ell. Deb. 89 ; III. 
 Ibid. 232.] 
 
 A MISLEADING MISNOMER. 
 
 The phrase, “the government ” — particularly when the big G is 
 used — misleads the unthinking, unless the purely derivative, dele- 
 gative, and agential character of the institution so named, is kept in 
 view ; for the real government of the republic, or of any republic, 
 is necessarily the state itself — the so-called government being a 
 mere agency or commission, created by the people, and empowered 
 by them to administer their governmental affairs. The American 
 bodies-politic govern themselves — separately in domestic, and 
 unitedly in general affairs. They then are the government. 
 
384 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Hence it is that the first article of the constitution, as unanimously 
 adopted by the convention of 1787, and never reconsidered, though 
 left out by the revising committee, reads as follows : “Article I. 
 The style of this government shall be the United States of 
 America.” “The government,” then, is “the United States.” 
 And, in the nature of things, the government of each republic is 
 the republic, while the government of the united republics is the 
 united republics. 
 
 LET US SYMBOLISE THE POLITY. 
 
 The whole subject, then, in all its parts, being matter of fact or 
 inference, we can present the grades and impartations of authority, 
 as is done on pages 317-20 supra. 
 
 1. Suppose thirteen figures in a horizontal line to symbolise the 
 organisations of people, named in the constitution. Part of the 
 people were named Massachusetts ; part Delaware ; part Georgia ; 
 and so of the rest. These entities are still so named, and are 
 unchanged. 
 
 2. Next below, suppose the same figures to be grouped as the 
 united states, and a line to be drawn from each state above to this 
 association, to indicate the delegating of power, by each state, to 
 the union of them. Each state is the delegator, and all of them 
 united are the delegatee. 
 
 3. In the third grade, let us suppose a threefold figure to repre- 
 sent the three co-ordinate institutions which form the federal 
 agency of government, through which the individual people are 
 ruled. This figure shows “ the government of [i. e. belonging toj 
 the united states.” 
 
 4. At the bottom we might place a figure to represent the same 
 people that we see atop, but in their capacity as subjects, the 
 republican idea of self-government requiring that, while they 
 appear at top, and above the institutions of government, in a 
 corporate and sovereign capacity, they should also appear below 
 the said institutions in an individual and subject one. 
 
 This process will lastingly impress the reader with the grades 
 of our system — 1. the sovereign societies of people ; 2. the govern- 
 mental “ agents and depositaries of power,” as Mr. Curtis calls 
 them — the congress, president, and judiciary ; 3. the members, 
 eitizens, or subjects of the states, and their belongings. The first 
 are the sovereign people, the last the subject people. 
 
CHAPTER XII. — Facts must prevail. 
 
 XLESS we wish plain facts of history and the sacred records 
 m§I of our country to be subjects of contention forever, we must 
 Y make up distinct issues, and charge either the sons or the 
 sires with deliberate falsehood. 
 
 LET THOSE WHO DEVISED, DESCRIBE THE POLITY. 
 
 The sires who planned our constitution of general government 
 described it as follows. Apology for repetition can hardly be 
 necessary. 
 
 Alexander Hamilton said the present union is “an association 
 of states or a confederacy” ; and that “the people of Hew York are 
 the sovereigns of it” [Fed. IX.; his address, 1789]. Chancellor 
 Livingston said our general polity is “a league of states” [II. Ell. 
 Deb. 274], John Jay said “the states adopted” “the present 
 plan”; and that it is a “ union of states” [I. Ell. Deb. 496; II. Ibid. 
 282]. James Madison said “the states are regarded as distinct 
 and independent sovereigns” “by the constitution” [Fed. XL], 
 Gen. Washington wrote of the constitution as a “compact or 
 treaty”; and the union formed by it as “the new confederacy” 
 [Let. to Gen. Pinckney, June 28, 1788; do. to D. Stuart, Oct. 17, 
 1787]. Dr. Franklin said the senate was to secure in the union 
 “the sovereignties of the individual states” [Y. Ell. Deb. 266]. 
 James Wilson said: the sovereignty “is in the people before they 
 make a constitution, and remains in them after it is made,” and 
 that the said people are “thirteen independent sovereignties” [II. 
 Ell. Deb. 443; Mass. Continel. Oct. 24, 1787]. John Dickinson 
 called the new political system “a confederacy of republics,” and 
 he recognised therein “the sovereignty of each state” [II. Pol. 
 Writings of J. D., 107]. Gouverneur Morris said the consti- 
 tution was “a compact * * between political societies * * 
 
 each enjoying sovereign power” [III. Life of M., 193], Roger 
 Sherman said “the government * * was instituted by a number 
 
 385 
 
386 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 of sovereign states ” [see his letter to John Adams in YII. 'Writings 
 of J. A.]. Oliver Ellsworth called the states “ sovereign bodies” 
 [II. Ell. Deb. 197]. Tench Cox said the union was of “ separate 
 sovereignties joining in a confederacy” [Am. Mus. 160, 241]. 
 Chancellor Pendleton, the president of the Virginia ratifying 
 convention, said the people of Virginia were “the fountain of all 
 power,” and that the new system was “uniting the strength of 
 thirteen states” — each state “a sovereign state” [III. Ell. Deb. 
 297, 549], John Marshall (afterwards chief-justice) spoke of the 
 state in the union as “the sovereign power” [III. Ell. Deb. 555]. 
 Saoiuel Adams said “each state retains its sovereignty” in the 
 present union [II. Ell. Deb. 131]. Gov. James Bowdoin spoke of 
 the union as “ a confederacy ”; and of the states as “ distinct 
 sovereignties” [II. Ell. Deb. 129], See also, to the same effect, 
 the utterances of James Iredell [IV. Eil. Deb. 133], Fisher Ames 
 [II. Ell. Deb. 46], Theophilus Parsons [see his life, p. 98], Chris- 
 topher Gore [II. Ell. Deb. 18], George Cabot [II. Ell. Deb. 26]. 
 
 The fathers, then, describe the American political system as a 
 federation of sovereignties. 
 
 THE SONS CONTRADICT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS. 
 
 The acre of wiseacres who, at Philadelphia in 1866, declared 
 that the states were unified into a nation or commonwealth of 
 people, were degraded to counties, and were subordinated and made 
 allegiant to “the government,” which was possessed of “absolute 
 supremacy,” did with tolerable accuracy express the views of Dane, 
 Story, Webster, Curtis, Greeley, Jameson, Pendleton, Adams, 
 Lincoln, Johnson, et id omne genus. The constitution, said Mr. 
 Webster, in his speech of 1833, makes us one undivided people — a 
 nation; and “ effectually controls state sovereignty.” The states 
 have only such status and rights as the national constitution gives 
 them, said Mr. Lincoln. We are changed from a league of states, to 
 a nation of provinces, say they all — including Story, and that most 
 respectable and efficient perverter of the American polity, the 
 federal supreme court. Just now — 1876! — these “ agents and de- 
 positaries ” [“I thank thee,” Mr. Curtis, for these words] of “ the 
 judicial power of the united [t. e. associated] states” declare “the 
 government” [of which they are a part] to be, “within the scope 
 of its powers ” [and all these “ agents and depositaries ” agree, that, 
 on all disputed questions of power, they are the ultimate arbiters] 
 
FACTS MUST PREVAIL. 
 
 387 
 
 “ supreme and above the states” ; and “ endowed with all trie powers 
 necessary for its own preservation ” / 
 
 THE SUBJECT IS EXCLUSIVELY ONE OF FACT. 
 
 The subjects of affirmation in all these propositions are subjects 
 of fact and technical description, about which it is impossible for 
 such men as I have named to speak pro and con innocently. They 
 are all the most competent witnesses the earth could afford, and 
 all of them have made these questions of historical fact and testi- 
 mony special studies. They saw and knew what they were talking 
 about. It is quite as justifiable for such men to say white is black, 
 or night is day, as to affirm that separate states are an undivided 
 nation, or that the league of commonwealths is a single state. 
 There can be no escape from the charge that either the sons or the 
 sires have wilfully “borne false witness.” It is for the American 
 people to decide which. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OR INTERPRETATION HAS HERE NO PLACE, 
 
 though it is a common trick or subterfuge to interpret in order to 
 avoid plain words and most lucid contemporaneous exposition. 
 Legislative, executive, or judicial construction is proper where 
 those charged with duty, find ambiguity or doubt in the meaning 
 and intent of the words of their “powers.” But the system was 
 described as a fact — was recognised as a technical thing by all 
 publicists — :and was impressed on all men, and on the historic 
 page, without reference to the acts of its government, and indeed 
 before that institution was in esse. The system was established 
 and describable in 1788, and was characterised by the fathers as 
 above; while the government was elected, and began to .exist and 
 act in 1789. In 1788, it was a voluntary “ union of states — a vol- 
 untary federation of sovereigns — a voluntary republic of re- 
 publics.” 
 
 THE QUESTION AMERICANS CANNOT EVADE. 
 
 I have now presented the American polity, its history, and its 
 philosophy ; and placed the statements of the sires in contrast with 
 those of the sons. The assertions are directly opposed. Between 
 them “the people” must decide; for, by choosing to be republics, 
 they have assumed the right and the responsibility of settling all 
 questions. . Is the general polity a union of people, or a union 
 of states — a nation or a confederacy? And is the “absolute 
 
388 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 supremacy” of the country in “the government,” or is it in “the 
 people ” as organised ? 
 
 Americans will realise the wrong-doing of their “ expounders,” 
 by reflecting 1st. that the government in 1789, was entirely deri- 
 vative and agential — its authority being purely delegative and 
 ministerial; 2d. that instead of being since increased, its authority 
 was diminished and more carefully restricted — especially by the 
 9th, 10th, and 11th amendments; 3d. that it now claims and en- 
 forces “ absolute supremacy ” over allegiant states, and declares 
 that these have no status or rights except such as are “reserved 
 to them” by the nation in its “supreme law.” 
 
 A HINT TO ENGLAND AND THE AMERICAN PROVINCES. 
 
 It seems, from our recent history, advisable to go back to the 
 old faith, or to the old sovereign. As the American states, by 
 permitting their quondam federal agency or commission to fasten 
 absolutism on them, have provincialised themselves, would it not 
 be well, in case they do not wish to retake sovereignty, to propose 
 to England a new Anglo-American treaty, and stipulate therein 
 to be reincorporated, and restored to their ancient provincial privi- 
 leges, in that glorious old commonwealth, whose polity, like her 
 flag, has braved for a thousand years the battle and the breeze — a 
 polity, as her fond sons believe, at once free, permanent, and un- 
 assailable, being, as Tennyson writes, 
 
 “ Broad-based upon the people’s will. 
 
 And compassed by the inviolate sea”? 
 
PART Y. 
 
 Citizenship, Allegiance and Treason 
 
 IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 389 
 

 
 
 
CHAPTER I. — Fundamental Principles. 
 
 ^IJtf’REATING- the matter in the main historically, or rather by 
 V-'y quoting the statements and opinions of the fathers, I shall 
 
 T maintain the following points : 
 
 I. The people are the states, and as such they compose whatever 
 nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the 
 states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government. 
 
 II. The fathers contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger 
 of the federal delegative authority increasing, to the control and 
 final destruction of the states. 
 
 III. Federal acts, outside of delegateu powers, were to oe treated 
 as nullities, and, if attempted to be enforced, resisted as usurpations. 
 
 IY. The federal government is not only without authority, but 
 is actually prohibited, to coerce the state with arms — by legislation, 
 or even judicially. 
 
 Y. The states in the union have the unlimited right of self- 
 defence ; even, if need be, against the federal agency. 
 
 YI. To defend the state with arms, in obedience to her will, 
 is the duty of the member or citizen ; and is not treason in any 
 sense, but is true loyalty. 
 
 The reader will find the corollaries or considerations involved in 
 this last and most important point stated at the beginning of 
 chapter YI. infra; and he should by all means read, them now, 
 for thereby he can see and measurably appreciate the scope, if not 
 the pith, of the whole great argument. The last point [YI.] is the 
 citadel of American institutional liberty ! 
 
 THE STATES ARE THE PEOPLE AND POLITY. 
 
 Point I. — The people are the states, and, as such, they compose 
 u'hatever nation there is ; and the general government is the agency of 
 the states, by and through which they exercise self-government. 
 
 The people are states, and are sovereign, for they are republics, 
 
 391 
 
392 CITIZENSHIP ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 or self-governing Dodies of people. They were never organized 
 otherwise. Nor have they any capacity for political action, except 
 as states : and it is they (and not their government, local or 
 general) that hold inherently and ab origine , the sovereign, exclusive, 
 and unqualified right and power to govern all the people and 
 territory within them. Just as they pre-existed, they were named 
 and provided for in the federal constitution, as well as recognised 
 as the sole pai’ties to, and actors, under it; and the identical 
 original states now exist, unchanged in any particular. 
 
 And the general government is their agency, for it is made up 
 personally of their subjects, and it only possesses and acts by 
 derivative and delegative power. 
 
 All the foregoing parts of this work are devoted to the proof of 
 the above proposition, so that I shall content myself here with two 
 or three decisive quotations, fully covering the ground ; simply to 
 indicate this link of the chain, while emphasising and reimpressing 
 the vital truth it involves. 
 
 Said Daniel Webster, in his speech of 1833: — “The sovereignty 
 of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the 
 Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America. * * But 
 with us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign ; 
 and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them 
 such power as they please.” 
 
 George Ticknor Curtis states it as “ the American doctrine,” 
 that all supreme power resides originally in the people, and that 
 all governments are constituted by them as the agents and 
 depositaries of that power.* 
 
 To the s-ame effect I quote, from among numerous authorities 
 before me, James Wilson’s statement in the Pennsylvania ratifying 
 convention: — “The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power 
 is in the people before they make a constitution, and remains in 
 them after it is made. * * The sovereignty resides in the people, 
 and it never leaves them.” [II. Ell. Deb. 432, ef seg.~\ 
 
 He meant the people as organised in societies or commonwea.ths, 
 and not as a nation, for he spoke of “ thirteen independent sover- 
 eignties ” as the parties then deliberating and acting. [Mass. 
 Centinel, Oct. 24, 1787 ; Am. Mus. vol. I.J 
 
 ’“Agents” do not act, or "depositaries” hold, for themselves. Hence Mr. C. is solecistic in 
 saying— as he does or seems to do— that they are the depositaries of supreme authority, instead 
 of‘, powers” delegated by the supreme authority. I accept his truth as an admission, and reject 
 his mistake. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 393 
 
 I conclude this point by referring to the numerous quotations 
 made heretofore from Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, 
 Adams, and the rest of the fathers, especially in Chapter VII. of 
 Part I., and by repeating that the people are the states, and, as such, 
 they compose whatever nation there is ; and the “ general government ” 
 is the agency of the states by and through which they exercise federal 
 self-government. 0. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER II. — Federal Usurpation to be feared and 
 
 opposed. 
 
 “4gf|OIKT II. — The fathers contemplated , and tried to for ef 'end , the 
 p|ifl danger of the federal delegative authority increasing , to the 
 Y control and final destruction of the states. 
 
 The use of undelegated power by the federal government, or the 
 individuals thei’eof, involves their perjury and treason, for they 
 are all sworn to support and obey the constitution — such oath 
 being, in effect, to use granted, and not use ungranted, powers — 
 the latter being “retained,” or “reserved,” by the sovereigns as 
 their most precious treasures. And it was never dreamed of that 
 federal officers — the elect of the people and “the excellent of the 
 earth” — could ever become such villains as to perjure themselves, 
 and thus deprive the people of the great security against usurpa- 
 tion referred to by Webster when he said — “ the constitution , to 
 preserve itself, lays hold of individual conscience and individual duty.' 
 The tendency and end of such federal increment is necessarily to 
 degrade, and finally to overthrow and destroy, the sovereigns of 
 the country. Unfortunately, encroachments on reserved powers 
 in a republic are insidious and unappreciated, until their sum 
 amounts to revolution and the loss of liberty 1 " I 
 
 When the federalising of the states was under discussion, the 
 great fear was that the general government might transcend its 
 granted powers, to nationalise or consolidate them. The vehement 
 attacks of Henry, Mason, Martin, Lowndes, Yates, and others, 
 were nearly fatal. Every advocate of the new plan insisted on 
 federalising the states, an-d disavowed and denounced the idea of 
 consolidating or nationalising them. For example, the great 
 Fisher Ames said, in the Massachusetts ratifying convention : — • 
 “ No argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression 
 than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an 
 effect which all good men deprecate. * * The state governments 
 are essential parts of the system. * * The senators represent 
 
 394 
 
FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. 305 
 
 the sovereignty of the states * * in the quality of ambassadors 
 
 of states. * * A consolidation of the states would subvert the new 
 constitution, against which this very article [that providing for 
 senators to serve six years] is our best security. Too much pro- 
 vision cannot be made against consolidation .” Said Chancellor Pen- 
 dleton, in the convention of Virginia, in reference to this very 
 objection : — “ If this be such a government, I will confess with my 
 worthy friend [Patrick Henry] that it is inadmissible .” Similarly 
 spoke others, in all the principal ratifying and delegating states ; 
 and no friend of the constitution ever dissented. The advocates 
 of the plan, admitting that the federal functionai’ies were to be 
 (not angels — but) men of average weakness and wickedness, 
 showed the danger to be much overrated, and strove precisely to 
 ascertain and forefend it. They argued, as will be hereafter seen, 
 that there was no power whatever to coerce states in any manner ; 
 that the states had the right of self-defence, even against the 
 federal government ; that they only delegated power, or bound 
 themselves in union, voluntarily , and could withdraw, or retract 
 delegations at will; and. in short, that state integrity and sover- 
 eignty were secure. 
 
 carefully guarding against consolidation. 
 
 Hay more, out of abundance of caution, the advocates, to forefend 
 possible dangers, or, at all events, to remove doubts, proposed 
 amendments. This over-caution was started in the Massachusetts 
 convention, where, after long and animated debate, it was found 
 that the opposition was likely to prevail. Thereupon a “concil- 
 iatory proposition” was made by the federalisers, through John 
 Hancock, the president, to the effect that the convention should 
 ratify, with the understanding that the states should speedily 
 make amendments. Chief among those proposed, was the fol- 
 lowing: — That “all powers not expressly delegated, are reserved 
 to the several states, to be by them exercised.” But even then, 
 though Samuel Adams, the great leader of the opposition, joined 
 Hancock, and both expressed “ full confidence ” in the amendments 
 being adopted, such were the fear and prejudice, that ratification 
 was only carried by a majority of 19 in 355 votes. [II. Ell. Deb. 181.] 
 And, indeed, so deep and widespread were the apprehension and 
 doubt on this subject, that, in several of the states, the constitu- 
 tion was barely carried. And Hildreth, the Massachusetts his- 
 
396 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON 
 
 torian, thinks, on a retrospect, that if a vote of the general people 
 had been taken, the decision would have been advei’se. 
 
 THIS AMENDMENT WAS A MERE TRUISM : 
 
 and was to give emphasis to what already existed in the nature 
 of things ; for actual delegations only were put in the plan ; and 
 the powers not put in were left out, and, of course, retained by the 
 commonwealths of people. Hence the amendment was needed only 
 to enable the said people “ clearly to see the distinction,” remove 
 their fears, and give confidence and hope. This is evident from 
 the debate and the ordinance of ratification [see II. Ell. Deb. 122- 
 177 et stj.] ; and Samuel Adams wrote Elbridge Gerry and R. H. 
 Lee, in congress, in 1789, pressing on the latter, “ the importance 
 of the amendments, that the good people may clearly see the distinc- 
 tion between the federal powers vested in congress, and the sovereign 
 authority belonging to the several states, which is the palladium 
 of the private and personal rights of the citizens and urging to 
 the former, that “ without such distinction, there will be danger 
 of the constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a 
 consolidated government, over all the states, which, though it may 
 be wished for by some, was reprobated in the idea by the highest 
 advocates of the constitution as it stood without amendment.” 
 [See III. Life of Samuel Adams.] Numerous evidences of this 
 view could be given. One will suffice. Said General C. C. Pinck- 
 ney, in the debate on ratification in South Carolina: No powers 
 can be “in the general government but what are expressly granted 
 to it. By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to our- 
 selves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution.” 
 
 Successively, South Carolina, NewHampshire, Virginia, and New 
 York, joined Massachusetts in her demand for this great amend- 
 ment. And it is more than probable that the general approval of 
 it, and the “full confidence” in its being adopted, caused the 
 acquiescence in, and the adoption of, the new system. 
 
 In the congress of 1789, resolutions proposing the amendments 
 for the action of the states, were passed — the preamble setting 
 forth that some of the states expressed, when they adopted the 
 constitution, “ a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction, or 
 abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses 
 should be added ”; and that “ such clauses would tend to increase 
 public confidence, and thereby help to the beneficent ends in view.” 
 
FEDERAL USURPATION TO BE FEARED AND OPPOSED. 397 
 
 THE GRAND RESULT OF THE MOVEMENT 
 may be stated thus : The charge that consolidation, or subordin- 
 ating the states, was in the original instrument, was disproved. To 
 make assurance doubly sure, that the government was to be always 
 an agency of, and subordinate to, the states ; to complete the 
 harnessing and utilising of the individual and collecti we, personnel of 
 the government; to emphasise their subjection to the law, and 
 their inability to act without express and written warrant; and 
 finally, to make coercion of the states, by their own subjects and 
 agency, forever impossible, they — the said states — amended the con- 
 stitution within the first few years of its history, as follows — thus 
 putting the people’s seal of reprobation on, and forever preventing, 
 all legislative, military, and judicial forms of coercion of common- 
 wealths : — amendment IX. provides, that the enumeration in the 
 constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or 
 disparage others retained by the people ; amendment X., that the 
 powers not delegated to the united states, or prohibited therein to 
 the states, are reserved to the states or people*; and amendment 
 XI., that there shall be no federal judicial coercion of a state at the 
 suit of a citizen of any other state [Please refer to amendments 
 ' IX., X., and XI], 
 
 It is obvious that amendment X. alone, m declaring that “all 
 powers not delegated to the united states, are reserved,” &c., shows 
 that the several states that delegated, must be now absolutely sove- 
 reign ; that they collectively are the sole recipients and trustees 
 of the powers delegated by the individual states; and finally, that 
 the whole grand federal polity rests solely on sacred international 
 faith — the highest political sanction that is earthly and human ; as 
 well as the most likely to endure — if men have the right and 
 capacity for self-organisation and self-government. 
 
 In closing this point, then, 1 beg leave to repeat, that the fathers 
 contemplated, and tried to forefend, the danger of the federal delegative 
 authority increasing, to the control and final destruction of the states. 
 Q. E. D. 
 
 * An important part of the perverting interpretation I am exposing, is that which takes hold of 
 the constitution with its profane hands, right at this point, and says that the powers not delegated are • 
 reserved to the nation— as if the thirteen organisations of people could severally ratify and delegate, 
 (as all the sacred records unequivocally say they did), and then and there, a nation of people, com- 
 posing the said “ thirteen," could “ retain ” and "reserve" those powers of the said states which ’ 
 they did not delegate. Of course this is intended as a deception, or it is a gross mistake. Referring ’ 
 to appendix “ D” for the original forms of the 10th amendment to show what the meaning a-.d 
 intent of the people was; what they supposed they were declaring; and what common sense teachi s 
 they did declare ; I will state, as the result of my investigation and thought, that the conclusion of ’ 
 the said amendment, means as if it read — reserved to the stale governments respectively , or to the 
 people of the states, who delegated the powers not reserved. See the proposition of Massachusetts, on 
 Which all the subsequently rati lying states acted, a tew paragraphs above. 
 
 * 
 
CHAPTER III. — USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. 
 
 )INT III. — Federal acts, outside of delegated powers, were to 
 be treated as nullities, and — if attempted to be enforced — 
 ■f 3 resisted as usurpations. 
 
 Said Hamilton : — “ The laws of congress are restricted to a cer- 
 tain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no 
 longer supreme or binding.” [II. Ell. Deb. 362.] 
 
 Said Judge Parsons, “the celebrated chief justice,” as Judge 
 Story calls him : — “An increase of power by usurpation, is clearly a 
 violation of the federal constitution.” Again he said : — “An act of 
 usurpation is not obligatory ; it is not law.” And furthermore he 
 said: the oath to- support the constitution “obliges the officers of 
 the several states” to oppose all such acts. And this great jurist 
 and statesman contemplated opposition by arms, if necessary. 
 [Ibid. 94.] 
 
 Said Judge Iredell — afterwards supreme judge of the united 
 states : — “ If congress, under pretence of executing one power, usurp 
 another, they will violate the constitution and he further as- 
 serted that “a law of congress, not consistent with the constitu- 
 tion,” would “not be binding on the people.” [IY. Ibid. 179.] 
 Massachusetts, as usual, caps the climax — she and Connecticut 
 and Rhode Island having, in 1814 — as sovereigns — declared that 
 “acts of Congress , in violation of the constitution, are absolutely void"! 
 From this doctrine there was no dissent among the fathers and 
 
 the states, so that further quotations are not needed, though many 
 pages might be given. Like any other agent, the moment it gets 
 outside of its procuration on reserved ground, the federal govern- 
 ment becomes a wrong-doer and trespasser. And, furthermore, 
 it — being under oath — becomes perjured and deeply . criminal. 
 Hence, if there be no law for its restraint, it must be repelled vi et 
 armis. And, indeed, Judge Parsons spoke of the resistance to be 
 offered by the states as war! [II. Ell. Deb. 94.] 
 
 It is well to observe that in self-government, every citizen, official 
 
 393 
 
USURPATIONS TO BE TREATED AS NULLITIES. 399 
 
 or private, has legal and political, as well as moral, duties, which he 
 must personally perform. His judgment and his conscience must 
 decide each and every case presented for his action. His respon- 
 sibility is individual here, just as much as it is in the hereafter. 
 President Jefferson was right in his letter to the district attorney 
 of New York, dated November 1, 1801, where he said: “I shall 
 treat the sedition law as a nullity, wherever it comes in the way of 
 my functions and President Jackson was right in saying, he had 
 sworn to obey the constitution as he understood it, and that where 
 a sworn or other duty was to be done, his judgment and conscience 
 were to be his guide — precedents only influencing his mind 
 according to their character, weight, and applicability. 
 
 And this was President Johnson’s position, as discussed in his 
 impeachment, that every official, and every citizen, has the right to 
 refuse to obey any and every law, subject only to the danger of 
 judgment and costs being given against him. And when a consti- 
 tutional question is involved, it sometimes becomes a sacred duty 
 to resist with lawful means, and — in extreme cases — by violence, 
 especially in these times, when fraud and force are vitally attacking 
 our most cherished institutions. 
 
 With peculiar force, Webster’s words close the argument: “the 
 constitution, to preserve itself,” “ lays its hand on individual con- 
 science and individual duty.” And the lofty phrase of the hero 
 Jackson sounds in unison: I swore to obey and protect the consti- 
 tution as I [and not as others] understand it ! 
 
 The responsibility for the God-given right of self-government 
 being used correctly, is in individuals, and they must resist, either 
 personally or collectively, as need may be. In government, they 
 only act in the latter capacity ; but they have all power, and theirs 
 is the ultima ratio. The same conscience, and the same instinct of 
 self-preservation, must be the prompters and guides, in either 
 personal or social action 
 
 I conclude, then, that federal acts outside of delegated powers were 
 to be treated as nullities, and if attempted to be enforced — resisted as 
 usurpations. Q. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER IY. — No Federal Coercion of States. 
 
 IY . — The federal government is not only without aw- 
 ^§p tliority, but is actually prohibited, to coerce the state with arms, 
 by legislation, or even judicially. 
 
 The states possess sovereignty, that is, untrammelled will over 
 their interest and destiny ; and the union is not a hundred-armed 
 Briareus, irresistibly grasping and holding the states together; for 
 if it were, the states would not be free. Where the hand of power 
 constrains a man or state to do or not to do, to stay or not to stay, 
 freedom pro tanto is gone, and all of liberty will most certainly 
 follow. 
 
 When the federal convention, desiring to make a sufficiently 
 strong, and a self-sustaining government, was considering the kind 
 of coercion necessary to enforce its powers, some of the members 
 thoughtlessly suggested the idea of coercion against states. This 
 was before the plan was adojffied, of giving the federal government 
 precisely the mode and means of exercising and enforcing jurisdic- 
 tion on the individual citizens of states, that was already, and was to 
 'be, exercised by the state governments — that is, courts, sheriffs, and, 
 if necessary, the posse comitatus, &c., it being considered by all, 
 that the federal, like the state government, was a part of the 
 ' people’s agency of self-government. 
 
 When the original constitution, as completed by the convention 
 of 1787, was ordained and established “ between the states so [i. e. 
 by convention] ratifying the same,” it was the universal under- 
 standing of the fathers, that the states were in no wise subject to 
 it. “ This constitution does not coerce sovereign bodies — states,” 
 said Ellsworth, and all agreed with him. They knew the said 
 states “ delegated ” the only powers put in the instrument, and 
 “ reserved ” and “ retained ” all others out of it;, and it could not be 
 supposed that their own powers, their own members and subjects, 
 and their own means, could be used to constrain and subjugate 
 their own wills — the sovereign wills that delegated the powers. 
 
 400 
 
NO FEDERAL COERCION OF STATES. 
 
 401 
 
 WHAT SAY THE FATHERS ON FEDERAL COERCION ? 
 
 Now let us see what the leading fathers said on the subject, to 
 induce the people to ratify the compact. 
 
 The idea of Noah Webster and others, of the states giving a 
 federal coercion over their citizens, like that which their respective 
 home governments exercised, had been adopted in the convention 
 — the alternative being coercion of states as bodies. Hence the 
 following expressions of the fathers : 
 
 Mr. Madison (whom I have quoted supra, as saying, with the 
 concurrence of everybody of note, that the constitution was made 
 by “the people as composing thirteen sovereignties,” and that “the 
 states are regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns * # 
 
 by the constitution proposed”), declared, in reference to the pro- 
 posed coercion : “An attempt to coerce states would be a dissolution 
 of all previous compacts. A union of states, containing such an 
 ingredient, seems to provide for its own destruction.” Again : 
 “Any government formed on the supposed practicability of using 
 force against the unconstitutional proceedings of states, would 
 prove visionary and fallacious.” [Fed. XT., XYI., XX. ; Y. Ell. 
 Deb. 171; III. Ibid, passim.'] 
 
 Hamilton, the advocate par excellence of a strong government, 
 repeatedly expressed himself against such an idea. Said he : “ To 
 coerce states is one of the maddest projects ever devised. * * 
 
 Here is a nation at war against itself. Can any reasonable man be 
 well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage 
 the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist 
 only by the sword? This single consideration should be sufficient 
 to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. * * 
 What, sir, is the cure for this great evil? Nothing, but to enable 
 the national laws to operate on individuals in the same manner as those 
 of states do." [II. Ibid. 233.] 
 
 Edmund Randolph, governor of Yirginia, and attorney-general 
 of the administration of Washington, uttered the following in the 
 Yirginia convention : “But although coercion is an indispensable 
 ingredient, it ought not to be directed against a state as a state, it 
 being impossible to attempt it, except by blockading the trade of 
 the delinquent, or carrying war into its bowels * * and [this] 
 
 might drive the proscribed state into the desperate resolve of 
 inviting foreign alliances. * * But how shall we speak of the 
 intrusion of troops ? Shall we arm citizens against citizens, and 
 
402 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 habituate them to shed kindred blood ? Shall we risk the inflicting 
 of wounds which will generate a rancor never to be subdued? 
 Would there be no room to fear that an army accustomed to fight 
 for the establishment of authority, would salute an emperor of their 
 own ? Let us not bring these things into jeopardy. Let us rather 
 substitute the same 'process by which individuals are compelled to contri- 
 bute to the government of their own states.” [I. Ibid. 475; III. 117.] 
 
 Said Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards chief justice, appointed by 
 Washington : “ Small states must possess the power of self-defence, 
 or be ruined.” Speaking further of possible antagonisms between 
 the states and the federal government, and the power vested in the 
 latter to enforce its laws, he said : “ This constitution does not 
 attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states in their political capa- 
 cities. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of an 
 armed force. * * But legal coercion singles out the guilty individual 
 
 and punishes him for breaking the laws of the union” [II. Ibid. 197.] 
 
 William R. Davie, one of the leading statesmen of North Caro- 
 lina, and a member of both federal and state conventions, said, in 
 the latter: “I know of but two ways in which the laws can be 
 executed by any government. The first mode is coercion by 
 military force, and the second is coercion through the judiciary .” He 
 concludes: “I suppose no man will support the former, and the 
 power of the latter is co-extensive with the legislative.” [IV. Ibid. 
 155 ; also 21.] 
 
 Said Judge Spencer, in the same convention : '■‘■The laics of the 
 general government must operate on individuals * * as laics could 
 not be put in execution against states without the agency of the 
 sword, which instead of answering the ends of government, would 
 destroy it.” [IY. Ibid. 163.] 
 
 Said Rufus King, in the convention of Massachusetts: “ Laws 
 to be effective, must not be laid on states , but on individuals.” He fur- - 
 ther said he knew of “no method to compel delinquent states.” 
 [II. Ibid. 55-6.] 
 
 Other authorities might be quoted, but there was no word of 
 dissent anywhere, and these extracts show the views of all. There 
 was to be no coercion of the political will of states — no matter 
 what that will might decide — such coercion being inconsistent with 
 the agreed plan of a voluntary federation, founded solely on amity, 
 mutual interest, and the hope of effecting safety by union. Not 
 only was no power of constraint or restraint given, but all the 
 
NO FEDERAL COERCION OF STATES. 
 
 403 
 
 powers are delegated professedly to “provide for” “ defence” and 
 not for attack, of “the [communities of] people.” 
 
 It is as true now, as it was when Madison, Hamilton, Ellsworth, 
 .Randolph, King, and others, asserted it as above, that any attempt 
 to coerce a state is war. Nay more, as it involves the use of force 
 by the creature against the creator ; by the citizen against the state 
 of which he is a member ; and by the subject against the sovereign, 
 coercion of the state, by the government, must be treasonable in 
 its nature. 
 
 THE GREAT AIM OF THE FATHERS WAS TO AVOID COERCING STATES. 
 
 It is evident then that the commonwealths, while determined to 
 continue their federalised condition, aimed to change their federal 
 agency to one empowered by them to operate on, and coerce their 
 individual citizens, just as their respective domestic governments 
 did. This is the very point of all the above expressions; and 
 article XX. of the Federalist — the joint production of Hamilton 
 and Madison — should be added to them, as remarkable and crown- 
 ing proof : “A sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over 
 governments, a legislation for communities as contradistinguished 
 from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is sub- 
 versive of the order and ends of civil polity, by substituting violence 
 in place of law, or the destructive coercion of the sword, in the 
 place of the mild and salutary coercion of the magistracy.” This 
 with the following from article XV. [Ibid.] written by Hamilton, 
 should end controversy : “ The great and radical vice in the con- 
 
 struction of the existing confederation, is in the principle of legis- 
 lation for states or governments, in their corporate or collective 
 capacities, and as contradistinguished from the individuals of whom 
 they consist.” By reading this and the XVI. article of the Feder- 
 alist, it will be seen that the great aim was to do away with the 
 great “vice.” 
 
 Concisely, this was the fathers’ view : the federal institution now 
 proposed does not coerce the states, for they are sovereign ; and 
 the said agency, with their authority, coerces their subjects. The 
 great fear, at that time, was, that if this change was not made, so 
 that the federal government would be able to execute its powers, 
 the federation might be tempted or provoked, some time, to coerce 
 a delinquent state. Even Mr. Jefferson had, before 1787, said, in 
 substance, We. will not get all the states promptly to comply with 
 
404: CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 federal requisitions, till the confederacy shows her teeth, and sends 
 frigates to their ports with shotted guns. 
 
 Hence we see that the great change aimed at, was not “ a change 
 from a federation to another system,” as Mr. Webster and the fed- 
 eral supreme court assert, but the federation and the federal agency 
 were continued, and the change consisted in making the latter 
 much more efficient, by adding executive and judicial, to legislative 
 powers, and enabling it to operate directly and coercively on the 
 citizens of all the states. And hence we also see how fallacious 
 another of Mr. Webster’s assertions is, to wit, that “so far as the 
 constitution goes, so far state sovereignty is effectually [?. e. with 
 right of coercion] controlled.” 
 
 EVEN JUDICIAL COERCION OF STATES NOT INTENDED. 
 
 Not only legislative coercion, and that vi et armis, were pro- 
 hibited and guarded against, but even j udicial coei'cion was intended 
 to be excluded from the constitution ; and as to the latter, the 
 compact was amended, as we have seen, to make assurance doubly 
 sure. 
 
 Judge Marshall, speaking on the subject, in the Virginia 
 ratifying convention, thought that even under the original pro- 
 vision, “a state would not be called at the bar of the federal court”; 
 for, said he, “it is not rational to suppose that the sovereign power 
 should be dragged before a court but he suggested amendment, 
 to remove any possible doubt. [III. Ell. Deb. 555.] 
 
 George Mason said, in the same convention : “ Is this state 
 to be brought to the bar of justice, like a delinquent individual ? 
 Is the sovereignty of the state to be arraigned like a culprit or 
 private offender ? * * What is to be done if a judgment be obtained 
 against a state? Will you issue a fieri facias? It would be ludi- 
 crous to say you could put the state’s body in jail. How is the 
 judgment then to be enforced ? A power which cannot be exe- 
 cuted, ought not to be granted.” [Ibid. 527.] 
 
 It was to Mason and Henry that Marshall replied as above. 
 Madison joined him as follows: “It is not in the power of indi- 
 viduals to call any state into court.” He further said that if the 
 clause “be found improper, it will be amended.” [Ibid. 533.] 
 
 Not only was no such power given, but no means were provided 
 for the execution of such power. And, as George Mason more 
 than intimated, a law without a sanction, or a power unaccom- 
 
NO FEDERAL COERCION OF STATES. 
 
 405 
 
 panied by any provision for its enforcement, must be a nonentity, 
 and surely cannot be implied. 
 
 It should be here explained, that, as to the jurisdiction of tboso 
 differences between the states, which could assume the form of 
 suits, the said states agreed, in the constitution, to submit them to 
 the umpire — i. e. the sujireme court — they created ; and their 
 good faith was pledged to abide by and effectuate the judgments. 
 
 The federal judiciary, of which the supreme court is a part, is 
 entirely the creation of the states, springing from, and existing by, 
 their will ; and it is precisely as if so many monarchs had appointed 
 a commission of wise subjects, to decide disputes between them by 
 reason, law, and justice. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS AGAIN IN THE LEAD. 
 
 The Old Bay State again shone resplendent as the champion 
 of state sovereignty, before this matter of preventing judicial coer- 
 cion was finally settled. As suits were commenced against states 
 in the federal courts, looking to judicial coercion, an agitation was 
 begun by her, notably led by Gov. James Sullivan; and it spread 
 and prospered, till the amendment XI. was adopted. In the case 
 of Chisholm vs. Georgia, in 1793, the federal supreme court decided 
 such suits to be constitutional ; and Massachusetts was cited to 
 appear in a federal court by William Yassall, a refugee loyalist, 
 suing for his confiscated estates. 
 
 Thereupon, Gov. John Hancock convened the legislature, which 
 referred to the above decision, and — “Resolved, that a power 
 claimed, or which may be claimed, of compelling a state to be made 
 defendant in any court of the united states, at the suit of an indi- 
 vidual or individuals, is, in the opinion of this legislature, unneces- 
 sary and inexpedient, and, in its exercise, dangerous to the peace, 
 safety, and independence of the several states, and repugnant to 
 the first principles of a federal government.” And she instructs 
 her delegation in congress to proceed at once to obtain amend- 
 ments, to “ remove any clause or article of the said constitution, 
 which may be construed to imply a decision, that a state is com- 
 pelled to answer, in any suit, by an individual or individuals, in 
 any court of the united states.” 
 
 THE GRAND RESULT MASSACHUSETTS LED TO. 
 
 The result of the great movement, led by Massachusetts, was 
 
406 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON 
 
 that the sovereigns ordained the 11th amendment, providing that 
 the federal “judicial power” “ shall not be construed to extend to 
 any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one 
 of the united states, by citizens of another state, or by citizens or 
 subjects of any foreign state.” 
 
 Gouverneur Morris afterwards said, that while the most of 
 the amendments were mere verbiage, “the one that a state should 
 not be made amenable to justice, through the courts, was, perhaps, 
 proper”; as it was hardly “rational policy,” “to bring a state into 
 a court of justice,” “for it would not be easy to coerce a corpora- 
 tion such as New York.” 
 
 If there was no power of coercion, there was, of course, perfect 
 free will of states. 
 
 PERJURED USURPATION AND TREASON. 
 
 It seems certain, from the foregoing authorities, 1st. That the 
 right to coerce states is not in, but is prohibited by, the sacred 
 compact; 2d. That the exercise of such power must be perjured 
 usurpation ; 3d. That as far as the federal functionaries, who 
 coerce, are members and subjects of the states coerced, they com- 
 mit treason ; and those of the other states who aid them, commit 
 a federal crime — so to speak — but little less atrocious. 
 
 I repeat, then, that the federal government is not only without 
 authority, hut is actually prohibited , to coerce the state with arms, by 
 legislation or even judicially. Q. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER V. — Self-Defence of States. 
 
 "WfjiOIHT Y. — The fathers considered that the states in the union 
 flpP have the unlimited right of self-defence, by withdrawing delega- 
 tions, and recalling their citizens from federal offices ; by disso- 
 ciation; and by fighting, if need be, the federal government. 
 
 The highest and most conspicuous authority — that which is 
 most conclusive on the right to any mode of defence a state may 
 choose, against the aggressions or menaces of power, and against 
 federal coercion, is the states themselves. Not only did they 
 solemnly compact, and pledge faith and guarantee with one another, 
 that each state was “ sovereign, free, and independent,” at the very 
 moment they, as thus characterised, made the federal constitution ; 
 but before that, then, and ever since, the said states have in their 
 respective constitutions most solemnly declared that “ all political 
 power is inherent” in them. Not a part, and not in any qualified 
 manner, but all — absolutely all. [See the state constitutions 
 generally.] 
 
 Surely, surely, if “all political power” is inherent in these 
 communities, they could take the political step of separating or 
 withdrawing their delegations of power from the federal govern- 
 ment ; and there could be no political authority out of them, to 
 coerce them against their will, especially as they have made no 
 expression to that effect. It is quite obvious, that if there was 
 any political power out of them that they could not recall at will, 
 they were neither sovereigns nor free states. Passing by this, let 
 us see 
 
 WHAT THE FATHERS SAY ON SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. 
 
 Said Dr. Johnson, one of the most eminent lawyers and states- 
 men of Connecticut, in the federal convention : “ If states as such 
 are to exist, they ought to have the means of defending them- 
 selves.” [Y. Ell. Deb. 255.] 
 
 Said Oliver Ellsworth — afterwards the chief justice of the 
 
 407 
 
408 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 united states — in the same convention : “The power of self-defence 
 is essential to the small states. Nature has given it to the smallest 
 insect of the creation.” [Ibid. 260.] 
 
 Said John Marshall — afterwards the celebrated chief justice 
 of the united states — in the Virginia convention: “We [I. e. the 
 people of Virginia] are threatened with the loss of our liberties by 
 the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim that those 
 who give may take away. It is the people that give power, and can 
 take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters 
 who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. * * The govern- 
 
 ment is not supported by force, but depending on our free-will. 
 When experience shall show us any inconvenience, we can then 
 correct it.” [III. Ibid. 233.] 
 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton, the president of said convention, on 
 the same occasion : “ Where is the cause of alarm ? We, the people 
 [of Virginia], possessing all power, form a government, which we 
 think will secure happiness. And suppose, in adopting this plan, 
 we should be mistaken in the end. * * In the same plan we 
 
 point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found 
 amiss. But, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of 
 that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it 
 from motives of self-interest. What then ? We will assemble in 
 convention [of Virginia, of course], wholly recall our delegated 
 powers, or reform them, so as to prevent such abuse, and punish 
 those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our hap- 
 piness, to their own emolument.” [Ibid. 37.] 
 
 Mr. Madison expressed the same views. So did George Nicholas 
 and others. No one opposed them. And what is most decisive is, 
 that, through this convention, the people of Virginia did, as a 
 sovereign commonwealth, accompany the ratification with this 
 solemn protest : “that the powers granted under the constitution, 
 being derived from the people of the united states [will] be resumed 
 by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or 
 oppression.” [Ibid. 656.] 
 
 Of right, she could only speak for herself in this matter, which 
 she did, by uttering a general principle. As the delegated power 
 came by the ordinance of ratification from each state, the with- 
 drawal must be by each, and this is the only possible meaning of 
 “resumed,” or “reassumed,” as New York expressed it j and it 
 would be by virtue of an authority superior to the thing made — an 
 
SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. 
 
 409 
 
 authority above any constitution or government — tho/ws summa et im- 
 perii. There can be no “constitutional right to secede.” Such right 
 must be inherent, characteristic, and inalienable, as well as above 
 the constitution. In those days nobody denied the right. It was 
 an essential attribute of state sovereignty, which was supposed to 
 be unquestionable. But let us pass on. 
 
 James Iredell, afterwards of the supreme court of the union, 
 in the convention of North Carolina, after saying that the senate 
 was required “to preserve completely the sovereignty of the 
 states,” said: “Those in power are their [the people’s] servants 
 and agents, and the people, without their consent, may new-model 
 the'mgovernment, when they think proper. * * Let them [the 
 
 people] be watchful over their rulers. * * Should their liberties 
 
 be in danger * * they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. 
 
 That power which 'created the government can destroy it. 
 * * If the government want amendments, they can be made in 
 
 the mode prescribed in it.” [IV. Ibid. 9, 130.] 
 
 Here is the right of secession again — brought forward too as an 
 argument in favor of adoption. No one questioned it ! 
 
 Roger Sherman, one of the great statesmen of Connecticut, 
 wrote to John Adams, July 20, 1789, as follows : “ I fully agree with 
 you, sir, that it is optional with the people of a state, to establish 
 any form of government they please — to vest the powers in one, 
 a few, or many — and for a limited or unlimited time; and the 
 individuals of the state will be bound to yield obedience to such 
 government while it continues; but I am also of opinion that 
 they may alter their frame of government when they please, 
 any former act of theirs, however explicit, to the contrary not- 
 withstanding.” 
 
 John Dickinson, after recognising the commonwealths of 
 people as the several and sovereign authorities constituting the new 
 system, and intending to act under it, puts hypothetically the case 
 of “bad administration,” and asks: “What is then to be done? 
 The answer,” he continues, “ is instantly found; let the fasces be 
 lowered before the supreme sovereignty of the people. It is their duty 
 to watch, and their right to take care, that the constitution be 
 preserved : or, in the Roman phrase, on perilous occasions, to pro- 
 vide that the republic receives no damage.” [See II. Pol. Writings 
 John Dickinson.] 
 
 Do the above authorities favor the idea that the commonwealth 
 
410 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 was, by its own compact, tied helplessly under governmental 
 sovereignty ? 
 
 And even James Wilson, the leading statesman of Pennsyl- 
 vania — afterwards one of the supreme federal judges — advances 
 the same idea, as was unavoidable from the nature of things. He 
 asserted that the absolute sovereignty never “goes from the 
 people,” but “remains in them after a constitution is made”; that 
 making constitutions is “dispensing such portions of power” as 
 “the public welfare” requires ; that ratifying the federal constitu- 
 tion was “ delegating federal powers and that the general 
 government is “ a federal body of our own creation.” And, said 
 he: The constitution “receives its political existence from their 
 [the people’s] authority; they ordain and establish. What is the 
 necessary consequence ? Those who ordain and establish have 
 the power, if they think proper, to repeal and annul.” [II. Ell. 
 Deb. 435.] 
 
 This of itself, taken in connection with the fact that Pennsyl- 
 vania was then * ‘ sovereign and independent,” and as such was then 
 in convention determining her will for or against delegating or 
 dispensing portions of her power to a federal government, ought 
 to convince any one that the sovereignty of the states, and the 
 necessary right of secession, were taken for granted, and were 
 intended to be preserved. 
 
 Let us now introduce, as testimony on this all-important point 
 of the right of self-defence in states, 
 
 THE ANCIENT FAITH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 as set forth by her chosen sons in her great ratifying convention. 
 Such views as the above met therein no dissent whatever. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Stillman said: “After all, if this constitution 
 were as perfect as the sacred volume is, it would not secure the 
 liberties of the people, unless they watched their own liberties. 
 Nothing written on paper will do this. * * Should the general 
 
 government become so lost to all sense of honor, and the freedom 
 of the people, as to attempt to enslave them, they, who are the 
 descendants of a race of men who have dethroned kings, would 
 make an American congress tremble ; strip them of their public 
 honors, and reduce them to the lowest state of degradation.” [II. 
 Ell. Deb. 169.] 
 
 Judge Parsons, afterwards “the celebrated chief justice of 
 
SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. 
 
 411 
 
 Massachusetts,” took the same view in the convention. Speaking 
 of the federal government, he said: 
 
 “ They are the servants of the people, vested with delegated 
 powers ; * * in this case the people divest themselves of 
 nothing.” Again, he said : “An increase of powers by usurpation 
 is clearly a violation of the federal constitution and the oath to 
 support the instrument “ obliges the officers of the several states” 
 to oppose it. He also spoke of another check, founded on the 
 nature of the union, superior to all the parchment checks that can 
 be invented. * * 
 
 “If there should be a usurpation, it will be upon thirteen legisla- 
 tures completely organized, possessed of the confidence of the 
 people, and having the means, as well as inclination, successfully to 
 oppose it.” And he characterised this as an appeal to arms! [II. 
 Ell. Deb. 94.] 
 
 Said Fisher Ames, on the same occasion: 11 The state govern- 
 ments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests of the 
 people. They will afford a shelter against the abuse of power ; and 
 will be the natural avengers of our violated rights [II. Ell. Deb. 46.] 
 
 What 1 can the states fight the federal government if it attempt 
 coercion? This treason comes from Massachusetts! It is true and 
 sound principle. 
 
 SIMILAR TREASON FROM VIRGINIA. 
 
 Said Edmund Randolph, the then governor of Virginia, after- 
 wards attorney-general, and secretary of state under Washington’s 
 administration,, in the Virginia ratifying convention: Congress 
 cannot “ possibly assume any other power but what is contained in 
 the constitution, without absolute usurpation. Another security 
 is, that if they attempt such a usurpation, the influence of the state 
 governments will nip it in the bud of hope. The government will 
 be cautiously watched, and the smallest assunpption of power will 
 be soundxd in alarm to the people, and followed by bold and active 
 opposition [III. Ell. Deb. 206-7.] 
 
 Madison not only often spoke of the states as sovereigns, and 
 superior. to the government they formed, but as possessing the 
 absolute right of self-defence. For instance, he said Virginia 
 acceded to the compact as a “sovereign state,” and that the said 
 compact “ was to be binding on the people of the state only by 
 their own separate assent.” And in speaking, in the Virginia 
 
412 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 ^convention, upon the federal provision for organising, arming and 
 disciplining the militia, ho said: “ If we [the people of Virginia] 
 toe dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose 
 to renounce it , this [the trained militia] is an additional safeguard 
 to our defence.” [Ibid. 414.] This means nothing, if it does not 
 mean that we can renounce the national government if we choose, 
 and that the militia is ours [*'. e. the people of Virginia’s] for defence 
 against all comers. Indeed, both Madison and Marshall stated in 
 substance that the militia, of original and paramount right, 
 belonged to, and could be controlled by, the states. 
 
 Hamilton’s testimony. 
 
 a 
 
 When Hamilton and Madison concur, it matters little what others 
 say ; but none of the fathers dissented. 
 
 Said Hamilton, in No. 28 of the Federalist: “The state govern- 
 ment will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against 
 invasions of the public liberty by national authority. In a confederacy , 
 the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely masters of 
 their own fate.” He lays down this principle as “an axiom in our 
 political system.” “ The constitution,” said he, in the New York 
 convention, “ought not to be so formed as to pi'event the states 
 from providing for their own existence, and I maintain that it i-i 
 not so formed.” And in No. 26 of the Federalist he said: “ The 
 state legislatures ” are to be the “ guardians of the rights of the 
 citizens against encroachments of the general government, * * 
 
 to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, 
 if necessary, the arm of their discontent.” And he had previously 
 said in the New York assembly (Feb. 19, 1787): “Each state 
 possesses in itself full powers of government, and can at once, in a 
 regular and constitutional way, take measures for the preservation 
 of its rights.” 
 
 Mr. Eives, in his Life of Madison (vol. II., p. 501), after quoting 
 Hamilton’s “axiom in our political system,” that “the state gov- 
 ernments, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security 
 against invasions of the public liberty by national authority,” pro- 
 ceeds to say, what every investigator knows to be true, that “ this 
 was among the considerations most dwelt on by writers of the 
 Federalist, to recommend the constitution to the favor and confi- 
 dence of the people.” 
 
SELF-DEFENCE OF STATES. 
 
 413 
 
 THE LAST REASONING OF THE STATES ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 We sec, then, that the states, as individuals, not less distinct than 
 so many men, associated themselves in their second, and, as they 
 expressed it, “ more 'perfect union.” They, ipso facto , established 
 their general agency for self-ruling and self-defence. The instinct 
 and right of self-preservation exists in each as an inherent and 
 inseparable part of its nature. Now, had these actors respectively 
 any less desire, aim, and duty of self-preservation, after associating ? 
 No! all the fathers recognised, not only the right, but the duty 
 of the state, when it deems its existence, its sovereignty, or the 
 essential rights of itself or its people, endangered by the acts or 
 menaces of the federal government, to oppose them; and if the 
 said government persist, to do it with arms ! Why ? because the 
 state is the people, and the only people in the land organised into 
 apolitical commonwealth or corporation; and it has all original 
 jurisdiction over every possible matter of life, liberty, and property — 
 a jurisdiction coupled with the responsibility of protection and 
 defence ; and if the federal “ substitutes and agents,” by virtue cf 
 the small modicum of derivative authority delegated to them, forget 
 their derivative and “act as from original power” — transcending 
 their bounds, and menacing the liberties of the people, the state 
 must interpose its aegis and say: “You were sent forth as subjects, 
 delegates, agents, and servants ; if you come back dominating as a 
 sovereign, a principal, or a master, and using coercion to effect 
 your, and defeat my will, I must meet you with arms ! ” 
 
 Beyond question, then, not only has the federal agency no right 
 to coerce its makers, as I have heretofore shown, but these makers 
 have, as against it, unlimited right of self-defence, by withdrawing dele- 
 gations, and recalling their citizens from federal offices; by dissociation / 
 and by fighting, if need be, the federal government. Q. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER VI. — True Loyalty is Fidelity to the State. 
 
 i^|j|pOINT VI. — To defend the state with arms, in obedience to her 
 fypp will, is the duty of the member or citizen, and is not treason in 
 any sense ; but is true loyalty. 
 
 Several corollaries of vital importance flow from this point, 
 which it is well here to state : 
 
 1st. That the primary devotion of the citizen is, and ought to 
 be, to his state, so that in a conflict, he would cleave to her against 
 the federal government. 
 
 2d. That the citizens are the states, and the only citizenship is 
 of the states. Necessarily the only allegiance is to states. Both 
 federal and state constitutions prove these fac'ts. 
 
 3d. That the state, being the citizens thereof, and the arms-bear- 
 ing citizens being the military force, the state has the original and 
 supreme right — coupled with the duty — to control and use the said 
 force for her defence. 
 
 4th. That citizens, by defending the state, are defending them- 
 selves — both individually and collectively — as required by Nature’s 
 first, greatest, and best law — the law of self-preservation. 
 
 5th. That the citizens, as organised, being, in reality, the gov- 
 erning authority, a citizen cannot commit treason, if he obey the 
 commonwealth, this being the very obligation of the social compact. 
 
 6th. And, finally, that the federal constitution proves the state 
 to be the sole object of treason. 
 
 A FEW EXPLANATORY REMARKS. 
 
 We must keep it in mind that “the state,” and the “citizens 
 thereof,” are convertible phrases, the citizens being the state. They 
 are the republic, i. e. an organised, self-governing commonwealth. 
 The federal agency’s only right to the obedience of the citizen 
 is delegated to it by the states. Obeying the federal government, 
 therefore, is obeying its creators and sovereigns, the states; each 
 citizen obeying, because the sovereign, whose subject he is, com- 
 
 414 
 
TRUE LOYALTY IS FIDELITY TO THE STATE. 415 
 
 mands it. In a word, the citizens, as individuals, obey themselves, 
 as commonwealths — this federal contrivance being merely their 
 agency for self-government in general matters, just as the state 
 government is their agency for self-government in domestic affairs. 
 This is republicanism. 
 
 These remarks will enable us the more readily to appreciate the 
 following considerations, which will be seen to be those of the 
 fathers themselves. 
 
 THE STATE IS THE SOLE OBJECT OF PATRIOTISM. 
 
 1st. The fathers considered that the primary devotion of the citizen 
 would be, and ought to be, to his state ; so that in case of conflict , he 
 would clea ve to her against the federal government. 
 
 This natural devotion of citizens to their otates was the fathers’ 
 strongest ground of argument against the danger of federal aggres- 
 sion. It was treated of by them as a natural and controlling sen- 
 timent of the citizen towards the body he was an integral part of, 
 and which the social compact bound him to love, honor, and obey. 
 They knew that the said commonwealth included and secured all 
 the citizen held dear, and that patriotism and loyalty were con- 
 sonant, if not identical, with his self-love, his affection for his 
 family and kindred, and his regard for his home treasures, his 
 friends, his neighbors, his fellow-citizens, and the palladium that 
 protects them all — the state! These feelings are the necessary 
 elements of patriotism ; while the federal government, "being at best 
 only a political arrangement or agency of the states, which are 
 identical with the said citizens, could only be an object of respect 
 and obedience to a given citizen as long as his commonwealth willed 
 him to obey it. 
 
 LET THE FATHERS EXPRESS THE GLORIOUS SENTIMENT. 
 
 Said John Dickinson: “ The trustees or servants of the several 
 states will not dare, if they retain their senses, to violate that inde- 
 pendent sovereignty of their respective states — that justly darling 
 object of American affections , to which they are responsible. ’ These 
 sentiments were expressly approved by Washington. Said Hamil- 
 ton: “ There are certain social principles in human nature from 
 which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the 
 conduct of individuals and communities. We love our families 
 more than our neighbors. We love our neighbors more than our 
 countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, 
 
416 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 lose their intensity as they depart from the centre, and become 
 languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they 
 act. On -these principles, the attachment of the individual will be 
 first and forever secured by the state government.” And he 
 believed the states to possess unlimited right of self-defence. Said 
 Marshall, in reply to the argument that by giving a certain 
 power to the federal government, the states might impair their 
 power of self-defence : “ Does not every man feel a refutation of 
 
 the argument in his own breast?” — that is to say — Is not self-de- 
 fence the first law of nature ? This right, as well as the right of 
 withdrawing delegated power by the states, he thought unlimited. 
 Said Ellsworth : “ I turn my eyes to the states for the preserva- 
 tion of my rights. * * The greatest happiness I expect in this 
 life, I can derive from these alone. This happiness depends on their 
 existence, as much as a new-born infant on its mother for nourish- 
 ment.” He considered the right of self-defence in states, as 
 “essential” and unlimited. 
 
 Every sentiment of the patriotic age was in unison. Hot a soul 
 of the fathers ever dreamed that any combination of the states, or 
 portion of the people, could legally use the federal government, 
 and its war means, and vested power, to conquer other states and 
 to punish the citizens of these for treason. Not a soul of them 
 ever supposed that defending one’s state was traitorous. State 
 sovereignty — no coercion of states — unlimited state defence, were 
 the ideas of all. 
 
 Governor Edmund Randolph, in the Virginia ratifying con- 
 vention, summed up the whole glorious theory of true loyalty, as 
 follows: After saying that the rights of the states are “guarded 
 by the provisions just recited. If you say,” continued he, “that 
 notwithstanding the most express restrictions, they [the govern- 
 ment] may sacrifice the rights of the states, then you establish 
 another doctrine — that the creature can destroy the creator, which 
 is the most absurd and ridiculous of all doctrines.” [III. Ell. Deb. 
 363 .] 
 
 In other words, it is absurd and ridiculous to say that the gen- 
 eral government can coerce states ; that the states cannot defend 
 themselves ; or that loyalty is due to the created agency, instead 
 of the sovereign creators. As Marshall says — “Every man feels a 
 refutation of the argument in his own breast.” 
 
 I conclude, then, that the loyalty of a citizen is due, and that it will 
 be given, to his state under all circumstances. Q. E. 1). 
 
CHAPTER VII. — American Citizenship and Allegiance. 
 
 2. ftfVH E citizens are the state ; the only citizenship is of states; and 
 i|f§P necessarily the only allegiance is to states. , These are the 
 t 3p ideas of both federal aud state constitutions, as well as of 
 the fathers. 
 
 It is beyond question that the only citizenship originally existent 
 in the states that joined themselves in union, was citizenship of a 
 state • and citizenship of, and allegiance to, a nation, or a national 
 (or federal) government, was never provided for, if it was even 
 thought of. This is quite evident from the following clauses: 
 “ The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and 
 - immunities of citizens in the several states ” (Art. IV. §2). “ The 
 
 judicial power of the united states shall extend * * to contro- 
 versies between citizens of different states; between citizens of the 
 same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and 
 between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens,’ 
 or subjects.” (Art. III. §2). See also amendments, Art. XI. If 
 there were any citizens of a nation, they were not recognised 
 or provided for. There were no other citizens than “the citizens 
 of each state,” and their citizenship and allegiance was never trans- 
 ferred. The reason is quite obvious. States were the constituents 
 of the federal system ; and these very citizens were the states — 
 each being a member, an integral part of his state; and if such 
 transfer had taken place, there would have been no more 
 “ citizens of each state,” and it would thus have contradicted and 
 defeated the constitution itself; there being no provision for any 
 other citizens than those of a state, who must, of course, remain 
 untransferred in order to answer to these descriptions and pro- 
 visions as to “the citizens of each state,” “citizens of different 
 states,” &c., &c. 
 
 We see, then, that President Jackson’s statement in his cele- 
 brated proclamation of 1832 — that “the allegiance of their citizens was 
 transferred to the government of the united states ” by their respective 
 
 417 
 
418 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 states, is absolutely untrue, unconstitutional, and absurd. Tbe 
 truth is, the proclamation against South Carolina was for an 
 exigency of a politician and his party, and the subsequent expla- 
 nation in the Globe was for another. Jackson was one of the 
 most illustrious of great Americans. Was he no,t unwittingly one 
 of the most efficient of the destroyers of American institutional 
 liberty ? 
 
 FALSE NATURALISATION. 
 
 But there is a provision, which some have thought, or pretended 
 to think, referred to, or provided for, another citizenship, when 
 really, taken with the above clauses, it is the strongest possible 
 evidence to, the contrary. “The congress shall have power [not 
 to naturalise, butl to establish a uniform ride of naturalisation, 
 and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the 
 united states.” As to citizenship, the object of the clause was to 
 produce uniformity and homogeneousness throughout the states. 
 New “citizens of each state” were to be made of immigrants, and 
 as the thirteen states were the necessary actors in naturalising and 
 aimed at uniformity, they “delegated ” the power to the congress 
 they created, “to establish a uniform rule,” which, of course, they 
 obligated themselves to act by. States were the only authorities 
 that could endow foreigners with all civil rights, so as to make 
 them equal to native-born citizens — which is the object of naturali- 
 sation — and at the same time protect them in all the civil rights 
 given; for these new citizens were to become their members and 
 subjects, and their machinery of government includes the only 
 courts that have plenary jurisdiction over all the civil rights of 
 citizens. 
 
 But though this is the plain and obvious meaning, congress — so 
 prone is power to magnify itself — began then the “change,” as 
 Burke phrases it, “ from an immediate state of procuration and 
 delegation, to a course of acting as from original power”; and took 
 the exclusive jurisdiction of the whole subject ; acted as the sov- 
 ereign naturalising authority, and secured allegiance of the new 
 citizens to the general government, thus making a second class of 
 citizens, and defeating the very uniformity the two clauses quoted 
 above were intended to produce. One class was the whole body 
 of original citizens and their descendants, whose allegiance to the 
 state was never changed ; and the other comprised such foreigners 
 as, being naturalised by law of congress, swore allegiance to a 
 
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE. 419 
 
 pseudo-sovereignty, and became members or citizens of a suppo- 
 sititious nation.* 
 
 If any one doubt this view, let him answer when ? where ? how ? 
 and to whom the allegiance was changed from the state? Where 
 is the record of such change? He will see, the moment he 
 attempts an answer, that the claim of allegiance for the federal 
 agency is false and preposterous. There could be no allegiance to 
 those who at best were “ representatives,” “ delegates,” “ trustees,” 
 “substitutes,” “agents,” “servants,” as all the fathers invariably 
 called them, and as they have always been characterised by the 
 states and people. 
 
 LET THE STATES TESTIFY - ON CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 The evidence of the following states is conclusive, that they 
 never thought of the transfer of the very integers of which they 
 are entirely and exclusively composed — their citizens, to their 
 agency of government. Self-preservation was their first law, and 
 to keep the allegiance of their constituent members was a sine qua 
 non. 
 
 Maine in her constitution of 1819 declares that “every citizen 
 may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments,” &c., and that 
 “every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms,” &c. 
 
 Massachusetts in her present constitution says, “ every subject 
 of the commonwealth” has a right to redress for all injuries and 
 Wrong'S ; and that “every male citizen ” of the state [i. e. subject 
 of the commonwealth], possessing certain qualifications, is entitled 
 to a vote. 
 
 Hew Hampshire — constitution of 1792 — declares that, “every 
 citizen of this state is entitled,” &e. 
 
 Vermont, in her constitution, calls her native citizens “natural 
 born subjects of this state.” 
 
 Connecticut — constitution 1818 — declares that, “ every citizen 
 has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.” 
 
 New York — constitution 1846 — declares that “'no authority 
 can, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the citizens of 
 this state, but such as is, or shall be, derived from, and granted by, 
 the people of this state and that “ no member of this state shall 
 be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
 law.” 
 
 *A singular mistake was made by the confederate constitution-makers— considering that they 
 oeceded to save statehood — in giving the confederate congress the power "to make [not “a 
 uniform rule,” but] uniform laiot of naturalisation.” 
 
420 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 Pennsylvania — constitution of 1790 — declares that the voting 
 and holding of office shall only bo by citizens of the state ; and that 
 “the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves 
 and the state, shall not be questioned.” 
 
 Maryland — constitution of 1801 — declares that every free white 
 male citizen of this state, and no other, above 21 years of age * * 
 shall have a right of suffrage, &c. 
 
 South Carolina — constitution 1803 — provides that every voter 
 must be “a citizen of this state.” 
 
 See also the constitutions of Georgia, 1798 ; Kentucky, 1799 ; 
 Ohio, 1802 ; Indiana, 1816. Also the constitutions of Virginia, 
 North Carolina, Delaware, Illinois, et als. 
 
 Several of the constitutions contain a clause similar to the 
 following in that of Illinois, in 1828, and perhaps now : If, when 
 the sense of the people shall be taken, as to holding a convention 
 to change the organic law, “it shall appear that a majority of all 
 the citizens of the state * * have voted for a convention,” the 
 
 general assembly shall call one. 
 
 For further information on this subject, see generally the original 
 state constitutions. Some modern ones may be framed on Presi- 
 dent Jackson’s mischievous idea of a “transfer of citizenship to 
 the government of the united states,” for it is not uncommon in 
 these bad and sad days for ignorance and wickedness to aecom- 
 nlish, through organic laws, what force and fraud are constantly 
 doing in spite of them. 
 
 testimony of the states on allegiance. 
 
 As the only citizenship is in the state, the only allegiance is due 
 to it. We have no king or prince, and no tie of allegiance that is 
 not in the social compact forming the republic ; and it is remark- 
 able and conclusive that the only constitutional declarations and 
 claims of allegiance in the united states are by states, there being 
 no such claim in the federal comnaet, either expressly or by 
 implication. In many state constitutions the claim of allegiance 
 is found in juxtaposition with the sovereignty, citizenship, and 
 treason clauses. 
 
 Massachusetts, the great original exponent of, and stickler for, 
 state sovereignty in the union, exacts the following oath of 
 allegiance from all her officers: “ I, A. B., do solemnly swear that 
 1 will hear true faith and alleqiance to the commonwealth of J fassarhu - 
 setts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.” 
 
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE. 421 
 
 New Hampshire has a similar oath. 
 
 Vermont requires “every officer, whether judicial, executive, or 
 military, to take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation 
 of allegiance to this state” [then follows the form]. She further 
 declared, in her constitution of 1793, that “every person of good 
 character, coming to settle in the state,” may acquire and hold 
 real property, and have “all rights of a natural-born subject of this 
 state," after “taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the 
 same.” 
 
 Kentucky, in her constitution of 1799, imposes the following 
 oath of allegiance on all her officers: “ I do solemnly swear that I 
 will be faithful and true to the commonwealth of Kentucky so 
 long as I continue a citizen thereof.” 
 
 Georgia, in her constitution of 1798, required all officers to 
 swear to observe true faith and allegiance to the same. 
 
 Maryland has in her constitution the following oath for her 
 officers: “I, A. B., do swear * * that I will be faithful and bear 
 true allegiance to the state of Maryland.” 
 
 Other constitutions might be cited, but these will suffice. 
 
 I will observe, en passant, that some of the later constitutions 
 require the official citizen to swear to support both the federal 
 and the state constitutions; but this is none the less an oath Oi 
 allegiance to the state, both constitutions being her fundamental 
 laws. 
 
 These quotations show that the union was formed with full 
 evidence in the very organic laws of the states forming it, that 
 citizepship and allegiance belong alone to the states, which is 
 precisely what the federal compact itself proves, as heretofore 
 shown. Nay more, as Vermont and Kentucky were admitted in 
 1793 and 1799 with the provisions concerning allegiance just 
 quoted, all the states (i.e. all the people), as well as the federal 
 government, are concluded against denying that the allegiance of 
 a citizen is solely due to his state. 
 
 And all these state constitutions contain a treason clause which 
 is just as applicable to a citizen fighting for and aiding the 
 “Union” against his state, as it is for his doing so for any other 
 assailant. This will be* conclusively shown further along. 
 
 Furthermore, the obligation of the oath to support and defend 
 the constitution binds every federal officer to act on the idea that 
 citizenship belongs, and allegiance is due, to states; not only 
 
422 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 because the said constitution declares the citizen to belong to the 
 state, but because allegiance is an essential and ante-constitutional 
 right, pertaining to the very existence of the state, which, if it 
 could be, is not, expressly granted, and hence must be among the 
 state’s reserved rights. He must defend the states, because they 
 are the parties to, and ac'tors under, the compact. They, exclu- 
 sively, are all there is of United states or government, and he must 
 be a citizen and subject of a state before he can be a united states 
 officer. 
 
 So, in every point of view, General Jackson’s assertion of the 
 transfer of citizenship and allegiance is untrue and baseless. 
 Society, as formed, is sovereign, the members being citizens and 
 subjects bound in the social compact ; which is the only possible 
 tie of allegiance, for the double reason that there is no king, and 
 that society actually rules and protects its subjects, and is there- 
 fore necessarily entitled to the reciprocal obligation of allegiance. 
 
 Jefferson Davis or Bobert Lee, then, never violated any alle- 
 giance, as he never “levied war against” Mississippi or Virginia, 
 or any set of states that she was in point of fact united to, or 
 “ adhered to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” There 
 can be no other united states, as to Davis, than his state and her 
 sisters, who choose to be associated. He therefore comes not 
 within the federal treason clause. His sovereign had a political 
 will, in which his own was necessarily merged, and he, as but one 
 of her hundreds of thousands of citizens, could but yield to the 
 power which, de facto , had constitutional possession of him, and 
 which deported him from the union, regardless of his will, and 
 commanded him to defend her. He could not do otherwise than 
 obey, leaving the settlement of all questions of technical right to 
 tribunals, to negotiation, or to the arbitrament of war. 
 
 I reiterate, then, that the citizens are the state , and that the only 
 citizenship and allegiance, in the American polity, and contemplated by 
 the fathers, were of and to states. Q. E. 1). 
 
CHAPTER VIII. — The State is Absolute over the Soldiery. 
 
 3.jflnE state being the citizens thereof , and the arms-bearing 
 
 lf§! 
 
 fsgp citizens being the military force, the state has the original 
 and supreme right, coupled with the duty, to control the 
 said force, for her defence. 
 
 Their social instinct, and their instinct, right and duty of self- 
 preservation, moved the people to form themselves into common- 
 wealths, to protect themselves and their belongings. For further 
 security they, as states, afterwards united in federal union: “to 
 bind, in one ligament, the strength of thirteen states” [Pendleton 
 in Va. convention]. 
 
 Politically speaking, “the people ” — as has been said — could only 
 exist and exert will as states. It was only as states that they 
 could create and operate a federal government, or governmental 
 agency. How, look at the proposition, that “the people’s” own 
 agent — the federal government — can draw them, as individual 
 soldiers, from the state, and arm, train and compel them, under 
 penalties, to fight the body politic they themselves, and their 
 families, friends, and neighbors, compose; or, in other words, that 
 the voting and fighting men, who practically constitute the state, 
 can by her federal agency be marshalled, armed and led to whip 
 the women and children thereof! 
 
 The military force contemplated for the united states was prim- 
 arily the people — the citizen soldiery. The people were to think 
 for themselves, vote for themselves, fight for themselves ; and 
 since independence, they never have had the slightest sparkle of 
 political existence, or capacity for political action, either in peace 
 or war, except as states — absolute commonwealths. 
 
 WHAT DOES MASSACHUSETTS SAY? 
 
 The old Bay State never thought otherwise. She regards the 
 militia as her soldiers, and the only purpose of them to be her 
 
 '—l i 
 
 defence ; and she considers federal control as exceptional, and as 
 
42 f CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 specifically agreed upon and ordained by herself and her sister 
 states for her and their “ defence ” and “ welfare,” and the preser- 
 vation of “the blessings of liberty” common to all of them, prin- 
 cipal among which blessings are the right of complete self-organi- 
 sation and existence, self-association, self-protection, and self-ruling, 
 as commonwealths, whether several or united 
 
 Hence she declares herself to be the absolute sovereign of her 
 territory and people; she organises her citizens as soldiers; she 
 appoints and commissions all military officers ; she requires of all 
 officials an oath of allegiance to her; she defines treason of her 
 citizens or subjects to be the waging of war against her and giving- 
 aid and comfort to her enemies ; and she attaches to it the penalty 
 of death ; and by these means she, with original, inherent, and 
 supreme right, absolutely controls her militia, i. e. the whole body 
 of her citizens cajiable of bearing arms. 
 
 HER FUNDAMENTAL LAW DECLARES 
 
 that her governor is the “ commander-in-chief of all her land and 
 naval forces,” and is empowered and instructed, “for the special 
 defence and safety of the commonwealth, to assemble in martial 
 array, and put in warlike posture, the inhabitants thereof, and to 
 lead and conduct them; and with them, to encounter, repel, resist, 
 expel and pursue, by force of arms, * * and also to kill, slay, 
 
 and destroy, * * all and every such person and persons as shall 
 
 at any time hereafter, in a hostile manner, attempt or enterprise 
 the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance of this common- 
 wealth.” Here is provision for her whole military force to be used 
 to defeat usurpation, or repel aggression of the federal government; 
 and this would have been done, in the second British war, if the 
 said government had persisted in its claims, and peace had not 
 supervened. If she thought the federal government sovereign over 
 her as a political body, why, in 1795, did she deem it unnecessary 
 and inexpedient to change the above, and her declaration of “sove- 
 reignty”? And why did she, in the convention of 1820, reject an 
 amendment modifying the above article? Simply because she has 
 never parted with her sovereignty, and she is determined, when 
 occasion shall arise, to defend it with her whole physical force. 
 Her declarations of absolute sovereignty, and the provisions for the 
 use of all her strength, remain her organic laws now. She claims 
 the right to use force against the federal government ; and, as will 
 
THE STATE IS ABSOLUTE OYER THE SOLDIERY. 
 
 425 
 
 be seen, she says emphatically, that she intends to use it when she 
 deems it necessary. And she is right, for the militia is her sub- 
 jects, and the federal government can have no authority over them, 
 but what she expressly confides or entrusts. 
 
 And she and the other states always meant by the maxim that 
 the military is and must be kept subordinate to the civil authority, 
 that it belongs to, and is under the state, as its means and instru- 
 ment - of self-government and self-protection, whenever public 
 fighting, or a show of public force, is, or may be, needed. It can 
 only have power and existence under the law, and must of course 
 be always subordinate to, and controlled by, the source of the law, 
 the organised will of the people. 
 
 And it is well to say here, that the constitution throughout con- 
 templates the use of men and means in warfare, for the “ defence ” 
 of the people, and never for attack. Self-attack, and possible self- 
 destruction, could never be predicated or presumed of the intention 
 of states, in uniting for “ defence ” and “ welfare.” 
 
 HER POLITICAL ACTION IN THE UNION. 
 
 In her law entitled “an act for regulating, governing and 
 training the militia of this commonwealth,” passed March G, 1810, 
 sue quotes from the act of congress “to provide for the national 
 defence, by establishing a uniform militia tnroughout the united 
 states,” passed May 8th, 1792, the provision “that each and every 
 free able-bodied citizen of the respective states, resident therein,” 
 who is over eighteen and under forty-five, shall be enrolled, &c. ; 
 and she then proceeds to provide for her most absolute control of 
 her militia. Among other provisions showing her autocratic deter- 
 mination in this regard, are those referring to the appointment 
 and commissioning of the officers, and the oaths to be exacted from 
 each. The latter are as follows : 
 
 1. “I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, 
 and declare, that the commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of 
 right ought to be, a free, sovereign, and independent state. And 
 I do swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the said 
 commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against traitorous 
 conspiracies, and all hostile attempts whatsoever; and that I do 
 renounce all allegiance, subjection, and obedience to the king, 
 queen, or government of Great Britain, and every other foreign 
 power whatsoever ; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, 
 
426 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 or state hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, superiority, pre- 
 eminence, authority, dispensing or other power, in any matter 
 civil, ecclesiastical, or spiritual, within this commonwealth, except 
 the authority and power which is, or may be vested, by their con- 
 stituents, in the congress of the united states. And I do further 
 testify, and declare, that no man, nor body of men, hath, or can 
 have, any right to absolve or discharge me from the obligation of 
 this oath, declaration, or affirmation; and that I do make this 
 acknowledgment, profession, testimonial, declaration, denial, renun- 
 ciation, and abjuration, heartily and truly, according to the common 
 meaning and acceptation of the foregoing words, without any 
 equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever, so 
 help me God ” ! 
 
 2. The oath of office to discharge the duties faithfully according 
 to “the constitution and laws of this commonwealth.” 
 
 3. “I, A. B., do swear that I will support the constitution of the 
 united states.” 
 
 Ah ! in the brave days of old, she was autocratic in voice and 
 act. She had not then been degraded by her own sons to a county 
 or province — a mere jewel in the crown of King Union ! 
 
 How did she act in 1814 when her federal government was 
 warring in defence of her rights? As a county? Oh no. Her 
 agency at Washington wanted some of her soldiers to use “for the 
 common defence” — including hers of course. She constantly opposed 
 the war and requisitions, and when she feared the federal powers 
 she thought to be usurped were about to be executed on her men 
 and means, she, with Connecticut and Khode Island, and a few 
 delegates from other states, held the Hartford Convention, which 
 thus expressed her views as a sovereign : “ In this whole series of 
 devices and measures for raising men, this convention discern a 
 total disregard for the constitution, * * and a disposition to violate 
 its provisions, demanding from the individual states, a firm and 
 decided opposition. * * Acts of congress, in violation of the con- 
 stitution, are absolutely void. * * It will bo proper for the several 
 states to await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxious measures 
 recommended by the secretary of war, or pending before congress; 
 and so to use their power, according to the character these 
 measures shall finally assume, as effectually to protect their own 
 sovereignty, and the rights and liberties of their citizens.” The 
 convention proceeds “ to recommend to the legislatures of the states 
 
THE STATE IS ABSOLUTE OYER THE SOLDIERY. 427 
 
 represented therein, to adopt all such measures as may be neces- 
 sary effectually to protect the citizens of the said states from the ope- 
 ration and effects of all acts of congress” — such as those above 
 characterised; also to recommend negotiations with the federal 
 government ; and also, “ if the application of these states be unsuc- 
 cessful, that they hold a convention at Boston next June, with such 
 powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous 
 may require.” 
 
 Fortunately, however, the ambassadors sent by Queen Massa- 
 chusetts soon reported that “peace” “happily superseded the 
 necessity of the arrangements [being made] for the defence of the 
 commonwealth.” 
 
 To sum up, then, although Massachusetts may have been, as some 
 think, selfish and ungenerous, as well as morally wrong, she was 
 constitutionally on impregnable ground. She was no mere province. 
 Possessing original, inherent, and unlimited rights, but no deriva- 
 tive ones whatever, she was an independent state, with a sovereign 
 will; and she simply acted as such. And though she and others, 
 may by war have forced the subject states to “ consent ” to a change 
 of faith and works, yet she keeps the old faith. By legislative act 
 of May 8th, 1866, she puts herself on a war footing, evidently 
 knowing that the precedent of coercing states might be applied to 
 her. In said act, she provides that every commissioned officer 
 shall, before doing duty, take and subscribe the following oaths and 
 declarations : “ I, A. B., do solemnly swear that I will bear true 
 faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of Massachusetts ; and 
 I will support the constitution thereof : so help me God.” He is 
 also sworn to do the duties of the office and to support the consti- 
 tution of the united states. 
 
 1 reiterate, then, on the high and august authority of Queen 
 Massachusetts, the third idea of the point under discussion, the 
 republican idea : that the state being the citizens thereof, and the arms- 
 bearing citizens being the military force, the state has the original and 
 supreme right, coupled with the duty, to control the said force, for her 
 defence. Q. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER IX. — Defending one’s State is Self-defence. 
 
 §HAT citizens, by defending the state, are defending themselves , 
 as required by Nature's first and most imperative law. 
 
 Man, the natural being, is hot more a creation of God, than 
 is the civil being called the state ; for the latter is formed by men, 
 under the promptings of the nature incorporated by the Deity. 
 Self-preservation is the first law for both ; and, indeed, man was 
 prompted to form society by this very instinct, society simply 
 being men organised for self-preservation. 
 
 Republican society is necessarily a consensual arrangement of 
 the people who compose it ; for as every man has a right to ex- 
 patriate himself, his staying therein, and being a part thereof, is 
 by consent. The accountability of the members to God for proper 
 condhct in all things, shows the self-ruling of society to involve 
 the only divine right of government that can be vested in human 
 beings. Such accountability were unjust, if such right were with- 
 held or limited. To state it more amply, it is, 1st, the right to be 
 a sell-formed society ; 2nd, the right of the said society absolutely 
 to govern itself ; and 3rd, the said society’s unlimited right of self- 
 defence. As to the last point — the others having been sufficiently 
 treated of — the same God-given instinct of self-preservation which, 
 as heretofore stated, prompted men to form society, must mak 
 self-preservation “ the first law of nature ” to it, just as surely as it 
 is “the first law of nature ” to each member thereof. 
 
 Hence, as an American state is the only political society of the 
 people ever formed ; as such state is “ the people as it is recog- 
 nised, throughout the federal pact, as the complete body that 
 coactcd with its peers in forming the federal constitution of self- 
 government; as it “contains within itself” — to use the words of 
 Hamilton — “all the powers of government”; as it declares all 
 power [i. e. sovereignty] to be inherent in itself; and as the only 
 powers parted with are delegated, it follows necessarily that this 
 
 428 
 
DEFENDING ONE’S STATE IS SELF-DEFENCE 
 
 429 
 
 moral person can at any moment, with or without reason, and, 
 a fortiori, for self-preservation, gather in all her entrusted or dele- 
 gated powers, recall her citizens from federal offices ; and say to 
 them, and the rest of her sons, in case of federal menace or attack: 
 
 I am the state, and you collectively are myself — ‘ bone of my 
 bone and flesh of my flesh ’ — arm yourselves to defend my life, 
 my integrity, and my sovereignty ! The collective people, accord- 
 ing to the social compact, have the right to govern and command 
 the individual. By obeying and defending myself, my will, and my 
 law, you defend your individual selves, and all you hold dear on 
 earth.” 
 
 The question here suggests itself for passiifg notice : "Where is 
 the right of ultimate judgment and decision on points vital to the 
 republic — the commonwealth — the citadel of freedom, and the 
 palladium of the people’s rights and blessings ? It were simply 
 absurd to say : It is in the government, which is only derivative ; 
 and not in the collective people, who have, in-alienably, the only 
 original and inherent power of self-government. Did the peoplo, 
 in attempting to govern themselves, make a machine that has the 
 right, if they resist, to grind them to powder ? The matter is too 
 plain for argument. [See Part IV. ch. X.] 
 
 It is unquestionable, then, that, by defending the state , citizens are 
 defending themselves, as required by nature's first, greatest, and best 
 law. Q. E. D. 
 
 DEFENDING ONE’S STATE IS NOT TREASON. 
 
 5. That, as the citizens in organisation, are the integers, and gov- 
 erning authority of the republic, a citizen cannot commit treason by 
 obeying the will of the body, for this is precisely his obligation in the 
 social compact, and, of course, his highest political duty. 
 
 The Almighty, in making men free moral agents, designed them 
 for self-government, and capacitated them for it. And it were 
 Divine injustice to require them to answer for “the deeds done in 
 the body,” if they have not full choice, in all matters of govern- 
 ment. Prompted by the social instinct, they form society to 
 unite their strength, wisdom and means, for self-protection and 
 self-rule. Thus is the society, called the commonwealth, formed. 
 It governs by Divine right, and acts in all things as a unit or 
 moral person. It is only in this collective form and way, that 
 men are capable of political self-government. As individuals, they 
 
430 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 are merged in the society, without the reservation of any political 
 rights whatever, and are under voluntary engagement to be gov- 
 erned and bound by the action of the said state, as long as they 
 remain members thereof. Eeferring to Part IV., chapters I. and 
 II., on the formation of a state, I will quote here, as sufficient — nay, 
 conclusive — what Massachusetts has declared from the beginning 
 till now, viz. : that “the body politic is * * a voluntary asso- 
 ciation of individuals and that “ the whole people covenant with 
 each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all 
 shall be governed by certain laws for the common good that is 
 to say, the collective members are to govern and control each 
 individual one, for all the purposes of society. 
 
 Accordingly, she declares that “ the people * * do hereby 
 
 solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves 
 into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic or state, by the 
 name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” [See constitution 
 Mass.] 
 
 Hence each person is, as New York calls him, a “ member of 
 this state,” or as Massachusetts expresses it, a “ subject of this 
 commonwealth,” or as the federal and other constitutions declare, 
 a “ citizen of the state.” Indeed, each person is an integral part 
 of his own commonwealth, and no orginal relations can exist 
 between him and any other political society. And as neither the 
 federal constitution nor history hints at any other relation, or at 
 even the slightest change in the bodies-politic, any one of them, as 
 to subjectship and allegiance, must stand in the same relation to 
 her people, as does king, prince, or feudal lord to his; and be the 
 only object of treason. 
 
 And here comes in with peculiar force the admission of Mr. 
 Curtis, heretofore quoted, [see Part IV. chapter VII.] : “ The rela- 
 tions of the individual to the political society, of which he is a 
 member * * came into existence as_ soon as a sovereign Ameri- 
 can state was formed out of a revolted British colony.” 
 
 THE ERROR OP THE EXPOUNDERS ON THIS SUBJECT, 
 
 springs from forgetting that the commonwealth or republic is a 
 society of people, purposed and organised for self-government ; 
 and that hence self-government must be functional action, in nowise 
 self-destructive, or even self-injurious. The state is complete, 
 and is perfectly formed and fitted to do all the acts of government, 
 
 
DEPENDING ONE’S STATE IS SELF-DEFENCE. 431 
 
 e. g. constitute governments, delegate powers, elect or appoint 
 representatives, federate with other societies, &c., &c. These are 
 all functional acts, to do which she has the machineiy of intellect 
 — including the judgment and will, which she has always acted 
 with, whenever any question arose pertaining to her “ defence ” 
 and “welfare.” In her constitution of 1780, existent to-day, Mas- 
 sachusetts declares her “ right to institute, reform, alter, or totally 
 change ” 'the government “ at pleasure.” She has done so many 
 times, notably when she united with her sisters, and made a gen- 
 eral government. This act wrought no change in her ; and the 
 word “ Massachusetts ” must mean to-day what it did in 1788, when 
 that sovereign placed it with her delegations, stipulations, and 
 conditions, in the federal compact. She was not then melted into 
 her elements and poured into a national mould. She is now _ 
 unchanged Massachusetts, and can do every functional act she ever 
 could. She is composed exclusively of her members or subjects, 
 and in governing herself she controls them. 
 
 Hence, I repeat, that, as the citizens in organisation, are the 
 integers, and governing authority of the republic, a citizen cannot 
 commit treason by obeying the will of the body, for this is precisely his 
 obligation in the social compact, and, of course, his highest political 
 duty. Q. E. D. 
 
CHAPTER X. — All Treason is against the State. 
 
 6. f SISTENTI A r with the foregoing , the federal constitution 
 
 itself proves the state to be the sole object of treason. 
 
 In discussing this point, I do not aim at a historical, 
 legal, or philosophical disquisition on the subject, so much as to 
 show the design of the framers ; the intent of the commonwealths ; 
 the impression made upon the people ; and, in short, the under- 
 standing with which all acted. 
 
 Not only does the federal instrument, as we have seen, prove 
 citizenship and allegiance to belong to states, but it gives a striking 
 corroboration of the view I have presented on treason. We have 
 seen that the states, by ratifying, ordained and established the con- 
 stitution, to provide for and effect their defence and welfare, and 
 secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their people ; that 
 ipso facto the ratifiers associated themselves; that they are named 
 in the instrument and recognised throughout, and especially in the 
 last article, as the only parties, and the prospective actors ; and 
 that the said constitution is their law — their supreme law. 
 
 the treason-clause is the law of the states. 
 
 Of course the treason-clause must be their law, bearing solely on 
 their citizens — that is to say, on all the citizens of the states that 
 associated themselves. It reads thus: “ Treason against thg united 
 states [not “the nation” — not “the people” — not “the govern- 
 ment”] shall consist only in levying war against them, or in 
 adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Mr. 
 Curtis, the “ Massachusetts school’s ” “ historian of the constitu- 
 tion,” says this clause was designed “ to defend the supremacy of the 
 national government ,” i. e. the sovereignty thereof. But the said 
 government is not mentioned; and when Mr. Curtis shows that 
 “the government of ” the united states, is the united states them- 
 selves, it can be proved, by the same logic, that the horse of Mr. 
 Curtis is Mr. Curtis himself. Besides, it is very singular, if the 
 
 432 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 433 
 
 plural pronouns “them” and “their” stand for government — a 
 singular word not in the sentence — instead of “states,” which is 
 their plural antecedent. In truth, the only purpose of the clause 
 is to compel citizens to obey the will or law of their respective 
 states, as expressed in the federal compact ; and to be true to the 
 said states singly and collectively. And it is obvious that refusal 
 to obey is disobedience to the state, and that warlike resistance is 
 treason, to the state, for which offence, the state necessarily has the 
 original right to punish ; the right of the federal government to do 
 so, being merely delegative and derivative from the states. 
 
 We see, then, that the federal compact itself positively proves, 
 in the citizenship and treason clauses, that the only object of alle- 
 giance and treason, is this sovereign society of people, called the 
 state. Our only monarch for allegiance, is society, or the organ- 
 ised people; and our only tie, answering to the allegiance of poli- 
 tical science, is the social compact. Republican allegiance must 
 involve fidelity to society in return for society’s protection; and 
 treason must be a violation of this allegiance. And, accordingly, 
 the state, constitution provides for treason against the state per se, 
 and the federal one for treason against her and her chosen asso- / 
 ciates, both laws being her will and voice ; and both being evi- 
 denced by acts of conventions, representing the sovereignty of the 
 state, and deriving all their life and force therefrom. The key- 
 note of all the acts of the states, and the utterances of the fathers, 
 is that “ the sovereign authority of the state is the palladium of the 
 private and personal rights of the citizens ” [Samuel Adams] ; there 
 being no people but states, no state but citizens, and no semblance 
 of a nation that is not composed of the very states, which agreed, 
 in specified matters, to govern themselves together, and made all 
 federal institutions, to protect themselves, and, ipso facto , their 
 citizens, as the sacred records of bur country all conclusively show. 
 
 THE FEDERAL INSTRUMENT ITSELF PROVES THIS VIEW, 
 
 not only 1st. In asserting treason against the several individuals 
 associated, to be, “ levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
 enemies”; but 2d. In declaring all the people to be members and 
 “ citizens of different states,” and providing for them as such. This 
 is really the end of argument, for treason in a republic must be a 
 crime against the commonwealth which the one charged is bound 
 to obey. As to the general government, it must be subject to its 
 
434 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 creators ; and all its powers must be derived from them. It has 
 no inherent vitality and strength — no original authority — nothing 
 that is underived — nothing that is not subject. Hence, not it, but 
 the original and creative power above it, must be the object of 
 treason. 
 
 Yes, it is the republics or people-governments themselves, and 
 not their mere artificial and governmental institutions, endowed 
 with trusted authority only, that define and denounce “treason 
 against the united states,” and delegate the power, and appoint 
 the functionaries, to punish. And each state laid her law upon 
 her own subjects, as is absolutely proved in Part II. So wo find 
 it beyond question that federal jurisdiction in any given state, and 
 the legal force of the treason-clause on her citizens, flow from her 
 sovereignty alone. 
 
 INTER-STATE FAITH IS THE SOLE BASIS. 
 
 As the states were pre-existent moral persons, had minds, and 
 came together through mental action, they are necessarily in a 
 voluntary union ; and are bound in association, and moved to 
 their societal duty by plighted faith. Each promises that, in cer- 
 tain matters, her subjects shall obey the will of all ; and she “ lays 
 the law,” i. e. the federal compact, on them to that effect ; dele- 
 gating to the association the power to try and punish federal 
 treason, which is hostile opposition to the federal will, which will 
 she has pledged her faith her subjects shall obey. In truth, every 
 thing federal is based on this faith, which is more than knightly or 
 royal, it being the faith of all the people both in their individual 
 and collective capacity. This faith pervades — nay, it is the be-all 
 and the end-all of the constitution — its most important expression 
 being the guaranty of all the states to each that she shall be and 
 act as a republic or self-governing people. [Art. IY. §4.] * 
 
 It is beyond controversy, then, that treason against the united 
 states, is a violation of allegiance to the state, in disobeying and 
 fighting against her authority in the federal constitution ; and that 
 Bhe has defined it in her said supreme law, and delegated jurisdic- 
 tion to her agency — the federal government — to try the offender 
 and punish him. This becomes clear, when we reflect that the 
 state could have declined to delegate, and could have “ reserved ” 
 to herself the power to punish treason against the united states, 
 just as she could have done in respect to any other power. Indeed, 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 435 
 
 she might have reserved half the powers she delegated in the com- 
 pact, and still have had as extensive an instrument as was the 
 first “federal constitution ” — that of 1778. 
 
 Now, let us apply, and at the same time illustrate, the above 
 principles, by showing the testimony and the functional action of 
 the two most important of the original states. 
 
 LET US FIRST SEE THE CASE OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 In providing for self-preservation, and also self-government, in 
 matters common to her and her sister states, Yirginia held her 
 convention, of her own motion, and in her own time and place, and 
 declared her sovereign will as follows: “ We * * in convention, 
 * * in the name and behalf of * * Virginia, do * * ratify 
 
 the constitution, * * hereby announcing * * that the said 
 
 constitution is binding on the said people, according to an authentic 
 copy hereto annexed, in the words following,” &c. In her then 
 existing and solemnly established character as a “ free, sovereign, 
 and independent state,” she then and there completed her ratify- 
 ing, ordaining and establishing of the constitution, and, ipso facto, 
 her union with the other states. In every possible respect, she 
 was Yirginia after the establishment, and was under obligations 
 of faith to act as such in the union. She was named in article first 
 with her statehood, faculties, and sovereignty intact. Said Chan- 
 cellor JPendleton, the president of the ratifying convention — no 
 one dissenting — “Our purpose is to be intimately connected with 
 the other twelve states ; to establish one common government, 
 and bind in one ligament the strength of thirteen states.” It is 
 impossible to suppose she did not survive ratification, or that she 
 was, with the other twelve, consolidated into one. No record 
 shows any nationalising process, but all the evidence is that such 
 an idea, was emphatically repudiated. [Sec Part III., chapter YII.] 
 
 So we see that “sovereign, free, and independent” Yirginia, as 
 she and all her sisters declared her to be, did, by her sovereign 
 power, subject her citizens to her supreme law — the federal consti- 
 tution, or, in other words, “ laid the- law on ” her people — to use the 
 apt expression of Rufus King. They still remained her citizens, 
 and were recognised as such by clauses interwoven, in the federal 
 constitution, with the very treason-article which was invoked to 
 punish the said citizens for obeying her call to arms, e. g.: “ The 
 citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immuni- 
 
436 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 ties of citizens in the several states” [article IY. §2.] “The judi- 
 cial power of the united states shall extend * to contro- 
 versies between citizens of the different states; between citizens of the 
 same state," &c. [Art. III. §2; see also amendment XI.] No 
 citizen of a nation was ever recognised, or provided for. States, 
 as complete and sovereign political bodies, existed before the 
 federal agreement. Each state was composed of its citizens origi- 
 nally, and it has ever continued to be so. These “citizens of the 
 different states” were the only people in the land possessed of civil 
 and political rights. Their citizenship or allegiance has never 
 been changed. No hint of transfer can be produced. 
 
 THE TRANSFER OF ALLEGIANCE A GROSS ABSURDITY. 
 
 How absurd is the new idea taught by the “ school,” that the 
 state, in passing the ordinance ratifying the federal constitution, 
 and commanding the obedience of her members to the federal gov- 
 ernment, then ipso facto formed; alienated, in that act and 
 moment, the said citizens, and discharged them from duty to 
 herself. To do so was to defeat her own purpose ; for her authority 
 over her citizens was necessary to secure or coerce their obedience 
 to her new political arrangement and “supreme law.” Not only 
 so, but such transfer of allegiance would have been a virtual dis- 
 solution of the state (the tie of allegiance, as has been shown, being 
 the social compact), and the formation of a consolidated and homo, 
 geneous commonwealth, comprising all the states, without any 
 other than national authority, except by sufferance — the very 
 thing the fathers dreaded, and sought to avoid, as all the records 
 show. 
 
 The notion of a transfer of allegiance, like that of a delegation 
 of sovereignty, is an utter absurdity. Either is state suicide, 
 which no presumption favors, and which the records of the country 
 entirely disprove. Delegating sovereignty (including the transfer 
 of the citizens to a representative government), would be as mani- 
 fest a solecism as delegating ownership to an agent. As in the 
 latter case, the agent becomes owner, so, in the former, the repre- 
 sentative becomes sovereign — both cases being alienations or abdi- 
 cations unknown to legal or constitutional history. 
 
 Consistently with the above, we find no change in the states 
 hinted at in the federating instrument, but them named, and pro- 
 vided for, as pre-existent entities — moral persons. 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 437 
 
 SECONDLY, LET MASSACHUSETTS TESTIFY. 
 
 Here, as usual, she steps forward as the champion of statehood. 
 As a free, sovereign, and independent commonwealth, she put her 
 mind deliberately to the subject, and, through her convention, she 
 approved and adopted the federal constitution, declaring as fol- 
 lows, February 7, 1788: “The convention * * do, in the 
 
 name and behalf of the people of the commonwealth of Massachu- 
 setts, assent to and ratify the said constitution for the united states 
 of America.” 
 
 Her self-assertion then stood, as it has ever since done, as follows: 
 She declares her citizens to be formed into the state by the social 
 compact, wherein each is bound to be governed in all things by 
 the voice of the said state. Her declaration is quoted only a 
 few pages back, and it is hers to-day. 
 
 She declares that the commonwealth so formed is absolutely 
 sovereign. Here are her queenly — nay, imperial words, sounding 
 to-day: “The people of this commonwealth have the sole and 
 exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and 
 independent state ; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise 
 and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, or 
 may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the united 
 states, in congress assembled. Government is instituted for the 
 protection * * and happiness of the people * * Therefore, 
 
 they alone have an incontestable, unalienable and indefeasible right 
 to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the 
 same, when their protection * * and happiness require it.” 
 [Constitution Mass. Part I. articles 4, 7.] 
 
 She declares every power, vested by her in the united states, to 
 be “ delegated and all officials to be mere “ substitutes and agents ” 
 of the people. [Ibid. Part I. articles 4, 5.] 
 
 She declares her people to be her citizens and calls them “ sub- 
 jects of this commonwealth” [Ibid. Part I. art. 11]; while the 
 federal pact corroborates it, by calling all the people of the 
 country “ citizens of the several states." 
 
 She commands her governor to assemble all her ** citizens ” and 
 “subjects,” or rather “inhabitants” — this being the word she 
 uses — to “repel” “ by force of arms,” and to kill, slay, and destroy 
 all such persons as shall attempt “ the destruction, invasion, detri- 
 ment, or annoyance of this commonwealth.” She makes no ex- 
 ception of, but includes the federal government, as I have hereto- 
 fore shown. [Ibid. Part II. chapter 2.] 
 
138 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 She requires, in her constitution and laws, that every officer shall 
 take an oath of allegiance to her as a sovereign. Up to 1820, the 
 oath was in the extended form given heretofore. In that year it 
 was shortened, but not weakened, to read as follows : “I, A. B., 
 do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the 
 commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution 
 thereof: so help me God.” [Amendments 1820, article 6.] 
 
 She declares, under the heading of “offences against the sover- 
 eignty of this commonwealth,” that “treason,” in one of her 
 “citizens” or “subjects,” “shall consist only in levying war against 
 her, or in adhering to her enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” 
 [E. S. of Mass., ed. 1836, p. 715.] To aid any person or authority, 
 whether federal or other, to coerce her with arms, would constitute 
 the crime. 
 
 And finally, she declares, that “ every person who shall commit 
 the crime of treason against her shall suffer death” [Ibid]. And 
 if on any one of several occasions — and especially the one occur- 
 ring in 1814 — the federal government had pushed the dispute 
 with Massachusetts to an issue of arms, she would rightfully have 
 executed any subject of hers who had dared to fight for the said 
 agency, against his commonwealth and sovereign! 
 
 VERMONT AND KENTUCKY ADD CONCLUSIVE PROOF. 
 
 These two states make the correctness of the foregoing com- 
 pletely manifest. They show the understanding that morally binds 
 all the states, the people, and the general government, to the 
 proposition that the allegiance of the citizen is due alone to his state, 
 and that hence, the only possible treason is a crime against the orig- 
 inal sovereign — the commonwealth of people ; the law of treason 
 being their will, and the trying and punishing functionaries, being 
 their instruments. 
 
 Vermont and Kentucky were the first states to join the federal 
 union, after it was first formed, the former in 1791, and the latter 
 in 1792; and their cases became designed, studied, and most con- 
 spicuous precedents, especially on the vital subjects of allegiance 
 and treason. 
 
 LET US FIRST TAKE THE CASE OF VERMONT. 
 
 She “laid the law on” her people, through her convention, on 
 January 10, 1791, as follows: “This convention * * do * * 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 439 
 
 approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said constitution ; and declare 
 that the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state 
 of Yermont for ever.” [I. Ell. Deb. 338]. 
 
 Two years after this, supposing herself to be like her sisters, a 
 “free, sovereign, and independent state,” she formed her rtate con- 
 stitution, aiming, of course, to harmonise it with her fedcralised 
 condition. Therein she prescribes the following “ oath of allegi- 
 ance to this state," as she calls it, to be taken by all her officers : 
 “You do solemnly swear that you will be true and faithful to the 
 state of Yermont.” 
 
 This constitution, lately, if not now, extant, contains the follow- 
 ing remarkable provision : “Every person of good character, who 
 comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath of allegiance, 
 may purchase * * real estate, and after one year’s residence, 
 
 shall be * * entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this 
 state, except,” &c. 
 
 So much for Yermont. Next let us note 
 
 KENTUCKY’S VIEW OF ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 In 1792 she held a convention, through which she declared her 
 will to be a state, and to become a member of the union, while about 
 the same time congress passed an act admitting her — both acts 
 taking effect, ex vi termini, on the first of June, 1792. 
 
 In her constitution, adopted 17th August, 1799, and lately, if 
 not yet extant, is the following official oath of allegiance : I do 
 solemnly swear, that I will be faithful and true to the commonwealth 
 of Kentucky, as long as I continue a citizen thereof 
 
 One more extract from the record of this county or province, 
 will suffice : “ Treason against the commonwealth shall consist only 
 
 in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving 
 them aid and comfort.” 
 
 We are now enabled plainly to see 
 
 THE EARLY FAITH ON THIS VITAL SUBJECT. 
 
 On the momentous occasion of admitting the first of the long 
 line of new states, the land would have resounded with objections 
 and protests, if there had been error on these vital points of alle- 
 giance and treason, but there was none. These new states, and 
 the congress of states, as did all the people, and all their leaders 
 and political philosophers concurred in the view, that there were : 
 
440 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 1. No political organisations of people but states. 
 
 2. No political rights but the rights of states. 
 
 3. No sovereignty but that of the people of states. 
 
 4. No citizens but citizens of states. 
 
 5. No allegiance but allegiance to states, 
 
 6. And no treason but that against a state. 
 
CHAP. XT. — All Treason is against the State. — (Continued.) 
 
 IlgHE above conclusions are supported by all the facts of 
 ' history ; by all the utterances of the fathers ; and by all the 
 ^ provisions and principles of the constitution itself. The 
 fathers who planned, and aided to establish, the federal system, 
 whether acting as delegates to the federal, or the state conven- 
 tions, were members, citizens and subjects of the commonwealths, 
 owing allegiance to, and bound to preserve, them. Hence these 
 builders built with pre-existent materials — combined indestruc- 
 tible and absolute states into a new federal polity. Nothing was 
 created, destroyed, or changed. The people, as states, exerted 
 their own wills, and became “united states” — “essential compo- 
 nent parts” of the “new system” (as Hamilton himself declared), 
 intending to exercise government themselves. Obviously, treason 
 is against the people, as they are organised. But let us reason 
 further into the philosophy of the matter. 
 
 THE CRIME IS AGAINST SOCIETY. 
 
 It is obvious that treason is not against the instituted govern- 
 ment; but is against society, which rules and protects, and is 
 entitled to allegiance, precisely as if a king. The monarch in the 
 one case, and society in the other, says : — “ I am the state : allegi- 
 ance is due me, and treason is against me.” 
 
 If not so, why did Webster say : — “ Sovereignty of government 
 is unknown in North America ; * * the people alone are sove- 
 reign ” ? [speech of 1833.] If not so, why did Madison say : — “ Bach 
 state * * is considered as a sovereign body * * only to be bound 
 by its own voluntary act” [Fed. 39] ; and that the present system 
 “consists of many co-equal sovereignties” ? [III. Ell. Deb. 381.] 
 If not so, why did the Federalist, speaking the views of Hamilton 
 and Jay, as well as Madison, declare that “the federal and state 
 governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the 
 people, instituted with different powers, and designated for 
 
 441 
 
442 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 different purposes ” ? [Art. 4G] ; and why, finally, if it be not so, 
 did Mr. G. T. Curtis state, as the American doctrine, that govern- 
 ments with us are only “ agents and depositaries of the power of 
 the people”? [II. Hist. Const. 38.] 
 
 TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE, 
 
 then, not only according to the constitution and the fathers, but, 
 as we shall see, according to natural reason. The body rules and 
 protects, and is entitled to reciprocal duty and devotion [see 
 pream. const. Mass, appendix D]. Hence we infer that true loyalty 
 in a citizen is fidelity to his state, and that treason against the 
 united states ceases to be a crime when the alleged act is done in 
 defending one’s state, or when she disunites herself. 
 
 It is not inconsistent with these principles, for the states, acting 
 under the jus gentium, to force a seceder to come back to the same 
 old constitution, with all its provisions and principles intact ; for 
 it provides for equal and self-governing united states. And if truth, 
 justice, and the principles of institutional liberty, which are formu- 
 lated in the constitution, are persistently violated, and no remedy 
 is found therein, a state ought to withdraw, as one patriarchate 
 withdrew, with God’s approval, from another, to avoid strife. 
 [Gen. xiii.] They, like our states, willed to be together, and they 
 could equally will to separate. Of course, withdrawal tenders an 
 issue under the jus gentium, which the adhering states have as 
 good a right to accept, as the others to tender. [See Part I. 
 ch. iv.] 
 
 NATURALLY DISUNION ENDS FEDERAL TREASON. 
 
 Eemembcring that the power of repeal is precisely commensu- 
 rate with, and the exact opposite of, the power to enact or ordain ; 
 and remembering that all the powers of the constitution are dele- 
 gated by the will of superior authority, and hence withdrawable, 
 natural reason and common sense will teach us that the crime of 
 “ treason against the united states ” must end, as to a citizen, with 
 his state’s withdrawal from the association, and recall of her dele- 
 gations. 
 
 We must keep it in mind that man is merged and politically lost 
 in the state ; and becomes subject to duty to, and protection from 
 her, by virtue of the social compact; as well as an integral part 
 of the said state ; and, in his societal capacity, a part of the gov- 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 443 
 
 erriing authority. Politically, he is nothing, except in this connec- 
 tion. Moreover, the state is named in the federal pact, and recognised 
 as one of its constituents, while the man is designated as her 
 citizen , and is, of course, a part of her. As such part, he was 
 carried by her into the union. She organically survived the com- 
 pletion of it, abating nothing of her sovereign will. Being iden- 
 tical with said citizens, she functionally commands and controls 
 them in all matters, including those of the federal instrument — 
 this being her “ law laid on them,” just as the state constitution is, 
 both being declai’ed by her convention. 
 
 Citizens had no agency in giving life or validity to the federal 
 compact ; or doing anything towards it, except voting for dele- 
 gates, who, in convention , were to express the will of the state to 
 ratify , and thereby establish the constitution, as provided by 
 article VII. [See supra 166.] 
 
 Unquestionably then, the treason-clause comes from the wills of 
 states ; and a state makes or unmakes the offence at will, as to 
 her own members, citizens, and subjects. 
 
 NATURALLY STATES CAN UNDO WHAT THEY DO. 
 
 iSTo change having been wrought in the state and the citizen by 
 the federal constitution, the former, of course, remained free, and 
 the union voluntary. Hence she could disunite herself — withdraw 
 her delegations — and recall her federal agents. If the ordinance 
 of rati6cation is a functional act of mind, an exercise of will, can 
 she not change her mind, and the act? If she made up her mind 
 that her “ defence,” “ welfare,” and “ the blessings of liberty,” 
 would be “ promoted” and preserved by a given — say a federal — 
 arrangement; and her experience afterwards showed that her 
 purpose failed, that injury resulted, and that danger impended ; 
 were it not absurd to say that she could not change alike her 
 mind and her means ? Surely, if by her functional action, this 
 being express her will through her voters, and the delegates 
 they elect, to disunite herself from the federal union, “ treason 
 against the united states,” and federal jurisdiction to punish it, 
 are alike, and at the same moment, brought to an end. This may 
 he called secession, or some other odious name, to excite popular 
 prejudice, but the political philosophy of it will endure forever. 
 Withdrawal is the natural action of an unchained state; there is 
 no constitutional impediment; and the recent amendments have 
 not even hinted at prohibition ! 
 
444 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 Why has not some St. George slain the dragon? Why nas 
 secession not been constitutionally prohibited ? I will conjecture 
 on this subject hereafter. 
 
 BUT THE MATTER IS ON A STILL HIGHER PLANE. 
 
 It involves, indeed, the highest moral considerations, as well as 
 obedience to Heaven. Withdrawal is, as to a state, the natural 
 and functional act of a free being ; and it is a moral duty, by a 
 “ moral person ” — a society, endowed by Deity with existence, and 
 with the instinct and right, as well as the duty, of self-preserva- 
 tion. As we have seen, God ordained society when he made man. 
 And He made and gave mind for nothing, if not for the use and 
 end of providing for the “welfare” and “defence” of the body 
 that contains it. And naturally, society or societies can do or undo 
 — as we have seen — whatever their “ defence ” and “ welfare ” de- 
 mand. And their free moral agency necessitates their option ; for 
 it would be absurd if a sentient being which Deity had made or 
 caused, and intended to hold, in a manner, finally accountable, 
 had not the right, and was not in duty bound, to use every power 
 and faculty in self-preservation ; or, if such being had not the right 
 to provide for its defence and welfare, by undoing an act it had 
 mistakenly done for that purpose, and which threatoned its harm 
 and destruction. 
 
 And, viewing this society, not merely as the government 
 (which, as a republic, it is), but as the heaven-commissioned custo- 
 dian and defender — the citadel, so to speak, of the members of the 
 society, their families, and their “ blessings of liberty duty and 
 honor would compel it to destroy, not only the federal govern- 
 ment, but the whole world besides, if necessary to fulfill its sacred 
 trust. 
 
 It is right here that we find the highest application in all the 
 moral and physical world, of the great truth that “ self-defence is 
 the first'law of nature.” 
 
 THE TIE THAT BINDS THE CITIZEN TO OBEY. 
 
 Plainly, then, the tie of allegiance — the social compact — binds 
 the citizen to obey the states’ federal will or mandate, and makes 
 it treason for him to fight her and her united sisters ; and plainly, 
 in order that the treason-clause should apply to him, her act or 
 ordinance of ratification must be in force, and the state in the 
 
 union. 
 
ALL TREASON IS AGAINST THE STATE. 
 
 445 
 
 It was the same voice — the same law-making power that laid 
 the treason-clause on the member, citizen, and subject of Virginia, 
 in 1788, and that annulled it in 1861. On the former occasion it 
 said: “Be it ordained”; on the latter: “Be it repealed.” The 
 citizen that obeys the one has the same reason for obeying the 
 other, viz. that each member of the commonwealth is bound by 
 the all-comprehending obligation of the social compact to obey the 
 said body. There is no shade of original and ultimate authority 
 over citizens outside of this body. It is a republic or self-govern- 
 ing people ; and as New York has, from the beginning to this day, 
 declared in regard to herself: — “No authority , on any pretence 
 whatever” can “ he exercised over the people or members of this state , 
 hut such as shall he derived from or granted by them.” [supra p. 65.] 
 The federal constitution ends the subject by considering, and 
 providing for, all the people as “citizens of the different states,” 
 i. e. as members, integers, and subjects. And the federal conven- 
 tion of 1787 unanimously declared the “states” to be “the gov- 
 ernment ” — as, being republics, they must have been — the so-called 
 government being their agency. [See II. Curtis’s Hist. Const. 608.J 
 
CHAPTER XII. — Conclusion. 
 
 Bit are f° rce d, then, to stand upon the law of our political 
 being and nature, and admit that our whole system is states, 
 and nothing else; that “levying war against” a state’s 
 enemies, under her command, and adhering to her, giving her 
 “aid and comfort,” is always duty and not treason ; and that the 
 fathers thought that every citizen should and would, upon call of 
 his commonwealth, rally to her flag, as against any other. 
 
 And this is what Hamilton meant by the following, which was 
 the general sentiment of that day: — “The state governments will, 
 in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against in- 
 vasions of the public liberty by national authority. In a confede- 
 racy , the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely 
 masters of their own fate.” [Federalist 28 ; see also the views of 
 Ames and Parsons, II. Ell. Deb. 46, 94 ; see also Part Y. ch. v.] 
 
 WHY FIGHT FACTS? 
 
 We may not like such facts and philosophy. But why “wreck 
 ourselves against necessity ” ? [De Stael.] Why — to borrow one 
 of Carlyle’s singular expressions — “ mash our face to a pancake 
 against the adamant of things ” ? States are as separate, solid, and 
 enduring as island-rocks in the ocean. And we should cherish 
 and defend them as the sacred treasuries of all our blessings — as 
 the last refuge and citadel of freedom. Seward, after the war, 
 spoke truly, wisely, and well, in saying: — “ This absolute existence 
 of the states which constitute the republic, is the most palpable 
 of all the facts which the American statesman has to deal with. 
 * * Our federal republic exists, and henceforth and forever must 
 exist, through * * the combination of these several, free, self-ex- 
 isting, stubborn states. * * They are living, growing, majestic 
 trees, whose roots are widely spread and interlaced within the 
 soil, and whose shade covers the earth.” [Speech at Auburn, 
 October 20, 1865.] 
 
 iiB 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 447 
 
 “Indestructible states,” is the phrase applied, since the war, to 
 our commonwealths by Chief Justice Chase [State of Texas vs. 
 White] ; and it is a truth. Atoms of water do not more naturally 
 glomerate into a distinct drop, than men tend to form society. 
 All gather naturally around a centre of collective existence, pos- 
 sess a corporate soul; and, in that form, become conscious of the 
 instinct, the right, and the duty of self-preservation. 
 
 AND FREE STATES GRAVITATE, LIKE FREE MEN, 
 
 to some common centre. Of course, it is where the ties of amity ; 
 neighborly good-will ; sympathy of common origin, common de- 
 sign, and common expectations; mutual interest and confidence ; 
 and a well-founded hope of inter-state justice in the future ; are all 
 knotted or formulated into a conventional arrangement like the 
 federal (or league-al ?) constitution. 
 
 WHO SAVED THE STATES? 
 
 In our four years’ war among the states, the parties were com- 
 pelled to recognise, and deal with one another, as belligerents ; 
 and necessarily their voluntary ties of union were dissolved. Some 
 judges have wished otherwise, and so decided ; but assertions do 
 not make facts. 
 
 The elements of the states, which returned to the union, might 
 have been melted and poured into unity by the victors ; but Mas- 
 sachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois only de- 
 sired a union of states ; and they saw that the constraint of one by 
 the rest, in peace, would be to themselves a most dangerous pre- 
 cedent ; and they had Henry Wilson, John A. Andrew, William 
 H. Seward, Gerrit Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Salmon P. Chase, 
 Benjamin Wade, and Lyman Trumbull — to say nothing of others 
 — watching to see that the respective republics, and the republic 
 of republics, should receive no detriment. 
 
 The aforesaid states and statesmen probably influenced the shap- 
 ing of amendments XIII., XIV. and XV., so that, while the results 
 of the war should be secured, absolute statehood should be pre- 
 served. They might have revolutionised the states into a nation, 
 but they preferred the system to remain “ united states.” 
 
 AND CIVIL RULE AND LEGAL COERCION YET STAND. 
 
 These amendments were made by the states, according to 
 
448 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON 
 
 article Y. of the compact, as all the previous ones had been. The 
 original instrument was left unchanged and unmodified ; no sen- 
 tence or word of it was repealed, even by implication ; and tho 
 civil jurisdiction of the federal government was simply extended, 
 tho means of enforcement remaining the same. Even the right of 
 secession was not prohibited — probably because it involved a vital 
 principle of freedom ; and because prohibiting it would have been 
 precisely equivalent to chaining states. 
 
 And the aforesaid commonwealths and their statesmen, did not, 
 in their measures of reconstruction, profess to act inside of tho 
 constitution. Thaddeus Stevens said there were only two men in 
 all congress who argued that those measures were constitutional. 
 “ In all this business,” said he, “ we act ovtside of the constitution .” 
 
 EVASION OF JEFFERSON DAVIS’S TRIAL. 
 
 It was the facts and principles herein set forth, and the vital 
 importance of them to these “stubborn,” “indestructiblo states,” 
 that caused Seward, Chase, and President Johnson to evade the 
 trial of Davis, Lee, and the other confederate chiefs, while pre- 
 tending to desire it. Eeason, silent in war, longed to implead “ the 
 government ” in time of peace. Justice would have vindicated the 
 defendants and their ‘ lost cause ” — this being the cause of institu- 
 tional liberty — the cause of the American commonwealths. 
 
 THE TRUE SANCTION OF THE UNION. 
 
 The coercive use, on the states, of their own men and means, by 
 their own citizens and subjects, whom they elect as agents, cannot 
 be the cohesive force of a voluntary union of states. Such an idea 
 would be, as Madison said, “visionary and fallacious”; as Ham- 
 ilton said, “the maddest project ever devised”; and as .Randolph 
 and others said, “war.” The “attraction of repulsion,” and not 
 of cohesion, would be illustrated by such a plan. No, the people 
 collectively, as well as individually, must be 11 attracted" — to use 
 the expression of John Quincy Adams in 1839 — “ by the magnetism 
 of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies.” If they be, the 
 union must endure. The people, collectively, being sovereign 
 bodies, their personal fealty is to, and their sympathy with, them- 
 selves. Nothing more august, dignified, potent, or heaven- 
 approved, can exist as the basis and sanction of a union-government 
 of republics. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 449 
 
 The real bond and conserving force of the association, is, as it 
 always has been, the plighted faith of sovereigns, resting on their 
 satisfaction and sense of safety ; their amity and neighborly kind- 
 ness ; and their mutual interest. 
 
 When, and by what act, did this union become involuntary — a 
 chained union? When did these undeniable original feelings and 
 motives change? 
 
 SACRED INTER-STATE FAITH IS THE ONLY BASIS. 
 
 Webster could but say, in 1819: — “The only parties” to it, 
 “originally,” “ were the thirteen confederated states”; and it rests 
 solely “ on compact and plighted faith.” And this could but bo, 
 as it really was, Webster’s dying view. [See Appendix E ; also 
 supra pp. 226-231.] 
 
 HOLD SACRED THE MUNIMENTS OF LIBERTY. 
 
 The highest use of constitutions and laws is to protect “ the 
 blessings of liberty ” against rulers. The world’s history is mainly 
 devoted to recounting'the efforts of the few, by fraud and force, to 
 control and tax the many; and our fathers aimed to forefend the 
 danger, by giving to the said rulers, only written authority, speci- 
 ally empowering, directing, and controlling them, and precluding 
 discretion, particularly in the federal agency, as to which no power 
 is valid unless expressed — all not expressed being retained. The 
 terms, and truths, and principles are the very walls of our fort, 
 and any giving up or compromise of a provision, a principle, or a 
 truth, which form3 a part, is in the nature of treason as well as 
 perjury. 
 
 The only safety of the people’s blessings of liberty, is the sacred- 
 ness of constitutions. In the olden time, this sentiment was all- 
 pervading like the atmosphere. “The inviolate sanctity of a 
 written constitution,” said Hamilton, is “ the life of a republican 
 government.” Many similar expressions could be quoted from 
 Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and others. 
 
 OUR MOST DANGEROUS PERVERTERS, 
 
 are federal functionaries, who readily swear to do, and not to do, as 
 the procuration directs, but soon ignore their solemn adjuration, 
 and forget that — as Webster says — “the constitution, preserve 
 itself, lays its hand on individual duty and conscience and who 
 
450 CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 claim and exercise all the power they wish for, and suppose to be 
 popular, whether warranted by the compact or not. 
 
 At all times, and in every possible form, they assert that “we 
 are a nation,” assuming every point needed to make up that 
 theory. “ Of the making of books ” to establish it without proof, 
 “there is no end” — the evident aim being to assert the states out 
 of, and a nation into, existence. Even the federal supreme court 
 have asserted — contrary to all history — that a change was made 
 from a union of states to another system [9 Wheaton 1], and that 
 the federal government (including said court) is sovereign — with 
 coercive power, of course — over the very states that are the real 
 government, and that established the federal governmental agency , 
 of which the federal supreme court is a part [2 Otto 542]. How 
 can the temple endure, if its very high-priests undermine it? 
 
 TITLE BY ASSERTION. 
 
 If such things can be done, why not bring into political and 
 legal science, a new title to authority — the title by assertion ? Why 
 not acquire property in the same way ? And why, since we can 
 alter the constitution by assertion, should we trouble ourselves 
 hereafter with that clumsy contrivance, Article V.? 
 
 Why continue to punish as crime, when done to property, that 
 which rulers do as to authority? In what is the perjured thief of 
 “powers,” better than the starving stealer of a loaf? 
 
 ANATHEMA. 
 
 A constitution is a rule of faith and practice, as essential to the 
 temporal welfare as the Bible is to the eternal. The curse which 
 the latter denounces against heretical teachings, should be hurled 
 against those who pervert our sacred fundamental laws : — “ If any 
 man teach any other gospel [or constitution] to you, let him be 
 accursed.” 
 
 LET US ACKNOWLEDGE OUR SOVEREIGNS. 
 
 If the words, figures, and meanings of the federal pact are un- 
 changed, and if the amendments have, in no wise, varied the plan 
 of our polity, or reduced the grade of the republics, why not hence- 
 forth recognise our allegiance to our commonwealths ; implicitly 
 obey their home and their federal commands; and render constant 
 faith and undying devotion to their integrity, honor, dignity, and 
 sovereign will? 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 451 
 
 THE PALLADIUM OP ALL OUR BLESSINGS. 
 
 Concentered in, and based on, the commonwealth, will be found 
 all there is of patriotism, of collective character, of public opinion, 
 and of moral force in government, as well as voting power. The 
 republic is founded on the human heart. Its institutions are 
 shaped by man to his own liking ; are intended solely for his good ; 
 and are nothing but defences of his “blessings of liberty.” An 
 expression of Massachusetts, in January, 1776, is one of her glories 
 now: — “ As the happiness of the people is the sole end of govern- 
 ment, so the consent [i e. the will] is the only foundation of it, in the 
 reason, morality, and natural fitness of things.” In one’s home, 
 family, kindred, friends, neighbors, and fellow-citizens, and their 
 belongings, and in the institutions that surround, bind together, 
 and protect them, is found the personal happiness, w T hich is the 
 great object of life, and the sole purpose of instituting government. 
 These institutions are the vital defences of home, and hearth, and 
 heart. The love of them is the cement and coherence of the state 
 — that repository of all blessings, and citadel and last refuge 
 of freedom. The federal system is the outer wall, or bulwark, to 
 protect states — “ a dyke ” — to use Fisher Ames’s figure — “ to keep 
 out the destroying flood.” 
 
 THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO BE STATES, 
 
 and why should they be undone ? During one hundred years, 
 these heaven-devised societies — take for instance Massachusetts, 
 New York, Virginia, and Georgia — have exemplified and vindicated 
 the capacity of man for self-government, each, as a complete re- 
 public, achieving a distinguished, a brilliant success. Each knew 
 and felt that her “ sovereignty was,” as Samuel Adams said, “the 
 palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizen.” Why 
 should the monster, centralism, be allowed to destroy these pre- 
 cious entities ? 
 
 THE RIGHTFUL CENTRAL POWER 
 
 is that which the commonwealths, for agential purposes, have 
 established, the forces of which spring from, and are adjusted to, 
 their own autonomy. The central sun of their system is their 
 creation, and it draws its only light and heat from their inherent 
 stores. Nothing of the central authority is original, or its own. 
 And if even that “ Bird of the broad and sweeping wing, whose 
 
452 CITIZENSHIP ALLEGIANCE AND TREASON. 
 
 home is high in heaven,” were to be deprived, in mid-air, of all 
 strength but his own, his further history would be short, igno- 
 minious, and as follows : “tumbled! smashed! rotted!” 
 
 PLAIN COMMON SENSE AS TO UNION. 
 
 There is a naturalness of reason and sense, which should influ- 
 ence our minds on this great subject. It is found exemplified in 
 the thought and conduct of business men as to business affairs. 
 Man — the object of all politics and all law, ever tends to society, 
 and seeks self-interest, safety, friendship, mutuality, justice and 
 righteousness. Societies desire and tend to federate, with pre- 
 cisely the same motives and ends. Why should we not deal with 
 unions, constitutions of government, and the administration of 
 such affairs, just as matters of arrangement and transaction are 
 dealt with in business circles, being, of course, deliberate, and duly 
 guided by political science, ethics, law and equity? Business men 
 in legitimate transactions have precisely the above motives. That 
 great man, John Quincy Adams, foresaw that “terms of union” — 
 as the convention of 1787 called them — being of human origin, 
 must require change; and he inculcated preservation of amity 
 among the peoples, as well as a desire to associate, and a willing- 
 ness to be mutual and just; so that, when a given union should 
 fail to answer its ends, they would be minded to recur to prece- 
 dents, and “form a more perfect union.” Three unions of all the 
 states have been made; and several more are possible. And it 
 would be alike foolish, flagitious, and futile, to trammel the 
 authority, the material interests, and the heartfelt sentiments of 
 the peoples, with changeless forms — forms that might be blessings, 
 A. D. 1877, but curses afterwards. Though beneficent originally, 
 they may be “perverted from their purposes,” and-become destruc- 
 tive of liberty and the people’s rights. 
 
 MAN — THE SOLE OBJECT OP INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 All that there is of republicanism in the land, is in the state. 
 Politically man is merged and lost therein. He finds and enjoys 
 there all his “blessings of liberty”; and, if he is safe/* under his 
 own vine and fig-tree,” he little cares whether the state, or the 
 association of states, is large or small. And the state herself — if 
 safe — is as happy, united with four, as with forty, peers. Witness 
 Delaware and Rhode Island, and the original thirteen, with their 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 453 
 
 3,000,000 of people. Size is not bliss, and nought of time is above 
 change. Between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, there existed a 
 pi-imary planet, which, ages ago, was sundered; but whose frag- 
 ments yet shine in their paths of glory, adding their smaller voices 
 to the harmony of the spheres ; and they are just as capable now 
 of working out the design of the great Creator, and promoting the 
 happiness of their inhabitants, as they would be if they had re- 
 mained the unity originally projected from the hand of God. 
 
 Yes, the sole object of Institutions is the happiness of man ; and 
 we should preserve these safeguards of his blessings of liberty in, 
 or, if needs be, out of, the union. Eulers and politicians are the 
 greatest of dangers. Their perversions and excesses, if continued, 
 will sooner or later destroy American institutional freedom. The 
 warning of Burke is the Alpha and Omega of my book. Would 
 that it were engraved on every American hearth-stone, and im- 
 pressed on every American heart: — “This change from an im- 
 mediate STATE OF PROCURATION AND DELEGATION TO A COURSE OF 
 ACTING AS FROM ORIGINAL POWER, IS THE WAY IN WHICH ALL THE 
 POPULAR MAGISTRACIES- OF THE WORLD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED FROM 
 THEIR PURPOSES ! ” 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM CONTEMPORANEOUS JOURNALS AND MAOAZTNES TO SHOW HOW 
 
 THE ADVOCATES 1 RESEATED THE UNION OF STATES, AND WHAT THE PEOPLE 
 
 MUST HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS AND INTENDED IT TO BE. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Extracts frovi the Massachusetts Centinel, from Oct. 3, 1787 to Noy. iq , 1787. 
 
 For many years I have gathered extracts from editorials, communications, 
 political essays, speeches, state papers, and acts of the American commonwealths 
 contemporaneous with, and referring to, the forming of our association of states, with 
 a view of reproducing for the sons the ideas and impressions that actuated the sires 
 in forming our federal institutions. 
 
 The contending theories as to the character of our union are as follows: 
 
 1. That of the Massachusetts school — thus set forth by Webster: “The union 
 
 * * is the association of the people, under a constitution of government ; * * 
 
 therein they establish a distribution of their powers between this their general 
 government, and their several state governments.” So far as this nation has thus 
 expressed its will, “so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled.” The Phila- 
 delphia convention of 1866 improved on this by saying that “ the government ” 
 has “ absolute supremacy,” and- rightfully holds “ the states in allegiance. ” 
 
 2. In opposition to the above theory of “ the Massachusetts school, ” the consti- 
 tution itself repeatedly characterizes the polity it provides for as a union ot 
 states — “ the united states ” — the instrument calling itself “ the constitution of 
 [*. e. belonging to] the united states.” 
 
 It will be observed that the extracts all take for granted the facts — that coequal 
 states are acting ; that they are the highest earthly authority ; that the constitution 
 and government spring from their concurring wills, and must be and remain 
 subordinate to them ; that they, as republics, are aiming to govern themselves 
 through the instrumentality of governmental agencies; and finally, that tiny form 
 an association of sovereign states. 
 
 The punctuation and italicizing are those of the original. 
 
2 
 
 THE UNIOX 0 ? STATES. 
 
 [M^&achudoits Contincl. Oct. 3 1787.] 
 
 “ It is evident that all the necessary powers of this federal government, are fully 
 consistent with every species of right and liberty ot r.he people.” 
 
 Ibid. “ The inhabitants of the city and liberties of Philadelphia, have peti- 
 “ tioned the legislature of Pennsylvania, ‘ That the American constitution, pro- 
 “ 1 posed by the federal convention, may be adopted as speedily as possible by the 
 “ ‘ state of Pennsylvania, in the manner recommended by the resolution of the 
 “‘convention.’” [It was “the state” and not “a section or district of people” 
 or “group of voters” that was to adopt.] 
 
 Ibid. Oct. 6, 1787. “All duties, imposts and excises are uniform through the 
 United States ; likewise the rule of naturalization and the laws on bankruptcies. 
 The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several states.” [In those days all “the people of the united 
 States ” were thought to be citizens of the states, as they are called by the federal 
 constitution. See art. ill, $. 2 ; art. IV, $. 2.] 
 
 Ibid. From a New York paper of Sept. 29, 1787 : “ Yesterday congress resolved 
 unanimously, eleven states being present, that the new constitution is to be trans- 
 mitted to the legislatures of the several states, in order to be submitted to a con- 
 vention of delegates to be chosen by the people, agreeably to the mode prescribed 
 by the convention. From the Philadelphia papers of Sept. 26, it is derived that 
 “in each of the States of New Jersey and Delaware, the federal government has 
 been received with universal satisfaction.” 
 
 Ibid. “ We are informed that in New York the constitution promises to be 
 highly popular with the citizens.” 
 
 Ibid. “ The supreme executive of this commonwealth received from congress 
 the constitution.” The paper goes on to say that it is to be sent to “ the legisla- 
 ture, which is to call a convention for the purpose of adopting the same.” 
 
 Ibid. Oct. 10th, 1787. — From a Philadelphia paper of Sept. 29th: 
 
 “ The motion in the general assembly, by George Clymer, that a convention be 
 called to consider the proposed federal constitution, was adopted by 43 to 19 — the 
 19 seceded, leaving the house without quorum. Next day one of the minority 
 was brought in by force, by persons unknown — was fined 5s — on attempt to leave 
 there were cries to ‘ stop him,’ but finally the house permitted him to leave — he 
 and the rest of the minority thenceforward stayed away — and the house finally 
 appointed the 1st Tuesday in November for choosing delegates, and the last Tues- 
 day of same month, for the meeting of the convention at the State House in Phila- 
 delphia.” [This not only indicates the virulence of the opposition, but shows 
 the entire independence of the contest over the plan in Pennsylvania.] 
 
 Ibid. — “A late sensible and judicious writer,” says, this constitution “is calcu- 
 lated to answer the exigencies of the times, and to unite in one federal body the 
 interests of all.” “ Why should members of one and the same family clash, when 
 the interests of the family are the same.” 
 
 Ibid. Oct. 13th, 1787.— “From a Portsmouth (N. IT.) paper of Oct. 2:” 
 
 “In this metropolis” “all ranks are highly animated with the pleasing hope 
 that this glorious structure, supported by 13 pillars will speedily be completed.” 
 [It was a common figure to call the states pillars upon which the federal super- 
 structure was to be reared. The fathers never contemplated that the federal system 
 should be based on any ground of its own. It was to have and to hold nothing of 
 original, but all of derivative and delegative right. It was to be an agent and 
 trustee : so said the fathers and the states habitually. “ The states ” are “ the essen- 
 tial component parts of the system ” was Hamilton’s phrase, and it was the view 
 of all. They were contemplated and habitually spoken of as the actors in making 
 the system. They were to go into it, as complete political bodies, and exist therein 
 unchanged in name and character ; and to be the sole actors and sources of power. 
 The reader will observe that in these extracts, constant reference is made to the 
 action of the states as political bodies.] 
 
 Ibid. Oct. 20th, 1787. Extract from speech of John Hancock, governor, dated 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. 1. 
 
 Council Chamber, Oct. 17, 1787 : He said the general convention had done what 
 they were appointed for, and “ reported to congress ‘ a constitution for the united 
 “ ‘ states of America.’ I have received the same, and directed the secretary to lay 
 “ it, together with the letter accompanying it, before the legislature, that measures 
 “may be adopted for calling a, convention of this commonwealth, to take the same 
 “ into consideration. * * The characters of the gentlemen who have compiled 
 “this system, are so truly respectable, and the object of their deliberations so vastly 
 “ important, that I conceive every mark of attention will be paid to the report. 
 “ Their unanimity in deciding those questions wherein the general prosperity of 
 “ the nation is so deeply involved, and the complicated rights of the states, and of 
 “ each separate state, are so intimately concerned is very remarkable : and I per- 
 “ suade myself that the delegates of this state, when assembled in convention, will 
 “ be able to discern that which will tend to the future happiness and security of all 
 “the people in this extensive country.” 
 
 Ibid. “From the Pennsylvania Gazette — important queries:” “* * * 3. 
 
 Whether the constitution framed by the late convention ought not to be adopted by 
 the several states, as the only means of extricating the people from the distresses 
 they at present labor under. * * 4. Whether, if the constitution now offered 
 should be refused, there is any probability of obtaining another, more generally 
 acceptable.” 
 
 Ibid. — “ F rom the very handsome manner in which our worthy governor speaks 
 of the new constitution, and from the observations of several legislators yesterday, 
 we anticipate an early day being fixed by the general court for the meeting of our 
 convention — that this state may have, the great honor and singular happiness of 
 being the first to adopt a system second to none in the world.” 
 
 The Massachusetts Cextinel, of Oct. 24, 1737, publishes with high encomia , 
 the speech of Hon. James Wilson, (one of the delegates of Pennsylvania in the 
 federal convention,) at the state-house in Philadelphia. It is copied from the 
 Pennsylvania Herald of October 10. The following are extracts : His speech is 
 professedly to answer “objections that have been raised.” Before “refuting the 
 charges which are alleged,” he thus “discriminates between the state .constitutions, 
 and the constitution of the united states.” 
 
 “When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate 
 governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority 
 which they did not, in explicit terms, reserve, and therefore upon every question 
 respecting the jurisdiction of the house of assembly, if the frame of government is 
 silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, 
 another criterion was necessarily introduced ; and the congressional authority is to 
 be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in 
 the instruments of union. Hence it is evident, that in the former case, everything 
 which is not reserved is given, but in the latter, the reverse of the proposition 
 prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved. This distinction will 
 furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in 
 the proposed constitution. For it would have been superfluous and absurd, to have 
 stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those 
 privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has 
 brought that body into existence.” 
 
 In reply to the objection that the rights of trial bv jury in civil cases, was 
 abolished or endangered, in the states, he said: “Let it'be remembered, then, that 
 “the business of the federal convention was not local but general; not limited to 
 “ the views and establishments of a single state, but co-extensive with the continent, 
 “and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sove- 
 reignties.” [In other words trial by jury, habeas corpus, freedom of the press, 
 owning and enjoying property, religious freedom, marrying, voting, etc., etc. 
 “ relating only to personal rights ” — to use the words of another great Pennsylvania 
 statesman, Tench Coxe — “ could not be mentioned in a contract among sovereign 
 “ states.” How absurd to suppose that up to the time these organized common- 
 
4 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 wealths were compacting, all these personal rights and privileges were unestablished 
 and insecure]. 
 
 As to the objection that the “ constitution tolerates a standing army in time of 
 peace,” he says he knows no nation that does not “ maintain the appearance of 
 “strength in a season of the most profound tranquillity. Kor is it a novelty with 
 “ us, for under the present articles of confederation congress certainly possesses the 
 “ reprobated power, and the exercise of that power is proved at this moment by 
 “her cantonments along the hanks of the Ohio.” 
 
 Speaking of attacks on the senate, he says: “When we reflect how various are 
 “the laws, commerce, habits, population and extent of the confederated states, this 
 “evidence of mutual confidence and accommodation, ought rather to command a 
 “generous applause, than to excite jealousy and reproach.” 
 
 Kext he meets the objection that the “ federal constitution is not only calculated, 
 “but designedly framed to reduce the state governments to mere corporations, and 
 “ eventually to annihilate them. The objectors do not seem to comprehend the 
 extent of the term corporation. It is commonly applied to petty associations of a 
 few individuals, but in its enlarged sense it comprehends the government of 
 Pennsylvania, the existing union of the states ; and even this projected system is 
 nothing more than a formal act of incorporation. But upon what pretence can it 
 he alleged that it was designed to annihilate the state governments, for I will 
 “ undertake to prove that upon their existence depends the existence of the federal 
 “plan.” He then proceeds to show how the president, senate and house of repre- 
 sentatives, are to be appointed. The president is to be chosen by electors to be 
 chosen “ in such manner as the legislature of each state may direct” — no legislature, 
 no electors, no president. The senators are “ two senators from each state 
 chosen by the legislature” — no legislature, no senate. The house of representatives 
 is composed of members chosen every two years “bv the people of the several 
 states, and the electors in each state ” are those that elect members of the second 
 branch of the state legislature. “Unless, therefore, there is a state legislature, that 
 “ qualification cannot be ascertained, and the popular branch of the federal govem- 
 “ment must likewise be extinct. From this view, it is evidently absurd to 
 “ suppose that the annihilation of the separate governments will result from their 
 “ un : on.” 
 
 [Tench Coxe explained this very point as follows: “As under the old. so under 
 “the new federal constitution, the tnirteen uniteu states were not intended to be, 
 “and really are not, consolidated in such a manner as to absorb or destroy the 
 “sovereignties of the several states”]. 
 
 “The power of direct taxation has likewise been treated as an improper delega- 
 tion to the federal government ; but when we consider it as the duty of that body 
 “to provide for the national safety, to support the dignity of the union, and to 
 “ discharge the debts contracted upon the collective faith of the states, for their 
 “common benefit, it must be acknowledged that those upon whom such important 
 “obligations are imposed, ought in justice and in policy to possess every means 
 “ requisite for a faithful performance of their trust.” 
 
 ■ Speaking of a law of the state of Pennsylvania, he says, “ as it was the imbecility 
 “ of the present confederation which gave rise to the funding law, that law must 
 “naturally expire when a competent and energetic federal system shall be 
 “substituted;” 
 
 [He elsewhere speaks of the new system as “a confederation of states,” with 
 additional powers, an executive, a judiciary, a second branch of the legislature, and a 
 power to regulate commerce, not possessed by the first federation]. 
 
 In conclusion, speaking in general terms of the opposition to the plan, he 
 considers it to originate with those who are interested in those offices, judicial 
 appointments, and collectors of revenues which are transformed [transferred?] 
 frum the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the states. 
 
 Says the editor, in referring to this speech, “ the quintessence of all that can be 
 “objected to the American constitution, is in the address of the Pennsylvania 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 5 
 
 “ seceders, and a complete answer to them and other anti-federalists can be found 
 “ in the address of Mr. Wilson.” 
 
 [Mr. Curtis, the author of the so-called history of the constitution, affects great 
 partiality for James Wilson, and shows it in quotipg from him. One evidence of 
 it is, that while quoting about 12 or 14 large pages, he leaves out all the above, 
 and many similar passages of Mr. W.’s great efforts in the convention ot 
 Pennsylvania, wishing apparently to show that Mr. W. favored consolidation 
 views, while, in reality, he was trying to defend the new system from even the 
 suspicion of itj. 
 
 Ibid — Oct. 24th, 1787. 
 
 [From the New Haven Gazette, Oct. 17J. 
 
 “Yesterday the general assembly passed a resolve appointing, Monday, the 12th 
 “day of November next, for the several towns to choose delegates to a state con- 
 “ veption, to be holden at Hartford, first Thursday of January next to consider 
 “ the doings of the late federal convention at Philadelphia — the delegates to be 
 “ chosen, as the representatives to the general assembly are.” 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 [From the New York Packet, Oct. 12]. 
 
 “The inhabitants of Burlington county, and district Carlisle, Hew Jersey, have 
 voted to instruct their general-assembly-men to call a convention for adopting the 
 federal constitution as soon as possible.” 
 
 Ibid. Oct. 27, 1787. — In the Massachusetts house of representatives there was 
 a debate in reference to calling a convention, feaid Mr. Ha vies, of Boston, “ The 
 people will consider this point, with all the other proceedings, when in state con- 
 vention. * * * To say that the people have no right to do this, if it shall 
 
 appear to them that the old confederation is inadequate to all the purposes of national 
 government, is just saying that we had no right to oppose the British power 
 when it became oppressive, and that we are all now in one great rebellion.” [He 
 was speaking in reference to the alleged indissolubleness of the old confederation.] 
 
 “ The probability is that the proposed government will meet the wishes of almost 
 all the people of almost every state in the union.” 
 
 Judge Tarsons, of Hewburyport, on the same occasion, said: “As the people 
 alone were the proper and immediate judges of the system proposed by the federal 
 convention, he hoped there was not a person in that house who would attempt an 
 abortion of so noble a conception.” 
 
 Ibid. Contains a statement that the elections in Pennsylvania shows that “ a 
 large majority of the people of that state are strongly attached to the new federal 
 constitution.” 
 
 Again, “Accounts from Maryland show that the federal government will be 
 adopted almost unanimously in that state.” 
 
 [Ibid. Oct. 31st, 17871. 
 
 Poplicola [very able and clear,] replying to objections, says : “We are not to 
 forget that these very officers [of the federation] are the creatures of our own 
 choice, amenable to us, and to be re-called at our pleasure.” 
 
 “ The gentlemen [an old whig] has observed that people are unwilling to part 
 with the power they have got ; it is for this reason I do not believe the inhabitants 
 of this country will ever lose sight of the essential privilege of calling their public 
 servants to account.” 
 
 “ It is a known truth that in the constitution [proposed], every privilege is left, 
 which is not expressly taken away from the people.” 
 
 Ibid., same date. “A correspondent remarks that the same or similar objections 
 to those raised against the new constitution were offered against the confederation. 
 It was to be an irreversible decree, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. 
 Experience has proved the fallacy of such an idea, and those who 'object to the 
 American constitution on this score do it in mere wanionness or from calculating; 
 
6 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 tlie tyrannical views of those who may chance to govern us by their own propen-, 
 sities to domination and lust of power.” 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 3, 1787. From the Middlesex Gazette. “There can be no good, 
 “free and secure government but where every man is under the coercive power ot 
 “ the law * * Under this system [the federal constitution] no man can be above 
 ‘ law. Rulers must govern according to law ; or rulers and subjects be chastised. 
 “ The people have power to compel their rulers to do their duty.” 
 
 Ibid. The editor says with reference to the judiciary power in this federal 
 government : “ How are disputes between a state and citizens of another state, and 
 “ between citizens of different states to be decided ” ? 
 
 Ibid. The editor publishes a letter of Hon. Elbridge Gerry as containing 
 “ opinions on a subject of first importance to the country,” from one of the great 
 men. Gerry says: “As the convention was called for the 1 sole and express pur- 
 “ pose of revising the articles of confederation ; and reporting to congress, and the 
 “ several legislatures such alterations and provisions as shall render the federal 
 “constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of 
 “ the union,’ I did not conceive that these powers extended to the formation of the 
 “ plan proposed ; but the convention being of a different opinion , I acquiesced in 
 “ it, being fully convinced that to preserve the union, an efficient government was 
 “ indispensably necessary, and that it would be difficult to make proper amendments 
 “ to the articles of confederation.” He says further: “ The constitution proposed 
 “ has few if any federal features, but is rather a system of national government,” 
 and suggests as questions necessarily arising : “1st. Whether there shall be disso- 
 lution of the federal government. 2. Whether the several state governments 
 “ shall be so altered as in effect to be dissolved ; and 3 whether in lieu of the 
 “ federal and state governments, the national constitution now proposed shall be 
 “ substituted without amendment.” [See I. Elliott’s Debates, 492], [Gerry, like 
 Martin, Henry, Lowndes and others, was trying to defeat the constitution by 
 charging it with what the whole people were averse to — consolidation. And, 
 strange to say, these charges, which would have defeated it but for decisive refuta- 
 tion, are now predicated of it, as its real meaning, by Dane, Story, Webster and 
 Curtis ! They are met and refuted herein]. 
 
 Ibid. “ The late continental convention have recommended calling state conven- 
 “ tions for the sole purpose of adopting or rejecting in to to their plan of government.” 
 [The general idea was “that each state should adopt or reject in toto, and not 
 “ attempt to amend — this being likely to produce confusion and delay”]. 
 
 Ibid. Nov. 7, 1787, a correspondent writes : “Besides the securities of the people 
 “ arising out of the federal government, they are guarded by their state constitutions, 
 “ and by the nature of things in the respective states.” The article goes on to enumerate 
 the classes of state officers — governor, legislators, judges, etc. — to be “ chosen within 
 “ each state , without any possible interference of the federal government. The separate 
 “states will also choose all the members of the legislative and executive branches of the 
 “ united states. The people at large in each state will choose their federal represen- 
 tatives, and * * the electors of the president and vice-president of the union. 
 
 “ And the legislatures of the states will elect the senate,” etc. Can it be, then, — the 
 article continues — that “a majority of the representatives” will “betray their 
 “ country ?” “ Will a majority of the senate, each of whom will be chosen by the 
 
 “ legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state, * * * destroy our 
 “liberties?” 
 
 [Massachusetts Centinel, Nov. 10th, 1787], 
 
 “ President Sullivan ” has summoned “the general court of New Hampshire” 
 “to consider on business of the highest importance — the appointment of a conven- 
 tion ” to adopt or reject the federal constitution. 
 
 Ibid., contains an able and statesmanlike letter, from which I copy the following. 
 After saying there is no religious test for office under “ the new constitution,” and 
 mentioning other features, it says : “ The old federal constitution contained many 
 “ of the same things, which from error or disingenuousness are urged against the 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 7 
 
 “new one. Neither of them has a bill of rights, nor does either notice the liberty 
 “ of the press, because they are already provided for by the state constitutions ; ana, 
 “ relating only to personal rights, they could not be mentioned in a contract among 
 sovereign states . The people will remain, under the proposed constitution, the 
 fountain of power and honor. The president, the senate, and house of representa- 
 tives will be the channels through which the stream will flow — but it will flow. from 
 the people, and from them only : Every office, religious, civil and military, will be 
 either their immediate gift, or it will come from them through the hands of their 
 servants. And this will be firmly guaranteed to them under the state constitution, 
 which they respectively approve, for they cannot be royal forms [of government,] 
 cannot be aristocratic, but must be republican. 
 
 ‘■‘■Nothing can be more plain to the eye of reason, or more true, than that the 
 safety of the people is amply provided for in the federal constitution, from the 
 restraints imposed on the president — those imposed on the senate — and from the 
 nature of the house of representatives — and that of the security for national safety 
 and happiness, from every part of the federal government. 
 
 “ There is no spirit of arrogance in the new federal constitution. It addresses 
 us with becoming modesty, admitting that it may contain errors. Let us, l'ellow- 
 eitizens, give it a trial ; and when experience has taught its mistakes, the people 
 whom it preserves ABSOLUTELY all-powerful, can reform them.” [This 
 letter is from Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, one of the great statesmen and political 
 writers of that period. Note, that the security for national safety and happiness 
 “ was to be attained by a contract among sovereign states.” And the people, as 
 such “sovereign states,” were to be “preserved all-powerful.” This letter was 
 published everywhere, and never controverted as an exposition]. 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 14, 1787.— A correspondent speaks of the “new states’ constitution.” 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 17, 1787. — An extract is published from the Pennsylvania Journal 
 of Nov. 3d, to the effect that the house of assembly of New Jersey, after declaring 
 that “the commissioners from this state have reported a constitution for the future 
 government of the united states, agreed upon ” in the convention of states ; and 
 further declaring it “to be the earnest wish of the good people of this state,” that 
 there be assembled “a convention within the same, for the purpose of deliberating 
 and determining on said constitution ” — unanimously passed resolutions in favor 
 of a convention, fixing time, etc. 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 21, 1787. — Twenty-three formidable objections to the new federal 
 plan, are urged by an officer of the late Continental army, substantially as 
 fol lows : 
 
 1. It is not merely, as it ought to be, a confederation of states, but a government 
 of individuals. 
 
 2. The powers of congress extend to the lives, liberties and property of every 
 citizen. 
 
 3. The sovereignty of the different states is ipso facto destroyed in its most 
 essential parts. 
 
 4. What remains of it, will make dissensions between state and congress, and 
 terminate in the ruin of one or the other. 
 
 5. “ The union of the states,” will be destroyed in a struggle, or their sove- 
 reignty swallowed up by an aristocracy, because if two equal sovereign powers 
 command the citizens’ purses, they will struggle for the spoils, and the weakest will 
 yield to the strongest. 
 
 6. Congress, possessing these great powers, the liberties of the states and people 
 are not secured by bill of rights. 
 
 7. The sovereignty of the states is not expressly reserved, the form and not the 
 substance of their government being guaranteed to them by express words. [How 
 much this wretched quibble about the "form,” but not the substance of a republican 
 government being guarantied, is like the constitutional expositions of the Massa- 
 chusetts school]. 
 
 8. Trial by jury is abolished in civil cases. 
 
 9. The liberty of the press is not secured, and congress can destroy it 
 
8 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 10. Congress can keep a standing army in time of peace. 
 
 In the 13th, he finds fault with represention ; in the 14th, with the senate ; in the 
 15th, he says the president is an elective king, and has command of the army ; in 
 the 17th, he complains of want of rotation in office; in the 18th, that annual" elec- 
 tions are abolished ; in the 19th, that congress can fix time, place and manner of 
 elections. 
 
 In the 21st he says the militia is to be commanded by congress and that peace 
 men may be compelled to bear arms. In the 22d he fears the government will be 
 expensive, the judiciary part particularly. In the 23d lie concludes that the new 
 plan of government partakes of monarchy and aristocracy. 
 
 Ibid. “The general assembly of Delaware” has “provided fora convention to 
 consider the “ proposed plan of government.” 
 
 “ Five states have agreed” to conventions for the purpose. 
 
 Ibid. Nov. 24th, 1787. “New Haven, Nov. 15. Virginia has directed a con- 
 “ vention to meet next May, with powers not only to accept or reject, but to amend 
 “ the new constitution.” 
 
 “ It is very evident that should the arts, lies and misrepresentations of the 
 “ enemies to a federal system so far delude the good people of the states as to reject 
 “ the new constitution, all government will be at an end. And what then will 
 “ become of the state constitutions.” ? 
 
 Ibid. Nov. 28th, 1787. 
 
 An able contributor shows that as the English constitution was unwritten and 
 English governmental powers somewhat undefined, the English people “ insisted 
 on an expressed bill of rights” — an “express confirmation of those parts of their 
 constitution which former monarchs had denied or violated.” “ If we [the people 
 of Massachusetts] had not a state constitution already declared on paper, and if 
 we were now in the same circumstances we were in, when we seceded from Britain, 
 and before we had ascertained and declared all our rights, it might be more 
 necessary for us to do it now, when we are to form a new federal compact. But 
 agree'ably to the theory of the original contract, * * we assembled in a state 
 convention eight years since, and then plainly distinguished, agreed to, and pub- 
 lished, a bill of rights, and form of government for this commonwealth. I now 
 undertake to say that we part with few or none of these rights by accepting the 
 new federal constitution ; that where we part with any, it is in exchange for others 
 that are national, and fully expressed, and that some of those rights, ascertained 
 in the state constitution, are even repeated in that which is offered by- the federal 
 convention. * * The first section in the federal form, will help our eye-sight to 
 see that we retain all our rights which we have not expressly relinquished to the 
 union. That section declares that all legislative powers herein given (i. e., given 
 in the new constitution) shall be vested in congress, etc. The legislative powers 
 which are not given therein, are surely not in congress ; and if not in congress, are 
 retained by the several states and secured by their several constitutions. 
 
 “ The opposers of the new government charge that ‘ the liberty of the press is 
 not provided for. But the real question is, where is it taken away ? The several 
 state constitutions already protect the liberty of the press, and no legislative power 
 is given to congress to restrict that liberty. * * Congress has no legislative 
 powers but what are given them by the constitution ; they therefore can never 
 restrict the liberty of the press.” “ So,” he proceeded to say, “ with trial by jury, 
 which it is objected the new government does not protect.” 
 
 [Some of the expressions of this writer being identical with certain words and 
 phrases common in the pretended interpretations of the Massachusetts school, it 
 may be instructive to criticise them here. These expressions assume, and indeed 
 assert, that some part of the people’s “rights” were “given up,” “ parted with,” 
 “relinquished,” “surrendered,” etc., etc.; that is to say, alienated. This is the 
 germ of that idea which grows rapidly into the “government’s” “right of self- 
 preservation,” and its “ absolute supremacy.” It is almost needless to say that 
 such expressions are sheer fallacies, though it is likely that few of the utterers 
 know it. The compact provides for the “delegation” of “powers,” and not for 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 9 
 
 the “surrender” of “rights;” and there is no word in the instrument indicating, 
 or even hinting at, such alienation. The constitutional words “grant,” “vest” 
 and “delegate” mean confided to agents and trustees for the behoof of the owners. 
 “ The people,” who are organized republics, and have the unlimited and inalienable 
 right to govern themselves, cannot attend to it personally, and, therefore, they do 
 it "through “ servants,” “ agents,” and “ trustees.” These are the very names by 
 which the fathers designated the federal functionaries, and the purely vicarious 
 capacity of these functionaries was ever kept in view. 
 
 Even a small child ought to see that if “ the people” “surrender” any “ right” 
 to the government, it was the “ right” to govern them ; and when this “ right’’ is 
 “given up,” the people are under a despotism, as subjects and slaves, having 
 committed political suicide. A republic becomes no republic, when it loses the 
 absolute right of self-government, a right which, like honor and virtue is indivi- 
 sible and inalienable] . 
 
 [Massachusetts Centinel, Nov. 28th, 1787]. 
 
 An able writer under the signature of Valerius , says: It is objected to the new 
 constitution, that it is deficient in a bill of rights. This objection might have had 
 the greatest weight in a government merely national — as, in this case, there would 
 have been no intermediate checks between the governing power and the people, 
 over whom the constitution was intended to operate. But the form of government 
 now proposed, is, by no means, of this sort. It is a lederal government in every 
 point of view, and is predicated, in every part of it, upon the idea of subordinate 
 constitutions being in actual operation. When we inquire, therefore, where we 
 are to look for that personal security inseparable from the very idea of freedom, 
 we are only to cast our eye on the respective constitutions, and on the principles 
 upon which they are established, and the difficulty will be immediately resolved. 
 Had there been no governments in existence, limited in their powers to their 
 several districts, there would have been need of articles defining and explaining 
 those rights, of which every individual feels himself possessed, and which are as 
 firmly secured to him, as if they were formally prefixed to the new con-titution, 
 in the same manner that they are so fully and explicitly stated in our several state 
 constitutions. 
 
 When the convention was in session, they were to form a constitution suited as 
 near as possible not only to the habits and dispositions of the neople at large, but 
 to the governments in operation. The difficulty was not, in w rat way the rights 
 and privileges of the people could be secured to them — it would have been absurd 
 to have spent even a day in the contemplation of this object, for these rights and 
 privileges were fully and effectually secured already. They saw in the constitu- 
 tion of every state the strongest provisions for the rights of the subjects that ever 
 were yet committed to paper or parchment in any country, or in any situation. 
 Indeed no spot on earth is found but in America, in which such, or any precau- 
 tions, were expressed to guarantee to each individual the rights of person and 
 conscience, which, in this country, are secured, and will be forever inalienable, 
 whether delineated in the preamble to the federal constitution or not. 
 
 If the convention had only to select, for the federal head, such powers as were 
 necessary for the protection and safety of the whole, as was re lly the case, how 
 strange would it have been for them, to have formed aprov'sion in a bill of rights 
 to secure what is already so fully established. The liberties of the Homans, 
 Greeks, and English, have been continued through a series of years, even without 
 the use of the press, which I conceive to be the greatest security of all others. 
 Now will any man say that congress, under the new constitution, will have a 
 eingle power to limit the operation of this essential privilege? and. if they have, 
 in what passage is such a power expressed ? We have declared in this state, that 
 the liberty of the press is an indispensable right of the people. Can the congress 
 alienate this right? The moment they attempt it, the new constitution would be 
 annihilated, and the question would be put on the issue of force. Our state consti- 
 
1C 
 
 THE UNION OP S1A1ES, 
 
 tution declared that each member of society is possessed of certain natural rights, 
 privileges, and immunities. Does the federal constitution say otherwise ? No; it 
 is set up merely to confirm them. 
 
 [No more accurate, clear, and forcible statement could be mad?. Comment 
 would weaken or obscure it. Why have not the Storys, Websters, and Curtises, 
 reproduced these writings ?] 
 
 Ibid. In a Richmond paper of Oct. 27th, it is stated that the Virginia assembiv 
 “ unanimously resolved that the new constitution be submitted to a convention of 
 the people for th °ir full and free investigation and discussion,” the convention to 
 meet on the 4th Monday in May. 
 
 Ibid. The paper says the citizens of Newburyport are so well pleased with 
 Rufus King’s conduct “ in congress and in the convention of states,” that they 
 have elected him their first delegate to the state convention. 
 
 Ibid, Dec. 5,. 1787. From the Connecticut Courant is copied a criticism on ITon. 
 E. Gerry’s letter. * * The federal legislature can take cognizance only of 
 national questions and interests, and for this purpose 5 or 10 honest and wise men 
 chosen from each state — men of previous experience in state legislation — will be 
 more competent than a hundred. * * The same qualifications that enable you 
 to vote for state representatives, give you a federal voice. * * The proposed 
 plan, he [Mr. Gerry ] tells us, involves these questions — 1 whether the several state 
 governments shall be so altered as in effect to be dissolved ? Whether in lieu of the 
 state governments, the national constitution now proposed shall be substituted ?’ 
 I wish for sagacity to see on what these questions are founded. No alteration in 
 the state governments is even proposed, but they are to remain identically the same 
 that they now are. Some powers are to be given into the hands of your federal 
 representatives, but these powers are all in their nature general, such as must be 
 exercised by the whole, or not at all, and such as are absolutely necessary. * * 
 Why are we told of the dissolution af our state governments, when by this plan, 
 they are indissolubly linked. They must stand or fall, live or die together. The 
 national legislature consists of two houses, a senate and house of representatives. 
 The senate is to be chosen by the assemblies of the particular states, so that if the 
 assemblies are dissolved, the senate dissolves with them. The national represen- 
 tatives are to be chosen by the same electors, and under the same qualifications, 
 as choose the state representatives, so that if the state representation be dissolved, 
 the national representation is gone, of course. State representation and govern- 
 ment is the very basis of the congressional power proposed. 
 
 Ibid. Northampton, in “town meeting,” instructed her delegates, Caleb Strong 
 and Benjamin Sheldon: “We have delegated you to meet in state convention 
 * * for the purpose of adopting or rejecting the reported constitution of the 
 united states of America.” The document goes on to show the importance of the 
 occasion: “The civil dignity of the states, of the united states, and perhaps of 
 humanity,” are involved, “ and we wish you patiently to hear, and attentively to 
 examine every argument that shall be offered for and against its adoption.” We 
 want “an equal, energetic federal government.” We want “the dignity and wel- 
 fare of the union, as well as of Massachusetts” promoted. While “tenacious of 
 the rights and privileges of the people, be not afraid to delegate to the federal 
 
 g overnment such powers as are absolutely necessary for the national honor and 
 appiness.” 
 
 Ibid. “ News from Pennsylvania shows large majority of convention of the 
 state in favor of the constitution.” 
 
 Ibid. Dec. 8, 1787. “Let the thirteen states, bound together in a strict and 
 indissoluble union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to 
 trans- Atlantic force and influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection 
 between the old and the new world.” 
 
 Ibid. News from Georgia, that the house of assembly have recommended a 
 state convention, “for taking under consideration the new federal conslitution.” 
 Nsws from Philadelphia of the meeting and organization of the state convention. 
 'S'he -sditor reports the statement of a correspondent that John Jay (though * 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 11 
 
 good and able man,) though at first for, is now against the constitution, calls it a 
 deep and wicked conspiracy. In New York it is known by the name of gilded 
 trap. Elsewhere it is said or intimated that the state of New York is likely to 
 reject the constitution. 
 
 Ibid. After giving the names of those elected to the convention from Boston 
 and other towns, the editor speaks of circumstances which “ presage a happy issue 
 of the deliberations of that great Areopagus which is to determine whether this 
 state will assent to and ratify the constitution,” etc. 
 
 [Massachusetts Centinel, Dec. 10th, 1787.] 
 
 Extract from speech of James Wilson in Pennsylvania convention: 
 
 “ In all governments there must be a power from which there is no appeal, 
 absolute, supreme, uncontrollable. * * It remains and flourishes with the 
 people. It is a power paramount to every constitution, inalienable in its nature, 
 and indefinite in its extent. For I insist, if there are errors in government, the 
 people have the right not only to correct and amend them, but likewise totally 
 change and reject its form; and under the operation of that right they can never 
 be wretched beyond retrieve, unless they are wanting to themselves. * * In a 
 democracy [such as ours] the supreme power is inherent in the people, and is 
 either exercised by themselves or their representatives.” 
 
 The editor says: “ This speech which the Roman orator would not blush to own, 
 ran through an impression of several thousands in a few days at Philadelphia, at 
 one shilling each.” 
 
 [Massachusetts Centinel, Dec. ISth, 1787.] 
 
 A very able reply — copied from the Connecticut Courant , to Col. George Mason’s 
 objections to the federal constitution, contains the following: 
 
 “ There is no declaration of rights , [says Col. M.] Bills of rights were introduced 
 in England when its kings claimed all power and jurisdiction, and were considered 
 by them as grants to the people. They are insignificant, since government is con- 
 sidered. as originating from the people, and all the power government now has, is 
 a grant from the people. The constitution they establish, with powers limited and 
 defined, becomes now to the legislator and the magistrate, what originally a bill of 
 rights was to the people. To have inserted in this constitution a bill of rights for 
 the states, would suppose them to derive and hold their rights from the federal 
 government, when the reverse is the case.” 
 
 “ There is no declaration of any kind to preserve the liberty of the press , [ says Col. M.] 
 Nor is liberty of conscience, of matrimony, or of burial of the dead mentioned. 
 It is enough that congress have no power to prohibit either, and can have no 
 temptation. This objection is answered in that the states have all the power 
 originally, and congress have only what the states grant them.” 
 
 [The Centinel calls the article a pertinent critique. It is very clear and cogent, 
 and it must be from Ellsworth, Sherman, Law, or some leading man of Con- 
 necticut.] 
 
 Ibid, Dec. 22, 1787. The editor, speaking of danger to the liberty of the press 
 says : “ As all the powers congress are to possess, will be the grant of the people, 
 we can have nothing to tear from that body — if this privilege is ever destroyed, it 
 must be by the people.” 
 
 Ibid, Dec. 26, 1787, contains part of a speech of Hon. Jas. Wilson in the Penn- 
 sylvania convention. He reasons that “a bill of rights was not necessary, because 
 congress only have such powers as are granted .” And if the people should undertake 
 to frame a bill of rights, “what they happen to omit, might be presumed to be 
 given.” “A bill of rights would have been improperly annexed to the federal 
 plan, and for this plain reason, that it would imply that whatever is not expressed 
 
12 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 was given, which is not the principle of the proposed constitution.” This principle 
 he declares as understood above. The italics are in the original. 
 
 [In consequence of the fears aroused by the Websterian dogmas, which appeared 
 in those days in the guise of charges, made by the enemies of the constitution, for 
 the purpose of defeating it, and which nearly accomplished the purpose ; the 
 people unfortunately insisted on a bill of rights, which to allay their apprehen- 
 sions, and to guard against the possibility of consolidation, (or a nationalization of 
 the states,) was appended to the constitution as amendments, [see amendments, 1 
 to 8 inclusive] : and now our politicians, so-called statesmen, and many profound 
 lawyers, call th q federal (or league-al) constitution, “ the charter of our liberties” — 
 never dreaming that these provisions are the sacred institutes of freedom herself; 
 and are_ fundamental and vital in the very organic laws of all the states. Neither 
 a soul of the fathers, nor a state, ever thought of a transfer , or a signing away, of 
 these great essentials, for it would have been political suicide ; but the said 
 amendments were intended as limitations — “ to prevent an undue administration 
 of the federal government,” as Massachusetts expressed it through her ratifying 
 convention.] 
 
 Ibid. — “The convention of the state of Georgia were authorized to consider 
 said report, letter, and resolutions [of the federal convention] and to reject or 
 adopt any part or the whole thereof.” 
 
 Ibid. — Copies an extract from the Pennsylvania Gazette , which I will give as 
 published to show the ideas and impressions of that day : 
 
 “ The FIRST PILLAR of a great FEDERAL SUPERSTRUCTURE raised.'” 
 
 “ Delaware. — The d- puties of the state convention met at Dover, on Monday, 
 the 3d, and a House being formed, they elected James Latimer, Esq., President. 
 On Thursday they ratified the federal constitution by an unanimous vote, and on 
 Friday every member signed the ratification as follows: 
 
 “ ‘ We the deputies of the people of Delaware state in convention met, having 
 taken into our sqpious consideration, the federal constitution, proposed and agreed 
 upon by the deputies of the united states, in a general convention, held at the city 
 of Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September, in the year of our. Lord, one 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved of, assented to, and con- 
 firmed, and by these presents, do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given 
 for that purpose, for, and in behalf of ourselves and constituents, fully, freely 
 and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify and CONFIRM the said Consti- 
 tution.” 
 
 “ Second Pillar raised. On Wednesday, the 12th inst., in the state convention 
 of Pennsylvania, the Hon. Mr. McKean, agreeably to notice given on a previous 
 day, recurred to his motion made at the opening of the convention, viz : Resolved, 
 That this convention do adopt and ratify the constitution of federal govern- 
 ment, as agreed upon by the federal convention at Philadelphia, on the 17th day 
 of September, 1787. A lengthy debate took place, which did not close until 12 
 o’clock at night, when the question being put, the numbers were: for the motion, 
 44 ; against it, 22. The next day, proclamation of the same was publicly made, 
 and was ratified by the people, with those expressions of applause which the 
 sons of freedom alone know how and when to give.” [The vote on ratification 
 was 46 to 23.] 
 
 “The third pillar raised. A letter dated at New York, Dec. 20, 1787, 
 received in town yesterday, has the following paragraph, which may be considered 
 as authentic, viz : ‘ The new constitution will undoubtedly be adopted — Dela- 
 ware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have ratified and confirmed it.” 
 
 Ibid, Jan. 2, 1788. The editor “hopes before midsummer to give the glad 
 tidings that not only nine but twelve of the great pillars of the federal super- 
 structure are raised, and the whole completed. Laus Deo ! ” 
 
 Ibid. Speaks of certain mischiefe that “ have been realized by the American 
 states from the unqualified sovereignty of the individual governments.” 
 
 [Note that then as now, sovereignty and government , were often confounded. No 
 one ever denied that the people of the state were sovereign, and that they, as such 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 13 
 
 bodies, were ordaining the constitution, and creating the government, which was 
 to be administered bv their own subjects. The so-called “ sovereignty of the state,” 
 that, from its assumptions, excited much jealousy and opposition, was the state 
 government — a mere creature or instrument of the real sovereignty. Moreover, it 
 was often called “ the state.’’ It is the frequent occurrence of these and other con- 
 fusions of terms, that afford such a tine opening for the tricks of exposition, so 
 characteristic of the political writings of our country.] 
 
 Ibid, January 2, 178S. In a very able article, which may have been written 
 by Elbridge (ferry, he quotes Wilson, of Pennsylvania, as saying that “ if the objec- 
 tion ” [that the new plan consolidates the states] “ is a just objection it will he 
 strongly against the sysleui.” [The writer quotes the phrase ‘‘consolidation of our 
 union” — which Gen. Washington, “by unanimous order of the convention,” stated 
 in his letter to congress accompanying the federal plan, to be the object ol the con- 
 vention ; and comments severely upoft it. Unquestionably the word “ consolida- 
 tion ” in this phrase, meant more solid, lirm, and permanent, for the constitution 
 was made, as the preamble says, “ to form a more perfect union,” i. e., a more perfect 
 union of states than the other was; and “consolidation” can have no meaning 
 incompatible with the complete integrity of the states. This very phrase, as well 
 as the one quoted from the preamble, imply that the new union was to be of the 
 same character as the old one — i. e., a federation of states. It can hardly escape 
 the observation of the intelligent reader, that in all these extracts, states , and not 
 fractions of a nation, ,are the actors, and the exclusive sources of ordaining power. 
 TheMupes of the Massachusetts school should weigh the fact.] 
 
 Ibid, January 6, 1788. “The convention of New Jersey was composed of 
 accomplished civilians, able judges, experienced generals, and honest farmers.” 
 As “ the ground work of its proceedings,” it “ resolved that the federal constitu- 
 tion be read by sections,” [each being fully debated until the whole had been 
 examined,] “ upon which the general question shall be taken ; whether this con- 
 vention, in the name and behalf of this state, do ratify and confirm the said consti- 
 tution.” 
 
 Ibid, January 9, 1788. 
 
 No. Ill of an exceedingly able series of papers by “republican federalist,” con- 
 tains the following— after recognizing conventions as the organs’of states for consti- 
 tutional changes: “Of all compacts, ar constitution or frame of government, is the 
 most solemn and important, and should be strictly adhered to. The object of it 
 is the' preservation of that property which every individual in the community has 
 in his life , liberty and estate.” [It is the great mass of these property rights, as 
 well as each individual right, no matter how minute and insignificant, that the 
 state was organized to conserve ; and, to enable the state to do this, and to protect 
 them in so doing, the federal constitution was built by them, as an outer wall, with 
 towers and bastions ; and it is manned by them for that purpose.] 
 
 Ibid. “The accession of our sister state, Connecticut, to the new and effectual 
 plan of confederation , is a matter of real exultation to the friends of honesty and 
 peace.” The editor goes on to say, that if certain virtues, [which he enumerates,] 
 “ have not forsaken the commonwealth, the convention must adopt the proposed 
 constitution.” 
 
 Fisher Ames, in the Massachusetts convention, is reported to have said: 
 
 “ The people cannot exercise the powers of government in person, but, by their 
 servants, they govern ; they do not renounce their power, they do not sacrifice 
 their rights; they become the true sovereigns of the country, when they delegate 
 that power, which they cannot use themselves, to their trustees.” 
 
 Ibid, Jan. 16, 1783. — [In this number is a wood cut, in which five pillars, 
 labelled “ Del.,” “ Pen.,” “ N. Jer.,” “ Geo.,” “ Con.,” stand in a row, connected by 
 arches, while one, labelled “Mass.,” is just being set up, by what seems to be the 
 hand of Providence, reaching from a cloud. Beneath the picture is the motto : 
 “ United they stand — divided fall.”] 
 
 Ibid. — “ A vessel arrived at Cape Ann, after a short passage from Georgia, con- 
 firms the pleasing intelligence, announced in our last, that that state has unani- 
 
14 
 
 TIIE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 monsly ratified the federal constitution. This is a fifth pillar added to the 
 glorious fabrick. May Massachusetts rear the sixth. [Georgia was the 4th, 
 Connecticut the 5th.”] 
 
 On Monday morning, the bells of this metropolis were rung on account of the 
 pleasing intelligencathat the state of Connecticut had added a fourth pillar, to 
 the GRAND REPUBLICAN SUPERSTRUCTURE — the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. * * 
 
 The accession of our sister state Connecticut, to the new and effectual plan of con- 
 federation etc. * * If all sense of justice , honor , and public faith , and every 
 principle of regard to the peace and happiness of the united stutes , have no. 
 forsaken this commonwealth, the convention must adopt the proposed constitution.” 
 
 [The reader will please keep it in mind that the italics, etc., are all in the 
 original.] 
 
 Ibid, Jan. 19, 1788 — “The Wish. — 
 
 “I wish you all may live in peace, 
 
 May see tire public discords cea 0 ", 
 
 Each state with speedy resolution, 
 
 Adopt the federal constitution, 
 
 Mechanic arts and trade revive, 
 
 And agriculture spread and thrive; 
 
 And peace and plenty hand in hand, 
 
 Once more may travel through the land.” etc. 
 
 Ietd, Jan. 23, 1788. — In convention Jan. 16. — Mr. Cabot said, the senate is “ a 
 representation of the sovereignty of the individual states” — “its members are 
 delegated by the several state legislatures.” 
 
 Said Mr. Parsons on the same occasion, “the sovereignty of the states is repre- 
 sented in the'senate.” He repeated it in a subsequent debate. 
 
 Hon. Mr. White said : “ We ought to be jealous of our rulers ; ” “ he would not m 
 trust a flock of Moseses even.” 
 
 Ibid. — the editor says : “ The Hon. convention have now come to the 8th sec- 
 tion of the constitution, which specifies the powers with which congress shall be 
 
 INVESTED.” 
 
 [These extracts partake of the nature of contemporaneous expositions, and they 
 directly contradict Story and Webster, as to the formation and nature of our polity. 
 
 If the intelligent reader will carefully peruse all these extracts from the leading 
 journals of Massachusetts, as well as the debates of the Massachusetts convention 
 [II. Ell. Deb.] he will lose confidence in the dicta of the great expounder, and the 
 great commentator. In those days, no nation was thought of, but such as might 
 be made by the self-association of sovere ign st ates. (The constitution was their 
 “ supreme law,” and the government was thetrBreation andagency. The persons 
 administering this government were to be the citizens andjsubjccts of the_states, 
 elected by the states, and owing allegiance Co the states. These assertions are 
 susceptible of easy proof.] 
 
 Massachusetts Centincl, Jan. 26, 1788. 
 
 “ Hampden ” suggests, among other amendments, that the words, as to the 
 jurisdiction of the federal courts : “ between a state and citizens of another state,” 
 etc., be stricken out, because, “ laying a statejiable to be Aued, robs it of all its 
 sovereignty ; and, in this case, maylay the several states liable to be sued for their 
 public securities.” 
 
 [ Massachusetts was, par excellence., the stickler for the preservation of the absolute 
 sovereignty of a state in the “ union of states.” In ratifying, she insisted on the 
 amendment, that “ all powers not expressly delegated” are “ reserved to the several 
 states,” whi h was finally adopted, and it was her leading men, notably Gov. James 
 Sullivan, Gov. John Hancock, and others, and the legislature, that initiated the 
 amendment, depriving the federal government of even judicial coercion ot a state. 
 See amendment XI.] 
 
 Ibid., Feb. 2, 1788. Hon. Mr. Sedgwick said, in the convention of Massachu- 
 setts, that “ it he believed the adoption of the proposed constitution would interfere 
 
APPENDIX A NO. I. 
 
 15 
 
 with the state legislatures, he would be the last to vote ior it.” [In II. Ell. Deb. 
 77, a member^ quoted him as saying that “ if he thought the constitution consolidate J 
 the union of the states, he would be the last man to vote for it]. 
 
 Gov. Bowdoin, in speaking of the objection that personal rights and state rights 
 were endangered, said : 
 
 “ With regard to rights, the whole constitution is a declaration of rights, which 
 primarily and principally respect the general government intended to be formed 
 by it. The rights of particular states and private citizens not being the object or 
 subject of the constitution, are only incidentally mentioned. In regard to the 
 former, it would require a volume to describe them, as they extend to every subject 
 of legislation not included in the powers vested in congress ; and in regard to the 
 latter, as all government is founded on the relinquishment of personal rights in a 
 certain degree, there was a clear impropriety in being very particular about them.” 
 
 And J udge Parsons said the same thing in the same debate, viz : “ The federal 
 constitution establishes a government of the last description,” [that is, a government 
 of purely delegated powers,] “and, in this case, the people divest themselves of 
 nothing.” [This simply means that the people govern themselves; and is equiva- 
 lent to the statement of Fisher Ames, quoted heretofore]. 
 
 Ibid. — The editor, in noticing a decisive vote in the convention, says: “The 
 Massachusettensian pillar is reared ; but as the arch which will connect it with 
 those heretofore erected, is not yet sprung, we cannot yet announce its establish- 
 ment, as one of the supporters of the federal superstructure.” 
 
 Ibid, contains a paraphrase of one of Esop’s fables signed “ Pat,” as follows : 
 
 THE BULLS AND THE LION, 
 
 A FABLE. 
 
 Recommended to the serious consideration of the opposers of the new constitution. 
 
 Safe, on the Lion’s old domain, 
 
 The bulls enjoy the flowery plain : 
 
 To conquer, oft the lion tried, 
 
 But sorely pushed on every side — 
 
 The monarch soon was taught to yield— 
 
 The bulk united kept the held. 
 
 With grief we read the dismal tale, 
 
 That art succeeds where strength does faiL 
 New schemes and trickings Leo tries 
 To make the sturdy bulls his prize; 
 
 And, by his jealous hints, and fears, 
 
 Sets all together by the ears. 
 
 His engines are not set in vain, 
 
 Suspicion agitates each brain ; 
 
 They soon grow fearful of each other, 
 
 Each scorns and shuns his faithful brother, 
 
 Each feels his consequence his pride ; 
 
 They doubt each other — they divide. 
 
 For want of friendship’s powerful stay 
 The bulls become an easy prey ; 
 
 The Lion sees his conquest done, 
 
 And slays the 13 one by one. 
 
 Thus u-e (it must appear to all), 
 
 United stand — divided fall. 
 
 Ibid. — February 9th, 1788, contains the following in large capitals: “Ratifi- 
 cation OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BY MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
16 
 
 TIIE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 “ The yeas and nays in the convention were as follows : 
 
 Yeas — 
 
 His Excellency, J ohn Hancock, Esq., president.” [Then follow the rest — footing 
 up yeas 1S7 — nays 168]. 
 
 The same number contains an account of a jubilant procession, in which is the 
 inevitable federal ship drawn by thirteen horses. Thirteen guns were tired, one 
 for each sister. 
 
 [The same paper reproduces the wood-cut described heretofore, with Mas- 
 sachusetts erect and her arch sprung. The cut is preceded by the words: “The. 
 g it a n d federal edifice and followed by the announcement that “the convention 
 of this commonwealth, on Wednesday, 5 o’clock r. M., assented to, and, on 
 Thursday, ratified the constitution.”] And in the editor’s “Castalian fount” is 
 an ode, and a “wreath is fixed on Massachusetts’ head” for ratifying. The day 
 is called “the glorious and ever-memorable 6th of February.” One verse of the 
 ode is as follows: 
 
 “And soon a rival day shall shine; 
 
 The task New Hampshire will be thine, 
 
 To give it equal fame ; 
 
 Another pillar, raised by thee. 
 
 Will till New England’s sons with glee, 
 
 * And crown thy finished name.” 
 
 The next number, February 13, contains another row of pillars with a hand 
 from a cloud [Providence?] raising New Hampshire. 
 
 It also contains a clever dialogue between a federalist and his neighbor, in which 
 the former says : “ The constitution, in the main, is a good one, and far better than 
 13 states could have been expected to make. 1 hope it will be well administered 
 - — am determined to be a good subject, until I find the contrary, and then I will 
 take the best apparent method of redress.” 
 
 “These jarring states to bind in union’s band” is a line of another federal lyric. 
 
 Ibid. — Feb. 26th, 1788. 
 
 It is announced that Georgia unanimously ratified the federal constitution. 
 “ Georgia is a very rising state, possessing an extensive territory, and is a great 
 acquisition to the new confederacy.” 
 
 Ibid. — Feb. 20th, 1788. 
 
 “ tome ideas,” says a 'Hartford (Ct.) correspondent, “ may be formed, whether 
 the proposed constitution annihilates the sovereignty or respectability of the several 
 states, from the following list of the convention of this state. In it, for ratification, 
 were two governors, one lieutenant-governor, six assistants, four judges of the 
 supreme court, etc.” 
 
 Ibid., March 1st. — In this number, the device of six federal pillars — the seventh 
 about rising, is followed by “ a new song, for federal mechanics,” by Hon. Eras. 
 Hopkinson. One of the verses is as follows : 
 
 “ Up ! up with the rafters, each frame is a state, 
 
 How nobly they rise, their span too how great ; 
 
 From the North to the South, o’er the whole they extend, 
 
 And rest on the wuills, while the walls they defend ; 
 
 For our roof we will raise, and our song still shall be, 
 
 United as states, and as citizens free.” 
 
 Ibid., March 5th, 1788. — This number contains a spirited addition to doodle 
 poetry, the last verse of which is : 
 
 “ So here I end my federal song, 
 
 Composed of thirteen verses, 
 
 May agriculture flourish long, 
 
 And commerce till our purses.” 
 
 Yankee doodle, etc. 
 
 Ibid., March 12th, 1788. — “The landholder,” No. 10, addresses the citizens of 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 17 
 
 New Hampshire to show why, to preserve the safety and rights of the people of 
 the state, said state should join the federation. “ If there be any one state, more 
 interested than the others, in the adoption of this system, it is New Hampshire. 
 * * When the hour for a permanent connection between the states is past, the 
 teeth of the lion will be again made bare : and you must either be devoured, or 
 become his jackal to hunt for prey in the other states.’.’ 
 
 In No. 11, speaking of the advantage of revenue laws, he says — “ if you now 
 form such a political connection with the other slates , as will entitle you to a just 
 share in that revenue they raise on commerce,” etc. 
 
 Ibid., March 19th, 1788: “A letter from Gen. Washington to a gentleman in 
 this town (Boston) says, that from his information from various parts of the state, 
 there is every prospect of the constitution being ratified by Virginia.” [Note, 
 that it is “by Virginia” and not by the fraction of a nation]. 
 
 “The states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware 
 and Georgia, have ratified the constitution.” [“ The states” — not provinces or 
 counties]. 
 
 Ibid., March 22: A letter from Gen. Washington says, the adoption by Massa- 
 chusetts “will be influential in obtaining a favorable determination in the states” 
 where it is yet pending. “ No one can say what will be its fate here,” but “ I have 
 no doubt of its being accepted.” 
 
 “The assembly of Bliode Island has refused” “to call a convention for taking 
 the federal constitution into consideration.” 
 
 Ibid., April 30, 17SS: Poetry addressed to the people of Virginia New Year’s 
 day, 1788, contains the following verse: 
 
 “Numbers vast will own the plan, 
 
 T1 at secures the rights of man, 
 
 Gives the states their destined place, 
 
 High amidst the human race.” 
 
 Ibid., May 10 : “ We have the best authority for asserting that the state of 
 Georgia has ceded 30,000,000 acres to the united states, when the new constitution 
 is in force.” 
 
 Ibid., May 20, 1788: “Nothing further from South Carolina yet.” “Virginia 
 convention meets in a few days.” “ Little doubt is had that New Hampshire will 
 ratify in a few days.” 
 
 Extract from letter from leading character in South Carolina, May 1, 1788: 
 
 “ I rejoice in the establishment, as far as it depends on your state, of the federal 
 constitution.” 
 
 Ibid. — June 7, 1788 : 
 
 “ We hope to-day to announce the eighth pillar of the federal edifice ”— “ the 
 ratification of South Carolina.” 
 
 “ Yesterday the honorable legislature, agreeably to the constitution [of Massa- 
 chusetts] made choice of the following gentlemen as delegates to represent this 
 commonwealth in the congress of the united states: Adams, Gorham, Sedgwick, 
 Otis, Thaeher.” 
 
 Ibid. — June 11, 1788: 
 
 Announces accession of South Carolina as the “eighth pillar” of “the grand 
 fed ral superstructure.” 
 
 A gentleman oi \ irginia writes to a friend in Boston : “ The federal constitution 
 will be adopted by us. The reception and discussion in your state have removed 
 much prejudice.” 
 
 Ibid. — June 21, 1788: 
 
 “ A gentleman of the first distinction at New York,” writes — “the accession of 
 Virginia to the confederation, ceases to be a matter of doubt, and we are daily 
 expecting to hear that the ninth pillar is raised.” 
 
 Ibid. — June 25, 1788: 
 
 In this number the federal edifice is reproduced with nine pillars up, and the 
 tenth rising. The following, ornamentally printed, makes the frame or border 
 
18 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 of the picluro: “The ratification of the conventions of nine states shall he 
 sufficient for the establishment of this constitution. Art. VII.” Above the pic- 
 ture is, ''Actum est ,” and below, “ Ninth and the sufficient pillar.” 
 
 The editor then proceeds to say : “AW felicitate our readers on the accession to 
 the confederation of the state of New Hampshire, not only because it completes 
 the number of states necessary for tiie establishment of the constitution, but 
 because it is a frontier, a neighboring, and to us really a sister state. It is now one 
 of the pillars of the great national dome,” 
 
 Ibid. — J uly 2d, 1788: 
 
 The editor thinks the governor of Rhode Island is about to convene the legisla- 
 ture upon the subject of calling a convention to consider the federal plan. “ The 
 weight in the federal senate, of Rhode Island, will be as great as that of the largest 
 state. To preserve the proper balance of power in the national government, it 
 will be expedient that Rhode Island, a - well as Vermont , should accede to the new 
 confederation.” This extract is published in the AVorcester Spy of July 10th, 1788, 
 as from a letter from a gentleman in New York. 
 
 The same number contains a song, sung in the grand procession at Portsmouth, 
 in honor of ratification. 
 
 The following is the 
 
 2d VERSE. 
 
 “Nine federal states politically joined 
 With glorious rays our hemisphere adorn; 
 
 As splendid stars in amity combined, 
 
 Rise the auspicious harbingers of morn.” 
 
 3d verse. 
 
 “Hail radiant constellation,” etc. 
 
 4th verse. 
 
 *• Confederate justice here shall poise 
 Her equal balance,” etc. 
 
 CHORUS. 
 
 “In rapturous lays, 
 
 Your voices raise, 
 
 Columbia’s song, 
 
 In accents strong, 
 
 . Shall echo to your joys, and dwell on every tongue.” 
 
 Ibid., July 5th : 
 
 Contains a very able paper, addressed to the convention of New York, which 
 repeatedly speaks of “the new confederacy” that, is being formed. 
 
 And the same “ grand federal edifice” is pictorial)}' represented with the “ 10tk 
 pillar ” — Virginia. 
 
 Massachusetts Centinel, July 12th, 1737. 
 
 In reference to the rejection, or, rather, to the postponement of the ratification 
 of the constitution by North Carolina, and other hindrances, which some people 
 seemed to think discouraging, the editor says: “In time of war, the instrument 
 for uniting the states was not accepted by the states for some years after it was 
 submitted. This being the case, it was hardly to be expected that a similar instru- 
 ment would, in a time of leisure aud peace, be completed in a quarter of the time. 
 A year hath not yet expired.” 
 
 Ibid. — J uly 16 th, 1788. 
 
 “ In our next, we hope to announce the erection of the eleventh pillar in support 
 of the new roof , in the accession to the confederation of the state of New York.” 
 
 Account of “ the new roof or grand federal edifice,” in the federal procession at 
 Philadelphia, 4th inst.: “The dome supported by 13 Corinthian columns” — “ten 
 columns complete, three left unfinished” — “on the pedestals, the initials of the 13 
 American states.” 
 
 “ In the evening, the grand edifice, with the 10 states now in union , was brought 
 back,” etc. 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. I. 
 
 19 
 
 Ibid. — Aug. 2, 1783. 
 
 The editor announces the news “just arrived” of the ratification of the federal 
 constitution by “the delegates of the people of the state of New York.” 
 [The capitals arc his]. 
 
 He then proceeds to make his picture again — this time with eleven pillars, the 
 last erect one being labelled “ N. Y.” Next to that is a slanting one, labelled N. 
 C., with the words near by : “ Rise it will.” Next to that is a leaning one, with a 
 broken shaft, but found pedestal, with the words beneath : “ The foundation is 
 good, it may yet be s ived.” This refers to Rhode Island, which was then holding 
 herself aloof, with ‘‘absolute sovereignty” — to use Mr. George T. Curtis’ admis- 
 sion — but politically, morally and financially, much disordered. On the top of 
 the picture are the words, “ redeuxt saturnia regna. On the erection of the 
 eleventh pillar of the great national dome.” The picture is called “ the federal 
 edifice,” and after the title comes the following verse : 
 
 Eleven stars in quick succession rise, 
 
 Eleven columns strike our wondering eyes, 
 
 Soon o’er the whole shall swell the beauteous dome, 
 
 Columbia’s boast and freedom’s hallowed home. 
 
 The following extracts .-.re front the 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS SPY, OR THE WORCESTER GAZETTE. 
 
 This paper had been suspended during the Shay rebellion, and its publication 
 was resumed with No. 7S3, vol. XVII.. April 3, 1788. 
 
 In this number of April 3, the printer tells the public, that “thanks to our 
 present legislature,” this piper is “at length restored to its constitutional liberty,” 
 “after a suspension of two years-.” “ Heaven grant that the freedom of the press, 
 on which depends the freedom of the people, may in the united states be ever 
 guarded with a watchful eye, and defended from shackles of every form and shape, 
 until the final trump is played." 
 
 A paragraph in the same number, shows that even the negroes of Massachusetts 
 understood the distinctness of the states. One of them was tried for theft in some 
 tribunal of their own, and the sentence was : “ Fourteen tripe on he necked back, 
 tirteen for united tates — one for brack company.” 
 
 Ibid. — April 10, 1788. 
 
 The editor says: “Delegates are to be elected (in North Carolina) to meet in 
 convention first Monday in March, to deliberate and determine on the new federal 
 constitution, and if approved of by them, to ratify the same, on behalf of that 
 state.” 
 
 Extract from the account of the proceedings of the legislature : “ The senate 
 has n it concurred with the house, in restoring to the rights of citizenship, iShays, 
 Day, and others.” 
 
 Extract from a letter of John Adams to John Jav, lGth Dec., 17S7, “as all the 
 great principles necessary to order, liberty and safety, are respected in it, * * 
 
 1 confess I hope to hear of its adoption by all the states.” [Not by the nation]. 
 
 Ibid. — June 12th, 1788. 
 
 Extract from a North Carolina letter, dated May 14th, 1788: “I venture to 
 predict that the constitution will be adopted by a respectable majority of this state, 
 for our convention will never be so mad as to vote themselves out of the union , and 
 think of standing upon their own bottom a distinct nation, surrounded by powerful 
 and confederated states.” 
 
 [Nevertheless, North Carolina did, on August 1st, 1788, reject the constitution 
 l 7 a vote, in convention, of 188 to 88, making it known, however, that she would 
 accede when the amendments, which Massachusetts had proposed for the preser- 
 vation of state integrity, should be adopted. Thereafter, to-wit : on Nov. 21, 1789, 
 feeling assured of the amendments, she held a convention and ratified]. 
 
 Ibid. — June 19th, 1788. 
 
 “ Philadelphia, May 28. A correspondent, who desires the adoption of the con- 
 stitution by every state, observes that the state of Georgia has granted 30,000,000 
 
20 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 acres of far'd to the new confederacy , provided tlie adoption of nine states should 
 take place — a tract four times as la.ge as old Massachusetts , which at 5>f per acre 
 will sink §20,000,000 — double the sum of unredeemed Continental loan office 
 certificates.” 
 
 The writer speaks of the above as a “ tribute of respect to the new confederacy." 
 
 Ibid., July 10th, 1788, is published a song, sung on the occasion of a procession 
 at Portsmouth, at the time of celebrating the adoption of the constitution : 
 
 First verse. 
 
 “ It comes ! it comes! high-raised the song, 
 
 The bright procession moves along, 
 
 From pole to pole resound the nine, 
 
 And distant worlds the chorus join.” 
 
 Ibid., July 17, 1788. — “In congress, July 2d, 1788. The state of New Hamp- 
 shire, having ratified the constitution, * * and transmitted to congress * * 
 the same * * the president reminded congress that that this was the ninth 
 ratification. * * Whereupon * * ordered, that the ratification, etc., be 
 referred to a committee, to examine and report an act for putting the said consti- 
 tution into operation, in pursuance of the resolution of the late federal convention.” 
 
 ■Extract from a letter from a member of the convention at Richmond, to his 
 friend in Boston, dated June 25t’n: “I have now to congratulate you on the 
 accession of Virginia to the new government ; the final vote was taken this day, 
 about 3 o’clock p. m. It was 89 to 79. A motion for previous amendment was 
 negatived by 88 to 80. The form of ratification is prefixed by a declaration that 
 all power, etc., (but I send you a copy).” He then speaks of a “ discussion of 
 twenty-four days, in which every clause of the plan was weighed and debated.” 
 
 Ibid., Oct. 2d, 1788. — In this number, a well written paper, signed “Alfred,” 
 “on the new federal government,” says: “It requires no greater share of sagacity 
 than the world gives us credit for, to foresee that thirteen or more different states, 
 possessing separate sovereignty and independence, will very soon, as their numbers 
 multiply, and their opulence increases, engage in civil broils and distressing 
 contentions.” He afterward speaks of the federal system as “ a form of govern- 
 ment which astonishes the political schools of Europe, and which, with a few 
 amendments, will bestow peace and political security to the many millions for 
 whose felicity the state have adopted it.” 
 
 Ibid, November 13th, 1788. In the general court of Massachusetts, November 
 1st, “the committee on the organization of the new government,” whose duty it 
 was to investigate and rejiort upon the mode in which the state, and the people 
 thereof, were to perform their constitutional functions in the new system. 
 
 The matter was reported on as follows in substance ; these recommendations to 
 be provided for by law of the state : 
 
 1. That the two houses, by joint ballot, choose the electors for President and 
 Vice-President. 
 
 2. That the senators be chosen by the two houses, each having a negative on 
 the other. 
 
 3. That “the commonwealth ” be “divided into eight districts, and that the 
 inhabitants of each should be authorized to choose one representative to congress.” 
 
 The above shows that old Massachusetts contemplated acting in the federal 
 system solely as a state — an independent sovereign ; her officers, pro hac vice , being 
 delegates, representatives, and, as she called them in her constitution, “ the sub- 
 jects of this state.” The federal pact itself, calls them citizens of the state. She 
 was to choose from among her own citizens and subjects, who owed exclusive 
 allegiance to her, and obedience to her “ supreme law ” — the federal pact — all of 
 her proportion of the officers of the three departments of the federal agency, 
 except such subordinate functionaries as should be provided for by federal law — 
 these to be chosen for her, and her federated sisters, from among their respective 
 sub ects, and exclusively by their authority. 
 
 The argument made by this long series of extracts from the principal journal 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. II. 
 
 21 
 
 of Massachusetts, is the most decisive that could be framed, for it shows precisely 
 how the system was presented and advocated ; and what the views and motives of 
 the people were in adopting it. This argument destroys, without remedy, the 
 theory of Story and Webster, for there is, in the whole series, (and the same may 
 be affirmed of the federalist and Elliott’s debates,) no sign whatever of the people 
 of the united states, as a nation or great political community, ordaining a consti- 
 tution, and therein establishing (to use Webster’s phraseology) “ a distribution of 
 ] lowers, between tiiis, their general government, and tkcir several state govern- 
 ments;” while on the other hand, it is proved, beyond controversy, that the 
 American commonwealths of people, in a “convention of states” (as Hamilton 
 called it,) framed the plan; and that each state deliberated on it, in her own 
 convention, having the absolute right to ratify or reject ; and finally that each 
 state adopted it, by vote, as a political body. The states, then, gave it all the life 
 and force it ever had, or could justifiably have. Nay more, not only does this 
 compact of states provide for, direct, limit, and control, the federal gove.nment, 
 but this said agency is personally composed of men who are alike members, 
 citizens, and subjects, of the states ; and who are not only in allegiance exclusively 
 to the said states, but are elected by them to administer their general government — 
 “the federal government of these states,” as the federal convention unanimously 
 called it. These states, as fully organized bodies of people — each one having every 
 characteristic of a nation — constituted whatever nation there is. They comprised 
 all the people, and Held all the territory, leaving out of their jurisdiction not an 
 acre or a man to make a nation of. 
 
 The state and the federal constitutions, are alike the fundamental laws of the 
 states — the hitter being tkcir “supeme law'.” Both are necessarily subordinate to 
 the law-makers. A federal law' operates, and a federal functionary has jurisdiction 
 in, any state — New York, for instance — because it is the sovereign will of the said 
 state, it being with her authority, that the federal government exists in her terri- 
 tory, and acts on her citizens or subjects. Strange as some may think it, there is 
 nothing inconsistent with this view', in the records, history, and political writings 
 of the country, which were contemporaneous with the formation of our federal 
 polity. Everything shows the independent political action of the states, as sove- 
 reign bodies, in ordaining and establishing the constitution and their determination 
 to preserve their sovereignty in the union ; while not even a syllable shows any 
 national action. The states are self-united as equals ; they as self-associated are 
 whatever nation there is; and the phrases, united states, and union of states, so 
 otten repeated in the federal pact, make, of themselves, an end of all honest con- 
 troversy of the subject. 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Appendix; A. No. 3. 
 
 Extracts from the Virginia Gazette , published at Richmond , front May 31, 1787, to February 
 
 zb, 1789. 
 
 [The Virginia Gazette, Hay 31, 1787. | 
 
 “Baltimore, May 11. Returns of the delegates appointed by the several 
 6tates, ( Connecticut and Rhode Island except, ) to meet in general convention 
 at Philadelphia, on Monday the 14th inst., for the purpose of revising the con- 
 federation of the United States.” Then follow the names. 
 
 Ibid., June 14, 1787. Richmond, June 14. We expected to have been able to 
 entertain our readers with the proceedings of the federal convention ; but we are 
 sorry to inform them, that everything is carried on by them with greatest secrecy. 
 
22 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 We learn that all the states are now represented, except New Hampshire and 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 [The Virginia Gazette, June 21, 17S7; 
 
 In stating the purposes of the great political movement, says : “ To revise 
 the confederation, and to fall upon a system of commercial regulations, which may 
 tend to the levival and establishment of our credit, and the encouragement of our 
 trade and manufactures, are objects of s ich magnitude, as to require the united 
 wisdom of the continent.” * * And “ to render the constitution of the federal 
 government adequate to the exigencies of the union,” is also stated to be a purpose. 
 
 Ibid., August 9, 17S7. “Richmond, August 9. On the '20th ult., the federal 
 convention having resolved upon the measures necessary to discharge their 
 important trust, adjourned till Monday, the 0th inst., in order to give a committee 
 appointed for that' purpose, (viz: Mr. Randolph, of Virginia ; Mr. Gorham, of 
 Massachusetts ; Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut ; Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania ; 
 and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina,) the time to arrange and systematize the 
 materials which that honorable body have collected,” etc. 
 
 Ibid., August 30, 1787, “Richmond, August 30. The convention, we are 
 informed, have unanimously agreed on a system for the future government of the 
 united states, which will be speedily laid before the several legislatures, for their 
 acceptance and ratification. What that system is, is not as yet known. * * * 
 
 A correspondent observes, that, as there is so much frailty in human nature, the 
 people from whom all power is derived under a purely republican system of 
 government, when they are about to invest man with power and authority, even 
 for the necessary purposes of government, [require] that it be strictly guarded 
 and limited ; so that it be not abused to the oppression of those who conferred it. 
 Hence, from neglect or inattention, in fixing those essential checks and restraints 
 on rulers and governors ; it is that we behold in the world so small a portion of 
 mankind, who are not tyrants, or slaves, oppressors, or oppressed.” 
 
 Ibid., September 27, 1787. This number contains the proposed federal consti- 
 tution, with the resolutions concerning the mode of ratification and carrying into 
 effect; and the letter of General Washington to the President of congress, sent 
 by unanimous order of the convention. 
 
 Ibid., October 4, 1787. This number contains a petition of the people of Phila- 
 delphia and suburbs, to the general assembly of Pennsylvania as follows: 
 
 “ That the petitioners have seen the proposed constitution, and that “as they 
 conceive it to be wisely ca'culated to form a perfect union of the states, as well as 
 to secure to themselves and posterity the blessings of peace, liberty, and safety, 
 they earnestly desire that the said constitution may be adopted as speedily as pos- 
 sible, by the state of Pennsylvania, in the manner recommended by the con- 
 vention.” 
 
 Ibid., October 4, 1787. This number presents the following proceedure in con- 
 gress : 
 
 “The united states in congress assembled. Friday, September 28, 1787. 
 Present: New Hempshire, Mass., Conn., N. Y., N. J., Pa., Del., Va., N. C., S. C. 
 and Georgia; an 1 from Maryland, Mr. Ross. 
 
 “ Congress having received the report of the convention, lately assembled at 
 Philadelphia, Resolved unanimously, That the said report, with the resolutions 
 and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in 
 order to be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state, by the 
 peoile thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the convemion, made and provided 
 in that case.” 
 
 Charles Thompson, Secretary. 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 1st, 1787. This number states that the house of delegates of Vir- 
 ginia has unanimously voted for calling a convention, to consider the constitution, 
 and that the matter is now before the senate. In the house of delegates “ the only 
 question seemed to be, whether the convention should be left at large to propose 
 amendments to the constitution, in case they should deem it advisable; and after 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. II. 
 
 23 
 
 a short debate, it was agreed, with unanimity, that the convention could not be 
 restrained, in the discussion of this momentous business, from accepting or rejecting 
 it, or proposing amendments, as they should see tit. * * A change of one or 
 
 two exceptionable, or doubtful clauses ; may be made to the advantage of all the 
 states,” etc. 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 22, 1787. A Connecticut correspondent observes that, “having 
 received the new constitution in the regular channel, we have * * taken the 
 proper measures for calling a state convention, and determining upon the new 
 plan of government.” 
 
 Ibid., Nov. 29, 1787. It is stated that, “ when the illustrious Washington was 
 about to sign the constitution as president of the convention, he paused with pen 
 in hand, and said : ‘ Should the states reject this excellent constitution , the probability 
 is an opportunity will never again offer to cancel [?] another in peace: the next will be 
 drawn in blood.” 
 
 Ibid., Dec. 20, 1787. The first ratification of the federal constitution — that by 
 Delaware — is presented in this number thus : “ Wilmington, December 12. * * 
 The new federal constitution was ratified by unanimous vote, on Friday, and the 
 ratification signed by every member as follows : 
 
 “ We the deputies of the people of the Delaware state, in convention met, having- 
 taken into our serious consideration the federal constitution, proposed and agreed 
 upon by the deputies of the united states, in a general convention held at the city 
 of Philadelphia, on the 17th of September, A. D., 1787, have approved, assented 
 to, ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and 
 authority to us given for that purpose, for, and in behalf of ourselves ana our 
 constituents, fully, freely and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm 
 the said constitution. 
 
 “ Done in convention, the seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.” 
 
 The editor says : “ The convention agreed to cede 10 miles square, with the right 
 of exclusive legislation, to congress for seat of government.” 
 
 He also says that, “ while Delaware acted thus speedily, the convention of Penn- 
 sylvania is, debating the ground by inches, having been in session almost a month, 
 and being yet engaged on the first article.” 
 
 Ibid., Dec. 27, 1787. Gives an account of a meeting of the inhabitants of 
 Pittsburg, Pa., “for the special purpose of taking the sense of this town with 
 respect to the system of confederate government, proposed by the late convention 
 at Philadelphia. General John Gibson in the chair.” 
 
 “On the 12th instant, the federal constitution was approved of by the state of 
 Pennsylvania, by a majority of 23 members.” 
 
 Ibid., January 3d, 1788. “ Boston, Dec. 7. The disunited states of America, at 
 
 this all important crisis, may be fitly compared to 13 distinct, separate, independent, 
 unsupported columns, * * the glorious frame of government for the united 
 states presents itself to view — the columns appear with additional lustre ; their use 
 and design are fully understood ; rising from their solid pedestals, they receive the 
 heavon-descended dome, supporting and supported by the noble structure.” 
 
 “ In the preamble of an act of the legislature of Virginia, it is stated that, “ the 
 proceedings of the federal convention [are to] be submitted to a convention of the 
 people, for their lull and free investigation, discussion and decision.” 
 
 Ibid., January 31. 1788. “ We learn that, in the course of this month the states 
 
 of New Hampshire and Connecticut have adopted the proposed federal constitution 
 — -the latter by a majority of 127 votes. Five states have now ratified the federal 
 government, viz : Del., Pa., N. J., Ct., and N. H.” [It was then a mistake as to 
 the last]. 
 
 At an “elegant supper” of the federalists, in Carlisle, Pa., (after a riot by the 
 anti-federalists, during which Chief Justice McKean and James Wilson were 
 burned in effiev) “the following toasts were drank: 1. The federal constitution; 
 2. General Washington and the federal constitution; 3. The states who acceded 
 
24 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 to the federal constitution ; 4. A speedy accession and ratification of the consti- 
 tution by all the states.” [Note the words “federal” and “accede.”] 
 
 Ibid., Feb. 14, 1788. At a dinner in Richmond, on the anniversary of Gen. 
 Washington’s birth day, one of the toasts was: “The congress — may the virtues 
 of the first, be revived by the adoption of a happy federal constitution.” 
 
 “ A northern paper mentions the adoption of the federal constitution by the state 
 of Georgia.” 
 
 [Virginia Gazette, Feb. 28, 1788.] 
 
 Under date of “ Boston, February 4, is given the ratification by the state of 
 Massachusetts, with her proposed amendments — nine in number — the first being 
 as follows : “ That it be explicitly declared that, all powers not expressly delegated 
 to congress, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.” 
 
 “ And the convention do, in the name and behalf of the people of this common- 
 wealth, enjoin it upon their representative in congress, at all times,” to urge the 
 adoption of said amendments. 
 
 Says the editor : “ With the highest satisfaction we announce to the public that, 
 the convention of the state of Massachusetts adopted the new constitution on the 
 6th instant, by a majority of 19 ; 187 yeas— 168 nays. 
 
 “ The legislature of South Carolina have appointed the 12th of May next for the 
 meeting of their covention, to decide on the new federal constiiution.” 
 
 The same paper presenis the ratification of Georgia, in the words and figures 
 following: 
 
 “ Augusta, January 5. We have the pleasure to announce to the public that, 
 on Wednesday last, the convention of this state unanimously ratified the federal 
 constitution, in the words following, viz : 
 
 “State of Georgia, in convention, Wednesday, January 2, 1788. We the 
 delegates of the people of the state of Georgia, in convention met, having taken 
 into our serious consideration the federal constitution, agreed upon and proposed 
 by the deputies of the united states in general convention,” etc., “have assented 
 ;to, ratified, and adopted, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers and 
 authority to us given, by the people of the said state for that purpose, for, and in 
 behalf of, ourselves and censtituents, fully and entirely assent to, ratify and adopt 
 the said cons itution, which is hereunto annexed under the great seal of the said 
 state. “ Done in convention, at Augusta, in the said state, January 2, 1788.” 
 
 Ibid., March 6, 1788. Extract from letter from Charleston, S. C., January 22: 
 “ A- to the new constitution, I hope it will be adopted with amendments by this 
 state ; but the opposition is heavy and increasing.” 
 
 Ibid., March 13, 1788. “We shall very soon reckon South Carolina among 
 the members of the new confederacy.” 
 
 A letter from Wilmington contains congratulations “ on the ratification of the 
 federal constitution, by the state of Massachusetts.” 
 
 A Yankee Doodle song winds up with the following: 
 
 “ So here I end my federal song. 
 
 Composed of thirteen verses, 
 
 May agriculture flourish long, 
 
 And commerce fill our purses. 
 
 Y T ankee doodle keep it up 
 Yankee doodle dandy ; 
 
 Mind tl.e music and the step, 
 
 And with the girls be handy.” 
 
 Ibid., March 20, 1788. Contaias advices from New Hampshire, showing that, 
 “as in the convention there were 54 against and 51 for the federal constitution, an 
 adjournment till June was procured, it being hoped that some of the 40 towns 
 that had instructed their delegates to vote against, would withdraw such instruc- 
 tions ; and it is hoped that the convention at the session will adopt a constitution, 
 so replete with benefits to New Hampshire, as well as the union in general.” 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. II. 
 
 25 
 
 Ibid., April 3, 1788. At a convention begun and held for the District of Ken- 
 tucky, at Danville, Sept. 17, 1787, it was resolved that this convention fix Dec. 
 31, 1788, as the time when “the authority of the commonwealth of Virginia, and 
 of its laws, over the District of Kentucky, shall cease and determine forever, under 
 the exception specified in the act concerning the erection of Kentucky into an 
 independent state?” • 
 
 “ Kcsolved, as the opinion of this convention, that the convention shall be elected 
 with full power and authority to frame and establish a fundamental constitution 
 of government for the proposed state, and to declare what laws shall be in force 
 therein, until the same be abrogated, or altered by the legislative authority acting 
 under the constitution ro to be framed and established.” 
 
 Ibid., May 8, 1788. A correspondent, writing from Annapolis, Md., says that 
 “ on the 21st instant, the convention appointed by the citizens of this state, for the 
 purpose of considering the constitution proposed by the general conventions, for 
 the government of the united states, met at Annapolis. * * Maryland * has 
 opened her bosom to the embraces of her sister states ; has erected the seventh 
 pillar, upon. which will be reared the glorious fabric of American greatness. * * 
 O ! may the august temple of freedom soon be supported by 13 pillars, with its 
 gates unfolded to every part of the creation.” 
 
 A committee of 13 was appointed to state amendments, wdiich the convention 
 would subsequently recommend to the people, if deemed necessary. The ratifica- 
 tion, however, was unqualified. 
 
 The first was, “ that it be declared that all persons entrusted with the legislative 
 or executive powers of government, are the trustees and servants of the public, 
 and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of 
 government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other 
 means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to object to, 
 reform the old, or establish a new government, etc., etc. 
 
 The ISth was, that “ congress shall exercise no power but what is expressly dele- 
 gated by this constitution.” 
 
 At a federal procession, the following toasts were drunk : “ * * 4. The 
 
 seven adopting suites of the federal constitution; 5. A speedy ratification, by the 
 remaining six, without amendments.” 
 
 And at a dinner given to the convention, the following was the thirteenth toast: 
 “May all the states of America join heartily in auopting, and make effectual, the 
 proposed federal government.” 
 
 . Ibid., June 5, 1788. This number contains a very well written and able 
 address — copied from the Pennsylvania Gazette — to the members of the conven- 
 tion of Virginia. [It must have been written by Tench Coxe — thouHi the 
 American Museum publishes a different one, addressed as above — James \vilson, 
 Judge McKean, or some other leading constitutionist]. 
 
 He speaks of the “determination, which is to call the. American union once 
 more into political existence.” 
 
 Alluding to the objection, “that your populous state will not be properly repre- 
 sented in the federal senate” he says: “Permit me to remind you that while you 
 have but one vote of thirteen in the present union, you will have twelve of 91 in 
 the new confederacy.” 
 
 Further along, taking it for granted the nascent state of Kentucky will act with 
 Virginia, he says : “ It will be proper to consider too, the effect of the ere t on of 
 Kentucky into a separate state, and of her becoming another member of the new 
 confederacy.” 
 
 “ Should the present attempt to infuse new vigor into the general government, 
 fail of success, partial confederacies must at once follow.” 
 
 He then supposes a case wherein “ Virginia rejects the proposed constitution, 
 and Georgia, South Carolina, and Maryland, are members of the new confederacy.” 
 
 He says further, Virginia, “ of all the members of the union, has the least cause 
 of complaint,” and speaks of the prospect of Kentucky becoming “ an independent 
 member of the American union.” 
 
26 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Virginia Gazette, June 12, 1788. 
 
 “Baltimore, June 3. The sloop George, Capt. Chase, -which carried the 
 account of the ratification of the federal constitution by this state, to South Carolina, 
 returned on Saturday, and brought the following interesting information: ‘On the 
 23d instant, at five o'clock in the’evening, the question was put, that the convention 
 assent to, and ratify, the federal constitution — for the united states of America, 
 upon which the vote stood as follows: For the ratification 149 — against 73 — 
 majority 7 
 
 “There was a discharge of artillery from Federal Hill, on Saturday evening, 
 at 5 o’clock, in honor of the state of South Carolina.” 
 
 “ A number of gentlemen convened at Grant’s tavern,” and drank the following 
 among other toasts: “1. The state of South Carolina; 2. The South Carolina 
 convention; 3. Our sister Virginia — may she soon complete the arch of the 
 grand lederal building ; 4. May the noble spirits of the minorities of the con- 
 ventions of Massachusetts and South Carolina, be imitated by the opposers of the 
 federal constitution.” etc. 
 
 The same number says that, “the beautiful little ship Federalist [the same that 
 had in a recent procession been manned bv 13 men; drawn by 13 horses, and 
 saluted by 13 guns] * * sailed for Mount Vernon ! Capt. Barney has the honor 
 to present her to the illustrious former, who owns that spot, as an ottering from the 
 merchants, expressive of their veneration of his services and federalism.” 
 
 Ibid., June 19th, 1788. The editor copies from a Philadelphia paper the 
 following extract from a letter: “New Hampshire is well disposed, aud will have 
 her convention but a few days in session before she ratifies.” 
 
 He also copies some interesting observations and reflections from a New York 
 writer — the following being apropos: “ * * our warmest friends and patriots, 
 
 having been instrumental to our independence, are endeavoring, * * by the 
 adoption of a new system of government, to place these thirteen states upon a 
 broad and lasting foundation, that shall stand the shocks of time, diffuse the 
 blessings of free and universal trade, command respect and homage from the 
 surrounding world, and transmit to posterity, unimpaired, those sacred rights unto 
 which themselves were born.” 
 
 The paper also announces the arrival of “the ship federalist at Mount Vernon, 
 on Sunday evening, the 3d instant,” and her being “saluted with eight guns, being 
 one for every adopting state.” 
 
 The Virginia convention is reported to be closely investigating the constitution ; 
 and it is said that “ their constituents and posterity will applaud the assiduity and 
 attention they have shown to this interesting subject. They have now arrived 
 to the article respecting the executive. It is yet impossible to determine on which 
 side the majority will be.” 
 
 The same paper contains the ratification of South Carolina ; the amendments 
 proposed by her — seconding Massachusetts ; her federal procession, dinner alfresco , 
 etc., etc. 
 
 The ratification is as follows: 
 
 “ In convention of the people of the state of South Carolina, by their represen- 
 tatives, held in the city of Charleston [from the 12th to the 23d of May, 1778]. 
 
 The convention, having maturely considered the constitution, or form of govern- 
 ment, reported to congress by the convention of delegates from the united states 
 of America, and submitted to them by a resolution of the legislature of this state, 
 passed the 17th and 18th days of February last, in order to form a more perfect 
 union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
 defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to the 
 people of the said united states and their posterity, do, in the name and behalf of 
 the people of this state, hereby assent to and ratify the said constitution. Done in 
 convention, the 23d of May, a. d., 1788, and of the independence of the united 
 states of America, the twelfth. Thomas Pinckney, [l. s.] 
 
 attest: John S. Dart, [l. s.] Presidents 
 
 Secretary, 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. II. 
 
 27 
 
 The convention also declared formally that, “it is essential to the preservation of 
 the rights reserved to the several states, and the freedom of the people under the 
 operations of a general government, that the right of prescribing the time, place 
 and manner of holding their elections to the federal legislature, should be forever 
 inseparably annexed to the sovereignty of the several states,” except — the decla- 
 ration goes on to say — where the state legislatures shall neglect to perform the 
 same, according to the tenor of the federal constitution, the federal government 
 may interfere as authorized therein : — this of course would be by virtue of the 
 state’s authority. 
 
 “ This convention doth also declare that no section, or paragraph, of the said 
 constitution warrants a construction that the states do not retain every power not 
 expressly relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the 
 union.” 
 
 “Resolved, that it be a standing instruction to all such delegates as may here- 
 after be elected to represent this state in the general government, to exert their 
 utmost abilities and influence to effect an alteration of the constitution conformable 
 to the aforegoing resolutions.” 
 
 [Virginia Gazette, June 26, 1788]. 
 
 It is announced that, “yesterday the grand question came on before the Honor- 
 able, the convention of this state, for the ratification of the federal constitution,” 
 and that the vo.e was 89 for, and 79 against ratification, also that 17 or 18 mem- 
 bers were appointed a committee to prepare amendments to recommend for future 
 adoption. 
 
 Imd., July 3, 178S. In this number is printed the act of ratification of Virginia, 
 also 20 articles for a bill of rights, and 21 amendments which the convention 
 desired should be added to the federal constitution — they, “ in the name and behalf 
 .of the people of this commonwealth,” enjoining it upon all representatives in con- 
 gress to exert themselves continually to have them ratified, and to conform to the 
 spirit of them, as far as the federal constitution would allow, in all laws that might 
 be meanwhile passed. 
 
 The first amendment proposed by Virginia is the same that Massachusetts 
 originated, viz: “That each state in the union shall respectively retain every 
 power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this constitution delegated to the 
 congress of the united states, or to the departments of the federal government.” 
 
 The act of ratification is as follows : 
 
 “Virginia, to-wit: We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in 
 pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in con- 
 vention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the 
 federal convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation 
 hath enabled us, to decide thereon, do, in the name and behalf of the people o f 
 Virginia, declare and make known that these powers granted under the constitu- 
 tion, being derived from the people of the united states, may be resumed bv them, 
 whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury, or oppression, and that 
 every power not granted thereby remains with them and with their will : That, 
 therefore, no right oi any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or 
 modified by the congress, by the senate, or house of representatives, acting in any 
 capacity, by the president, or any department, or officer of the united states, except 
 in those instances in which power is given by the constitution for those purposes. 
 That among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot 
 be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the united 
 states. 
 
 “ With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the 
 purity of our intentions, and under the conviction that, whatever imperfections 
 may exist in the constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed 
 therein, than to bring the union into danger, by a delay, with a hope of obtaining 
 amendments previous to the ratification : — 
 
28 
 
 THE UNION OK STATES. 
 
 " We, the said delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do 
 by these presents, assent to, and ratify the said constitution, recommended on the 
 17th day of September, 1787, by the federal convention, for the government of the 
 united states ; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said 
 constitution is binding on the said people.” 
 
 In the same number is the following extract from a letter from New Hampshire, 
 dated June 21, 1788 : “ I have the great pleasure of informing you that this state 
 has this day adopted the federal constitution : This important question was carried 
 by a majority of eleven — ayes 57 — nays 46.” 
 
 Ibid., July 24, 1788. A letter from London speaks of ‘‘the constitution agreed 
 on by the convention, and proposed to the states for their acceptance and ratifica- 
 tion and t he hope is expressed that as every thing is devised “for securing their 
 liberties, for the establishment of the public credit, and for promoting the peace 
 and harmony of the states * * none will be so wanting as to reject a code 
 
 which appears so fraught with every blessing.” 
 
 In the news from Boston is an item about Providence and Newport, It. I., 
 celebrating “ the ratification of the constitution by New Hampshire." In the 
 former several salutes were fired on Federal Hill, and the college boys “named 
 the beautiful green around the college, federal parade.” 
 
 In the same number, is a long report of the proceedings in the convention of 
 New York, Jay, Hamilton, Duane, Livingston et als., debating. 
 
 In the course of the report it is stated that, in the afternoon a considerable 
 nutnl er of the federalist had a meeting “to congratulate each other on the happy 
 news from Virginia;” and “they fired ten cannon in honor of the ten adopting 
 states.” 
 
 The ratification of Virginia seemed to have a favorable influence: “The spirit 
 of warm contention” “between the parties in the convention” seemed to subside, 
 and it is stated that “the convention are now framing their objections to the 
 constitution for amendments; it is supposed they will be similar to those of Vir- 
 ginia.” 
 
 It is further stated that, accounts from New York indicate “ thatthe final question 
 was to have been taken in the honorable convention yesterday,” and that “the 
 constitution would be carried in the same mode as by Virginia.” 
 
 In the same number is a letter dated July 7th, 1788, from a country girl in 
 Philadelphia, to her sister in Reading, in which she speaks of' a procession she 
 witnessed: “ * * Then came several arm in arm, bearing flag with Delaware, 
 
 Va., -. Cl, Conn., etc., painted in large letters on them — signifying the propriety 
 of union among us; of which I cannot (understand the meaning, as we were all 
 united before, and ibis may tend to disunite us.” 
 
 A letter from N. Y., July 14, says: “The last accounts from our convention are 
 unfavorable * * I fear their mode of (what they call an) adoption will amount 
 
 to a rejection. Should they reject, commotions will ensue.” 
 
 [Virginia Gazette, July 31, 178SJ. 
 
 A letter from Poughkeepsie, dated July 11, says: “This morning Mr. Jay 
 brought forward the grand question, by a resolution for adopting the constitution. 
 He spoke forcibly and commanded great attention. * * The Chancellor also spoke 
 
 * * our worthy chief justice also Mr. Smith, Mr. Lansing, and the governor, 
 spoke against the resolution ; and from what fell from them, they seem determined 
 to support a conditional adoption. This the federalists consider a rejection under 
 another name, and no doubt will protest against it.” 
 
 Ibid., August 7, 1788. “ New York, July 12. From the Independent Journal 
 
 Extraordinary, New York, Monday, July 28, 1788. On Saturday evening, about 
 nine o’clock, arrived the joyful tidings of the adoption of the new constitution, 
 
 * * yeas 30, nays 25 — majority 5.” [this is a mistake — the vote was 30 to 27, 
 majority 3], The account goes on that bells were rung and guns fired. The 
 “federal ship Hamilton” fired a salute; general joy prevailed and several malcon- 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. II. 
 
 29 
 
 tents “ drank freely of the federal bowl,” and declared themselves “ reconciled to 
 the new constitution.” 
 
 The same number contains a letter from Providence which says : “ The opposers 
 of the new constitution in this state feel beaten and are bitter.” * * The writer 
 
 further says that, though the people of Providence “have not celebrated the rati- 
 fication of the constitution by ten states * * yet there is no town on the 
 
 Continent whose inhabitants are more universally federal,” etc. 
 
 Ibid., August 14, 1788. “Rat Jicalion of the constitution by the convention of the 
 state of New l r ork. 
 
 “We, tl.e delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met 
 in convention, having maturely considered the constitution lor the united states of 
 America * * in the’ name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New 
 York, do, by these presents, assent to, and rat fy the said constitution.” 
 
 Ibid., August 28, 1788. “A Petersburg paper says the convention of the state 
 of North Carolina have not actually rejected the constitution, but have proposed 
 a. Jbi 1 1 of rights and amendments,” intending to adopt when the amendments should 
 be made; all of which was agreed to by a majority of 102 — yeas 184, nays 82. 
 The opinion of the convention is “that cot g.vss will call a general convention to 
 consider pr< posed amendments,” and that u.ey “ will be submitted to conventions 
 in the sever it sta'es.” “The convention showed every disposition to promote the 
 interest of the union, * * and, perceiving exceptions in the new constitution, 
 they thought themselves ju tillable in portioning the ultimate decision of the 
 important question until it should be reconsidered by the several state*, and such 
 objections removed as might be found necessary to the preservation of the union.” 
 
 Ibid., Sept. 4, 1788. This number contains the following: 
 
 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 . In convention, Aug. 2, 1788. Resolved that a declaration of rights, asserting 
 and securing from encroachment the great principles of civil and religious libel ty, 
 and the una.ienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most 
 ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said constitution of government, ought 
 to be laid before congress, or the convent on of the states that shall, or may be 
 called for the purpose of amending the said constitution, for their consideration, 
 previous to the ratification of the constitution aforesaid, on the part of the state of 
 North Carolina.” 
 
 There are 20 declarations of right and 26 amendments proposed. The first 
 amendment is as follows; “That each state in the union shall respectively retain 
 every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by this constitution, delegated to 
 the congress of the united states, or to the departments of the federal govern- 
 ment.” 
 
 Ibid.. September 18, 1788. A letter of a correspondent of a Philadelphia paper 
 asks as follows: “Why have not congress complied with the recommendation of 
 the federal convention in organizing the new government, when adopted by nine 
 states? The plan proposed by that august body, has been re-echoed by eleven 
 states, a considerable while since, yet, strange to tell! (in a republican govern- 
 ment) the great voice of the people has not been respected by our rulers.” 
 
 The same number contains an able article, signed “Solon, Jr.,” from the Provi- 
 dence Gazette : 
 
 “ * * Many of the people, and some respectable states in the union, think 
 the new constitution needs amendments. The ratification of it by the state of 
 New York, bears a singtilar complexion, and Norih Carolina has refused to ratify 
 it.” He then says, the making of these amendnunts “must be done by the states 
 under the old confederation, or as an operation of the new constitution. Pleven 
 states having ratified the constitution unconditionally, it is not likely that they 
 will so far recede from that measure, as to humour the remaining two states, in 
 holding a convention under the old confederation. 
 
 Ibid., October 9, 1788. Extract from the letter of a gentleman in London, 
 
30 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 dated July 26, 1788: “I suppose before this time, nine states at least will have 
 adopted the new constitution.” 
 
 Ibid., November 6, 1788. “The general assembly [of Virginia] have taken 
 measures to organize the new government. They have resolved to lay off the 
 stale into districts,” each to “ appoint ” a representative, “ Saturday next the sena- 
 tors are to be elected.” It is also stated that the house of delegates, by a great 
 majority, resolved that “an application be made to the congress of the new govern- 
 ment to call a convention of the states to take into their consideration the defects 
 of the new conslitution.” 
 
 Ibid., November 13, 1788. “A bill has passed the house of delegates, for laying 
 off the commonwealth into twelve districts, for the choice of electors to elect the 
 president of the national government.” 
 
 “ The honorable Eichard Henry Lee and William Grayson, esquires, were 
 elected members of the senate from this state. 
 
 [Virginia Gazette, December 4, 1788], 
 
 The Newport Herald says a motion was made in the general assembly of Rhode 
 Island, “for the appointment of a convention to consider the proposed constitution.” 
 Tiie motion was lost by 40 nays to 14 yeas. 
 
 “ It appears,” says the editor, “ that the legislature are determined to hazard the 
 consequences of a separation from the union.” 
 
 Ibid., December 25, 178S. A late London paper is quoted as follows: “By the 
 last account seven of the states had acceded to the plan ; * * no doubt is 
 
 entertained of the concurrence of South Carolina and Virginia. The congress 
 will soon perfect the constitution of the confederated republic.” 
 
 Charles Carroll (of Carrollton) and John Henry are — so the editor says — elected 
 “senators in the new congress” from Maryland. 
 
 Ibid., February 5, 1789. The editor says New York, for some reason, “will 
 have no agency in the choice of those important officers, the president and vice- 
 president; nor will she be represented in that body where her most important 
 interests will he at stake, the senate of the united states.” 
 
 “ Yesterd iv 10 of the electors of this state met at the capitol for the purpose of 
 electing a president and vice-president; the ballots stood as follows: 
 
 Gen. Washington, president, 10 ; John Adams, vice-president, 5 : Henry Clinton, 
 vice-president, 3; John Hancock, vice-president, 1 ; John Jay, vice-president, 1. 
 
 The following gentlemen are elected representatives in the congress of the 
 united states for this state, viz: John Page, James Madison, Jr., Samuel Griffin, 
 Theodoriek Bland, Andrew Moore, Alexander White and Richard B. Lee, 
 esquires.” 
 
 Ibid., February 19, 1789. “A gentleman in Georgia thus writes to a friend in 
 Rhode Island: ‘Our old state constitution, which, like that of Pennsylvania, has 
 a single house of assembly, is found so defective, that a convention to frame a new 
 one is ordered. Our present ideas are that, the new one shall be nearly similar 
 to the new federal constitution. I am sorry to hear that your state still continues 
 averse to the new government?’ ” 
 
 Ibid., February 26, 1789. “Philadelphia, Feb. 6. The ten federal electors 
 chosen by t his state, gave ten votes for Gen. Washington, as president, and eight 
 for Him. John Adams, as vice-president.” 
 
APPENDIX A.-N'o. 3 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Extracts from the American Museum, from January, 1787, to July, 1789. 
 
 The American Museum, or Repository of Ancient and modern fugitive pieces. Matthew 
 Carey. Philadelphia : Carey, Stewart & Co. 
 
 This plan of preserving valuable papers, etc., was that of Dr. Franklin. It 
 was also highly approved by Gen. Washington. 
 
 American Museum , January , 1787. 
 
 In an address to the people of the United States, by Benjamin Kush, M. D., 
 “ to suggest the defects of the Confederation” he says: they consist 1st, In the 
 defect of coercive powers ; 2d, In the defect of an exclusive power to issue paper 
 money and regulate commerce ; 3d, In vesting the sovereign power of the United 
 States in a single legislature ; and 4th, In the too frequent rotation of its mem- 
 bers.” 
 
 As to the 3d, he says : “ To remedy this, let the supreme federal power be 
 divided, like the legislatures of most of our States, into two distinct independent 
 branches. Let one of them be styled the council of the States, and the other the 
 assembly of the States. Let the first consist of a single delegate, and the 2d of 
 2, 3, or 4 delegates, chosen annually by each State. Let the President be chosen 
 annually by joint ballot of both houses.” 
 
 He continues : “ The people of America have mistaken the meaning of the 
 word sovereignty. Hence, each State pretends to be sovereign. In Europe, it is 
 applied only to those States which possess the power of making war and peace 
 of forming treaties and the like. As this power belongs only to Congress, they 
 are the only sovereign power in the United States,” [the above is a specimen of the 
 error of some few men of that day. Rufus King was one of them. They seemed 
 to forget that all the States just then declared themselves to be each sovereign, and 
 that the Congress only had power delegated from the States — and was thus an 
 agency]. 
 
 He continues : “We commit a similar mistake in our ideas of the word inde- 
 pendent. No individual State as sulIi has any claim to independence. She is 
 independent only in a union with her sister States in Congress.” [That union 
 was voluntary, and there was no power above a State to force it to remain. She 
 was as free and independent in the union as out — as she was only bound by her 
 own will ; the union being a voluntary one. Dr. Rush was then great in his pro- 
 fession, but not well informed in statesmanship. He subsequently, however, took 
 a more correct view. See his letter to Dr. Ramsey, in the American Museum for 
 May, 1788. yost]. 
 
 Observations on the propriety of investing Congress with power to regulate the trade of 
 the United Stales. By William Barton, Esq. American Museum for January, 
 1787. 
 
 . “ If on the one hand, this measure should be found to encroach too far on the 
 sovereignty and rights of the several states, individually, there can be no doubt 
 that it ought to be rejected. But if, on the other hand, nothing of that kind is to 
 
2 
 
 THE UNION OF THE STATES. 
 
 lie apprehended, and it can be made evident that it would be attended with the 
 happiest consequences to every State in the union, we may conclude that none 
 but persons inimical to us, or contracted speculative politicians will give any 
 opposition. * * 
 
 * * Every State is, with respect to its own police, distinctly considered 
 
 free, sovereign and independent, and as a component part of the United States, is 
 also free, sovereign and independent, as the united states of America form one 
 grand entire republic, composed of a number ol small ones, confederated for their 
 common safety and advantage, * * the supreme sovereign authority of 
 
 the whole, ought most undoubtedly to be lodged in Congress ; and that body 
 should possess such powers and privileges, not incompatible with the happi- 
 ness of a free people, as usually appertain to sovereignty, in order to enable them 
 to direct the common concerns of the united states upon uniform principles, so 
 as to afford equal advantages to each, and give energy to the whole. * * 
 
 As the united states only, are we politically known to other powers ; as such 
 we send and receive ambassadors, enter into treaties and alliances, declare war, 
 proclaim peace, etc., etc. ■ These and others of equal importance, are powers with 
 which we have invested the united states in congress assembled ; and yet it is 
 said that to allow that delegated body a right to regulate the trade of the united 
 states, is too great a power to be entrusted to them. 
 
 ibid, for April, 1787. 
 
 A distinguished and able writer, Dr. Price, says: “Without doubt the powers 
 of congress must be enlarged. In particular, a power must be given it to collect 
 on certain emergencies the force of the confederacy, and to employ it in carrying 
 its decisions into execution. A state against which a decision is made, will yield of 
 course, when it knows that such a force exists, and that it allows no hope from 
 resistance.” 
 
 Same writer says: “The credit of the united states, their strength, their respect- 
 ableness abroad, their liberty at home, and even their existence depend, on the 
 preservation of a firm political union : and such an union cannot be preserved 
 without giving all possible weight and energy to that delegation which con- 
 stitutes the union.” 
 
 Extract from the address of the convention, held at Annapolis : of “ the com- 
 missioners from the said states [of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey 
 and New York.] Commissioners were also appointed by New Hampshire, Massa- 
 chusetts, Kliode Island, and North Carolina, but they did not attend. None 
 appointed by Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, or Georgia. They recom- 
 mend the convention at Philadelphia, 2d Monday in May next,” to take into 
 eon-ideration the situation of the united states, to devise such further provisions 
 as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal govern- 
 ment adequate to the exigencies of the union, and to report such an act, for that 
 purpose, to the United States, in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, 
 and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every state, will effectually pro- 
 vide for the same.” 
 
 Ibid, for April. 
 
 Extract from an alle paper , entitled “a view of the federal government of America; 
 its defects and a proposed remedy by “ a Bostonian : ” 
 
 The writer says “ there are three grand immutable principles of a good gov- 
 ernment,” “ the legislative, the judicial and the executive. What cyphers those 
 legislators must be, who cannot bring ti.eir own laws into judicial operation, and 
 how trilling are those decisions which cannot be enforced.” 
 
 After illustrating the defect of the federal government, from wanting judicial 
 and executive authority to effectuate its acts, he says : “ Let us then strengthen 
 our federa. government; let it be possessed of the three principles in full extent; 
 and let us condition that congress shall exercise due authority over themselves : 
 legislative, judicial and executive powers may be given to that body without 
 endangering the liberty of the subject, since by a right of recall, the states can 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 3 
 
 dissolve this authority the moment it is abused: but, where legislators in due 
 rotation are governors, and subjects, there seems little danger of such abuse. * * 
 
 By giving a supreme executive power to congress in all cases which relate to 
 the general good, we should only give that power to ourselves for the individuals 
 of the united states, set there in the persons of their delegates, who instead of 
 masters, are honorable servants, dependent on the approbation, though supported 
 by the confidence, of their constitutents. 
 
 It is an adopted maxim throughout America, that none of the states can be 
 separately governed without a due exercise of legislative, judicial, and executive 
 authority. How then can it be expected that all should be governed collectively 
 by simple recommendations? * * 
 
 While the mode of representation in the different states is incorrupt, congress 
 cannot abuse its powers ; because it is itself the very essence of such representa- 
 tions. 
 
 Another writer, advocating the strengthening of the federation with more power 
 in the common head, — i. e. ‘ a more perfect union,’ — says : then shall harmony 
 and concord subsist between the thirteen American republics, which, when ruled 
 under this common head, will be fully efficient ” [to do a number of things 
 which he enumerates]. 
 
 He then notes the apprehension — to show its absurdity — “ that Congress, 
 when vested with so extensive authority, might employ for enslaving the states 
 that power which has been conferred upon them — as the guardians of our liberty.” 
 
 A memorial of the merchants of Philadelphia, dated April 6, 1785, thinks that 
 “ a recommendation from congress to the states to vest that body with the neces- 
 sary powers over the commerce of the united states, would be well received on 
 their part.” 
 
 Ibid. On the Philadelphia convention. 
 
 The editor speaks of “ the convention which is to be held in Philadelphia, in 
 May next, for the purpose of revising the federal constitution.” 
 
 Ibid: A circular letter of congress to the states, dated April, 1787, contains the 
 following : “ Let it be remembered that the thirteen independent sovereign states 
 have, by express delegation of power, formed and vested in us a general, though 
 limited sovereignty, for the general and national purpost s, specified in the confed- 
 eration. In this sovereignty they cannot severally participate, (except by their 
 delegates) nor with it.h.,ve concurrent jurisdiction. They then go on to reason 
 that the treaty power with which they are vested, enables them to bind ail the 
 states, and that a state legislature cannot alter or vary a treaty,” etc. 
 
 Ibid: for June, 1787. 
 
 A very able paper, signed Harrington, says: We have now the chance to secure 
 for America “ all the benefits of monarchy, without parting with any of the privi- 
 leges of a republic.” He further says, she may divide her legislature into two or 
 three branches . * * * and may confer upon a supreme magistrate such a 
 portion of executive power, as will enable him to exhibit a representation of 
 majesty, such as was never seen before, for it will be the majesty of a free people. 
 To preserve a sense of his obligation to every citiz n, he may be elected annually, 
 lor seven years, or for life. 
 
 Tj e more we abridge the states of their sovereignty, and concentrate the supreme 
 power in an assembly of the states (for by this name let us c; 11 our federal gov- 
 ernment) the more safety, liberty and prosperity will be enjoyed by each of the 
 states. 
 
 Tench Coxe, Esq., in the same number, in an able and extended paper on a 
 commercial system, speaks of the “shameless perseverance of some of the states in 
 tender laws, after the value of the paper was gone, and its effect on the public 
 credit. He says: “It would not be difficult, perhaps, to form anew article of 
 eontederation to prevent it in future, and a question may arise whether fellowship 
 with any state that would refuse to submit can be satisfactory or safe. 
 
 Ibid : An important speech of Hamilton, in assembly of New York, 18th Feb, 
 1787, is copiously extracted from. It is in reference to giving congress the power' 
 
4 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 over imposts and regulating commerce. He refutes the idea of danger to the 
 integrity aud sovereignty of the states, from delegating this and other powers to 
 congress. His proposition was defeated by large majority : such was the fear of 
 federal power. 
 
 Extract from a circular letter of Gen. Washington to the Governors of the states, 
 on resigning his command, June 18, 1783: 
 
 “ There are four things which I humbly conceive are essential to the well-being 
 — to the existence of the united states as an independent power — 
 
 First. An indissoluble union of the states under one federal head. 
 
 2nd. A sacred regard for public justice. 
 
 3d. The adoption of a proper peace establishment, and, 
 
 4th. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition among the people 
 of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and 
 policies ; to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general 
 prosperity, and, in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the 
 interest of the community.” 
 
 “Under the first head,” he declines to discuss “the principles of the Union,” 
 or “ the great question,” “ whether it be expedient and requisite for the states to 
 delegate a larger proportion of power to congress or not : ” yet he deems it his 
 duty “to assert and insist upon the following positions; that unless the stales will 
 suffer congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with 
 by the constitution, everything must very rapidly tend to anarchy and confusion 
 — that it is in ispensabie to the happiness of the individual states that there 
 should be lodged somewhere a supreme power to regulate and govern the general 
 concerns of the confedeiated republic, without which the union cannot be of long 
 duration — that there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of 
 every state with the late proposals and demands of congress, or the most fatal 
 consequences will ensue — that whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the 
 union, or contribute to violate, or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be 
 considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors 
 of them treated accordingly : — and lastly that, unless we can be enabled by the 
 concurrence of the states to participate of the fruits of t e revolution, and enjoy 
 the essential benefits of civil society under a form of government so free and 
 uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression as has been 
 devised and adopted by the artii les or confederation, it will be a subject of regret 
 that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, etc. 
 
 Ibid: Aug., 1787. 
 
 Some men think that tyranny can be opposed only in the person of a king ; but 
 this is a mistake. The ‘'ardor civium, prava jubcnttum” is as much to be dreaded 
 as the “ vul.us in^tantis tyranni.” There are men who are undaunted in their 
 opposition to a single tyrant, but are, notwithstanding, the slaves of the preju- 
 dices and passions of the people. 
 
 Ibid. New Jersey, having failed to comply with requisition of September, 
 1785, for supplies, Pinckney, (Chas.) of South Carolina, from Congress, and others, 
 were a deputation to New Jersey. Pinckney made a speech to the assembly of 
 New Jersey, containing the following: — 
 
 l “ When these states united, convinced of the inability of each to support a sepa- 
 rate system, and that their protection and existence depended on their union, 
 policy as well as prudence declared the necessity of forming one general and 
 efficient government, which, while it protected and secured the whole, left 
 to the several states those rights of internal sovertiynty which it was not necessary 
 to delegate, and which could be exercised without injury to the federal authority. 
 In them were placed all the essential powers which constitute a nation — such as 
 the exclusive rights of peace and war ; of sending and receiving embassies ; of 
 forming treaties and alliances ; and equipping and raising fleets and armi.es.” He 
 also 6peaks of obtaining loans on the faith of the United States, and of apportion- 
 ing to the States their quotas of public expenses, etc. 
 
APPENDIX A NO. III. 
 
 5 
 
 Ibid.; Sept. 3 1787. Political Sketches by William Vans Hurray , Esq. 
 
 SKETCH III— ARISTOCRACY. 
 
 ‘• No right of governing by the representation of constituents of equal rights 
 can be called an aristocratic right. Aristocracy proves an inequality of rights : 
 Delegated power does not prove, as in the American democracies, an inequality 
 of rights ; for where the people appoint their own rulers, the rulers, though pos- 
 sessed of greater temporary delegated powers, possess no more rights exclusively 
 than those by whom they were chosen, since the very delegation shows an equality 
 between the candidate and constituent : it shows choice, which implies a right of 
 rejection. However varied the modifications of the powers of government may 
 be, and however distant they may appear to be, from the mass of the people, while 
 the democratic constitution brings back the powers of government at stated periods 
 to its source of sovereignty to the people, no aristocracy exists. But agreeably to 
 the constitutions of the united states the rights of election are frequently exercised : 
 every organ of state sprouts anew from the political body of sovereignty. Hereditary 
 honors, hereditary rights of ruling, are excluded expressly. Jealousy hath left 
 nothing for implication to fashion. No real feature therefore is visible, either in 
 the constitutions or in the governments, of the United States.” 
 
 SKETCH IV.— EXTENT OF TEKRITORY. 
 
 “ Democracy is a government wherein all the members of the society are pos* 
 ^essed of equal rights, and govern, either by themselves, or by their representatives 
 elected by themselves, and invested with just powers of government. 
 
 Ibid., Sept., 1787. “The constitution framed for the united siates of America, 
 bv a convention of deputies from the states of New Hampshire, Mas-achusetts, 
 Connecticut, etc., etc., at a session begun May 14, and ended Sept. 17, 1787.” 
 
 Ibid., Sept., 1787. 
 
 A “ Pennsylvania farmer ” says : “ How may we avert the impending dangers?” 
 “ Let us adopt that federal constitution which is earnestly recommended by a 
 convention of patriotic sages, and which while it gives energy to our government, 
 wisely secures our liberties. * * * Having once adopted this truly federal 
 
 form of government, Dean Tucker and all the divines of England may prophecy 
 our downfall if they will ; we shall not regard them.” 
 
 Ibid., Sept., 1787. Letters on the federal government , [written after the federal 
 instrument was promulgated — this number of the American Museum being pub- 
 lished some time after S ptember.] I y Tench Coxe, Esq. 
 
 'When the separation between the two countries was completed by the Declaration 
 of Independence, “ new governments were necessarily established ” — •“ repmblican ” 
 — “ many of the state constitutions are truly excellent.” “ Our misfortunes have 
 been that, in the first instance we adopted no national government at all, but were 
 kept together by common danger only; and that in the confusions of a civil war, we 
 framed a federal constitution — now universally admitted to be inadequate to the 
 preservation of liberty, property and the Union. The question is not, then, how far 
 our state constitutions are good or otherwise — the object of our wishes is to amend 
 and supply the evident and allowed errors and defects of the federal government.” 
 
 He continues that, in England the king may be an idiot, a tyrant: lie cannot 
 he removed : he can do no wrong. “ In America, as the President is to be one of 
 the people ; at the end of his short term, so will he and his fellow citizens remem- 
 ber that he was originally one of the people, and that he is created by their breath. 
 
 * * * 'Whatever of dignity or authority he possesses is a delegated part of 
 
 their [the people's] majesty and their political importance, transiently vested in 
 him by the people themselves, for their own happiness.” 
 
 “ As our President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the senate 
 have no similitude to nobles. They represent states.” 
 
 “ House of Representatives. Each member of this truly popular assembly will 
 
6 
 
 TTIE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 be chosen by about 6000 electors,— poor as -well as rich. * * No state shall 
 
 have less than one member.’' If hereafter the ratio of representat ves should 
 exceed the inhabitanis of a state “such state would without this wholesome pro- 
 vision lose its voice in the house of representatives — a circumstance which the 
 constitution renders impossible.” 
 
 Ibid., Oct., 1787. 
 
 In an address bv the seceding members of the assembly of Pennsylvania — 16 in 
 number — the following objections to the new federal plan are urged for the people 
 of Pennsylvania to consider. 
 
 Expense of it in addition to that of state government: 
 
 'Whether, in case your state government should be annihilated — which will 
 probably be the case, or dwindle to a mere corporation — the continental government 
 will be competent to attend to your local concerns. 
 
 Objection to the power of levying and collecting taxes : 
 
 Whether the liberty of the press is a blessing or curse, and is worth a declara- 
 tion for its preservation : 
 
 Whether in the plan of government there should not be a bill of rights prefixed 
 or inserted : 
 
 Provision against standing army in time of peace is insisted on : 
 
 Whether trial by jury hi civil cases ought to be abolished : 
 
 Whether the judiciary of the United States is not so constructed as to absorb 
 and destroy the judiciaries of the several states: 
 
 Objection to continental courts for trials between citizens of different sta.es, as 
 unnecessary: also to appellate jurisdiction, as to fact as well as law: 
 
 “ The confederation no doubt is defective, and requires amendment and revi-ion ; 
 and had the convention extended their plan to the enabling the united states io 
 regulate commerce, equalize the imposts, collect it throughout the united state.', 
 and have the entire jurisdiction over maritime affairs — leaving the exer fisc of 
 internal taxation to the separate states — we apprehe d there would be no obj ctiou 
 to the plan of government.” 
 
 In a .->,iarp and able reply, signed “ federal constitution” is the following : — 
 
 “ The objections to the federal government are weak, false and absurd. The 
 neglect of the convention to mention the liberty of the press rose from a respect 
 to the sta e constitutions, in each of which this palladium of liberty is secured, 
 and which is guaranteed to them as an essential part of their republican forms of 
 government. Lu> supposing this had not b en done, the l berty of the pre.-s 
 would have been an inherent and political right as long as nothing was said against 
 it. The convention has said nothing to secure the privilege of eating and drink- 
 ing: and yet, no man supposes that right of nature to be endangered by thei. 
 6ilence about it.” 
 
 Another most powerful article — signed “one of the people” — says: “ It is 
 affirmed [in said address] that the deputies from this state had not power 
 to recommend to the people under their appointment, a new constituiion. The 
 de uties from this state were so em owered.” Th y had power “ to devise, dis- 
 cuss and report such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to 
 render the federal government fully adequate to the exigencies of the union; 
 * * alt rations in governments are always made by the people. 
 
 “It is said that this constitution will annihilate the state government. On 
 wliat section of the constitu ion do these men ground tin ir assertion. It breathes 
 nothing like it. It interferes not with the internal government of any state. It 
 supports and adds a dignity to every government in the united stales.” 
 
 The writer then comments on the objection that congress can levy taxes: 
 “ This is a power without which no government can exist. * * It is 
 
 shameful to say that this tax will Le collected by soldiers. The power is not 
 g ven to a foreign prince, but to a congress chosen by the people,” [a d of course, 
 deriving all its power from them], 
 
 “ The freedom of the press and trials by jury are not infringed on. The consti- 
 tution is silent, and with propriety too, on these and every other subject relative 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 7 
 
 to the internal government of the states. These are secured by the different state 
 constitutions. I repeat again, that, the federal constitution does not interfere with 
 these matters. Their power is defined and limited by the 8th section of the first 
 article of the constitution. 
 
 “ It is essentially necessary that the judiciary of the United States should have 
 an appellate jurisdiction, both in law and fact, in cases of dispute between a state 
 and citizen of another state, and between citizens of diflerent states.” [Never 
 yet have I met with a word showing that a transfer of citizenship from the state 
 to the united states, was intended or even thought of]. 
 
 In the same number “ Impartial ” says: “ We ne d be under no apprehensions 
 of encroachments upon our liberties from congress, because the principal branch 
 of that august body will always be chosen by free and independent electors. * * 
 
 The interest of the representative will correspond with that of his constituents. 
 Every measure that is prejudicial to the people, w.ll be equally so to those whom 
 they appoint to govern them — they cannot betray their electors without injuring 
 themselves : their power, their official existence depends upon the people, lienee, 
 instead of adopting measures oppressive to the people, the only danger to be 
 apprehended, will arise from their being too cautious of giving offence, and 
 being too remiss in the necessary operations of government. 
 
 Next comes substance of Hon. James Wilson’s speech of October 6. 1787, pro- 
 fessedly “to answer the objections which have been raised” to the new federal 
 plan, which, “the impressions of four months constant attention to the subject” 
 enables him to do. 
 
 As to the want of a bill of rights, he says : “ It would have been superflous 
 and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation — hat we 
 should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested either by the intention 
 or the act that has brought that body into existence.” [The pith of the speech is 
 heretofore extracted. This speech was copied everywhere, and shows the under- 
 standing of that day as much as the articles in the federalist did]. 
 
 In the same number “ Curtius,” under date New York, Sept. 27, 1787, speaks of 
 the convention as “ an assemblage of characters most of them illustrious for their 
 integrity, patrotism and abilities, representing many sovereign states, forming a 
 system of government for the whole,” etc. 
 
 The same number contains Letter IV of Tench Coxe, “on the federal govern- 
 ment.” He says : “ In considering the powers” of the President, Senate, and 
 House of Representatives, “we have seen a part of the wholesome precautions 
 which are contained in the new system.” 
 
 “ The united states guarantee to every state in the union a separate republican 
 form of government. 
 
 From thence it follows that any man or any body of men, however rich and 
 powerful, who shall make an alteration in the form of government of any state 
 whereby the powers thereof shall be attempted to be taken out of the hands of the 
 people at large, will stand guilty of high treason ; or should a foreign power 
 seduce or overawe the people of any state, so as to cause them to vest in the fam- 
 ilies of any ambitious citizens or foreigners, the powers of hereditary governors, 
 whether as kings or nobles : that such investment of power would be void in 
 itself, and every person attempting to execute them would also be guilty ot 
 treason. 
 
 The people will remain, under the proposed constitution the fountain of power 
 and public honor. The President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives 
 will be the channels through which the stream will flow : but it will flow from 
 the people, and from them only. Every office, religious, civil and military, will 
 be either their immediate gift, or it will come from them through the hands of 
 their servants. And this, as observed before, will be guaranteed to them under 
 the state constitutions, which they respectively approve, for they cannot be royal 
 forms ; cannot be aristocrat! cal, but must be republican.” 
 
 Speaking of the prohibition of ex post facto laws, he remarks : “ If a time of 
 public contention shall hereafter arrive, the firm and ardent friends of liberty 
 
8 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 may know the length to which they can push their noble opposition on the foun- 
 dation of the laws. Should their country’s cause impel them further, they will 
 be acquainted with the hazard, and using those arms which providence has put 
 into their hands, will make a solemn appeal to the power above,” [he knew the 
 ever recurring necessity of opposing, and haply fighting against human greed 
 and wrong]. 
 
 “ Henceforth the people of the earth will consider this position as the only 
 rock on which they can found the temple of liberty — that taxation anl represen- 
 tation are inseparable. Our new constitution carries it into effect on the most 
 enlarged and liberal scale: for a representative will be chosen by 6000 of his 
 fellow citizens, a senator by half a sovereign stite, a president by a whole nation. 
 
 “The c Id federal constitution contained many of the same things, which, from 
 error or (iisengenuousnes3, are urged against the new one. neither op them 
 HAS A BILL OF RIGHTS, NOR DOES EITHER NOTICE THE LIBERTY OF THE 
 press, because they are already provided for by the state constitutions ; and, 
 relating only to personal rights, they could not be mentioned in a conn-act among 
 sovereign states.” 
 
 In reference to the object’on to the federal judiciary, he says, “in nineteen out 
 of twenty suits at law, the federal courts cannot interfere.” Then he speaks of 
 the juris detion over “ disputes between citizens of any state, about land lying out 
 of the bounds thereof,” or “when a trial is to be had between citizens of one state 
 and citizens of another, or the government of another,” the citizen can appeal to 
 a disinterested federal court, and avoid a state court, that, perhaps, of his oppo- 
 nent, [where are the citizens of a nation?] 
 
 Besides the securities for the liberties of the people arising out of the federal 
 government, they are guarded by their state constitutions and by the nature of 
 things in the separate states. The governor or president of each commonwealth, 
 the councils, senators, assemblies, judges, [here follow a long list of officials] will 
 still be chosen within each state, without any possible interference of the federal 
 government. The separate statis will also choose all the members of the legis- 
 lative and executive branches of the united states. The people at large in each 
 state, will choose their lederal rc presenta ives, and * * the electors of 
 
 president and vice-president of the union, and lastly the legislatures of the states 
 will have the election of the senate.” 
 
 He then asks if, under these circumstances, betrayal of the country, can be 
 feared from a majority of the representatives, each chosen by 6000 freemen, or by 
 “a majority of the senate, each of whom will be chosen by the legislature of a 
 free, sovereign and independent state ’ or by “ a temporary limited executive offi- 
 cer [elected as above] watened by ihe federal representatives, by the senate, by 
 the state legislatures, by his personal e emies in his own state, by the jealousy of 
 the people of the rival states, and by the whole people of the Union.” 
 
 Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, in letter to Governor of Connecticut, 
 dated New London, Sept., 26th, 1787 say : “ The convention endeavored to provide 
 for the energy of government on the one haud, and suitable checks on the other, 
 to secure the rights of the particular states, and the liberties and properties of the 
 citizens. We wish it may meet the approbation of the several states, and be a mean 
 of securing their rights, and lengthening out their tranquility.” 
 
 From an address to the citizens of New Jersey on the new constitution, Novem- 
 ber 5, 1787, by “a Jerseyman.” “The power of congress to levy and colhct 
 taxes, duties, imposts and excises has been objected to. By whom are those taxes 
 to be laid? by the representatives of the several states in congress * * * in 
 
 perfect conformity to that just maxim in free governments that taxation and 
 representation should go hand in hand.” To what purpose are these taxes to be 
 applied ? to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general wel- 
 fare of the united states. 
 
 “Although I drew my first breath in New Jersey and have continued in it 
 during my life, firmly attached to its local interest, yet when I consider the impos- 
 sibility of its existence at present as a sovereign state, without a union with the 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 8 
 
 others, I wish to feel myself more a citizen of the United States than of New 
 
 Jersey alone.” 
 
 Ibid., Nov.. 1787. The first six letters of the federalist addressed 11 to the people 
 of the stale of New York ” are published in the November and December numbers. 
 
 It is sufficient to note here that they advocate a “ union of Ftates” and oppose 
 the idea that “ three or four confederacies would be better than one,” and consider 
 the plan before them as a confederation of states. In the first number, dated New 
 York, October, 30th, 1787 the author sets his aim forth thus : “ I propose in a series 
 of papers to discuss the following interesting particulars — the utility of the uni os 
 to vour [the people of New York’s] political prosperity — the insufficiency of the 
 present confederation to preserve tliat union — the necessity of a government, at 
 least equally energet'c with the one proposed to the attainment of this ob ct — 
 the conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican 
 government — its analogy to your own state constitution,— and las.ly the additional 
 security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of gov- 
 ernment, to liberty, and to property.” 
 
 Ibid., November, 1787. Inhabitants of Fredericksburg, Va., instruct John 
 Dawsou and Janies Monroe — present form of government inefficacious — that “ the 
 safety, prosperity, and happiness of Virginia as well as the other states depend 
 greatly” on ado ting “ the system recommended by the convention of states;” 
 tiiat the legislature should submit the same to a convention of delegates of the 
 state, 19th October, 1787. 
 
 Instructions from the freeholders of Frederic County, 22nd October, 1787 : 
 
 We conceive “ this system ” to be well calculated to secure to us our indepen- 
 dence as a nation, and our civil rights as individuals, that without a more energetic 
 federal government we cannot exist as a nation : we hence instruct you to vote for 
 holding a convention as early as possible, to whose consideration the proposed 
 constitution may be submitted.” 
 
 Instructions of the inhabitants of Petersburg, October 24th, 1787 : They say 
 they are impr ssed with incompleteness of the pre-ent powers of congress, and feel 
 the need of review and amendment of the confederation, and continue : — “we 
 are sensible of the difficulty of forming such a plan of government as shall at 
 once combine the diversity of interests and secure the rights of the respective 
 states, subject to the general control of one sovereign authority, [meaning that of 
 the associates, through their agency, ever the citizens of each, so lar as the dele- 
 gated powers go]; we approve of the proposed plan of the federal consdtu.ion, 
 as formed to cement the union of the states,” and we recommend immediately 
 callin ; a convention to consider it.” 
 
 Ibid., December, 1787. In a long and very able address of the minority of the 
 Pennsylvania convention, he objections to the federal plan are fully set forth.” 
 
 “ The new government will not be a confederacy of states, but a consolidated 
 government, founded on the destruction of the several governments of the states,:” 
 
 They go on to object that the powers of congre-s under the new constitution — 
 are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword : 
 
 They speak of the power of taxation. No article is reserved to the state gov- 
 ernment, so that congress may monopolise every source of revenue. And ton- 
 gress may make all laws necessary to carry into effect the powers foregoing, etc.; 
 
 They say that this supremacy is consummated by the “supreme law” clause; 
 that the constitution gives the federal government control of the militia ; tliat 
 the judicial power is all absorbing; that trial by jury is not secured in civil cases; 
 that there is no reservation of the rights and privileges of the state governments, 
 as in the confederation ; no declaration that the states reserve their sovereignty, 
 freedom and independence; 
 
 Tnat the legislative power is so unlimited in its nature, and may be so compre- 
 hensive and bound. ess in its exercise, that it will swallow tip the state governments 
 in the grand vortex of the general empire. 
 
 Many other objections are urged, and the address concludes as follows: “In 
 short, consolidation pervades the whole constitution, * * the preamble 
 
10 
 
 THE UNION OE STATES. 
 
 begins with words, ‘we the people of the united states,' which is the style of a 
 compact between individuals entering into a state of society ; and not that of a 
 confederation of states. * * 
 
 “ Thus we have fully established the position, that the powers vested by this 
 constitution in congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one govern- 
 ment, which, even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done 
 without the sacrifice of all liberty.” 
 
 American Museum, January, 17SS. 
 
 Edmund Randolph, in a long letter to speaker of the House of Delegates of 
 Virginia, stating reasons why he refused to sign the federal plan, hopes Virginia 
 will be seconded in 1. Getting ambiguities removed ; 2. In rendering president 
 ineligible ; 3. In taking from him judicial appointments, and filling vacancies in 
 recess ; 4. In depriving him of pardoning for treason, especially before convic- 
 tion ; 5. In drawing line between the powers of congress, and individual states, 
 and in defining the former so as to leave no clashing of jurisdictions, or danger- 
 ous disputes, and to prevent the one from being swollovved up by the other under 
 cover of general words and implication;” 6. In abridging power of senate in 
 making treaties the supreme law of the land ; 7. In preventing congress from 
 determining their own salaries, and finally, 8. In limiting and defining the jud.- 
 cial power. 
 
 He clings to the union as the rock of our salvation 
 
 Meeting of inhabitants of Chowan County, N. C. 
 
 “This state can have no prospect either of security or honor, but by a firm and 
 indissoluble union with the other states in the confederation. We own with 
 admiration and gratitude a system formed by t e unanimous concurrence of 
 twelve states, which attains the great object of a united government ‘ to establish 
 justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote 
 the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.’ ” 
 
 They call for an early convention “to deliberate on the new constitution pro- 
 posed.” 
 
 The Grand Jury of Edenton N. C., November 12, 1787, express themselves as 
 “ deeply sensible of the necessity of a firm and lasting union among the American 
 states, to ensure the common safety and liberty of all. * * * We admire, in 
 
 the new constitution, a proper jealousy of liberty mixed with a due regard to the 
 necessary of a strong authoritative government. Such a one is as requisite for a 
 confederated, as for a single government.” 
 
 They “earnestly wish” for a convention which, they say, can adopt or reject. 
 
 [“A strong authoritative government” was adopted. It had the power to exe- 
 cute its decrees — power of coercion — on citizens, not on states.] 
 
 Letter of Gen. Washington to a friend in Fredericksburg, Va. 
 
 “No alternative [in my opinion] between the adoption of it, and anarchy. If 
 one state, or a minority of them, should suppose thnt they can dictate a constitu- 
 tion to the Union, they will find themselves deceived. * * * It or disunion 
 
 is before us to choose from.” 
 
 In a political society, at Richmond, Va., the federal constitution was discussed 
 — the principal opponent, P. Henry, the leading advocate, Nicholas : after three 
 evenings, it prevailed by 128 yeas to 15 nays. “ It is expected there will be the 
 game majority in the state convention.” 
 
 Chancellor R. R. Livingston, in oration 4th July. 1787, before the society of 
 The Cincinnati , New York, said, “our constitution being purely democratic, the 
 people are sovereign and absolute. The faults of absolute governments are to be 
 charged to the sovereign — in ours they must be traced back to the people.” 
 
 Ibid., February, 1788. Address to the minority of the convention of Pennsyl- 
 vania, by “A Freeman.” [Tench Coxe]. 
 
 “ The consolidation of the united states into one government by the operation 
 of the proposed constitution in contradistinction from a confederacy, appears to 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 11 
 
 you to be the consequence of the system, and the intention of the framers. This 
 is the point of difierence I now treat of.” 
 
 He admits that if the parts they have particularized were as represented, “ the 
 state sovereignties would indeed be finally annihilated.” “ Appearances” “ have 
 misled you.” “ I shall endeavor to ex iiibit clear and permanent marks and lines of 
 separate sovereignty, which must ever distinguish and circumscribe each of the 
 several state , and prevent their annihilations by the federal government, or any of 
 its operations.” 
 
 He speaks of “ the crown having been merely a center of union ; the act of inde- 
 pendence dissolved the political ties which had formerly existed among the states.” 
 
 He then says “a confederacy of states was the mode of connection, which was 
 wisely desired and actually adopted;” but he says there were appearances of 
 consolida ion, which he instances, and says, ‘‘ have deceived said minority — they 
 existing in the new as they did in the old confederacy.” 
 
 “The matter will be better understood by proceeding to those points which show 
 that, as under the old, so under the new federal constitution, the thirteen united 
 states were not intended to be, and really are not consolidated in such a manner 
 as to absorb or destroy the sovereignties of the several stales. In order to a perfect 
 unders anding of ea h other, it may be proper to observe here, that, by your term 
 consolidation, I understand you mean the final annihilation of separate state 
 government, or sovereignty, by the nature and operations of the proposed consti- 
 tution. 
 
 “ Among the proofs you adduce of such consolidation being the intention of the 
 late convention, is the expression ‘we the people.’ Though this is a mere form of 
 words, it will be well to see what expressions are found in t e constitution in 
 opposition to this, and indicative of the intentions of the convention, before we 
 consider those things, which, as I conceive, secure the states from a possibility of 
 losing their respective sovereignties. 
 
 “ First, then, though the convention propose that it should be the act of the 
 people, yet it is to be done in their capacities as citizens of the several members 
 of our confederacy — who are declared to be the peop e of “ the united states” — to 
 which idea the expression is strictly confined, and the general term of America, 
 which is constantly used in speaking of us as a nation, is carefully omitted. A 
 pointed view was evidently had to our existing union [of course, for the phrase “a 
 mor : perfect union” is used.] But we must see at once that the great reason of 
 ‘the people’ being mentioned was, that alterations of several constitutions were 
 to be effected, which the convention well knew, could be done by no authority but 
 that of the people, either determining themselves in their several states, or dele- 
 gating adequate powers to their state conventions. Had the federal convention 
 meant to exclude the idea of union — that is of several and separate sovereignth s 
 joining in a confederacy — they would have said ‘ we the people of America: ’ for 
 union necessarily involves the idea of competent states, which complete consoli- 
 dation excludes. J ut the severalty of the states is frequently recognized in the 
 most distinct manner, in the course of the constitution.” He then gives instances. 
 
 Let us proceed to evidences against consolidation, of more force than the mere 
 form of words. 
 
 It will be found on a careful examination, that many things which are indis- 
 pensably necessary to the existence anu good order of society, cannot be performed 
 by the federal government, but will require the agency and powers of the state 
 legislatures or sovereignties, with their various appurtenances or appendages, 
 
 “ 1st. Congress, under all the powers of the constitution, can neither train the 
 militia, nor appoint the officers thereof. 
 
 “ 2nd. They cannot fix the qualifications of electors, etc. 
 
 “ 3rd. In case of vacancy in the senate, or house of representatives, they can 
 not issue a writ for a new election, etc. 
 
 “ 4th. They cannot appoint a judge, constitute a court, or in any other way 
 interfere in determining offences against the criminal law of the states. Nor can 
 they interfere in civil causes. 
 
THE ONION OF STATES. 
 
 IZ 
 
 *■’5111. They cannot electa president, vice president, a senator, or a federal 
 representative, without all of which their own government [the whole federal 
 concern] must remain suspended and universal anarchy must ensue [anarchy or 
 lack of government only so far as federal government is concerned.] 
 
 “ Gth. They cannot determine the place of choosing senators, because that 
 would be derogatory to the sovereignty of the state legislatures, who are to elect 
 them. 
 
 “ 7th. They cannot enact laws for the inspection of the produce of the country 
 — an important matter to the commerce of the several states, etc. 
 
 “ 8th. They c annot appoint or commission any state oliicer — executive, legis- 
 lative, and judicial. 
 
 “ 9th. 'ihey cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals ; the making 
 or regulation of roads, except post-roads ; building bridges ; erecting ferries ; the 
 establishment of state seminaries of learning; libraries ; literary, religious, trading 
 or manufacturing societies; erecting or regulating the police of cities, towns or 
 boroughs; ertati ig new state offices; building light-houses, public wharves, county 
 jails, markets, or other public buildings; making sale of state lands and other 
 state property, or receiving their revenues; executing the sta f e laws ; altering the 
 criminal law; nor can they do any other matter or thing appertaining to the 
 internal affairs of any state, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, civil or 
 ecclesiastical. 
 
 “ 10th. They cannot interfere with, alter, or amend the constitution of any 
 state.” 
 
 In the number for March 1788, “a freeman” [Tench Coxe] continues: 
 
 “I pointed out a variety of instances, in which the agency and powers of the 
 state governments are absolutely necessary to the existence of civil society, and to 
 the execution of the federal constitution itself. I particularized necessary matters 
 to be done, which cannot be done by the general government.” Hence — he con- 
 tinues — we find that not only the state powers must exist, but that they are indis- 
 pensable. 
 
 “ Having seen what congress cannot do, let us see what the state governments 
 must or may do. 
 
 “First then, each state can appoint ever)’ officer of its own militia and can train 
 the same [i. e. the militia] by which it will be sure of a powerful military support, 
 attached to, and even part of itself, wherein no citizen of any other state can be 
 even a private centinel, much less have influence or command. 
 
 “ 2nd. Every regulation relating to religion, or the property of religions 
 bodies, must be made by the state governments, since no powers affecting those 
 points are contained in the constitution. 
 
 “ 3rd. The state legislatures and constitutions must determine the qualifications 
 of the electors for both branches of the Jederal government — and here let us 
 remember to adhere firmly, within our respective commonwealths, to genuine 
 republican principles. Wisdom, on this point, which [point] lies entirely in our 
 hands, will pervade the whole system, and will be a never failing antidote to aris- 
 tocracy, oligarchy and monarchy. 
 
 “4th. [Regulating descents prohibiting entails— -equal division of intestato 
 successions, arc thought necessary, and the whole subject is said to belong to states.] 
 This power, with that mentioned under the last head, if exercised with wisdom 
 and virtue, will preserve the freedom of the states, beyond any other means. 
 
 “ 5th. The elections of the president, vice president, senators and representa- 
 tives are exclusively in the hands of the states — even as to filling vacancies. The 
 smallest interference of congress is noi permitted, either in prescribing the quali- 
 fications of electors, or in determining what persons may or may not be elected 
 [then are mentioned some regulations, which congress is authorized by the states 
 to make.] 
 
 “ 6th. The states will elect, appoint and commission all their own officers, 
 without any possible interference of the federal government. [Senators, represen- 
 tatives and president are virtually commissioned by the states, a point too seldom 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 lv) 
 
 mentioned or thought of: — First, they must be citizens of states; second, Ttcpre- 
 sentatives are elected by, and hold certificates of, election from states, with the 
 states’ broad s:al on them. So witli senators; and the president linds his validity 
 in state records of state action ; and all federal officers must go back to states in 
 tracing up to the source, their official being.] 
 
 “7th. The st tes can alter and amend their several constitutions, provided they 
 do not make them aristocratical, oligarchic, or monarchical : for the federal con- 
 stitution restrains them from any alterations that are not really republican. 
 That is, the sovereignty of the people is never to be diminished or destroyed. 
 
 “8th. The states have the power to erect corporations for literary, religious, 
 commercial, or other purposes, which the federal government cannot prevent. 
 
 “ 9th. Every state can always give its dissent to federal bills, as each has a 
 vote in the senate and l.ouse of representatives, secured by the Constitution. 
 Hence it appears not only that the state governments are intended to remain in 
 force within their respective jurisdictions, but they are always to be known to, 
 and have ti.eir voio s as states, in the federal councils. 
 
 10th. The states are not only to elect all their own officers, but they have a 
 check by their delegates to the senate, on the appointment of all federal officers. 
 
 “ 11th. The states are to hold separate ter.itorial 'rights, and the domestic 
 jurisdiction thereof, exclusively of any interference of the federal government. 
 
 “ 12th. The states will regulate and administer the criminal law. [The crim- 
 inal jurisdiction of the federal government is not very clearly set forth. Of cour e, 
 it must be, in cases excepted out of the jurisdiction of the states, by the states 
 themselves, must come from the states, and must be within the grants of the fed- 
 eral constitution]. 
 
 “ 13th. The states are to determine all the innumerable disputes about pro- 
 perty lying within their respective territories between their own citizens — such as 
 titles, boundaries, debts, contracts, etc., etc.; none of which can ever be cognizable 
 by the federal government. 
 
 “ 14th. The several states can, [here follow a long list of things and subjects 
 ‘of the utmost importance to the happiness of their respective citizens,’ which the 
 states can do]. 
 
 “ In addition to this enum'wation of the powers and duties of the state govern- 
 ments, we shall find many other inst mces under the constitution, which require, 
 or imply the existence, or continuance, of the sovereignty or severalty of the 
 states.’’ 
 
 “ The following are some of them : 
 
 “All process against criminals, and many other law proceedings, will be brought 
 by, and run, in the name of that commonweal. h in which the offence or event 
 shall have taken place. 
 
 “ The senate will be representatives of the several state sovereignties. 
 
 “ Every state must send its own citizens to the senate and to the house of repre- 
 sentatives. No man ca i go thither but from the state of which he is a complete 
 citizen, and to which, if they choose, he shall be sworn to be faithful. 
 
 “ No state shall on any pretence be without an equal voice in the senate, and 
 a vote in the house of representatives. 
 
 *' Any state may repel invasions, or commence a war under emergent circum- 
 stances, without waiting for the consent of congress. 
 
 “ The clecti rs of the president and vice-president must not nominate more than 
 one person of t[ie state to which they respec ively belong, so careful is the federal 
 constitution to preserve the rights of the states. 
 
 “ In case of an equality of votes in the election of president and vice-president, 
 a casting voice is given to the states, from a due attention to their sovereignty in 
 appointing the ostensible head of the federal government.” 
 
 He next speaks of “ written communications from the governors of states, of 
 the provisions for adjusting differences between states, and belween one state and 
 the citizens of another — the admission of new states as to this, he says : “As all 
 the territory of each state is already in the union, any district must stand on 
 
14 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 different ground, when erected into a state from what it did when it was counties, 
 or a part of an already existing member of the confederacy .” He further says two 
 states may not become one, without assent of congress “showing that the convention 
 held the severalty of states necessary. This is directly opposite to your idea that 
 consolidation was intended.” “Each state and the federal justiciary are to give 
 faith and credit to the records and proceedings of every other state.” “ Each 
 state has, in the federal constitution, a guaranty of a separate republican form of 
 government.” “Two-thirds of the states in the proposed confederacy can call a 
 convention ; not two-thirds of the people.” “Three-fourths of the states can alter 
 the constitution, not three-fourths of the people.” 
 
 “ From this examination of the proposed constitution fortbe united states, I trust 
 it will appear that, though there are some parts of it, which, taken separately, 
 look a little like consolidation, yet there are very many others of a nature, which 
 proves that no such thing was intended, and that it cannot ever take place. 
 
 “It is but since the middle of the present century, that the principles and prac- 
 tice of free governments have been well understood. * * The principles on 
 which free sovereignties ought to confederate, is quite a new quts ion, and a new 
 case. * * One circumstance has exceedingly obscured the subject and hid the 
 
 truth from the eyes of many of us. Most of the states being in possession of free 
 governments, some have looked for the same forms in a confederating instrument 
 which they have justly esteemed in their several social compacts.” [lie then 
 concludes by referring to the distinction between the Oiiginal social compact and 
 the constitution of the league and federal government]. 
 
 In the American Museum of April, 1788, is No. Ill of the same address to the 
 minority of the Pennsylvania convention, by Tench Coxe, 
 
 He says he has heretofore shown “from the proposed frame of government, and 
 the state constitutions,” “that there is no ground to apprehend a consolidation of 
 the states, which shall join the depending confederacy into one government. 
 
 He believes, with Mr. Wilson, that “tlespo.ism would be the consequence of a 
 single national constitution, in which all the objects of society and government 
 were so completely provided for, as to place the several states in the union on the 
 footing of counties of the empire. But permit me to ask you, gentlemen, will 
 such be the condition of the states? Where is the county that can independently 
 train its own militia; appoint its civil and militia officers; establish a peculiar 
 system of penal laws ; issue criminal process in its own name ; erect corporations ; 
 impose direct taxes, excises and duties ; hold lands in its own right ; commence 
 war on any emergency ; regulate descents ; prescribe the qualifications of electors ; 
 alter its constitution or the principles of its government ; divide ii self into sepa- 
 rate and independent parts ; join itself to another state ; issue writs for elections 
 at d regulate the same ; enact inspection laws ; erect courts ; appoint judges ; com- 
 mission all its officers ; create new officers; sell and give away its lands; erect 
 fortifications; and in short where is the county in the union, or in' the world, 
 that can exercise in any instance independent legislative, executive, and judicial 
 powers. 
 
 “The construction of the senate affords an absolute certainty that the states will 
 not lose their present share of separate powers. No state is to lose iis voice therein 
 without its own consent. Governor Randolph justly observes, that the force of 
 the constitution of any state can only be lessened by the absolute grant of its own 
 citizens. Whatever therefore is now possessed will remain,, unless transferred by 
 new grants.” 
 
 He then mentions, the control states will be likely to have over their senators, 
 and thinks they may be too partial to the state, to the injury of national objects. 
 
 And, continues he, so independent will the state governments be, that their laws 
 on some subjects may be severer than those of the union : “ Treason against the 
 united states, for instance, cannot be attended with confiscation and corruption of 
 blood ; but by the existing laws of all the states, the unoffending families of 
 attainted persons, stripped of all hereditary rights, and condemned to the bitter 
 portion of extreme poverty, are left without their friend and parent to meet the trials 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 15 
 
 of the world alone, an awful monument of the sovereign and avenging power of 
 their native state. Let the representative or senator who may meditate the anni- 
 hilation of the government of his state, duly consider this before it be too late.” 
 
 “ The lordship of the soil is one of the most valuable and powerful appendages 
 of sovereignty: this remains in full perfection with every state. From them 
 must grants flow. * * To them also as original and rightful proprietaries and 
 
 lords of the soil, will the estates of extinct families revert.” 
 
 “ Independent revenues and resources are indubitable proofs of sovereignty.” 
 [The power to collect federal revenues is derived from the states : the federal 
 functionaries levy taxes, etc., on subjects of taxation within the states, solely by 
 virtue of the states’ sovereign authority.] 
 
 “Impeachment in the several states -will afford them opportunities of exerting 
 the most dignified and awful powers of sovereignty. The people of every state, 
 by their constitutional representatives, may impeach the public officer, however 
 great or daring, who shall presume to violate their exclusive rights, or offend 
 against the peace and dignity of their commonwealth ; and may punish him, on 
 conviction, by fine, imprisonment or death, without any possible interference of 
 congress. 
 
 “But, gentlemen, the subject is inexhaustible. Every section in the constitu- 
 tion, as we peruse it, affords new ideas opposed to consolidation. * * Thinking, 
 as you did, consolidation was intended, and would ta <e place, * * you would 
 have beAt criminal in assenting to the plan proposed.” 
 
 Ibid., 1788, contains an address to the lreemen of South Carolina on the federal 
 consdtution, by Dr. Ramsay : 
 
 “ You have at this time, a new federal constitution proposed for your conside- 
 ration. * * 
 
 “First. It is the manifest interest of these states to be united. [The weakness 
 of Pouth Carolina, and the need of protection, are the grounds of his appealing 
 to strengthen the federal government.] 
 
 “ * * Second. If the t irteen states are to be united in reality, as well as in 
 name, the obvious principle of the union will be that the congress, or general 
 government, should have power to regulate all general concerns. * * When 
 thirteen persons constitute a family, each should forego everything that is inju- 
 rious to the other twelve * * When several states combine in one govern- 
 ment, the same principles must be observed.” 
 
 Ibid., 1788, May No. Letter from Dr. Rush to Dr. Ramsay, speaks of “the 
 auspicious event of the ratification of the fedtral government by six of the united 
 states.” 
 
 He says the idea of a bill of rights for the federal constitution has been reasoned 
 and ridiculed out of the said states. He speaks of tw r o “securities for liberty” “in 
 the proposed constitution of the united states,” — “representation and checks.” 
 “Without them a volume of rights would avail nothing; and with them a decla- 
 ration of rights is absurd and unnecessary: for the people where their liberties 
 are committed to an equal representation, and to a compound legislature, such as 
 we observe in the new government, will always be the sovereigns of their rulers, 
 and hold all their rights in their own hands. To hold them at the mercy of their 
 servants is disgraceful to the dignity of freemen. Men who call for a bill of 
 rights have not recovered from the habits they acquired under the monarchical 
 government of Great Britain. 
 
 “I have the same opinion with the anti-federalists, of the danger of trusting 
 arbitrary power to any single body of men : but no such power will be committed 
 to our rulers. Neither the house of representatives nor the senate, nor the presi- 
 dent, can perform a single legislative act by themselves.” 
 
 Ibid., 1788, May number. Address of Tench Coxe to the members of the 
 convention of Virginia. He speaks of the prospective “erection of Kentucky 
 into an independent state, and her becoming another member of the new confede- 
 racy and of New Jersey and Delaware as “ the least commercial members of 
 the confederacy.” 
 
16 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Gov. Hancock to the Legislature of Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1788, after stating 
 the ratification of the federal constitution by the convention of Massachusetts, he 
 says “the objects of the proposed constitution are defence against external enemies 
 and the promotion of tranquillity and happiness among the states. * * The 
 
 amendments proposed, * * must meet the wishes of the states.” He expects 
 
 an exhibition “ on the great theater of the wofld, of those social, public, and 
 private virtues, which give more dignity to a people possessing their own sove- 
 reignty, than crowns and diadems afford to sovereign princes. 
 
 Ibid., for June, 1788. Continuation of Tench Coxe’s address to the Virginia 
 convention : 
 
 “Should Virginia decline the new confederacy,” Accomac and Northampton 
 might wish to join Maryland. 
 
 If you “ wish to see manufactures established in Virginia, * * you should 
 be a part of the new confederacy:” and several times the phrase “new confede- 
 racy” is used in the address. 
 
 “ Should nine or ten states adopt the constitution, how miserable will be the 
 condition of those states who decline it.” 
 
 Arguing for the confederation because of its making the states capable of 
 defending themselves against Spain on tire South, and England on the North, he 
 says : “ We have nothing to fear from either of those quarters, provided we are 
 united. In this respect the united states, under the new constitution, will possess 
 all the advantages in America, which Henry IV hoped to produce by* a general 
 league in Europe ; with this great difference in our favor, that the road to ours is 
 through well-conducted and free councils, independently held by the states con- 
 cerned ; and his scheme, however useful and noble the design, would necessarily 
 have been effected by force and bloodshed.” 
 
 Ibid., June, 1788. “Remarks on the proposed system of federal government,” 
 by Hon. Hugh Williamson, delegate from North Carolina to the Continental 
 convention, made to the free men of the county of Chowan and town of Edenton, 
 North Carolina. 
 
 On the want of security for the freedom of the press, and of a bill of rights, he 
 says the citizens of the states have “no occasion for a second declaration of 
 rights. * * Their rights in the several states have long since been 
 
 explained, and secured by particular declarations, which make a part of their 
 several constitutions.” 
 
 It is perfectly understood, that “ under the state government, and under that of 
 congress, every right is reserved to the individual, which he has not expressly 
 delegated to this, or that legislature.” 
 
 The other objections that have been made are that the new plan absorbs the 
 powers of the several stales, that the national judiciary is too extensive, that a 
 standing army is permitted, that congress is to regulate trade, and that the several 
 states are prevented from faxing exports.” 
 
 He says as to the 1st, That little power is left to the state : Let us look at the 
 code : nine out of ten of the laws are domestic, and must be so. “ Hitherto you 
 have delegated certain powers to the congress, and other powers to the assemblies 
 of the states. The portion that you have delegated to congress is fou d to have 
 been useless, because too small.” He argues for the new system, because it con- 
 tains a sufficient delegation of powers, and he concludes on the point by showing 
 that “the claim of powers” in congress endangering slates, “is nothing better 
 than the empty whistling of a name. The congress will be chosen by yourselves, 
 as your members of assembly are. They will be creatures of your hands, and 
 subject to your advice. Protected and cherished by the small addition of power 
 which you shall put into their hands, you may become a great and respectable 
 nation.” 
 
 “ It is complained that the powers of the national judiciary are too extensive. 
 * * The powers that are now to be committed to the national legislature, 
 
 asihey are detailed in the 8th section of the first article, have already been chiefly 
 delegated to the congress under one form or another, except those which are con- 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 17 
 
 tained in the first paragraph of that section, and the objects that are now to be 
 submitted to the supreme judiciary, or to the inferior courts, are those wiiich 
 naturally arise from the constitutional laws of congress.” He then goes on to 
 show how necessary for justice to “ the citizens of the different states,” the inves- 
 titure is. 
 
 * * “ The line that separates the powers of the national legislature from 
 
 those of the several sta.es is clearly drawn. The several states reserve every 
 power that can be exercised for the particular use and comfort of the state. 
 They do not yield a single power which is not purely of national concern ; nor 
 do they yield a single power which is not absolutely necessary to the safety and 
 prosperity of the nation, nor one that could be employed to any effect in the hands 
 of particular states. The powers of the judiciary n tu rally arise from those of 
 the legislature.” 
 
 As to the objection of keeping regular troops, he says: “it is remarkable that 
 the same objection has not been made against the original confederation, in which 
 the same grievance obtained without the same guards.” No appropriation for 
 the army, says he, can be made for more than two years. This with other obvious 
 safeguards, he thinks enough to prevent danger from standing troops. He says 
 further: 
 
 “* * It is the general opinion of my late honorable colleague,” that the 
 
 state of “ North Carolina” will, under “ the proposed system,” see “ better times.” 
 “ The proposed system is now in your hands, and with it the fate of your coun- 
 try, 
 
 “But if our constituents shall discover faults where we could not find any, 
 or if they shall suppose that a plan is formed for abridging their liberties, when 
 we imagined that we had been securing both liberty and property on a more sta- 
 ble foundation, they will at least do us the justice to charge those errors to the 
 head, and not to the heart. Resolutions, heretofore quoted, of the freemen of the 
 county of Chowan, and town of Edenton, were passed after the speech. 
 
 Ibid : June, 1788. A correspondent from Charleston says : “If we wish to be 
 a united people, the states must play into each others hands as much as possible, 
 and do all they can to s.rve each other, which will cement us together, so th&t 
 we shall not le nominally, but really a united peopP.” 
 
 “ Philadelphia, June 2d. This day the convention of Virginia meets. 
 
 “ The 23d ult., the convention of South Carolina agreed to ratify the new fede- 
 ral constitution. The votes on putting the question stood — yeas 149, nays 73 — 
 majority 76. A motion made by Gen. Sumter, to postpone the further considera- 
 tion of the constitution, was rejected on the 21st — yeas 89, nays 135.” 
 
 Some amendments were recommended by the convention. The ratification was 
 celebrated in Charleston, by a splendid procession. 
 
 “June 19th. A committee of congress have reported, and congress has agreed, 
 that it is expedient that Kentucky be erected into an independent state.” 
 
 “June 28th. The 21st instant, the federal constitution was agreed to by the 
 convention of New Hampshire. The votes were — yeas 57, nays 46.” 
 
 “June 30th. Last Wednesday the convention of Virginia ratified the federal 
 constitution. Yeas 88, nays 78.” 
 
 Ibid, for July, 1788. Extract from letter of Gen. Washington to the proprie- 
 tors of the ship Federalist, which had been used in the procession at Baltimore, 
 “ to solemnise t ie ratification of the federal constitution by the state of Maryland :” 
 “ The unanimity of * * the state of Maryland, * * expressed in 
 
 their recent decision on the subject of a general government, will not be without 
 its due efficacy, etc. * * I cannot entertain an idea that the voice of the 
 
 convention of this state, which is now in session, will be dissonant from that of 
 her nearly allied sister across the Potomac.” 
 
 Same number, July 16, 1788, “ Numa” proposes mode of election of represen- 
 tatives, and says, “ when members are thus chosen by the whole state, they will 
 consider themselves servants of the whole state.” “ The members of each state 
 will be a band of brothers,” and “ will not be swayed by local considerations.” 
 
18 
 
 THE UNION OP STATES. 
 
 Same number, July 1788, contains resolutions of congress from which the 
 following extracts are taken : 
 
 “ Whereas, application has been made to congress by the legislature of Virginia 
 and the District of Kentucky, for the admission of said district into the federal 
 union,” and “ congress” “ did, on the 3d of June last, resolve that it is expedient 
 t at the said district be erected into a sovereign and independent state, and a 
 separate member of the federal union :” since that, “ it appearing that nine states 
 have adopted the constitution of the united states, iately submitted to conventions 
 of the people ; and whereas, anew confederacy is formed among the ratifying 
 states, and there is reason to believe that the state of Virginia, including the said 
 district, did on the 25th of June last, become a member of the said confederacy.” 
 
 They then go on to conclude that, as they are a congress under tliq old confede- 
 racy, and that the proceedings were had in reference to the old confederacy, both 
 congress and the promoters of the new state, shall forbear to act until the new 
 regime , and that they shall shape their future course according to that. 
 
 Ibid., July, 1788. Memoranda. “ The new constitution was made and proposed 
 by 12 states ; ratified in Pennsylvania by delegates from 12 counties ; proclaimed 
 at Philadelphia at 12 o’clock; on the 12th day of the 12th month; in the 12th 
 year of American independence.” 
 
 Ibid., July 1788. “ New York, July 28, on Saturday evening at 9 o’clock, arrived 
 the joyful tidings of the adoption of the new constitution at . oughkeepsie, July 
 25th — yeas 3, nays 25, majority 5.” [The truth is the majority was only 3.] 
 
 “ Petersburg, Va., J uly 24th. On Monday last, the convention of North Carolina 
 met at Hillsborough. We learn there is a considerable majority against the new 
 government; but the supporters have great hopes, since this state Las acceded to 
 it.” 
 
 Philadelphia, July 12th, “interesting crisis “thirteen states now represented in 
 congress.” “ The report of a respectable committee of that honorable body to 
 whom were referred the ratifications of the new constitution, which have been 
 transmitted to them by the several ratifying states, and other important matters, 
 engross their attention at present. * * On the question in the united states in 
 
 congress assembled, for putting the new coi s.itution into operation, there appeared 
 only one dissenting voice.” 
 
 An elector writing from Frederick, Maryland, March 20th, 1788, says, in con- 
 clusion “that all hopes of prosperity under the present confederation have sub- 
 sided” * * that a new form of government is proposed by the aut ority of the 
 
 people of tw lve states in convention, and submitted to the people of each state for 
 their separate consideration and adop ion; that this constitution may be rejected, 
 but amendments can take place previous to its adoption, only in a convention of all 
 the states ; that after its adoption two-thirds of congress, or a convention called at 
 the request of two-thirds of the slates, may propose such amendments, which shall 
 become parts of the constitution when ratified by three-fourths of the states — and 
 shall we not conclude that defective as it may be, it is better and safer than none ? 
 We have it in our choice to accept and make it what we want it, or reject it and 
 commit ourselves to chance, anarchy, and all the evils attendant on political con- 
 fusion ; or peace, order, and prosperity are subjects of our election.” 
 
 Ibid., August, 1788. Judge Fras. Hopkinson — author of “Hail Columbia” — - 
 ■writes an allegory, comparing the substitution of the new for the old federal plan 
 to the change of an old for a new roof. “ To the 5th objection he answered that, 
 the intention was to make a firm and substantial roof by uniting the strength of the 
 thirteen rafters; and that this was so far from annihilating the several rafters and 
 rendering them of no use, that it was manifest from a bare inspec ion of the plan, 
 that, the strength of each contributed to the strength of the whole, and that the 
 existence of each and all were essentially necessary to the whole fabric as a roof. 
 
 “ * * however, the component parts of the roof might be combined, * * 
 
 the whole must necessarily rest upon and be supported by the walls, [the people]. 
 
 Ibid., Aug., 1788. “ We learn that the convention of North Carolina have not 
 
 absolutely rejected the new constitution, but have proposed a bill of rights * * 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. III. 
 
 19 
 
 and amendments,” which are to b? laid before congress and the states before North 
 Carolina will ratify. ‘'The new constitution was discussed clause by clause in com- 
 mittee of the whole convention,” and “the above result was had by majority of 
 102 — yeas 184, nays 82. * * Through the whole discussion on this subject, the 
 convention showed disposition to promote the interest of the union, * * but 
 
 being previously instructed by their constituents, and perceiving objections in the 
 new constitution, they thought themselves justified in postponing ultimate decision, 
 
 * * till it should be reconsidered by the several states, and such objections 
 removed, as might be found necessary for the preserva ion of the union.” Sh8 
 declared 20 rights and proposed 26 amendments. Finally, when she was satisfied 
 her rights would be safe, she ratified. 
 
 Ibid., for Oct. 1788. Address to the independent electors of the federal govern- 
 ment by a republican, Boston, July, 1788: 
 
 “The voice of eleven states, by their representatives in convention, has decided 
 in its favor; and a majority of the most important states in the American union, 
 are ready to risk their political happiness on the operation of this new system. 
 
 “When you adopt this instrument you have a good mean, an excellent instru- 
 ment; but it is still necessary that you should attend to the use of that instrument, 
 and watch vigilantly that it be placed in proper hands.” 
 
 Ibid., same date. “ Thoughts on the constitution of Maryland,” etc., by James 
 McHenry : 
 
 “One is disposed to expect happiness and tranquillity in a government founded in 
 actual compact, wherein the people have specified their peculiar rights and the 
 rights of the sovereignty.” 
 
 The writer says sovereignty is essential to the existence of a republic, and 
 speaks of the general assembly as possessing sovereignty, by wuich he evidently 
 means power of government as representatives of the people : for he, in the same 
 passage, speaks ot the need of “ frequent elections, to afford the people an oppor- 
 tunity to change the trustees of the sovereignty, when of opinion that others would 
 execute it more to their satisfaction ; and this organization,” he cont nues : “fixes 
 the deliberative powers with the sovereignty, and the elective with the people.” 
 He says again : “ how much to be preferred is the situation of a people whose 
 compact, [the social compact] instead of a right to instruct, vests them with a 
 right to discontinue ! — a right which gives the people efficient control over the 
 deliberative power; for what delegate or senator, desirous to be continued in the 
 sovereignty, will venture to act contrary to the sense of his electors.” 
 
 Samuel Chase, Esq., afterwards supreme judge of the united states, in an ad- 
 dress to his constituents in Aime Arundel county, on the right of instruction says, 
 “ as one of your delegates I hold myself, * * bound to obey your instructions 
 in every case in which you please to give them, or to resign my seat.” 
 
 Speaking of a certain subject, he says “if you have altered your opinion be 
 pleased to inform me, and I will give up my private judgment, and endeavor to 
 carry in execution your pleasure.” 
 
 “ All lawful authority originates from the people, and their power is like the 
 light of the sun, native, original, inherent and unlimited by human authoritv. 
 Power in the rulers or governors of the people, is like the reflected light of the 
 moon — and is only borrowed, delegated, and limited by the grant of the people. 
 
 * * The two branches [of the legislature] have only a derivative and delegat d 
 
 power. The people create [them] and vest them with legislative authority, to be 
 exercised agreeably to the constitution ; and therefore both branches must be 
 equally the representatives, trustees, and servants of the people, and .the people 
 are equally the constituents of both, * * Our government is a government by 
 
 representation. The people appoint representatives in the senate and house of 
 delegates to transact the business of making laws for them, which is impracticable 
 for them to do in person. From the nature of a government by representation, 
 the deputies must be subject to the will of their principals, or this manifest 
 absurdity and plain consequence must follow, that a few men would be greater 
 than the whole community, and might act in opposition to the declared sense of 
 
20 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 all '.heir constituents. [This is precisely what has occurred in the united states 
 government, i. e.. (to use the language of Burke) they have “changed from an 
 immediate state of procuration and delegation to a course of acting as from ori- 
 ginal power.” Demosthenes complained for the Athenians, “that the reprerenta- 
 tive has now usurped the right of he people, and exercises an arbitrary power 
 over his ancient and natural lord.”] 
 
 “ The right of the people to resist their rulers when they attcaipt to enslave 
 them is, paramount, and not derived from the form of government.” 
 
 “Ibid : October, 1788. Mr. Mandrillon, of Amsterdam, author of the “Amer- 
 ican Spectator,” in calling attention to the letter of the convention to congrtss, and 
 to the new constitution, uses the following language : 
 
 “As the association of all the states had no other object than the formation of 
 a consolidated republic, [?] it was essential to give this union — that is to say, to 
 the government of this federal republic — the energy and force requisite to 
 accomplish the general design of the league, without derogating from the preroga- 
 tives which compose the sovereignly and legislative authority of each individual 
 member of the confed racy.” 
 
 Ibid ; “ Congress recommended the several states to pass laws to prevent the 
 transportation of convicts from foreign countries into the united stales. The 
 assembly ot Connecticut have passed such an act, Oct ber 15, 1788.” 
 
 Ibid: “Tribunus” of Boston, tills wiiat he means by “ a free constitution and 
 government:” “What I mean by a free constitution, is such a form of a com- 
 monwealth as considers property [rights, individual or state ?] existing indep ndent 
 of government, and government formed for the support and protection of it, and 
 that protection flowing fr m ‘ standing promulga ed laws ’ carried into execution 
 by ‘known and authorized judges,’ and equally and impartially applying to 
 each member of the state. I mean, in tine, a toriu of government established by 
 the people, which secures to them their property as their own against rapine, and 
 under no control of a legislature, and is a law to the legislative authority itself.” 
 
 Ibid: October, 1788. The citizens of Tarborough addressed Samuel Johnston, 
 Governor of North a’olina, and President of the convention of N >rth Carolina, 
 which postponed ratificaiion, approving the zeal he displayed in trying “to con- 
 nect the state of North Caro.ina to the general union,” and reprobating the 
 opi osition. 
 
 The governor replies, September 3d, 1788, speaking of the endtavors of the 
 minority “ to avoid a separation ” of the State “ from the counsels of the united 
 states,” setting forth that in his opinion “ the citizens of the state have been at no 
 time averse to a federal government, but that they evidently preferred amend- 
 ments before accession and expres-ing he “ hope” that “ effectual means” will 
 be used “ as soon as possible to replace this state ,n the union,” where alone she 
 “ can be safe and respectable.” 
 
 Ibid: Oc ober 1788. Thomas Mifflin, President of Pennsylvania, addressing 
 the assembly of that state says : 
 
 “ The principal difficulties which obstructed the adoption of the federal consti- 
 tution have been ha pily overcome; the prejudice and suspicions ihat were 
 awakened 1 v the appearance of that system have been gradually lulled, and we 
 can no longer doubt that i ll those states which have been successfully allied to 
 obtain the independence of America, will again be united in that best means of 
 g ving strength, dignity, and stabil tv of national character.” 
 
 Ibid: December, 1788. Among the select poetry is an ode wiittenfbr the 
 occasion of the federal procession, New York, July, 1788, which contains the 
 following: [all these tilings show how the political arrangement that was then 
 being co summated, was understood both by public men and the public they 
 addressed]. 
 
 Verse IV. 
 
 “ Ten sovereign states in friendship’s league combined, 
 
 Blest with a government whose arms embrace 
 The dearest interests of the human racq etc. 
 
AP I tNiu.V A — AO. ill. 
 
 21 
 
 * * * * 
 
 behold the admired procession move along 
 Our sister states, the happy ten, to greet.” 
 
 Verse YII. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 Disccrd shall cease and perfect union reign, 
 
 And all confess that sweetly-powerful chain — - 
 The federal system — which at once unites 
 The thirteen states and all the people’s rights. 
 
 Oh may those rights be sacred to the end, 
 
 And to our ate posterity descend ; 
 
 That beauteous structure flourish and expand, 
 
 And ceaseiess ules^ngs crown this happy land. 
 
 American Museum for January, 1789, Nicholas Collin, D. D. & M. A. P. S., 
 writes remarks on the proposed amendments to the federal constitution. 
 
 He speaks of “ thirteen sister republics debating * * on the form of a 
 
 common government,” and says some of the proposed amendments “ are repug- 
 nant to an eliectual confederacy.” He says “the federal government is formed by 
 the eo; le, and for the good of the people; its first object is therefore to secure 
 the grand interests of the individuals who compose the states ; the second, to pre- 
 serve the political powers of these states, is but of an inferior quality and subordi- 
 nate to the first. It is of the greatest moment to every citizen of America to 
 be protected in his lit'.', property, liberty, family and all the d c ar interests of 
 human nature.” [the states are especially important on this account, and tiie fede- 
 ral system was formed by tin m to enable them to do ;0 They were to protect 
 the citizen, and the federal concern was to protect them in so doing]. 
 
 He speaks of certain th rigs that ought to “ be left tu the discretion of the 
 united states in congress assembled.” 
 
 Ibid: March, 1789. Tiie legislature of Virginia, add essing congress on the 
 subject of the convention for amendments, say: “Toe good people of this com- 
 monwealth in convention assembled, having ratified the constitution submitted to 
 ti.eir consideration,” etc. * * “At Tie same time that from mo ives of 
 
 affection to our si-ter states, the convention yield. d their assent to the ratification, 
 they gave proofs that they dreaded its operation under the present form.” They 
 then mention the required amendments, [all the necessary ones were after- 
 wards adop'.ed], 
 
 Resolution of the as emblv of Pennsylvania, on circular letter to the states, 
 from Virginia legislature up in amendments. The assembly say they regret “to 
 dissent from the opinion of that assembly upon any point of common concern to 
 the two states, as members of the union.” 
 
 News: Baltimore, February 13. h. “The important day in the annals of 
 America is past, which conferred on a single ci izen those sovereign powers that 
 must tie placed in one person, to render a nation happy in peace, and prosperous 
 in war.” 
 
 Oration, 4th of July, 1788, by Hon. James M. Varnum, one of the judges of 
 the North Western Territory, at Marietta, O do: 
 
 Afler speaking of the articles of conf deration as defective, he says : “ And but 
 for those friendships which have formed and preserved a union sacred to honor, 
 patriotism, and virtue ; and but for that superior wisdom which formed the new 
 plan of a federal government, ow rapid in its progress to adoption, the confeder- 
 ation i:self, before this day, would have been dissolved.” 
 
 On the 28th July, 1788, C. W. Hartley (aged 13,) said at York, Pennsylvania, 
 in an oration: “Notwithstanding all impediments, the constitution has been 
 adopted bv ten of the states, and it is expected that the other three will soon fol- 
 low the wise example.” 
 
 Ibid., April, 1789. Fourteen members of the Pennsylvania legislature address- 
 ing their constituents, and other freemen of Pennsylvania, in opposition to calling 
 
22 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 a convention to reform the constitution of Pennsylvania in so far as it is contra- 
 dictory to the federal constitution, say : “ Because a convention of this state with 
 equal authority to that of the convention who framed your c- nstitution lias already 
 adopted the federal constitution, and thereby repealed every article of your plan 
 of government which was contradictory to it.” 
 
 They then mention the adoption ot the supreme law clause as having this effect 
 and proceed as follows : “ How idle and fallacious, then, is the argument for a 
 change in your plan of government to make it conformable to that of the united 
 states, when these very men know that you have already bv *he highest authority 
 in the state made tire constitution and the laws of congres pa unount to all your 
 laws and your constitution, into the bargain.” 
 
 They further urge waiting to see if the constitution will not be amended [I 
 quote the above to show what was considered the authority of a convention, and 
 that it was the same body organized and authorized by the state that adopted the 
 two constitutions, state and federal.] 
 
 Ibid., for July, 1789. Governor and council of North Carolina addressed con- 
 gratulations to Gen. Washington after he had become president, May 10th, 1789 : 
 “ Though this state be not vet a member of the union, under the new form of 
 government, we look forward with pleasing hope to soon becoming such, and in 
 the mean time consider ourselves bound in a common interest and affection with 
 the other states, waiting only for such alterations as will remove the apprehension* 
 of many of the good citizens of this state for those liberties for which they have 
 fought and suffered in common with others.” May 10th, 1789. 
 
 8igned. Samuel Johnston, Governor , 
 
 James Iredell, Brest . of Council. 
 
 Gen. Washington replies: June 19th, 1789, that he considers the letter, * * 
 but as indicative of the good dispositions of the citizens of your state towards then- 
 sister states, and of the probability of their speedily acceding to the new general 
 government.” 
 
 He joins them in the hope that the “union will be as perfect, and more safe, 
 than it lias ever been.” 
 
 He winds up by saying he is “impressed with the idea that the citizens of your 
 state are sincerely attached to the interest, the prosperity, and the glory of Ame- 
 rica;” and that he implores Divine guidance in the counsels which are shortly 
 to be taken by these delegates on a subject of the most momentous consequence: 
 I mean the political relation, which is to subsist hereafter, between the state of 
 North Carolina and the states now in union, under the new general government.” 
 
.APPENDIX A-No. 4 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Extracts from Noah Webster's American Magazine and the Colombian Magazine, 1787-4- 
 
 AMERICAN MAGAZINE, 1787-8. 
 
 Published in New York by Noah Webster. The numbers are all bound in one volume. 
 
 These extracts are of vast importance, because they are the precise principles 
 governing Noah Webster’s political views throughout his long and illustrious 
 career ; and they afford a standard to govern the descendants of the great states- 
 man and philologist in their pious duty of publishing an expurgated edition of 
 the great work of their ancestor. 
 
 Extract from the number for January , 1788. 
 
 “The whole body of people in society is the sovereign power or state; which is 
 called the bo lv-politic. Every man forms a part of this state, and so has a share 
 in the sovereignty ; at the same time, as an individual, he is a subject of the state. 
 — When a society is large, the whole state cannot meet together for the purpose 
 of making laws ; the people therefore appoint deputies or representatives — to act 
 for them. When these agents are chosen, and met together, they represent the 
 whole state, and act as the sovereign power. * * The people in free govern- 
 
 ments make their own laws by agents or representatives, and appoint the executive 
 officers. An executive officer is armed with the authority of the whole state. 
 * * He cannot do wrong unless he goes beyond the bound of the laws. 
 
 Ibid. “One of the principal objections to the new federal constitution is, that it 
 contains no bill of rights. * * A bill of rights against the encroachment of 
 
 kings and barons, or against any power independent of the people, is perfectly 
 intelligible. But a bill of rights against, the encroachments of an elective legis- 
 lature, that is, against our own encroachments on ourselves , is a curiosity in govern- 
 ment. * * In our governments there is no power of legislation independent of 
 the people ; no power that has an interest detached from that of the public. 
 Consequently, there is no power existing against which it is necessary to guard. 
 While our legislatures, therefore, remain elective, and the rulers have the same 
 interest in the laws that the subjects have, the rights of the people will be perfectly 
 secure, without any d duration in their-favur. But this is not the principal point. 
 1 undertake to prove that a standing bill of riuhts is absurd , because no constitutions 
 in a free government can be unalterable. The present generation have indeed a 
 right to declare what they deem a privilege ; but they have no right to say what 
 the next generation shall deem a privilege. A state is a supreme corporation that 
 never dies. Its powers, when it acts for itself, are at all times equally extensive'; 
 and it has the same rights to repeal a law this year as it had to make it the last. 
 If, therefore, our posterity are bound by our constitutions, and can neither amend 
 nor annul them, they are, to all intents and purposes, our slaves. * * We have 
 no right to say that our posterity shall not be judges of their own circumstances. 
 The very attempt to mme perpetual const tutions, is the assumption of a right to 
 control the opinions of future generations, and to legislate lor those over whom 
 
2 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 we have as little authority as we have over a nation in Asia. * ' :f There are, 
 perhaps, many laws ana regulations, which, from their consonance to the eternal 
 principles of justice, will always be good and conformable to tie sense of a nation. 
 But most institutions in society, by reason of an increasing change oi circum- 
 stances, either become altogether improper, or require amendments; and every 
 nation has at all times the right of judging of its circumstances, and determining 
 on the propriety of changing its laws.’ 1 
 
 Ibid: Reviewing the Federalist, he says: Concerning the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, the writer sets forth that “ each state regulates the qualifications of its 
 own electors.” 
 
 As to senators, “the appointment is to be made by the state legislatures.” * * 
 
 The equality of representation, which was the result of compromise and mutual 
 concessions, establishes the equal sovereignty of each state.” 
 
 “ The executive is clothed with no more power than is necessary to a just 
 administration of the laws ; nor more than is necessary to secure the rights of 
 the citizens and states.” 
 
 As to the judiciary : “Its powers must necessarily extend to all legal questions 
 that arise under the constitution and laws of the united states.” 
 
 The reviewer quotes passages (in the Federalist), directed against the present 
 attempt to obtain amendments as follows : “ It will require the concurrence of 
 thirteen states,” but, the instrument once ratified, nine can do it. “ Every con- 
 stitution lor the united states,” says the writer, [Flamilton], “ must inevitably 
 consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent states are 
 to be accommodated in their interests, or opinions of interest. * * Hence, the 
 
 necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars, which are to compose 
 the whole, in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact ; and 
 hence also, an immense multiplication of difficulties and casualties in obtaining 
 the collective assent to a final act. The degree of that multiplication must evi- 
 dently be, in a ratio to the number of particulars, and the number of parties.” 
 
 Ibid., for February. “The representative of a people is, as to his powers, in 
 the situation of an attorney, whose letters commission him to do everything which 
 his constituents could do, were he on the spot.” [i. e., if his powers were general ; 
 if specific, he would be confined thereto], 
 
 “ The individuals who compose a political society or state, have a sovereign 
 right to establish what form ot government they please in their own territory.” 
 
 In review of the Federalist, Montesquieu’s idea, that republican government is 
 only fit for small territory, is combatted : “ By the modern practice of representa- 
 tion, a very large extent of country may be governed by the republican form 1 ; 
 and even Montesquieu himself admits ; that a confederation of republics may be 
 so formed as to unite the happiness of free states with the vigor of monarchies. 
 The new constitution may be an improvement on the Lycian league, which that 
 writer proposes as a model.” 
 
 Ibid. The editor, Noah Webster, says, in reply to objections: That the federal 
 constitution “will preserve our equal republican forms of government, nay that it 
 is their only firm support, ana the guarantee of their existence. And, if the 
 consent to the additions and alt' rations proposed by the Massachusetts convention, 
 it is not so much because they think the constitution will be the better for them, 
 but, because they think these additions will reconcile the opposition, and unite 
 all parties.” 
 
 Ibid., June, “American intelligence.” “In convention of the people of South 
 Carolina, by their representatives held, etc.: — • 
 
 “ The convention having maturely considered the constitution, or form of gov- 
 ernment, reported * * by the convention, etc., * * do, in the name, and 
 
 bthall of the people of this state, hereby assent to, and ratify, the said consti.ution. 
 * * Done in convention, the 23d of May,” etc. 
 
 News is givi n of the ratification by New Hampshire — yeas 57, nays 46, majority 
 11. “ On the arrival of this important intelligence — the ratification by the ninth 
 
APPENDIX A — NO. IV. 
 
 3 
 
 STATE, the citizens of New York testified their joy by the ringing of bells and 
 firing of cannon.” 
 
 It is announced that “the convention of the state of New York has just met, 
 Gov. Clinton, president, — and that they have determined to discuss the constitu- 
 tion by paragraphs.” 
 
 “ State of New Hampshire. In convention of tire delegates of the people of 
 the state of New Hampshire, June the 21st, 1788 : The convention having impar- 
 ti-lly discussed, and fully considered, the constitution for the united states of 
 America, reported to congress by the convention of delegates, etc., and submitted 
 to us by resolution of the general court of this state, * * do, in the name, 
 
 and behalf of the people of the state of New Hampshire, assent to, and ratify, 
 etc. 
 
 Ibid., August, 1788. “Letter dated Bichmond, August 6, says the convention 
 of North Carolina had rejected the new constitution by a majority of 1.0 against 
 76 votes. New York rejected the proceedings, and Georgia refused to send dele- 
 gates to the first congress. And yet, both of these states, two years afterwards, 
 were foremost in zeal and activity in supporting the independence of the united 
 states.” 
 
 “ Delegation to congress from Massachusetts. The Massachusetts general court 
 November 4, 178S, decided :” 
 
 1. That the electors tor president, etc., are to be chosen by the two houses on 
 joint ballot ; 
 
 2. That the senators shall be chosen by the two houses, each having a negative 
 on the other ; 
 
 3. That the commonwealth be divided into eight districts — the inhabitants of 
 each choosing a representative. 
 
 “The state of New Hampshire has chosen Langdon and Bartlette for federal 
 senators.” 
 
 “ Edmond Bandolph has resigned the governorship of Virginia, to go into the 
 house of representatives to explain and defend the federal constitution to the 
 legislature.” 
 
 COLUMBIAN MAGAZINE, 1786-9. 
 
 The Columbian Magazine of December, 1786, strongly argues for a “new federal 
 system,” as follows : 
 
 “ We preclude ourselves from the means of calling forth our national strength 
 and resources, by liarboring absurd jealousies of the great national council. We 
 withhold powers necessary to render the federal government efficient, and to unite 
 the various interests of the several states. * * Each state is induced to 
 
 arrogate to itself individually, that portion of sovereignty, which it ought only 
 to exercise in conjunction with others, as a part of one commonwealth — the 
 empire of the united states. * * Our political difficulties have been principally 
 
 occasioned by the want of powers in congress adecpiate to the government of the 
 united states: Let these be granted,” etc. 
 
 From the Columbian Magazine, September, 1787 : “ The proposed plan of a 
 
 federal constitution is sanctioned by the federal convention, thus : ‘ Done in con- 
 vention by the unanimous consent of the states present, the 17th day of Septem- 
 ber,’ etc., etc.; and the project is signed by states.” 
 
 The following is an extract from the journal : 
 
 “ In convention, Monday, September 17, 1787 : Present, the states of New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Conntcticut, Mr. Hamilton , from New York, New 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South 
 CarolirAx, and Gt orgia : 
 
 “ Besolved, that toe preceding constitution,” etc. They then go on to recom- 
 mend that it be submitted in each state to a convention elected by the people 
 thereof, and “ that as soon as the conventions of nine states shall have ratified it,” 
 the congress shall provide lor starling it into effect. 
 
4 
 
 THE UNION OF STATES. 
 
 Ibid., March, 3788. Extract' from letter of Gen. Washington, February 28, 
 1788. “The adoption of the constitution in Massachusetts will, I presume, be 
 greatly influential in obtaining a favorable determination upon it in those states 
 where the question is yet to be agitated. No per-on can, at this moment, pretend 
 to say what will be its fate here. But from what I can collect, I have no doubt 
 of its being accepted.” 
 
 A letter from Baltimore, dated April 28, says: “Our convention have adopted 
 the new government by a great majority of votes — 03 to 11. To-morrow it is to 
 be ratified in form.” 
 
 “ South Carolina : In convention May 23, a motion was made and seconded, 
 
 ‘ That this convention do assent to, and ratify, 'he constitution agreed to, on the 
 17th of September last, by the convention of the united states of America, held 
 at Philadelphia.’ The yeas and nays being called for — were ayes 149, nays 73, 
 majority 76.” 
 
 Ibid., July, 1788. “On Friday, .July 4th, 1788, the citizens of Philadelphia 
 commemorated American independence, and ti.e ratification of the federal consti- 
 tution by ten of the united .states.” .It a previous meeting of the citizens, ihey 
 had agreed “ to celebrate the adoption of the federal constitution on the fourth ot 
 July, provided nine states had then entered into the union under the new system. 
 When this agreement took place, eight states had announced their ratifications, 
 and the conventions of the states of New Hampshire, Virginia and New York 
 were in session.” Unfavorable rumours caused much anxiety, and suspense. 
 “ At length the ratification of New Hampshire was received, * * and on the 
 evening of the second of July, the account of the ratification by Virginia arrived ; 
 the satisfaction of the people was made complete, and the Tenth pillar triumph- 
 antly added to the federal edifice. * * Ten ships were anchored in the Dela- 
 
 ware, to represent the ten states that had adopted the constitution. * * Ten 
 flags, borne by ten gentlemen, represented the ten states that have adopted th > 
 constitution.” James Wilson made the speech, saying : “Instate after state, at 
 time after time, it was ratified — in some states unanimously.” 
 
 Ibid., December, 1788. “The state of Pennsylvania has passed a law for 
 electing representatives to congress, under the new constitution, * * and a, so 
 
 for the election of elec ors for president.” 
 
 Ibid., December, 1789. “Twelfth federal pillar — North Carolina. 
 It is with a great degree of satisfaction we announce to the public the ratifi- 
 cation of the constitution of the united states by the res. ectable state of 
 North Carolina.” The statement continues — that it was on the 20th of November 
 —“vote, yeas 193, nays 75, majority 118.” 
 
 It had been rejected by the same state on August 1st, 1788, by a majority of 
 100, i. e., 188 to 88. 
 
 Extracts from the Massachusetts Magazine /or March, jySg. 
 
 These extracts are added, to show what the leaders and the people* then under- 
 stood the American polity to be. The constitution had then been adopted, and 
 the government provided for had been elected, or was being so; and it was m that 
 or I he following month, to go into operation. 
 
 The absolute integrity and sovereignty of the states as makers and members of, 
 and actors in, the union, are taken for granted throughout 
 
 “Summary of American news and politics.” 
 
 “New Hampshire. This state is now engaged in her domestic elections.” 
 etc. [In the previous number she was said to have “completed” “her federal 
 elections.”] 
 
 “ Massachusetts. Also engaged in her state elections. * * Seven of the 
 federal representatives of this state are chosen,” etc. 
 
 “Connecticut. Every day adds to the progress this state is making in manu- 
 factures,” etc. She is complimented on the peaceful and “federal character of 
 her citizens.” 
 
 “New York. This state, as we mentioned in our last, is still lorn by the 
 
APPENDIX A— NO. IY. 
 
 5 
 
 feuds of faction.” It is further said that “the assembly adjourned” “-without 
 appointing federal senators.” “ The choice of federal representatives lor thi3 
 Btate commenced the 3d instant.” 
 
 “ New Jersey.” “ Messfs. Sohureman, Cadwnllader, Boudinot and Sinnickson 
 are elected” “representatives for that state.” 
 
 “ Pennsylvania. The federal character of this state is further exalted,” etc., 
 etc. 
 
 “ Delaware. Of this state, we know but little. Her federal eleotions are 
 completed, and, enjoying the reputation of being the first which acceded to the 
 new government, she does not appear anxious to engage in the discussion of those 
 great political points, which have created so much uneasiness in some of her sister 
 states.” 
 
 “ Maryland. This state is holding out inducements to congress to make 
 Baltimore the place of their residence,” etc. 
 
 “ Virginia. This state has at length completed its choice of ten representa- 
 tives — eight of whom are said to b : tederalists,” etc. 
 
 “ South Carolina and Georgia. From these states we have received no 
 other information since onr last, than that their electors have given a unanimous 
 vote in favor of his Excellency George .Washington, Esq., as president of the 
 united states, by which the memorable circumstance is authenticated that (lie 
 voice of the whole continent has called our Fabius Maximus once more 10 
 rescue our country from the inauspicious ills that have threatened her.” 
 
 “Vermont. This state has expressed a wish to be admitted a member of the 
 union,” etc. 
 
 “Bhode Island. This foreign state has again refused to accede to a union 
 with her late sisters. * * Anxious of enjoying the protection of the union, 
 the inhabitants of Newport, Pj ovidence, and other places are determined to sue 
 for its protection, and to be annexed to Massachusetts or Connecticut — thereby 
 to evince to their perverse legislature, that unless they take measures for a speedy 
 adoption of the constitution their boasted sovereignty as an independent state, will 
 erelong be at an end.” 
 
 “ North Carolina. This other foreign state, has lately evinced a disposition 
 to become a member of the united states,” etc. 
 

APPENDIX B. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF TIIE UNITED STATES. 
 
 WITH THE PARTIES TO IT, THE AMENDMENTS,. AND THE DIFFERING PRO- 
 VISIONS OF THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION OF 1861. 
 
 Thu object of this appendix is twofold: not only is it to give a full copy of 
 the present federal constitution, but to exhibit the changes made by the 
 confederate states in their attempt to establish and enjoy federal liberty. Some 
 of the changes were purposed to make more plain the real meaning of the con- 
 stitution of 1788, according to the southern view; and others to make the 
 federal system more conservative of liberty and human rights, and more effec- 
 tive in harnessing power and preventing usurpation. 
 
 Both the federal and confederate constitutions were lifeless plans as to a 
 given state until the breath oflife was breathed into it by that state. 
 
 The federal was originally adopted by thirteen states, containing less than 
 four millions of people; while the confederate was adopted by nearly the same 
 number of states, containing eleven or twelve millions of people. 
 
 It is not necessary to note the constant change of “ united ” for “ confed- 
 erate ” to the intelligent reader. 
 
 Precisely where the substitution of the confederate change begins, is desig- 
 nated by a star. 
 
 The only acts in American history or records which ever gave any life or 
 validity to the federal constitution are affixed. They were enacted or ordained 
 by each state in its own exclusive convention, which spoke its own exclusive 
 mind. Webster forever settled this point in his self-stultifying speech of 1833, 
 as follows: “Until the constitution was ratified by nine states, it was but a 
 proposal — the mere draft of an instrument. It was like a deed drawn but not 
 executed; * * it was inoperative paper; * * it had no authority; it 
 spoke no language.” 
 
 Of course the enacting or ordaining words affixed, spoke it into life and 
 validity ; and the object here is to enable the people to see and know it. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 We, the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, 
 establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
 and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united 
 states of America. 
 
 [We, the people of the confederate states, each state acting in its sovereign and independent 
 character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic 
 tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor 
 and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this constitution for the confederate states 
 of America.] 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 All legislative powers herein* grauted shall be vested in a congress of the 
 united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. 
 
 [** delegated” is used instead of** granted ” in the confederate instrument.] 
 
2 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 1. The house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every 
 second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state 
 shall* have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch 
 of the state legislature. 
 
 [be citizens of the confederate states. Bnt no person of foreign birth, and not a citizen of the 
 confederate states, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, stale or federul.] 
 
 2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age 
 of twenty-five years, and* been seven years a citizen of the united states, and 
 who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall 
 be chosen. 
 
 [be a citizen of ttie confederate states.3 
 
 3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
 states which may be included within this uniou, according to their respective 
 numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free 
 persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding 
 Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration 
 shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the congress of the 
 united states, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner 
 as they by law shall direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed 
 one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one represen- 
 tative ; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire 
 shall be entitled to choose three; Massachusetts eight; Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations one; Connecticut five; New York six; New Jersey 
 four; Pennsylvania eight; Delaware one; Maryland six; Virginia ten; North 
 Carolina five; South Carolina five, and Georgia three. 
 
 [“confederacy” Is substituted for “ nnion ”in the beginning ; lower down “slaves” for “other 
 persons”: still lower “fitty ” is substituted lor “ thirty ”• and finally, from the words “ the state of,” 
 i Me conclusion ofthearticleisae follows: “South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six ; the state 
 of Georgia ten; the state of Alabama nine ; the state of Florida two; the state of Mississippi seven ; 
 the state of Louisiana six, and the state of Texas six.”] 
 
 4. When vacancies happen in the represent ation from any state, the executive 
 authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. 
 
 5. The house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; 
 and shall have the sole power of impeachment.* 
 
 [except that any judicial or other federal officer resident or acting solely within the limits of any 
 state, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the legislature thereof.] 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 1. The senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from 
 each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years ;* and each senator 
 shall have one vote. 
 
 [at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; 
 anil each senator shall have one vote.] 
 
 2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first 
 election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The 
 seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the 
 second year ; of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of 
 the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one-third may 
 be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or other- 
 wise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may 
 make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which 
 shall then fill such vacancies. 
 
 8. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 
 thirty years,* and been nine years a citizen of the united states, and who shall 
 not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. 
 
 [and be a citizen of tbe confederate states, and who shall not, when elected* be an inhabitant of 
 the state for which he shall be chosen.] 
 
 4. The vice-president of the united states shall be president of the senate, but 
 shall have no vote unless they be equally divided. 
 
 5. The senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 3 
 
 tempore , in the absence of the vice-president, or when he shall exercise the 
 office of president of the united states. 
 
 6. The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When 
 sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the 
 president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside; and no 
 person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members 
 present. 
 
 7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to 
 removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
 trust, or profit under the united states; but the party convicted shall neverthe- 
 less be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, 
 according to law. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 1. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and 
 representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof;* 
 but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, 
 except as to the places of choosing senators. 
 
 [“• subject to tbe provisions of this constitution,” are the confederate words to go in here.] 
 
 2. The congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting 
 shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a 
 different day. 
 
 section v. 
 
 1. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications 
 of its members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do 
 business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be 
 authorised to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and 
 under such penalties, as each house may provide. 
 
 2. Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its 
 members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds,* 
 expel a member. 
 
 [“ of the wholo number ” are the confederate words.] 
 
 3. Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time 
 publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require 
 secrecy ; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question 
 shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. 
 
 4. Neither house, during the session of congress, shall, without the consent 
 of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than 
 that in which the two houses shall be sitting. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 1. The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their 
 services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the united 
 states. They shall in all cases except treason, felony ,* and breach of the peace, 
 be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their 
 respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any 
 speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other 
 place. 
 
 [the word “ felony” 18 left out of the confederate Instrument.] 
 
 2. No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was 
 elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the united states, 
 which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been 
 increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the united 
 states, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office.* 
 
 [but congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the executive departments a 
 seat upon the floor of either house, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to 
 his department.] 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives ; 
 but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. 
 
4 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 2. Every bill •which shall have passed the house of representatives aud the 
 senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the president of the 
 united states ; if he approve he shall sign it, hut if not he shall return it with 
 his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter 
 the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after 
 sucli reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it 
 shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it 
 shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it 
 shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be 
 determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and 
 against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If 
 any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays 
 excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in 
 like manner as if he had signed it, unless the congress by their adjournment 
 prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.* 
 
 [The president may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the 
 same bill. In such case he shall. in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved, and 
 shall return a copy of such appropriations with his objections to the house in which the bill shall 
 have originated, and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case 01 other bills disapproved by 
 the president.] 
 
 3. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the senate 
 and house of representatives may be necessary (except on a question of 
 adjournment), shall be presented to the president of the united states; and 
 before the same shall takeeffect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved 
 by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the senate and house of representa- 
 tives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 
 
 SECTION Till. 
 
 The congress shall have power: — 
 
 1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,* to pay the debts 
 aud provide for the common defence and general welfare of the united states: 
 but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the united 
 states ; 
 
 [for revenue necessary to pay the debts and provide for the common defence, and carry on the 
 government of the comederate states; but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor 
 shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any 
 branch of industry ; and all duties, imposts, aud excises shall be uniform throughout the confederate 
 states.] 
 
 2. To borrow money on the credit of the united states; 
 
 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
 and with the Indian tribes ;* 
 
 [but neither this nor any other clause contained in the constitution shall ever be construed to 
 delegate the power to congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to 
 facilitate commerce, except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids 
 to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, and the removing of obstructions 
 in river navigation, in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby 
 as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.] 
 
 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalisation, and uniform laws on the 
 subject of bankruptcies, throughout the united states ;* 
 
 [but no law of congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.] 
 
 [“ uniform laws of naturalisation ” are words substituted in the confederate instrument for “a 
 uniform rule of naturalisation.”] 
 
 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix 
 the standard of weights and measures ; 
 
 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current 
 coin of the united states; 
 
 7. To establish post-offices and post-roads ; 
 
 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for 
 limited time 3 to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective 
 writings aud discoveries ; 
 
 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court ; 
 
 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, 
 aud offences against the law of nations ; 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 5 
 
 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules 
 concerning captures on land and water; 
 
 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use 
 shall be for a longer term than two years; 
 
 13. To provide and maintain a navy; 
 
 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval 
 forces ; 
 
 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, 
 suppress insurrections and repel invasions; 
 
 16. To provide for organising, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for 
 governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united 
 states, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and 
 the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by 
 congress ; 
 
 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases, whatsoever, over such 
 district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession* of particular states, 
 and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government of the united 
 states, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent 
 of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of 
 forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings ; and 
 
 [of one or more stales.] 
 
 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
 execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution 
 in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now 
 existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress 
 prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may 
 be imposed upon such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.* 
 
 [1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slave- 
 holding states or territories of the united states of America is hereby forbidden ; and congress is 
 required i o pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 
 
 2. Congress shall also have the power to prohibitihe introduction of slaves from any state not a 
 member of, or territory not belonging to this confederacy.] 
 
 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless 
 when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. 
 
 3. No bill of attainder or ex post facte law* shall be passed. 
 
 [or law denying or Impairing the right of property in negro slaves.] 
 
 4. No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to 
 the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 
 
 5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.* No 
 preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the 
 ports of one state over those of another ; nor shall vessels bound to, or from 
 one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. 
 
 [except by a vote of two-thirds of both houses.] 
 
 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of 
 appropriations made by law ; and a regular statement and account of the 
 receipts and expenditure of all public money shall be published from time to 
 time. 
 
 7. No title of nobility shall be granted by the united states ; and no person 
 holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without the consent of 
 congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind what- 
 ever, from any king, prince, or foreign stale. 
 
 [In this section the numbering is somewhat changed, but the text of both instruments is the same, 
 except In the places noted. Clauses 9 and 10 of the confederate instrument are as follows: 9. Con- 
 gress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both houses, 
 taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of depart- 
 ment, and submitted to congress by the president: or for the purpose of paying iis own expenses 
 and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the confederate states, the justice of which 
 shall have been Judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the govern- 
 ment, which it is hereby made the duty of congress to establish.] 
 
6 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 [10. All bills appropriating money shall specify In federal currency the exact amount of each 
 appropriation, and the purposes for which it is made ; and congress shall grant no extra coninenfcu- 
 tion to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant after such contract shall have beeu made or 
 sochservice rendered.] 
 
 [Clauses 11—19 inclusive in this section of the confederate instrument, are amendments 1— 8 
 inclusive in the federal compact. Clause 20 concludes the section in the iormer,as follow': “'-'0. 
 Evervlaw, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be 
 expressed in the title."] 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant 
 letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything 
 but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, 
 ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any 
 title of nobility. 
 
 [The confederate instrument leaves out the words “ emit'bills of credit.”] 
 
 2. No state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposts or 
 duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for 
 executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, 
 laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of 
 the united states; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control 
 of the congress. 
 
 3. No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage,* 
 keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or 
 compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless 
 actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay, f 
 
 [except on sea-going vessels for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said 
 vessels ; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the confederate states with foreign 
 nations. And any surplus of revenue thus derived, shall, after making such improvement, be paid 
 into the common treasury ; nor shall any state] 
 
 +[but when any river divides or flows through two or more states, they may enter into compacts 
 with each other to improve the navigation thereof ] 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 1. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states 
 of America. He* shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, 
 together with the vice-president, chosen for the same term, be elected as 
 follows: — 
 
 [and the vice-president shall bold their offices for the term of six years : but the president sliull 
 not be re-eligible.] 
 
 2 Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may 
 direct, a number of electors, equal lo the whole number of senators and 
 representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no 
 senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under 
 the united states, shall be appointed an elector. 
 
 [*The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for 
 two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state 
 with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, uud 
 the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign aud certify, and 
 transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the united states, directed to 
 the president of the senate. The president of the senate shall, in the presence 
 of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the 
 votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes 
 shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
 electors appointed; aud if there be more than one who have such majority, 
 and have an equal number of votes, then the house of representatives shall 
 immediately choose by ballot one of them for president; and if no person have 
 a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said house shall in like 
 manner choose the president.* But in choosing the president the votes shall 
 be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a 
 quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds 
 of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 7 
 
 every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest 
 number of votes of the electors shall be the vice-president. But if there 
 should remain two or more who have equal votes, the senate shall choose from 
 them by ballot the vice-president.] 
 
 [This clause was changed in 18U4 for the twelfth amendment; and tnesaid twelfth amendment 
 is, verbatim, the provision of the confederate constitution on the subject.— Article II., section 1, 
 cl tuses 3, 4 and 5.J 
 
 3. The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, a,:d on 
 the day on which they shall give their votes: which day shall be the same 
 throughout the united states. 
 
 4. No person, except a natural-born citizen* or a citizen of the united states 
 at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office 
 of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shill not 
 have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident 
 within the united states. 
 
 [of the confederate states, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this constitution, or a 
 citizen thereof born in theunited states prior to the 20th of December I860, shall be eligible to the 
 office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall rot, have attained 
 theageof thirtv-live years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the confederate 
 ■cates as they may exist at the time of his election.] 
 
 5. In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his deat h, resig- 
 nation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, tlie 
 same shall devolve on the vice-president, and the congress may by law provide 
 for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the president 
 and vice-president, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such 
 officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a president 
 shall be elected. 
 
 6. The president shall at stated times receive for his services a compensation 
 which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which 
 he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any 
 other emolument from the united states, or any of them. 
 
 7. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following 
 oath or affirmation : 
 
 “Ido solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will fa'thfnlly execute the office of 
 president of the united states, and will, to the best of m/ ability, preserve, 
 protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. 1 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 1. The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the 
 united states, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the 
 actual service of the united states; he may require the opinion, in writing, of 
 the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject 
 relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he stall have power to 
 grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the united states, except in 
 cases of impeachment. 
 
 2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, 
 to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur ; and lie 
 shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall 
 appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme 
 court, aud all other officers of the united states, whose appointments are not 
 herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law ; but the 
 congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they 
 think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of 
 departments. 
 
 3. The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen 
 during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at 
 the end of their next session.* 
 
 [bnt no person rejected by the senate shall be re-appointed to the same office during thetr ensuing 
 recess.] 
 
 [In tbe confederate instrument the third clause of section II. is asfollows : 
 
 3. The principal officer in each of the executive departments, and all persons connected with the 
 diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the president. All other civil 
 
8 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 officers of the executive department may be removed at any time by the president, or other appoint- 
 ing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapaclry, inefficiency, miscon- 
 duct, or neglect of duty ; and when so removed, the rtmovalshall be reported to the senate, together 
 with the reason therefor.] 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the stale 
 of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall 
 judge necessary and expedient: he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene 
 both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, 
 with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as 
 he shall think proper ; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers ; 
 lie shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission 
 all the officers of the united states. 
 
 SECTION TV. 
 
 The president, vice-president, aud all civil officers of the united states, shall 
 be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, 
 or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, 
 and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and 
 establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold 
 their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their 
 services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continu- 
 ance in office. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 1. Tiie judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity* arising 
 uuder this constitution, the law3 of the united states, and treaties made, or 
 which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, 
 other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime 
 jurisdiction; to controversies to which the united states shall be a party ; to 
 controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of 
 another state ;t between citizens of different states; between citizens of the 
 same state claiming lands under grants of different states, aud between a state, 
 or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.}: 
 
 *[The words “in law and eqnity” left ont of the confederate instrument.] 
 
 t[“ Where the state is plaintiff” are words here added in the confederate pact.., 
 
 t[“But no state shall be sued by any citizen or subject of any foreign state” is a sentence 
 added to the confederate clause. 
 
 2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and 
 those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original 
 jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have 
 appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under 
 such regulations as the congress shall make. 
 
 3. The trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury : 
 and such trial shall be held in such state where the said crime shall have been 
 committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at 
 such place or places as the congress may by law have directed. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 1. Treason against the united states shall consist only in levying war against 
 them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No 
 person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses 
 to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. 
 
 2. The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but 
 no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except 
 during the life of the person attainted. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 9 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, 
 and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the congress may by 
 general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts records, and proceedings 
 shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 
 
 section n. 
 
 1. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities 
 of citizens in the several states.* 
 
 [and shall have the right of transit and sojourn In any state of this confederacy with their slaves 
 and other property, and the right of property in such slaves shall not be thereby impaired.] 
 
 2. A person charged in any slate with treason, felony, or other crime, who 
 shall flee from juslice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the 
 executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be 
 removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. 
 
 3. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, 
 escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, 
 be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up ou claim of 
 the party to whom such service or labor may be due.* 
 
 [3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in ajiy state or territory of the confederate 
 states, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of 
 any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall he delivered up 
 on claim of the party to whom such slave'belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.l 
 
 6ECTION III. 
 
 1. New states may be admitted by the congress into this union;* but no 
 new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state ; 
 nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of 
 states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well 
 as of the congress. 
 
 [by a vote of two-thirds of the whole honee of representatives and two-thirds of the senate, the 
 senate voting by states.] 
 
 2. The congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules 
 and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the 
 united states; and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to 
 prejudice any claims of the united states, or of any particular state.* 
 
 [The confederate states may acquire n^wterritory, and congress shall have power to legislate and 
 provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the confederate states lying 
 without the limits of the several states, and may permit them, at such time and in such manner as ic 
 may by law provide, to form slates to be admitted into the confederacy. In all such territory the 
 institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the confederate states, shall be recognised and 
 protected by congress and the territorial governments, and the inhabitants of the several confederate 
 states and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them 
 in any of the states or territories of the confederate states.] 
 
 SECTION IY. 
 
 The united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican 
 form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and on 
 application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot 
 be convened), against domestic violence. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, 
 shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the 
 legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for pro- 
 posing the amendments, which in either case shall be valid to all intents and 
 purposes, as part of this constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three- 
 fourths of the several states, or by couveutions in three-fourlbs thereof, as the 
 one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress, provided 
 that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight 
 
10 
 
 ■THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in 
 the ninth section of the first article; and that nq state, without its consent, 
 shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.* 
 
 [Upon the demand of any three states, legally assembled In their several conventions, the 
 congress shall summon a convention of all the states to takeinto consideration such amendments 
 to the constitution as the said states shall concur in suggesting at the time "when the said demand is 
 made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the constitution be agreed on by the said 
 convention— voting by states— and the same be ratified by the legislatures of two-ibirds of the 
 several states, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification 
 may be proposed by the general convention, they shall henceforward form a part of this constitution. 
 But no state shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the senate.] 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption 
 of this constitution, shall be as valid against the united states under this 
 constitution, as under the confederation.* 
 
 [“under the provisional government ” are the confederate words concluding above clause, which 
 is the second in the conlederate instrument— the first being as follows; 
 
 1. The government established by this constitution is the successor of the provisional government 
 of the confederate states of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force, 
 until the same shall be repealed or modified ; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain 
 in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.] 
 
 2. This constitution and the laws of the united states which sha/1 be made in 
 pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under tiie 
 authority of the united states, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the 
 judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or 
 laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of 
 the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of 
 the united states and the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation 
 to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a 
 qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 The ratifications of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the 
 establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.* 
 
 [ 1 . The ratification of the conventions of five states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this 
 constitution between the states so ratifying the same. 
 
 2. When five states shall have ratified this constitution in the manner before specified, the con- 
 gress under the provisional constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election of presi- 
 dent and vice-president, and for the meeting of the electoral college, and for counting the votes 
 and inaugurating the president. They shall also prescribe the time for holding the first election of 
 members of congress under this constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the as- 
 sembling of such congress, the congress under the provisional constitution shall continue to exer- 
 
 cise the legislative powers granted them, not 
 of the provisional government.] 
 
 1. DELAWARE STATE. 
 
 We the deputies of the people of the Delaware 
 state, in convention met * * by these presents 
 do, in virtue of the power to us given, for and in 
 behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, 
 freely and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify 
 and confirm the said constitution. Done at Do- 
 ver, December 7. 1787. 
 
 2. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of'the common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania, in general convention 
 assembled, do in the name and by the authority 
 of the said people, assent to, and ratify the fore- 
 
 g oing constitution of the united states of America, 
 •one in convention at Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 1787. 
 
 3. STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 
 
 In convention of the state of New Jersey, we, 
 the delegates of the state, * * do hereby, for, and 
 oh the behalf of the people of the said state of 
 New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the 
 proposed constitution. Done December 18, 1787. 
 
 beyond the time limited by the constitution 
 
 4. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 
 
 In the name of the people of the state of Con- 
 necticut, we, the delegates of the people of the 
 said state, in general convention assembled, have 
 assented to and ratified, and by these preseDls do 
 assent to aDd ratify the said constitution. Done 
 January 9, 1788. 
 
 5. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The convention * * do in the name aDd in be- 
 half of the people of the commonwealth of Massa- 
 chusetts, assent to and ratify the said constitu- 
 tion for the united states of America. Done Feb. 
 5, 1788. 
 
 6. STATE OF GEORGIA. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of the state of 
 Georgia, in convention met, * * do assent to, 
 ratify and adopt the said constitution. Done 
 January 2, 1788. 
 
 7. MARYLAND. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of the state o i 
 Maryland do * * assent to and ratify the said 
 constitution. Done April 28, 1788. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 11 
 
 8. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 The convention * * do, in the name and behalf 
 
 of tbe people of this state hereby assent to and 
 ratify the said constitution. Done May 23, 1783. 
 
 9. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 The convention * * do, in the name and behalf 
 of the people of iheBtateof New Hampshire, assent 
 and batitt the said constitution. Done June 21, 
 1788. 
 
 10. VIRGINIA. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of Virginia, * * 
 now met in convention, * * do by these presents 
 assent to and ratify the constitution recom- 
 mended, hereby announcing that It is binding 
 Upon the 6aid people. Done June 28, 788. 
 
 U. STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of the state of 
 New York, duly elected and met in convention, 
 * * do, by these presents, assent to and kaiify 
 the said constitution. Done at Poughkeepsie, 
 July 26. 1788. 
 
 12. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 In convention, resolved that the convention. 
 In behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhab- 
 itants of the state of North Carolina, do adopt 
 and ratify the said constitution. Done Novem- 
 ber 21, 1789. 
 
 13. RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 We the delegates of the people of the state, * * 
 met in convention. * * do, by these presents, as- 
 sent to and ratify the said constitution- 
 
 Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 PROPOSED BY CONGRESS AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE 
 SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL 
 
 CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Amendments of 1791. 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro- 
 hibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the 
 press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
 government for a redress of grievances. 
 
 ARTICLE n. 
 
 A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the 
 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
 
 ARTICLE in. 
 
 No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the 
 consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by 
 law, 
 
 ARTICLE IV 
 
 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
 effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
 no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affir- 
 mation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons 
 or things to be seized. 
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, 
 unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising 
 in the land or uaval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of 
 war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to 
 be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal 
 case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property 
 without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use 
 without just compensation. 
 
 ARTICLE VL 
 
 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy 
 and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the 
 crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously as- 
 certained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; 
 
12 
 
 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process 
 for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for 
 his defence. 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 It suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty 
 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury 
 shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the united states, than accord- 
 ing to the rules of the common law. 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel 
 and unusual punishments inflicted. 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed 
 to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor pro- 
 hibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
 people. 
 
 Amendment of 1798. 
 
 ARTICLE XI. 
 
 The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to 
 1 any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united 
 states by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign 
 state. 
 
 Amendment of 1804. 
 
 ARTICLE XII. 
 
 1. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for 
 president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant 
 of the same state with themselves ; they shall name in their ballots the person 
 voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice- 
 president, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, 
 and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes 
 for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the 
 seat of the government of the united states, directed to the president of 
 the senate. The president of the senate shall, in presence of the senate 
 and house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then 
 be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for president 
 shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
 electors appointed ; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons 
 having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as 
 president, the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the 
 president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, 
 the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for tins purpose 
 shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a 
 majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And If the house of 
 representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall 
 devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the 
 vice-president »hall act as president, as in the case of the death or other consti- 
 tutional disability of the president. 
 
 2. The person having the greatest number of votes as vice-president shall be 
 the vice-president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of 
 electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then from the two 
 highest numbers on the list the senate shall choose the vice-president; a 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 13 
 
 quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of 
 senators, and majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. 
 
 3. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be 
 eligible to that of vice-president of the united states. 
 
 Amendment of 1865. 
 
 ARTICLE XIII. 
 
 Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punish- 
 ment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist 
 within the united states, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
 
 Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro- 
 priate legislation. 
 
 Amendment of 1868. 
 
 ARTICLE XIY. 
 
 Section 1. All persons born or naturalised in the united states, and subject 
 to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united stales, and of the state 
 wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall 
 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states ; nor shall 
 any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of 
 law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its 
 laws. 
 
 Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states 
 according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons 
 in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any 
 election, for the choice of electors for president and vice-president of the 
 united states, representatives in congress, the executive and judicial officers of 
 a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male 
 inhabitants of such state, being twenty -one years of age and citizens of the 
 uuited slates, or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or 
 other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the propor- 
 tion which the number of such male citizens shall be to the whole number of 
 male citizens, twenty-one years of age, in such state. 
 
 Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in congress, or 
 elector of president or vice-president, or hold any office, civil or military, under 
 the united states, or any state, who, having previously taken an oath as a 
 member of congress, or 's an officer of the united states, or as a member of any 
 state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support 
 the constitution of the uuited states, shall have engaged in insurrection or 
 rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But 
 congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability. 
 
 Section A The validity of the public debt of the united states, authorised by 
 law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services 
 in suppressing insurrection and rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither 
 the united states nor any state, shall assume or pay any debt or obligation 
 incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the united states, or any 
 claim for the loss or emancipation of any slaves; but all such debts, obligations 
 and claims shall be held illegal and void. 
 
 Section 5. The congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legisla- 
 tion, the provisions of this article. 
 
 Amendment of 1870. 
 
 ARTICLE XY. 
 
 Section 1. The right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be 
 denied or abridged by the united states, or by any state, on account of race, 
 color, or previous condition of servitude. 
 
 Section 2. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro- 
 priate legislation. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 * V. - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • •• 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i . ' 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX a 
 
 FEDERATION ALWAYS INTENDED. 
 
 The object of the proofs in this part of the Appendix, is to show that from 
 the beginning to the end of the great movement that gave us our present consti- 
 tution, the states and the fathers always kept in mind, and acted by, the idea and 
 theory of federation. The simplest man with these evidences at hand, can crush 
 the consolidationists. 
 
 THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION. 
 
 The first evidence to present is the report of that body, which, as only five 
 states were present, forebore to deliberate on the purposes of their convention, but 
 recommended that a convention of commissioners of states should be held at 
 Philadelphia, in May, 1787, “to devise such further provisions as shall 
 * * render the constitution OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT adequate to 
 
 the exigencies of the union.” [I Ell. Deb. 116]. 
 
 The proposition of the General Assembly of Virginia, that led to the Annapo- 
 lis convention, is in I Elliott’s Debates, p. 115. 
 
 THE CONGRESS OF STATES. 
 
 This body on February 21st, 1787, resolved unanimously, that it was expedient 
 that the states hold a convention of their delegates, “ for the sole and express 
 PURPOSE OF REVISING the articles of Confederation” to “ render THE FEDERAL 
 CONSTITUTION adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the 
 union." [Ibid 120]. 
 
 Copious extracts from the above report and resolution will be found in this 
 Appendix C, [No. 3]. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Sxtraeis from the Credentials of Members of the federal Convention of iy8j. 
 
 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
 
 A.. V. 17S7. 
 
 An act for appointing Deputies from this State to the convention proposed to he held in 
 the City of Philadelphia , in Mag, 1787 , for the Purpose of revising the federal 
 constitution. 
 
 Whereas, in the formation of the federal compact, which frames the bond of 
 union of the American States, it was not possible in the infant State of our 
 republic, to devise a system which, in the course of time and experience, would 
 not manifest imperfections that it would be necessary to reform ; 
 
 And whereas, the limited powers, which, by the articles of Confederal ion, are 
 vested in the Congress of the United States have been found far inadequate to 
 the enlarged purposes which they were intended to produce ; and whereas Con- 
 gress hath, by repeated and most urgent representations, endeavored to awaken this 
 and other States to a sense, etc., etc. 
 
2 
 
 FEDERATION ALWAYS INTENDED. 
 
 Be it therefore enacted , by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court 
 convened , that, John Longdon, John Pickering, Nicholas Gilman and Benjamin 
 West, Esqrs., be, and hereby are, appointed commissioners : they or any two of 
 them, are hereby authorized and empowered, as deputies from this State, to meet 
 at Philadelphia, said convention, or any other place to which the convention 
 may be adjourned, for the purposes aforesaid, there to confer with such deputies 
 as are, or may be, appointed by the other States, for similar purposes, and with 
 them to discuss and decide upon most effectual means to remedy the defects of our 
 federal Union , and to procure and secure the enlarged purposes which it was 
 intended to effect, and to report such an act to the United States in Congress, as 
 when agreed by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually 
 provide lor the same. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OFT MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Bv his Excellency James Eowdoin, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of 
 IL-S.] Massachusetts. 
 
 To the honorable Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus 
 King, and Caleb Strong, Esqrs., Greeting : 
 
 Whereas, Congress did, on the 21st day of February, A. D. 1787, resolve, 
 "That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday in 
 May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the sev- 
 eral States, beheld at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the 
 articles of Confederation , and reporting to Congress and the several legislature* 
 such alterations therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the 
 States, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the 
 preservation of the Union;” And, whereas, the Gen. Court have constituted and 
 appointed you their delegates, to attend and represent this commonwealth in the 
 said proposed convention, and have, by a resolution of theirs of the 10th of 
 March last, requested me to commission you for that purpose . 
 
 Now, therefore, know ye That in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do 
 by these presents, commission you, the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, Natha- 
 niel Gorham, Rufus King, and Caleb Strong, Esqrs., or any three of you, to meet 
 such delegates as may be appointed by the other, or any of the other States in 
 the union, to meet in convention at Philadelphia, at the time and for the purposes 
 aforesaid. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have caused the public seal of the commonwealth 
 aforesaid to be hereunto affixed. 
 
 Given at the Council Chamber in Boston, the 9th day of April, A. D. 1787. 
 
 James Bowdoin. 
 
 STATE OB’ CONNECTICUT, 
 
 9 
 
 At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, in America, holden at Hart- 
 [l. s.] ford, on the second Thursday of May, 1787. 
 
 An act for appointing Delegates to meet in Convention of the States, to be held 
 in Philadelphia, on the second Monday of May, instant. 
 
 Whereas, the Congress of the United States, by their act of the 21st of February, 
 1787, have recommended that, on the second Monday of May inst., a Convention 
 of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several states, be held at 
 Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confedera- 
 tion , — 
 
 Be it enacted by the Governor, council, and representatives, in General Court 
 assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the Hon. William Samuel 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. I. 
 
 i* 
 
 Johnson, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth, Esqrs., be, and they are, hereby, 
 appointed delegates to attend said Convention, * * * To represent this state 
 therein, and to confer with such delegates appointed by the several states, for the 
 purposes mentioned in the said act of Congress, that may be present and duly 
 empowered to sit in said convention, and to discuss upon such alter aliens and previ- 
 sions, agreeably to the general principles of republican government , as they shall think 
 proper to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the 
 preservation of the Union, and they further directed, pursuant to the said act of 
 Congress, to report such alterations and provisions as may be agreed to by a 
 majority of the United States represented in convention, to the Congress of the 
 United States, and to the General Assembly of this stale. 
 
 A true copy of record. Geokge Willy.®, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 STATE OE NEW YORK. 
 
 In Assembly March 6, 1788. 
 
 Resolved, that the Hon. Robert Yates, John Lansing, Jun., and Alexander 
 Hamilton, Esqrs., be, and they are, hereby declared duly nominated and appointed 
 delegates, on the part of this state, to meet such delegates as may be appointed 
 on the part of the other states, respectively, on the second Monday in May next, 
 at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confeder- 
 ation, and reporting to Congress, and to the several legislatures, such alterations 
 and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the several 
 states , render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the 
 preservation of the Union. 
 
 True extracts from the Journals of the Assembly. 
 
 John M’Kesson, 
 Clerk. 
 
 STATE OB 1 KEW JERSEY. 
 
 His excellency William Livingston commissions David Brearly, William C. 
 Houston, William Patterson, Jonathan Dayton, and others “ to meet such com- 
 missioners as have been or may be appointed by the other states in the Union” 
 at Philadelphia, 2nd May, 1787, to — among other things — “ devise such other 
 provisions as shall appear to be necessary to render the constitution of the fede.n/1 
 government adequate te the exigencies thereof. ” Each commission concludes thus : 
 “ In testimony whereof the great seal of the state is hereunto affixed. Witness 
 William Livingston, Esq., Governor * * * and commander in chief in ami 
 
 over the State and territories thereunto belonging * * * at Trenton the 23d 
 of November A. D. 1786, and of our sovereignty and independence the eleventh. 
 
 William Livingston. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OE PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 An Act appointing deputies to the Convention to be held in the city of Philadel- 
 phia, for the purpose of revising the federal constitution. 
 
 Section 1. Whereas, the General Assembly of this commonwealth, taking 
 into their hands serious consideration of the representations heretofore made to the 
 legislatures of the several states in the union, bv the United States in Congress 
 assembled, and also weighing the difficulties under which the confederated spates 
 
4 
 
 FEDERATION ALWAYS INTENDED 
 
 now Libor, are fully convinced of the necessity of revising the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, for the purpose of making such alterations and amendments as the exigencies 
 of our public affairs require : And whereas the legislature of the S' ate of Vir- 
 ginia have already passed an act of that commonwealth, empowering certain' 
 commissioners to meet at the city of Philadelphia, in May next, a convention of 
 commissioners or deputies from the different states ; and the legislature of this 
 state are fully sensible of the important advantages which may be derived to the 
 United States, and every of them, from co-operating with the commonwealth of 
 Virginia and the other states of the confederation, in the said design. 
 
 Sec. 2. Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted, bv the representatives of the 
 freemen of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Assembly met, and 
 by the authority of the same, That Thomas Maftlin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, 
 Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimons, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, 
 Esqs., are hereby appointed deputies from this state, to meet in the convention of 
 the deputies of the respective states of North America, to be held at the city of 
 Philadelphia, on the 2d day in the month of May next; and the said Thomas 
 Mafflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimons, 
 James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, ENqs., or any four of them, are hereby 
 constituted and appointed deputies from this state, with powers to meet such 
 deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other states, to assemble in 
 the said convention, at the city aforesaid and join with them in devising, delibe- 
 rating on, and discussing, all such alterations and further provisions as may be 
 necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the union , 
 and in reporting such act or acts, for that purpose, to the united states in congress 
 assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, 
 will effectually provide for the same. 
 
 Enacted into a law at Philadelphia, on Saturday, Dec. 30, in the year of our 
 Lord 1786. 
 
 Pete Zachary Lloyd, 
 
 Clerk of the General Assembly. 
 
 Benjamin Franklin was afterwards added to the deputation. 
 
 DELAWARE STATE, 
 
 In the eleventh year of the independence of the state of Delaware. 
 
 An act appointing deputies from this state to the Convention proposed to be held 
 in the City of Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution. 
 Whereas the General Assembly of this state are fully convinced of the necessity 
 of revising the Federal Constitution , and adding thereto such provisions as may render 
 the same more adequate to the exigencies of the Union ; And whereas the legislature 
 of Virginia have already passed an act of that commonwealth, appointing and 
 authorizing certain commissioners to meet, at the city of Philadelphia, in May 
 next, a convention of commissioners or deputies from the different states ; and this 
 states being willing and desirous of co-operating with the commonwealth of 
 Virginia, and the other states of the confederation, in so useful a decision : 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of Delaware, that George 
 Reed, Gunning Bedford, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom, 
 Esqrs., are hereby appointed deputies from this state to meet in the convention 
 deputies of other states, * * * and to join with them in devising, deliberating 
 
 on, and discussing, such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to 
 render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union ; and in 
 reporting such act or acts, for that purpose, to the United States in Congress 
 assembled, as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several states, 
 may effectually provide for the same. * * * 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my netne, and caused the 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. I. 
 
 5 
 
 great seal of the said state to be affixed to these presents, at New Castle, the 2d 
 day of April, in the year of our Lord 1787, and in the 11th year of the Indepen- 
 dence of the United States of America. 
 
 Attest, James Booth, 
 
 • Secretary. Thomas Collins, 
 
 President. 
 
 STATE OF MARYLAND. 
 
 An act for the appointment of, and conferring powers on, deputies from this state 
 to the Federal Convention. 
 
 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Hon. James 
 M’Henry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Francis Mercer, 
 and Luther Martin, Esqrs., be appointed and authorized, on behalf of this state, 
 to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized, by any other of the 
 united States, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, for the purpose of revis- 
 ing the federal system, and to join with them in considering such alterations and 
 further provisions as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the 
 exigencies of the Union ; and in reporting such purpose to the united states in 
 Congress assembled as when agreed to by them and duly confirmed by the several 
 states will effectually provide for the same, etc. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 'General Assembly held in the city of Richmond, 16th Oct., A. D. 1786. 
 
 An act for appointing deputies from the commonwealth to a convention proposed 
 to be held in the city of Philadelphia, in May next, for the puipose of revis- 
 ing the federal constitution. 
 
 "Whereas, etc., etc. * * * 
 
 Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the commonwealth of Vir- 
 ginia, That even commissioners be appointed, by joint bollot of both houses of 
 Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorized, as deputies from 
 this commonwealth, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized 
 by other states, to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia, as above recommended, 
 and to join them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provi- , 
 sions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of 
 the Union ; and in reporting such an act, for that purpose, to the United States in 
 Congress, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, 
 will effectually provide for the same. 
 
 Under the above act George Washington, Patrick Henry, Edmund Bandolph, 
 John Blair, James Madison, George Mason, and Geo. Wythe, were elected as the 
 deputies of Virginia. Patrick Henry declining, James McClurg, was under the 
 law, appointed by Gov. Bandolph to fill the place. 
 
 THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN -A.. 
 
 To the Hon. Alexander Martin, Esq., Greeting : 
 
 Whereas our General Assembly, in their late session, holden at Fayetteville, 
 by adjournment, in the month of January last, did, by joint ballot of the Senate 
 
6 
 
 FEDERATION ALWAYS INTENDED. 
 
 and House of Commons, elect Richard Caswell, Alexander Martin, William 
 Richardson Davie, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and Willie Jones, Esqrs., deputies to 
 attend a Convention of Delegates from the several United States of America, pro- 
 posed to be held at the city of Philadelphia, in May next, for the purpose of revis- 
 ing the Federal Constitution. 
 
 We do, therefore, by these presents, nominate, commission, and appoint you, 
 the said Alexander Martin, one of the deputies for and in behalf, to meet with 
 our other deputies at Philadelphia, on the 1st of May next, and with them, or 
 any two of them, to confer with such deputies as may have been, or shall be, 
 appointed by the other states, for the purpose aforesaid: To hold, exercise, and 
 enjoy, the appointment aforesaid, with all powers, authorities, and emoluments, 
 to the same belonging, or in any wise appertaining — you conforming in every 
 instance , to the act of our said Assembly, under which you are appointed. 
 
 W itness, Richard Caswell, Esq., our governor, captain-general, and commander- 
 in-chief, under his hand and our seal, at Kinston, the 24th day of February, in 
 the eleventh year of our independence, A. D. 1787. Rich. Caswell, By his 
 excellency’s command. — Winston Caswell, P. Secretary. 
 
 The deputies elected and commissioned as above, were Richard Caswell, Alex- 
 ander Martin, William R. Davie, Richard D. Spaight, Willie Jones, William 
 Blount and Hugh Williamson. 
 
 The act of assembly declares that the said deputies are “ to meet and confer with 
 such deputies as may be appointed by the other sta es for similar purposes, and 
 with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects 
 of our federal union, and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect 
 and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this state as, when 
 agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the same. 
 
 STATE OF SOUTH; CAROLINA. 
 
 By his excellency, Thomas Pinckney, Esq., governor and commander-in-chief 
 in and over the states aforesaid. 
 
 To the Hon. John Rutledge, Esq., Greeting: 
 
 By virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the legislature of this 
 state, in their act passed the 8th day of March last, I do hereby commission you, 
 the said John Rutledge, as one of the deputies appointed from this state, to meet 
 such deputies or commissioners as may be appointed and authorized by other of 
 the United States to assemble in Convention, at the city of Philadelphia, in the 
 month of May next, or as soon thereafter as may be, and to join with such depu- 
 ties or commissioners (they being duly authorized and empowered) in devising and 
 discussing all such alterations , clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought 
 necessary to render the Federal Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and 
 future good government of the confederated states ; and that you, together with the 
 said deputies or commissioners, or a majority of them, who shall be present (pro- 
 vided the state be not represented by less than two), do join in reporting such an 
 act to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when approved and agreed to 
 by them, and duly ratified and confirmed by the several states, will effectually pro- 
 vide for the exigencies of the Union. 
 
 Given under my hand and the great seal of the state, in the city of Charleston, 
 this 10th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1787, and of the sovereignty and 
 independence of the United States of America the eleventh. 
 
 Thomas Pinckney. 
 
 By his excellency’s command, — Peter Freneau, Secretary. 
 
 Charles Pinckney Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Pierce Butler were like- 
 wise appointed and commissioned in the same manner. 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. I. 
 
 7 
 
 STATE OF GEORGIA. 
 
 An Ordinance for the Appointment of Deputies from this state, for the Purpose 
 of revising the Federal Constitution. — 
 
 Be it ordained by the representatives of the freemen of the state of Georgia, in 
 General Assembly met, and by authority of the same, that William Few, Abraham 
 Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, William Houston, and Nathaniel 
 Pendleton, Esqrs., be, and they are hereby, appointed commissioners, who, or any 
 two or more of them, are hereby authorized, as deputies from this state, to meet 
 such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other states, to assemble in 
 Convention at Philadelphia, and to join with them in devising and discussing all 
 such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Consti- 
 tution adequate to the exigencies of the Union , and in reporting such an act for that 
 purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, 
 and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same. 
 
 The commissions issued to like deputies were copies of the following to William 
 Few. 
 
 The State of Georgia, by the grace of God, free } sovereign , and independent. 
 
 To the Hon. Wm. Few, Esq: 
 
 Whereas you the said William Few, are, in and by an ordinance of the General 
 Assembly of our said state, nominated and appointed a deputy to represent the 
 same in a Convention of the United States, to be assembled at Philadelphia, for 
 the purposes of devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions 
 as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the 
 Union . — 
 
 You are therefore hereby commissioned to proceed on the duties required of 
 you in virtue of the said ordinance. 
 
 Witness our trusty and well-beloved George Mathews, Esq. our captain-general, 
 governor, and commander-in-chief, under his hand and our great seal, this 17th 
 day of April, in the year of our Lord 1787, and our sovereignty and independence 
 the eleventh. Geo. Mathews. 
 
 By his honor’s command. — J. Milton, Secretary. 
 

 J- , . . 
 
 ' 
 
 1 
 
 . 
 
 ' ' ' ■ 
 
 \ 
 
 r. 
 
 , 
 
 v ■ .'■■■.> /. .. 
 
 . • 
 
 • ' - •• ■ . 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■■ • ' 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ! 
 
 .f 
 
 ' ■ ’ -y j . 
 
 . 
 
 • ‘'v 
 
 . •/. ‘ ■ 
 
 . 
 
 ' 
 
 . • • 
 
APPENDIX C— ISTo. 2 
 
 THE ACTS OR ORDINANCES OF RATIFICATION OF THE iTEftERAL 
 
 CONSTITUTION. 
 
 On Friday, September 28th 1787, the states in Congress having received the plan 
 of the constitution with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same — all as 
 reported by the convention — did resolve that they “ be transmitted to the several 
 legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each 
 state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the convention made 
 and provided in that case” [for this and the following acts, see I Ell. Deb. 319 et 
 
 seqO 
 
 Whereupon each state by itself, in its own time, way, and place, and in its own 
 convention, which was composed of its own subjects and delegates, and was 
 authorized exclusively with its power; deliberated upon and finally ratified the 
 said constitution in the following order and in the following words respectively — 
 history giving no sign or hint of any other words, or will, than those of the 
 following states, to vitalise or give legal force to, the present federal system. 
 
 1. DELAWARE STATE, 
 
 We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware stale , in Convention met, having 
 taken in our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon 
 by the deputies of the United States, in a General Convention held at the city of 
 Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, 
 and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us 
 given , for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully , freely, and entirely 
 approve of, assent to, RATIFY, AND CONFIRM, the said Constitution. 
 
 Done in Convention, at Dover, this seventh day of December, in the year afore- 
 said, and in the year of the independence of the United States of America the 
 twelfth. 
 
 S. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA : 
 
 Be it known unto all men, that we, the delegates of the people of the commonwealth 
 of Pennsylvania, in General Convention assembled, have assented to and ratified, 
 and by these present do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for 
 ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing Constitution of the United States of 
 America. 
 
 Done in Convention at Philadelphia, the twelfth day of December, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the 
 independence of the United States of America the twelfth. 
 
2 
 
 RATIFICATIONS. 
 
 3. state: of new jersey. 
 
 IN CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY : 
 
 Whereas a Convention of delegates from the following states, viz.,-— New 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, — 
 met at Philadelphia, for the purpose of deliberating on, and forming, a Constitu- 
 tion for the United States of America, — finished this session on the 17th day of 
 September last, and reported to Congress the form which they had agreed upon, 
 in the words following, viz: 
 
 [See the Constitution.] * * * * * 
 
 Now be it known, that we, the delegates of the stale of New Jersey , chos n by the 
 people thereof, for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and consid- 
 ered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on the behalf of the people 
 of the said State of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and CONFIRM, the same, and 
 every part thereof. 
 
 Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 
 18th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1787, and of the independence of 
 the United States of America the twelfth. 
 
 <t. STATE OE CONNECTICUT. 
 
 IN TIIE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: 
 
 We, the delegates of the people of said stale, in general Convention assembled, pursu- 
 ant to an act of the legislature in October last, have assented to, and ratified, and by 
 these presents do assent to [and ratify the constitution framed by the convention of 
 states], on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, for the United States of America. 
 
 Done in Convention, this 9th day of January, A. D. 1783. 
 
 5. COMMONWEALTH OE MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The Convention having impartially discussed, and fully considered, the Consti- 
 tution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention 
 of Delegates from the United States of America, and "submitted to us by a resolu- 
 tion of the General Court of the said commonwealth, passed the 25th day of 
 October last past, — and acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the 
 Supreme Ruler of the universe in affording the people of the United States, in 
 the course of his providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without 
 fraud or surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each 
 other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more 
 perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
 mon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
 themselves and their posterity, — do, in the name ani in behalf of the people of the 
 commonwealth of Massachusetts , assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United 
 States of America. 
 
 6. STATE OE GEORGIA. 
 
 Whereas the form of a Constitution for the government of the United States ol 
 America, was, on the 17th day of September, 1787, agreed upon and reported to 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. II. 
 
 3 
 
 Congress by the deputies of the said United States convened in Philadelphia, 
 wluch said Constitution is written in the words following, to-wit : [see the consti- 
 tution] * * * 
 
 Now know ye, that we, the delegates of the people of the state of Georgia , in Con- 
 vention met , pursuant to the resolutions of the legislature aforesaid, having taken 
 into our serious consideration the said Constitution, have assented to, ratified and 
 adopted, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us given by 
 the people of the said stale for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and con- 
 stituents, fully and entirely assent to, RATIFY AND ADOPT, the said Constitution. 
 
 Done in Co nvention, at Augus a, in the said state, on the 2d day of January, 
 in the year of our Lord, 1768, and of the independence of the United States the 
 twelfth. 
 
 V. MARYLAND. 
 
 We, the delegates of the people of the state of Maryland, having fully considered 
 the Constitution of the United States of America, reported to Congress by the 
 Convention of d legates from the United States of America, held at Philadelphia, 
 on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, of which the annexed is a copy, 
 and submitted to us by a resolution of the General Assembly of Maryland, in 
 November session, 1787, do, for ourselves, and in the name and on the behalf of the 
 people of this state, assent to and RATIFY the said Constitution. 
 
 S. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 In Convention of the people of the state of South Carolina, by their represen- 
 tatives, held in the city of Charleston, on Monday, the 12th day of May, and 
 continued by divers adjournments to Friday, the 23d day of May, Anno Domini, 
 1788, and in the 12th year of the independence of the United States of America. 
 
 The Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution, or form of gov- 
 ernment, reported to Congress by the Convention of delegates from the United 
 States of America, and submitted to them by a resolution of the legislature of the 
 state, passed the 17th and 18th days of February last, in order to form a more 
 perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
 mon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the b.essings of liberty to 
 the people of the said United States, and their posterity, — Do, in the name and 
 behalf of the people of this state, hereby assent to and ratify the said Constitution. 
 
 Done in Convention, the 23d day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1788, and 
 of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. 
 
 O. STATE OE USTEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitu- 
 tion for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of 
 Delegates from the United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolution 
 of the General Court of said state, passed the 14th day of December last past, 
 and acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of 
 the universe in affording the people of the United States, in the course of his 
 providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or surprise, 
 of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to 
 and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
 justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the 
 
4 
 
 RATIFICATIONS. 
 
 general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their pos- 
 terity.— /.to, in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New Hampshire: assent 
 to and RATIFY the said Constitution for the United States of America. 
 
 lO. VIRGINIA, 
 
 We, the delegates of the people of Virginia , duly elected in pursuance of a recom- 
 mendation from the General Assembly, and note met in Convention , having fully 
 and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, 
 and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation, hath enabled us, to 
 decide thereon, — Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia: declare 
 and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived 
 from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the 
 same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not 
 granted thereby remains with them, and at their will ; that, therefore, no right of 
 any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by the 
 Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by 
 the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those 
 instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ; and that 
 am«ng other essential rights, the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot 
 be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United 
 States. With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of all hearts 
 for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction that whatsoever imper- 
 fections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode 
 prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope 
 of obtaining amendments previous to the ratifications. 
 
 We, the said delegates , in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia , do, by 
 these presents, assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended, on the 17th day 
 of September, 1787, by the Federal Convention, for the government of the United 
 States, hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Consti- 
 tution is binding upon the said people, according to an authentic copy hereto 
 annexed, in the words following. [See the Constitution.] 
 
 Done in Convention, this 26th day of June, 1788. 
 
 11. STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in 
 Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of 
 America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Con- 
 vention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
 (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliber- 
 ately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make 
 known, — etc., etc. * * * 
 
 Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be 
 abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the 
 said Constitution and in confidence with the amendments which shall have been 
 proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, 
 — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of 
 New York , do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. 
 
 Done in Convention, at Poughkeepsie, in the county of Duchess, in the state of 
 New York, the 26th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1788. 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. II. 
 
 5 
 
 13. STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 IN CONVENTION. 
 
 Whereas the General Convention which met at Philadelphia, in pursuance of 
 a recommendation of Congress, did recommend to the citizens of the United 
 States a Constitution or form of government in the following words, namely, — 
 
 “We, the people,” etc. [Here follows the Constitution of the United States, 
 verbatim], 
 
 Resolved, That this Convention, in behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhabitant ? 
 of the state of North Carolina, do adopt and EATIFY the said Constitution and 
 form of government. 
 
 Done in Convention, this 21st day of November, 1789. 
 
 13. RHODE ISlAAATSrtD. 
 
 Ratification of the Constitution by the Convention of the state of Rhode Island, 
 and Providence Plantations. 
 
 We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Planta- 
 tions, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitu- 
 tion for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of Sep- 
 tember, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Con- 
 vention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsy .vania, 
 (a copy thereof precedes these presents), and having also seriously and deliber- 
 ately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known, 
 etc., etc. * * * 
 
 Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid, cannot be 
 abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the 
 said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned will 
 receive an early and mature consideration, and, conformably to the fifth article of 
 said Constitution speedily become a part .hereof, — We, the said delegates, in the 
 name and in the behalf of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plan- 
 tations, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. 
 
 Done in Convention, at Newport, in the county of Newport, in the state of 
 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the twenty-ninth day of May, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and in the fourteenth 
 year of the independence of the United States of America. 
 

APPENDIX C-No. 3 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE 
 ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION, 1786. 
 
 That there are important defects in the system of the federal government is 
 acknowledged by the acts of all those states which have concurred in the present 
 meeting ; that the detects, upon a closer examination, may be found greater and 
 more numerous than even these acts imply, is at least so far probable, from the 
 embarrassments which characterize the present state of our national affairs, both 
 foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be supposed to merit a deliberate and 
 candid discussion, in some mode which will unite the sentiments and councils of all the 
 States. In the choice of the mode, your commissioners are of opinion that « 
 convention of deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of enter- 
 ing into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as mag be 
 discovered to exist, will be entitled to a preference, from considerations which will 
 oecur without being particularized. 
 
 ****** 
 
 Under this impression, your commissioners, with the most respectful deference, 
 beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it may essentially tend to 
 advance the interests of the Union, if the States, by whom they have been respec- 
 tively delegated, woidd themselves concur , and use their endeavors to procure the con- 
 currence of the other States, in the appointment of commissioners to meet in Philadelphia, 
 on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of 
 the Urgted States, to provide such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary 
 to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the 
 Union ; and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress 
 assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legisla- 
 tures of every State, will effectually provide for the same. 
 
 ****** 
 
 Dated at Annapolis, September 14, 1786. 
 
 RESOLUTION 
 
 adopted in Congress, Wednesday, February 21st, 1787. 
 
 Resolved, That, in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the- second 
 Monday in May next, a convention of delegates , who shall have been appointed by the, 
 several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpos' of revising the 
 Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and 'the several legislatures 
 such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and 
 confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of 
 g overnment, and the preservation of the Union. [I Ell. Deb. 120]. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM MR. RANDOLPH’S RESOLUTIONS, 
 
 offered in the convention of States, May 29th, 1787. 
 
 “ 11. Resolved, that a republican government * * ought to be guaranteed 
 by the united states to each state. 
 
2 
 
 THE INTENT OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 “12. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the continuance of Con- 
 gress * * until a given day after the reform of the articles of union shall 
 
 be adopted. * * 
 
 “ 13. Resolved, that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the 
 articles of the union whensoever it shall seem necessary 
 
 “ 14. Resolved, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within 
 the several States, ought to be bound by oath, to support the Articles of Union. 
 
 “ 15. Resolved, that the amendments which’shal! be offered to the Confederation 
 by the Convention, ought, at a proper time or times, after the approbation of 
 Congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recom- 
 mended by the several legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people, to con- 
 sider and decide thereon.” 
 
 The resolutions of Mr. Randolph were referred to Committee of the Whole, 
 on the same day. [V Ell. Deb. 128]. 
 
 THE SAME RESOLUTIONS 
 
 as altered, amended, and agreed to, in committee of the whole house, June 
 19, 1787. 
 
 “ 15. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the continuance of Con- 
 gress and their authorities, until a given day after the reform of the articles of 
 union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements. 
 
 “16. Resolved, That a republican constitution and its exisiting laws ought to 
 be guaranteed to each State by the United States. 
 
 “ 17. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the amendment of the 
 articles of union whensoever it shall seem necessary. 
 
 “ 18. Resolved, That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within 
 the several States, ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of union. 
 
 “ 19. Resolved, That the amendments which shall be oflerred to the Confed- 
 eration by the Convention, ought, at a proper time or times after the approbation 
 of Congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, 
 recommended by the several legislatures to be expressly chosen by the people to 
 consider and decide thereon.” [V Ell. Deb. 189, 211.] 
 
 THE SAME RESOLUTIONS 
 
 were thereafter taken up and fully and finally deliberated upon by TnE conven- 
 tion itself for more than a month ; and they then appear, as follows, in a series of 
 twentythree, unanimously referred to the committee on detail ; who, on August 
 6 — the convention having adjourned meanwhile, to await the committee’s action 
 — reported them back in the shape of the present constitution, which was subsequently 
 amended only in style and polish by the committee on revision and style — the chair- 
 man o£ which was Gouverneur Morris. No principle or idea was varied that 
 has any reference to this great question — whether the States were nationalised or 
 federahsed ? 
 
 “ XVIII. Resolved, That a republican form of government shall be guaranteed to 
 cash Slate ; and that each State shall be protected against foreign and domestic 
 ■violence. 
 
 “XIX. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for amendment of the 
 articles of union whensoever it shall seem necessary. 
 
 “XX. Resolved, That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers within 
 the several States, and of the national government, ought to be bound by oath to 
 support the articles of union. 
 
 “ XXL Resolved, That the amendments which shall be offered to the Confederation 
 by the Convention ought, at a proper time or times after the approbation of Con- 
 gress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recom- 
 mended by the several legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people, to 
 consider and decide thereon.” [V Ell. Deb. 375.] 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. III. 
 
 3 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FEDERAL CONVEN- 
 TION MAY 30, 1787, 
 
 showing that the Convention were determined not to depart from the federal idea. 
 [See Madison’s Journal V Ell. Deb. 132.] 
 
 Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, took his seat. The house went into Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Mr. Gorham was elected to the 
 chair by ballot. 
 
 The propositions of Mr. Randolph, which had been referred to the Committee, 
 being taken up, he moved on the suggestion of Mr. G. Morris, that the first of his 
 propositions, to wit: “Resolved that the Articles of Confederation ought to be so 
 corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, 
 namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare” — mutually be 
 postponed, in order to consider the three following: — - 
 
 “ 1. That a union of States merely federal will not accomplish the objects 
 proposed by the Articles of Confederation — namely, common defence, security of 
 liberty, and general welfare. 
 
 “ 2. That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as indi- 
 vidual sovereignties, would be sufficient. 
 
 “ 3. That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme 
 legislative, executive and judiciary.” 
 
 The motion for postponing was seconded by Mr. G. Morris, and unanimously 
 agreed to. Some verbal criticisms were raised against the first proposition, and 
 it was agreed, on motion of Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Randolph, to pass on to 
 the thiru, which underwent a discussion, less, however on its general merits than 
 on the force and extent of the particular terms national and supreme. 
 
 ****** 
 
 On the question, as moved by Mr. Eutler, on the third proposition, it was 
 resolved in Committee of the Whole, “that a national government ought to be 
 established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive and judiciary.” Massa- 
 chusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay, 
 6; Connecticut, no, 1; New York, divided, [Colonel Hamilton, ay, Mr. Yates, 
 no.] 
 
 YATES’ VERSION 
 
 of what occurred on said May 30th, 1787, is as follows: [See “ Yates’ Minutes,” 
 I Ell. Deb. 391]. 
 
 Wednesday, May 30, 1787. 
 
 Convention met pursuant to adjournment. The Convention, pursuant to order, 
 resolved itself into a committee of the whole. Mr. Gorham, [a member irons 
 Massachuse:ts], appointed chairman. 
 
 Mr. Randolph then moved his first resolve, to-wit: — - 
 
 “Resolved, That the Articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected and 
 enlarge 1, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, [namely, com- 
 mon defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.” 
 
 Mr. G. Morris observed, that it was an unnecessary resolution, as the subse- 
 quent resolutions would not agree with it. It was then withdrawn by the pro- 
 poser, and, in lieu thereof, the following were proposed, to-wit: 
 
 “1. .Resolved, That a union of States, merely federal, will not’accomplish the 
 objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely, common defence, 
 security of liberty, and general welfare. 
 
 “2. Rf solved, That no treaty or treaties among any of the States," as sover- 
 eign, will accomplish or secure their common defence, security of liberty, and 
 general welfare. 
 
 “ 3. Resolved, That a national government ought to be established, consist- 
 ing of a supreme judicial, legislative and executive. 
 
 In considering the question on the 1st resolve, various modifications were pro- 
 
4 
 
 THE INTENT OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 posed, when Mr. Pinckney observed, at last, that, if the Convention agreed to it, 
 ii appeared to him that their business was at an end ; for, as the powers of the 
 house in general were to revise the present Confederation, and to alter or amend, as 
 the case might require, to determine its insufficiency, or incapability of amend- 
 ment, or improvement, must end in the dissolution of the powers. 
 
 This remark had its weight ; and in consequence of it, the 1st and 2d resolves 
 were dropped, and the question agitated on the 3d. 
 
 This last resolve had also its difficulties : the term supreme required explana- 
 tion. It was asked whether it was intended to annihilate State governments. 
 It was answered, only so far as the powers intended to be granted to the new 
 government should clash with the States, when the latter were to yield. 
 
 For the resolution: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 'Virginia, North 
 Carolina, South Carolina. Against it Connecticut; New York, divided; Jersey 
 and other states unrepresented.” 
 
 THE NATIONAL IDEA REPROBATED BY THE CONVENTION. 
 
 By the 19th of June, the Committee of the whole convention had discussed 
 and agreed on the 23 resolutions to be found in V Elliott’s Debates 189 — the first 
 of them being as follows : 
 
 “ Resolved that in the opinion of this committee a national government ought 
 to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary.” 
 
 This brought the convention face to face with the national idea as a matter not 
 merely descriptive or of common parlance, but legal, technical, and institutional. 
 
 Whereupon followed the remarkable elimination by the convention, on 
 motion of Mr. Ellsworth, by striking out “national” from all the resolutions, 
 and substituting the “ federal ” idea and phrase — “ the united states ” In 
 those resolutions this change was made 26 times. The following extract from 
 Madison’s Journal is decisive. [Ibid 214.] 
 
 “ The first resolution of the report of the Committee of the Whole being before 
 the House. 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth, seconded by Mr. Gorham, moves to alter it, so as to run “ that 
 the Government of the United States ought to consist of a supreme legislative, 
 executive, and judiciary.” This alteration be said would drop the word national , 
 and retain the proper title “ the United States.” He could not admit the doctrine 
 that a breach of any of the Federal Articles could dissolve the whole. It would 
 be highly dansrerous not to consider the Confederation as still subsisting. He 
 wished, also, the plan of the Convention to go forth as an amendment of the 
 Articles of the Confederation, since, under this idea, the authority of the legisla- 
 tures could ratify it. If they are unwilling, the people will be so too. If the 
 plan goes forth to the people for ratification, several succeeding conventions within 
 the slates would be unavoidable. He did not like these conventions. They were 
 better fitted to pwU down than to build up constitutions. 
 
 Mr. Randolph did not object to the change of expression, but apprised the 
 gentleman who wished for it, that he did not admit it for the reasons assigned ; 
 particularly that of getting rid of a reference to the people for ratification. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Ellsworth was acquiesced in, nem. con. 
 
 The second resolution, ‘ That the national legislature ought to consist of two 
 branches;’ being taken up, the word ‘national’ struck out, as of course.”' 
 
 THE LAST VAIN EFFORT TOWARDS NATIONALISATION. 
 
 Several attempts, mentioned in Part III Chapter VII, were made in the Conven- 
 tion, to give the general government legislative control over the laws of the; states. 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. III. 
 
 5 
 
 All of them failed. The last on August 23, 1787, is peculiarly instructive and 
 appears as follows in Madison’s Journal. [V Ell. Deb. 467 et seq.] 
 
 “On the question, then to agree to the 18th c.ause of Article VII section 1 [of 
 the Constitution as it was then formed. See Ibid 376. J as amended, it passed in 
 the affirmative nem. con. 
 
 Mr. Charles Pinckney moved to add, as an additional power to be vested in the 
 legislature of the United States, — ‘ to negative all laws passed by the several 
 states, interfering, in the opinion of the legislature, with the general interests and 
 harmony of the Union, provided that two thirds of the members of each House 
 assent to the same.’ 
 
 This principle, he observed, had formerly been agreed to. He considered the 
 precaution as essentially necessary. The objection drawn from the predominance 
 of the large states had been removed by the equality established in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. Broom seconded the proposition. 
 
 Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, the laws of the general government being 
 supreme and paramount to the state laws, according to the plan as it now stands. 
 
 Mr. Madison proposed that it should be committed. He had been, from the 
 beginning, a friend to the principle, but thought the modification might be made 
 better. 
 
 Mr. Mason wished to know how the power was to be exercised. Are all laws 
 whatever to be brought up ? Is no road nor bridge to be established without the 
 sanction of the general legislature ? Is this to sit constantly, in order to receive 
 and revise the state laws? He did not mean, by these remarks, to condemn the 
 expedient, but he was apprehensive that great objections would lie against it. 
 
 Mr. Williamson thought it unnecessary and, hav.ng been already decided, a 
 revival of the question was a waste of time. 
 
 Mr. Wi'son considered this as the key-stone wanted to complete the wide arch 
 of government we are raising. The power of self-defence had been u g d as 
 neces-arv forth.: state government. It was equally necas-ary for the general 
 government. The firmness of judges is not, of itself, sufficient. Something 
 further is requisite. It will be better to prevent the passage of an improper Jaw, 
 than to declare it void, when passed. 
 
 Mr. Rutledge. If nothing else, this alone would damn, and ought to damn, 
 the Constitution. Will any state ever agree to be bound hand and foot in this 
 manner? It is worse than making mere corporations of them, whose by-laws 
 would not be subject to this shackle. 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth observed, that the power con'ended for would require, either that 
 all laws of the state legislature should, previousl to their taking effect, be trans- 
 m tted to the general legislature, or be repealable by the lat'er ; or that t e stale 
 executives should be appointed by the general government, and have a control 
 over the state laws. If the last was meditated, let it be declared. 
 
 Mr. Pinckney declared, that he thought the state executives ought to be so 
 appointed, with such a control ; and that it would be so provided, if another Con- 
 vention should take place. 
 
 Mr. ( louverneur Morris did not see the utility or practicab lit^of the proposition 
 of Mr. Pinckney, but wished it to be referred to the consideration of a committee. 
 
 Mr. Langdon was in favor of the proposition. He considered it as resolvable 
 into the question, whether the e stent of the national Constitution was to be judged 
 of by the general, or the state governments. 
 
 On the question for commitment, it passed in the negative. 
 
 ISlew Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 5; Massa- 
 chusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6. 
 
 Mr. Pinckney then withdrew his proposition.” 
 
 THE CONVENTION WAS UNANIMOUS FOE FEDERALISATION. 
 The final and unanimous sense of the Convention on this subject, is shown by 
 
6 
 
 THE INTENT OF THE CONVENTION. 
 
 the following extracts from the constitution as originally reported on August 
 6, and the action of the Convention thereon. 
 
 “ We, t e eople of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island 
 and Rrovidenci Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina ani Georgia, do 
 ordain, declare, and establish, the following constitutio i, for the governm.nt of 
 ourselves and our posterity: — 
 
 Article I. The style of the government shall b th= United States of America. 
 
 Article II. The government shall consist of supreme leg slative, executive, 
 and judicial powers. * * * 
 
 Tuesday Aug. 7. In convention. The report of the committee of detail 
 being taken up, * * * 
 
 The preamble of the report was agreed to nem. con. So were Articles I and II.” 
 
 This was the final ani unanimous decision f the convention of states on the 
 subje t in hand. It was never revers d or modified. It was equivalent to saying 
 — this is a federation of sovereign commonwealths 
 
 THE LETTER OF THE CONVENTION TO CONGRESS, 
 
 which General Washington wrote “ by unanimous order of the Convention,” shows 
 that the said convention unanimously intended to continue “the federal gov- 
 ernment of these states ” and that federal agency’s powers were all “ dele- 
 gated ” in “ TRUST.” 
 
 “ We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States 
 in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advis- 
 able. The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of 
 making war, peace and treaties ; that of levying money and regulating commerce; 
 and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and 
 effectually vested in the general government of the Union. But the impropriety 
 of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident. Thence results 
 the necessity of a different organization.” 
 
 It is obviously impracticable on the federal government of those states, to 
 secure all rights of independent sovereignty [government?] to each, and yet pro- 
 vide for the interest and safety of all. Indi\. .uals entering into society, must 
 give up a share of liberty, to preserve the rest. * * * 
 
 That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps 
 to be expected. But each will doubtless consider that had her interest alcne been 
 consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable and inju- 
 rious to others.” * * * 
 
 THE SYSTEM CONSIDERED AS FEDERAL BY THE FATHERS. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM PENDLETON’S SPEECH IN VIRGINIA CONVENTION. 
 
 But the power of the Convention is doubted. What is the power ? To pro- 
 pose. Not to determine. This power of proposing was very broad ; it extended 
 to remove all defects in government: the members of that Convention who were 
 to con si dr all the defects in our general government, were not confined to any 
 particular plan. Were they deceived ? This is the proper question here. Sup- 
 pose the paper on your table dropped from one of the planets ; the people found 
 it, and sent us here to consider whether it was proper for their adoption ; must we 
 not obey them? 
 
APPENDIX C — NO. III. 
 
 7 
 
 FROM NUMBER XI OF THE FEDERALIST, BY MR. MADISON. 
 
 The second point to be examined is, whether the Convention were authorized 
 to frame, and propose this mixed Constitution. The powers of the Convention 
 ought, in strictness, to be determined, by an inspection of the commissions given 
 to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these, however, had 
 reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis, in Sept., 
 1786, or to that from Congress, in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to turn to 
 these particular acts. 
 
 ****** 
 From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the Convention, was to 
 establish, in these States, a firm national government ; 2nd, that this government 
 was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government , and the preserva- 
 tion of the Union ; 3rd, that those purposes were to be effected by alterations and 
 provisions in the articles of Confederation , as it is expressed in the act of Congress ; 
 or by such furllitr provisions as should appear necessary — as it stands in the recom- 
 mendatory act from Annapolis; 4th, that the alterations and provisions were to 
 ber reported to Congress, and to the states, in order to be agreed to by the former 
 and confirmed by the latter. 
 
 ****** 
 
 No stress, it is presumed, will, in this case, be laid on the title ; a change of that 
 could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power. Alterations in the body 
 of the instrument are expressly authorized. New provisions therein are also 
 expressly authorized. Here there is a power to change the title ; to insert new 
 articles ; to alter old ones. Must it of necessity be admitted that this power is 
 infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain? 
 
 ****** 
 
 Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the Confederation were not 
 within the purview of the Convention, and ought not to have been varied? I 
 ask, what aie these principles? Do they require, that in the establishm :nt of 
 the constitution, the states should be regarded as distinct and independent sove- 
 reigns ? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed.” 
 
 THE FATHERS REPUDIATED THE NATIONAL IDEA, 
 
 in the state ratifying conventions. Two will be quoted for all: Said Fisher Ames 
 in that of Massachusetts: “No argument against the new plan has made a deeper 
 impression than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is 
 an effect which all good men will deprecate. * * * The state governments 
 are essential parts ot the system. * * * The senators represent the sovereignty 
 
 of the stales in the quality of ambassadors of the states. * * * A consolidation 
 
 of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new constitu- 
 tion, and against which this very article [the one providing for the senate] so 
 much condemned is our best security. * * * This article seems to be an 
 
 excellence of the constitution, end aflords just ground to believe that it will be, in 
 practice as in theory, a federal republic. [II Ell. Deb. 45.] 
 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton, in the Virginia convention : “ But it is repre- 
 sented to be a consolidated government, annihilating that of the states — a consoli- 
 dated government, which so extensive a territory as the united states cannot admit 
 of, without terminating in despotism. If this be such a government I will confess 
 with my worthy friend [He- ry] that it is inadmissible over such a territory as 
 this country. * * * It is the interest of the federal to preserve the state 
 
 governments ; upon the latter the existence of the former depends. * * * 
 
 Unless, therefore, there be state legislatures to continue the existence of congress, 
 and preserve order and peace among the inhabitants, this general government 
 * * * must itself be destroyed. * * * J wonder how any gentleman 
 
 could conceive an idea of the possibility of the former destroying the latter.” 
 [Ill Ell. Deb. 39.] 
 
APPENDIX ID 
 
 This appendix presents those sacred institutes of freedom called bills of rights, 
 which may be considered protests , by the people, when they are forming gov- 
 ernment, concerning those natural and God-given rights, which they keep out of 
 constitutions, and above government ; and which therefore no ruler has the right 
 to control or even touch. 
 
 Besides the Massachusetts preamble and bill of rights herein given, the 
 student should read the Virginia one of 1776; also the English Magna Charta, 
 the petition of right, and bill of rights ; remembering however that, in our case, 
 these are declarations by the people, of their sovereign eights, over and governing 
 their rulers: while the English declarations are the grants of kings, of peivi- 
 eeges to their subjects. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 A constitution, or frame of government, agreed upon by the delegates of the 
 people of Massachusetts Bay, in convention, begun and held at Cambridge, on 
 the first of September, 1779, and continued, by adjournment, to the second of 
 March, 1780. 
 
 Peeamble. 
 
 The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, 
 is to secure the existence of the body politic; to protect it, and to furnish the 
 individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tran- 
 quillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life; and, whenever these great 
 objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and 
 to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness. 
 
 The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a 
 social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and 
 each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws 
 for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a 
 constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making 
 laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them ; 
 that every man may at all times find his security in them. 
 
 We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful 
 hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us in 
 the course of his providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, with- 
 out fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and 
 solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil 
 government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring his direction 
 in so interesting a design — do agree upon, ordain, and establish, the following 
 declaration of rights and frame of government, as the constitution of the 
 commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 A declaration of the rights of the inhabitants of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
 
 Aeticle 1. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, es- 
 sential, unalienable rights, among which may be named the right of enjoying 
 and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and pro- 
 tecting property ; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happi- 
 ness. 
 
 1 
 
2 
 
 CONSTITUTION OP MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 2. It is the right, as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at 
 stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver 
 of the Universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his 
 person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and seasons most 
 agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession 
 or sentiments; piovided he does not disturb the public peace, or obstruct 
 others in their religious worship. 
 
 3 As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil 
 government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as 
 these cannot generally be diffused throughout the community, but by the insti- 
 tution ofa public worship of God, and of public institutions in piety, religion, 
 and morality; therefore to promote their happiness, and "to secure the good 
 order of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to 
 invest their legislature with power to authorise and require, aud the legislature 
 shall, from time to time, authorise and require the several towns, parishes, and 
 precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable pro- 
 vision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, 
 and for the support aud maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, 
 religion, and morality in all cases, where such provision shall not be made volun- 
 tarily. 
 
 All the people of the commonwealth have also a right to, aud do, invest their 
 legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon 
 the public teachers, as aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any one 
 whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend: 
 
 Provided, notwithstanding, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other 
 bodies politic or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right 
 of electing theirpublic teachers, aud of contracting with them for their support 
 and maintenance. 
 
 All moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, aud of the 
 public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the 
 support of the teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, 
 provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be 
 paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct 
 iu which the said moneys are raised. 
 
 And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves peaceably, and 
 as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection 
 of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall 
 ever be established by law. 
 
 4. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of 
 governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; aud do and 
 for ever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction aud right 
 which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the 
 United States of America in congress as*embled. 
 
 5. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, 
 the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority, 
 whether legislative, executive or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, 
 and are at all times accountable to them. 
 
 6. No man, or corporation, or association of men, have any other title to 
 obtain advantages, or particular aud exclusive privileges, distinct from those 
 of the community, than what arises from services rendered to the public. And 
 this title being in nature neither hereditary nor transmissible to children, or 
 descendants, or relations of blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, law- 
 giver or judge is absurd and unnatural. 
 
 7. Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, 
 prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private 
 interest of any one man, family, or anyone class of men. Therefore the people 
 alone have an iucontestible, unalienable and indefeasible right to institute 
 government, and to reform, alter or totally change the same when their pro- 
 tection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it. 
 
APPENDIX D. 
 
 3 
 
 8. In order to prevent those who are vested with authority from becoming 
 oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in sucli manner as they 
 shall establish by the frame of government, to cause their public officers to 
 return to private life, and to fill up vacant places by ceriaiu and regular 
 elections and appointments. 
 
 9. All elections ought to be free, and all the inhabitants of this common- 
 wealth having such qualifications ns they shall establish by their frame of 
 government, have an equal right to elect officers and to be elected for public 
 employments. 
 
 10. Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by t in the 
 enjoyment of his life, liberty and property according to the standing laws. 
 He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this 
 protection, to give his personal services, or an equivalent, when necessary. 
 But no part of the property of any individual can with justice be taken from 
 him, or applied to the public use, without his own consent or that of the 
 representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth 
 are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional 
 representative body have given their consent. Aud whenever the public 
 exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated 
 to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor. 
 
 11. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by 
 having recourse to the laws, lor all injuries or wrongs which he may receive 
 in his person, property or character. He ought to oblain right and justice 
 freely and without being obliged to purchase it, completely and without any 
 denial, promptly and without delay, conformably to the laws. 
 
 12. No person shall be held to answer for any crime or offence until the 
 same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally described to him; or be 
 compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against himself. And every person 
 shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him, to meet 
 the witnesses against him face to face, and be fully heard in his defence, by 
 liimsel for counsel, at his election. And no person shall be arrested, imprisoned, 
 or despoiled or deprived of bis property, immunities or privileges, put out of the 
 protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty or estate but by 
 the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. 
 
 And the legislature shall not make any law that shall subject any person to 
 a capital or infamous punishment (excepting for the government of the army 
 and navy) without trial by jury. 
 
 13. In criminal prosecutions the verification of facts, in the vicinty where 
 they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty and property 
 of the citizen. 
 
 14. Every person has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches of his 
 person, his houses, his papers and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, 
 are contrary to this right i f the cause or foundation of them be not previously 
 supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in a warrant to a civil 
 officer to make search in all suspected places, or to arrest one or more sus- 
 pected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a specific 
 designation of the person or object of search, arrest or seizure. 
 
 Aud no warrant ought to be issued but in such cases and with the formalities 
 prescribed by the laws. 
 
 15. In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or 
 more persons (except in cases in which it has heretofore been otherwise used 
 and practised), the parties have a right to a trial by jury ; and this method of 
 procedure shall be held sacred, unless in cases arising on the high seas, aud 
 such as relate to mariners’ wages, the legislature shall hereafter find it necessary 
 to alter it. 
 
 16. The liberty of the press is esseutial to the security of freedom in a state; 
 xt ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth. 
 
 17. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for their common 
 defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought 
 
4 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 not to be maintained without consent of the legislature; and the military 
 power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and 
 be governed by it. 
 
 18. A. frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, 
 and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, 
 industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of 
 liberty, and to maintain a free government. The people ought, consequently, 
 to have a particular attention to all those principles in the choice of their 
 officers and representatives; and they have a right to require of their law- 
 givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them in the 
 formation and execution of all laws necessary for the good administration of 
 the commonwealth. 
 
 19. The people have a right in an orderly and peaceable manner to assemble 
 to consult on the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and 
 to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions or remon- 
 strances, redress of the wrongs done them and of the grievances they suffer. 
 
 20. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought 
 never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, 
 to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly 
 provide for. 
 
 21. The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate in either house of the 
 legislature is so essential to the rights of the people that it cannot be the 
 foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint in any other 
 court or place whatever. 
 
 22. The legislature ought frequently to assemble for the redress of grievances, 
 for correcting, strengthening and confirming the laws, and for making new 
 laws, as the common good may require. 
 
 23. No subsidy, charge, tax, impost or duties ought to be established, fixed, 
 laid or levied under any pretext whatever, without the consent of the people 
 or their representatives in the legislature. 
 
 24. Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, 
 and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, 
 oppressive and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free govern- 
 ment. 
 
 25. No person ought in any case or in any time to be declared guilty of 
 treason or felony by the legislature. 
 
 26. No magistrate or court of law shall demand excessive bail or sureties, 
 impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments. 
 
 27. In time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without 
 the consent of the owner; and in time of war such quarters ought not to be 
 made but by the civil magistrate in manner ordained by the legislature. 
 
 28. No person can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any penal- 
 ties or pains of that law (except those employed in the army or navy, and 
 except the militia in actual service), but by the authority of the legislature. 
 
 29. It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his 
 life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation 
 of the laws and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to 
 be tried by ’’udges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity 
 will admit. It is, therefore, not only the best policy, but for the security of 
 the rights oi the people and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme 
 judicial courts should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well, 
 and that they should have honorable salaries, ascertained and established by 
 standing laws. 
 
 30. In the government of this commonwealth the legislative department 
 shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them ; the 
 executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of 
 them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or 
 either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws, and not of 
 men. 
 
APPENDIX D. 
 
 5 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Frame op Government. 
 
 The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of Massa- 
 chusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form 
 themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body politic, or state, by the 
 name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
 
 [Here follows the constitution of the government.] 
 
 ISio. a. 
 
 THE TENTH AMENDMENT, 
 
 There was much clamor against the federal constitution When it was under 
 discussion, because it did not contain a bill of rights. It was replied that, all 
 rights and powers remained in the people, except those actually expressed in 
 the constitution; and that a bill of rights was therefore an absurdity; and 
 besides, that it was dangerous, in implying that all rights not expressed as kept 
 out , might in future be assumed to be iri the constitution. 
 
 But the clamor went on, and in the Massachusetts convention, to escape 
 defeat, the friends proposed to recommend an amendment declaring what 
 every advocate said was the case anyhow, viz. that all powers not dele- 
 gated are reserved. When Gov. Hancock made this “conciliatory propo- 
 sition,” Samuel Adams turned to be an advocate, saying it was “equivalent to 
 a summary of a bill of rights,” and meant precisely what the second article of 
 the first federal constitution did, viz., that “ each state retained her sovereignty, 
 and every power and right not expressly delegated to the united states in 
 congress assembled.” And he wrote to Gerry and Lee in congress to ur^e the 
 adoption of the said amendment, so that the people should see clearly “ the 
 distinction between the powers delegated to congress, and the sovereign authority 
 of the several states, which is the palladium of the rights of the people.” 
 
 The different forms in which the states proposed the prospective tenth 
 amendment are here given, because the perverters say it means that the 
 nation reserved to the states such powers as it chose, reserving all others to the 
 state governments or to itself— the people. 
 
 This idea will be found ridiculous when the different forms as proposed by 
 the states are presented, showing what they meant and thought they were 
 proposing. 
 
 The form used by Massachusetts was as follows: “All powers not ex- 
 pressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved by the several 
 states, to be by them exercised.” [II. Ell. Deb. 197.] 
 
 South Carolina’s version: “The states retain every power not expressly 
 relinquished by them, and vested in the general government of the union.” 
 [I. Ell. Deb. 325.] 
 
 General C. C. Pinckney said : “It is admitted by all that the rights not 
 expressed were reserved by the several states.” [IY. Ibid. 286.] 
 
 Maryland’s version is, that “ congress shall exercise no power but what is 
 expressly delegated by this constitution.” [II. Ibid. 550 ] 
 
 North Carolina expressed it thus : “ That eacli state in the union shall 
 respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this 
 constitution delegated to the congress of the united states, or to the depart- 
 ments of the general government. Nor shall the said congress, nor any depart- 
 ment of the said government exercise any act of authority over any individual 
 in any of the said states, but such as can be justified under some power particu- 
 
6 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 larly given in this constitution; but the said constitution shall be considered at 
 all times a solemn instrument defining tbe extent of their authority, and 
 defining the limits which they cannot rightfully in any instance exceed.” 
 [IV. Ibid. 249; Va. Gaz. Sept. 4, 1788.] 
 
 New Hampshire’s expression reads thus: “All powers not expressly and 
 particularly delegated by the aforesaid constitution are reserved by the several 
 states to be by them exercised.” [I. El). Deb. 32G.] 
 
 New York’s version was put thus: “That every power, jurisdiction and 
 right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the congress of 
 the united states, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respec- 
 tive state governments, to whom they may have granted the same.” [I. Ibid. 
 327.] 
 
 Rhode Island wanted the following amendment: “The united states shall 
 guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every 
 power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly 
 delegated to the united states.” 
 
APPENDIX E. 
 
 WEBSTER’S REAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS. 
 
 Seven years after Webster had been elected to Congress from New Hampshire, 
 and when he was in the full maturity of years and intellect, he, as a statesman, 
 was called upon by one of the most enlightened communities of America, for his 
 best-considered counsel on that momentous subject — then agitating the whole 
 country — the admission of Missouri into the union of states, with or without con- 
 ditions. The following document contains his most deliberate views : 
 
 The italics are in the text except what contain the following points of Webster’s 
 doctrine : 
 
 1. That “ the only -parties to the constitution" 4 contemplated originally ’ were *• the IS 
 confederated states." 
 
 2. That its provisions “ rest on compact and plighted faith.' ’ 
 
 3. That all new states must come in by compact. 
 
 A MEMORIAL 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Subject of Restraining the Increase of Slavery in New States, 
 
 TO BE ADMITTED INTO THE UNION. 
 
 Prepared in pursuance of a vote of the inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, assembled at th« 
 State House, on the third day of December, A. D., 1819, 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 SEWELL PHELPS, PRINTER, No. 5 COURT STREET. 
 1819. 
 
 The Committee appointed by a vote of the meeting holden in the State House, on the 3d instant, 
 to prepare a Memorial to Congress, on the subject of the Prohibition of Slavery in the New States, 
 submit the following : 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER, 
 GEORGE BLAKE, 
 JOSIAH QUINCY, 
 JAMES T. AUSTIN, 
 JOHN GALLISON. 
 
 Boston, December ,15, 1819. 
 
MEMORIAL 
 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled: 
 
 The undersigned, inhabitants of Boston and its vicinity, beg leave most respect- 
 fully and humbly to represent ; That the question of the introduction of Slavery 
 into the New States, to be formed on the west side of the Mis issippi River, 
 appears to them to be a question of the last importance to the future welfare of 
 the United States. If the progress of this great evil is ever to be arrested, it 
 seems to the undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false step taken now 
 cannot be retraced ; and it appears to us that the happiness of unborn millions 
 rests on the measures, which Congress may, on this occasion, adopt. Considering 
 this as no local question, nor a question to be decided by a temporary expediency, 
 but as involving great interests of the whole of the United States, and affecting 
 deeply and essentially those objects of common defence, general welfare, and th% 
 perpetuation of the blessings of liberty, for which the Constitution itself was 
 formed, we have presumed in this way, to offer our sentiments and express our 
 wishes to the National Legislature. And as various reasons have been suggested, 
 against prohibiting Slavery in the New States, it may perhaps be permitted to us 
 to state our reasons, both for believing that Congress possesses the Constitutional 
 power to make such prohibition a condition, on the admission of a New State into 
 the Union, and that it is just and proper that they should exercise that power. 
 
 ■And, in the first place, as to the Constitutional authority of Congress. The 
 Constitution of the United States has declared, that “the Congress shall have 
 “ power to dfepo.se of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 “ Territory, or other property belonging to the United States ; and nothing in this 
 “ Cons itmion shall be so co istruel as to prejudice the claims of the United States, 
 “ or of any particular State.” It is very well known that the saving in this clause 
 of the claims of any particular State was designed to apply to claims by the then 
 existing States of territory, which was also claimed by the United States as their 
 own property. 
 
 It has, therefore, no bearing on the present question. The power, then, of Con- 
 gress ovrr its own territories is, by the very terms of the Constitution unlimited. It 
 may make all “ needful rules and regulations which of course include all such 
 regulations as its own views of policy or expediency shall from time to time dic- 
 tate. If, therefore, in its judgment, it be needful for the benefit of a Territory to 
 enact a prohibition of slavery, it would seem to be a? much within its power of 
 legislation, as any other ordinary act of local policy. Its sovereignty ' being 
 complete and universal, as to the Territory, it may exercise over it the most 
 am pie jurisdiction in every respect. It possesses in this view all the authority 
 which any State Legislature possesses over its own Territory: and if a State 
 Legislature may, in its discretion, abolish or prohibit Slavery within its own 
 limits, in virtue of its general legislative authority, for the same reason Congress 
 also may exercise the like authority over its own Territories. And that a State 
 Legislature, unless restrained by some constitutional prevision, may so do, is un- 
 questionable, and has been established by general practice. 
 
 if then, Congress possess unlimited powers of government over its Territories, 
 it may certainly from time to time vary, control and modify its legislation as it 
 pleases. The Territories, as such, can have no rights but sucli as are conferred 
 by Congress ; and it is morally bound to adopt such measures as are best calculated 
 to promote the permanent interests and security of these Territories, as well as to 
 secure ike future well being of the Union. Without an enabling act of Congress, 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 a 
 
 no Territory or portion of Territory belonging to the United States can be created 
 into a State, or form a constitution of government, or become discharged of its 
 Territorial obedience; and if Congress may grant to any of its Territories this 
 •privilege, it may also most clearly, as it seems to us, in its discretion, refuse it. 
 
 It is not obliged to admit it to become a State, if it be not satisfied that such 
 admission will conduce as well to its own good as to the good of the Union. In 
 this respect Congress, stands, in relation to it-. Territories, like a State in relation 
 to any portion of its own Territory, which requests to be separated and formed into 
 a New State. No person has ever doubted that the question as to such separation 
 was a question of expediency, resting in the sound discretion of the Stale; and 
 that it may not be claimed as matter ot right, unless in virtue of some compact, 
 establishing such right. No person has ever doubted that arty State , in accediny to a 
 division of Us Territory , and the formation of a New State , has always possessed the 
 -right to impose its own terms and conditions as a part of the grant. The ground of this 
 right is the exclusive possession of sovereignty , with which the State is not compellable to 
 part , and if it does part with it, it may annex all such conditions and rules as it 
 deems fit for its own security and for the permanent good of the citizens of the 
 divided Territory. Such was the case of Virginia, when she acceded to the sepa- 
 ration of the District of Kentucky and allowed it to become an independent State. 
 Such is the case of the recent separation of the District of Maine from Massachu- 
 setts. In each of these cases a considerable number of fundamental conditions 
 were offered to the Districts as the sole grounds, upon which the separation could 
 be allowed; and not a doubt was ever entertained, that these conditions were 
 •within the legitimate exercise and authority of these States. These conditions 
 •were accepted by Kentucky, and have been accepted by Maine, and it was never 
 imagined, that they in any respect prevented either from possessing all the proper 
 attributes of State sovereignty. They have never been viewed in any other light 
 than as just restrictions, not upon essential Stale rights, but upon an unlimited 
 exercise of sovereignty, which may be injurious to rights already vested in the 
 parent State, or its citizens. And if Virginia and Massachusetts taiav, by virtue 
 of their sovereign rights, impose conditions upon their grants of their own Terri- 
 torial jurisdiction, for the same reason, it would seem, that the United States may 
 impose any like conditions, according to their own sound discretion. And a con- 
 struction of this clause of the constitution of the United States, which should 
 inhibit Congress from annexing conditions to the act enabling any Ten ory to 
 form a State government, because it would impair the sovereignty of the State so 
 formed, would equally affect the like conditions annexed by a Slate to a like act 
 in favour of a portion of its own Territory. A construction, which would lead 
 to such consequences, cannot bea sound one. It would lead to the most injurious 
 results, and absolve all the New States, which have been admitted into the Union 
 since the year 1791, from conditions, which have been hitherto held to be invio- 
 lably binding upon them. It would be also repugnant to the compreh nsive 
 language of tli is clause of the constitution, and to the uniform practice, which has 
 prevailed under it from the earlies* period of the formation of New States to the 
 present time. No State has ever admitted a New State to be formed in its own 
 bosom without annexing conditions, and no act has passed Congress enabling any 
 of its Territories to become States, which was not, in like manner, annexed im- 
 portant fundamental conditions to the act. And if conditions may be annexed^ 
 it depends soh'ly upon the wisdom of Congress what such conditions shall be. 
 They may embrace everything not incompatible with the possession of those fed- 
 eral rights, which an admission into the Union confers upon the New State. As 
 to such rights, they must, by the nature of the case, be an implied exc. ption. 
 The remarks that have hitherto been made, have proceeded upon the supposition 
 that Congress are n6t morally bound, either by the Treaty of Cession, or by any 
 compact with the inhabitants, to pass an act for the erection of the New State, 
 without imposing conditions. 
 
 These observa ions, so far, have been confined to the Constitutional authority 
 of Congress flowing directly from the clause which has been mentioned. Here 
 
4 
 
 Webster’s real constitutional views. 
 
 then 5s the case of an express power given in plain terms ; and by another clause 
 of the Constitution, Congress have express authority “ to make all laws necessary 
 and proper for carrying that power into execution.” But other clauses may well 
 be called in aid of this construction, applicable to all cases whatsoever, in which 
 a New State seeks to be admitted into the Union. The Constitution provides that 
 "New States may be admitted into the Union." The only parties to the Constitution, 
 contemplated by it originally, were the thirteen confederated States. It was perceived 
 that the Territory, already included within these States, might be beneficially 
 divided and organized under separate governments, and that the Territories already 
 belonging to the United States might, and in good faith ought, to participate in 
 the privileges of the federal Union. It was therefore wisely provided that Congress, 
 in ivhich all the Old States were represented, should have authority to admit New 
 States into the Union, whenever in its judgment such an act would be beneficial 
 to the public interests. But it was at the same time provided that no New State 
 should be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, etc., with- 
 out the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Con- 
 gress. It is observable, that the language of the Constitution is, that New States 
 may (not shall) be admitted into the Union. Jt is therefore a privilege which 
 Congress may withhold or grant, according to its discretion. If it may give its 
 consent ; it may also refuse it, and no New State can have a right to compel Con- 
 gress to do that, which in its judgment is not fit to be done. If Congress have 
 authority to withhold its consent, it has also authority to give that consent either 
 absolutely, or upon condition ; for there is nothing in the Constitution which 
 restricts the manner or the terms of that consent. It is observable, too, that where 
 a New State is to be erected within the limits of an Old State, the consent of the 
 State Legislature is as necessary as that of Congress. Now it will not, we sup- 
 pose, be contended, that the State Legislature may not grant its consent upon 
 conditions ; and if so, Congress must have the same right also, for the consent of 
 the State Legislatures and of Congress is required by the same clause, and the con- 
 struction which fixes the meaning of “consent” as to the one, must, in order to 
 maintain consistency, fix it as to the other. And here it might be again asked, 
 if the conditions of Virginia, annexed to her consent that Kentucky should 
 become a State, were not binding upon the latter, and upon Congress. It appears 
 to the memorialists perfectly clear, that since Congress has a discretionary author- 
 ity as to the admission of New States into the Union, it may impose whatever 
 conditions it pleases as terms of that consent ; and this clause, alone, which 
 applies as well to New States formed from Old States, as to those formed from the 
 Territories of the Union, completely establishes the rights, for which the memo- 
 rialists contend. 
 
 The creation of a New State is, in effect, a compact between Congress and the 
 inhabitants of the proposed State. Congress would not probably claim the power 
 of compelling the inhabitants of Missouri to form a constitution of their own, 
 and come into the Union as a State. It is as plain, that the inhabitants of that 
 Territory have no right of admission into the Union, as a State, without the con- 
 sent of Congress. Neither party is bound to form this connexion. It can be 
 formed only by the consent of both. What, then, prevents Congress, as one of 
 the stipulating parties, to propose its terms? and if the other party assents to 
 these terms, why do they not effectually bind both parties? Or if the inhabitants 
 of the Territory do not choose to accept the proposed terms, but prefer to remain 
 under a Territorial government, has Congress deprived them of any right, or 
 subjected them to any restraint, which, in its discretion, it had not authority to 
 do? If the admission of New States he not the discretionary exercise of a Con- 
 stitutional pcTwer, but, in all cases, an imperative duty, how is it to be performed? 
 If the Constitution means that Congrsss shall admit New States, does it mean that 
 Congress shall do this on every application, and under all circumstances ? Or if 
 this construction cannot be admitted, and if it must be conceded that Congress 
 must, in some respects, exercise its discretion, on the admission of New States, 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 5 
 
 how is it to be shown, that that discretion may not be exercised, in regard to this 
 subject, as well as in regard to others? 
 
 The Constitution declares, “ that the migration or importation of such persons 
 as any of the States, now existing , [shall think proper to admit, shall not be 
 prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 1808.” It is most manifest that 
 the Constitution does contemplate, in the very terms' of this clause, that Congress 
 possess the authority to prohibit the migration or importation of Slaves ; for it 
 limits the exercise of this authority for a- specific period of time, leaving it to its 
 full operation ever afterwards. And this power seems necessarily included in 
 the authority, which belongs to Congress, “ to regulate commerce with foreign 
 nations and among the several States.” No person has ever doubted that the 
 prohibition of the foreign Slave Trade was completely within the authority of 
 Congress, since the year 1808. And why ? Certainly, only because it is embraced 
 in the regulation of foreign commerce; and if so, it may for the like reason be 
 prohibited, since that period, between the States. Commerce in Slaves, since the 
 year 1808, being as much subject to the regulation of Congress as any other com- 
 merce, if it should see fit to enact that no Slave should ever be sold from one 
 State to another, it is not perceived how its Constitutional right to make such provi- 
 sion could be questioned. It would seem to be too plain to be questioned, that 
 Congress did possess the power, before the year 1808, to prohibit the migration or 
 importation of Slaves into its Territories, (and in point of fact it exercised that 
 power) as well as into any New States ; and that its authority, after that year, 
 might be as fully exercised to prevent the migration or importation of Slaves into 
 any of the Old States. And if it may prohibit New States from importing Slaves, 
 it may surely, as we humbly submit, make it a condition of the admission of such 
 States into the Union, that they shall never import them. In relation, too, to its 
 own Territories, Congress possess a more extensive authority and may, in various 
 other ways, effect the same object. It might for example make it an express con- 
 dition of its grants of the soil, that the owners shall never hold Slaves ; and thus 
 prevent the possession of slaves from ever being connected with the ownership of 
 the soil. 
 
 As corroborative of the views, which have been already suggested, the memo- 
 rialists would respectfully call the attention of Congress to the history of the 
 national legislation, under the confederation as well as under the present Consti- 
 tution, on this interesting subject. Unless the memorialists greatly mistake, it 
 will demonstrate the sense of the nation at every period of its legislation to have 
 been, that the prohibition of Slavery was no infringement of any just rights be- 
 longing to free States, and was not incompatible with the enjoyment of all the 
 rights and immunities, which an admission into the Union was supposed to confer. 
 
 It will be recollected that Congress, by a Eesolve of the 10th of October, 1780, 
 declared that the unappropriated lands that might be ceded to the United States, 
 pursuant to a previous recommendation of Congress, should be disposed of for 
 the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct 
 republican States, which should become members of the federal Union and have 
 the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other States. 
 This language is exceedingly strong, and guarantees to the New States the same 
 rights of sovereignty as the Old States possessed. It was undoubtedly with this 
 Eesolve in view, that the Territory northwest of the Ohio was ultimately ceded 
 to the United States by the several States claiming title to it ; viz : by" Massa- 
 chusetts, Connecticut, New York and Virginia. New York made a cession on the 
 first of March, 1781, without annexing any conditions; Virginia, on the first of 
 March, 1784, upon certain conditions; ancT, among others, a condition embracing 
 the substance of the Eesolve of the 10th October, 1780. Massachusetts made a 
 cession on the 19th of April, 1785, stating no conditions, but expressly to the uses 
 stated in the Eesolve of 1780. And lastly Connecticut made a ces-ion on the 13th 
 of September, 1786, without any condition, but expressly for the common use and 
 benefit of the United States. On the 13th of July, 1787, Congress passed an 
 Ordinance for the government of the Territorry so added, which has ever since 
 
6 
 
 Webster’s real constitutional views. 
 
 continued in force, and has formed the basis of the Territorial governments of the 
 United States. This Ordinance was passed by the unanimous voice of all the 
 States present at its passage; viz: Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Dela- 
 ware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It contains six 
 fundamental articles as a compact between the United States and the inhabitants, 
 who might occupy that Territory, which are introduced by a preamble, declaring 
 them to be “ for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, which forms the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitu- 
 tions, are created ; to fix and establish these principles as the basis of all laws, 
 constitutions and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in said 
 Territory ; to provide also for the establishment of Slates and a government 
 therein, and for their admission into a share in the federal councils, on an equal 
 footing with the original States, at as early a period as might be consistent with 
 the general interest.” The 6th article declares, that “ there shall neither be 
 Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than for the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall become convicted.” It is observ- 
 able, that no objection occurred to this article, on the ground that it was incom- 
 patible with the equal sovereignty, freedom and independence with the original 
 States, to which the New States, to be formed in the ceded Territory, wereentit'ed 
 by the Eesolve of the 10th of October, 1780, and by the express reference to that 
 Resolve, in the conditions of some of the cessions. It is observable, also, that by 
 the preamble already recited, to which all the States present acceded, and among 
 these were three of the ceding States, and a majority of the Slave-holding States, 
 it was expressly admitted, that the restrictions of the 6th article would not deprive 
 the New Sta cs, upon their admission into the federal councils, of their equal 
 footing with the original States. This is a high, legislative construction, by inde- 
 pendent States, acting in their sovereignty capacity, and entitled to the greater 
 weight, because it was a subject of common interest ; and to all it could not be 
 deemed a precedent, which would justly influence the subsequ nt measures of the 
 general government. Since the adoption of the Constitution, three New States, 
 forming a part of this Territory, viz: Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois have been 
 admitted into the Union. In the acts enabling them to form State governments, 
 and a State Constitution, Congress has, among other very important conditions, 
 made it a fundamental condition, that their constitutions shall contain nothing 
 repugnant to the Ordinance of 1787. These conditions were acceded to by these 
 States, and have ever been deemed obliga'ory upon them and inviolable; and 
 these States, notwithstanding these conditions, are universally considered as 
 admitted into the Union upon the same footing as the original States, and as 
 possessing, in respect to the Union the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and 
 independence as the other States, in the sense, in which those terms are used in 
 the Eesolve of 1780. During a period of thirty years, not a doubt has been sug- 
 gested, that the provisions of this ordinance were perfectly compatible with the 
 implied and express conditions of the cessions of this Territory ; and that Con- 
 gress might justly impose the conditions, which it contains, upon all the States 
 formed wit in its limits. 
 
 In the ye u* 1791, Vermont was admitted into the Union, without any conditions 
 being ai.nexed respecting Slavery. The reason was obvious. It had already 
 formed a constitution, which excluded Slavery ; and it may be also asserted, that, 
 looking to its habits and feelings of its population, and the habits and feelings, 
 and constitutional provisions of neighboring States, it was morally impossible 
 that Slavery could be adopted in that State. 
 
 Kentucky was admitted into the Ufiion in June, 1792. The State was formed 
 from the State of Virginia, and the latter in granting its consent, imposed certain 
 conditions, which have since been supposed to form a fundamental compact, which 
 neither is at liberty to violate. Congress did not impose any restrictions as to 
 Slavery on its admission, and for reasons, which cannot escape the most careless 
 observer. It would have been manifestly unjust, as well as impolitic. 
 
 Tennessee was admitted into the Union in June, 1796. It was ceded by North 
 
APPENDIX E. 
 
 7 
 
 Carolina, more than six years before, as a Territory, upon certaki conditions, and 
 among them, that Congress should assume the government of the Territory, and 
 govern it according to the Ordinance of 1787 ; with a proviso, however, “ that no 
 regulation made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate Slaves.” 
 In good faith, therefore, Congress could not justly insist upon a prohibition of 
 Slavery upon its admission into the Union. 
 
 Mississippi was admitted into the Union in December, 1817, upon conditions 
 that its constitution should contain nothing repugnant to the Ordinance of 1787, 
 so l'ar as the same had been extended to the Territory by the agreement of cession 
 made between the United States and Georgia ; and Alabama was authorized to 
 become a State by the act of 2nd of March, 1819, upon a similar condition. Both 
 of these States were ceded as one Territory to the United States by Georgia, in 
 April, 1802, upon condition, among other things, that it should be admitted into 
 the Union in the same manner as the Territory northwest of the Ohio might be 
 under the Ordinance of 1787, “which Ordinance (it is declared) shall extend to 
 the Territory contained in the present act of cession, that article only excepted , 
 which forbids Slavery The prohibition of Slavery could not, therefore, without 
 the grossest breach of faith, be applied to this Territory. And the very circum- 
 stances of this exception in this cession of Georgia, as well as in that of North 
 Carolina, shows strongly the sense of those States that, without such an exception, 
 Congress would possess the authority in question. 
 
 The memorialists, after this general survey, would respectfully ask the attention 
 of Congress to the state of the question of the right of Congress to prohibit Slavery 
 in that part of the former Territory of Louisiana, which now forms the Missouri 
 Territory. Louisiana was purchased of France by the Treaty of the 30th of April, 
 1803. The third article of that Treaty is as follows: “The inhabitants of the 
 ceded Territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and 
 admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles cf the federal Constitution , to 
 the enjoyment of all the rights , advantages and immunities of citizens of the United . 
 Slutes ; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free 
 enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion, which they profess.” 
 
 Although the language of this article is not very precise or accurate, the 
 memorialists conceive that its real import and intent cannot be mistaken. The 
 first clause provides for the admission of the ceded Territory into the Union, and 
 the succeeding clause shows this must be according to the principles of the federal 
 Constitution ; and this very qualification necessarily excludes the idea that Con- 
 gress were not to be at liberty to impose any conditions upon such admission, 
 which were consistent with the principles of that Constitution, and which had 
 been or might justly be applied to other New States. The language is not by any 
 means so pointed as that of the Resolve of 1780, and yet it has been seen that 
 that Resolve was never supposed to inhibit the authority of Congress, as to the 
 introduction of Slavery. And it is clear, upon the plainest rules of construction, 
 that in the absence of all restrictive language, a clause, merely providing for the 
 admission of a Territory imo the Union, must be construed to authorize an 
 admission in the manner, and upon the terms, which the Constitution itself would 
 justify. This construction derives additional support from the next clause. The 
 inhabitants “ shall be admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of 
 the federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights , advantages and 
 immunities of citizens of the United States.” The rights, advantages and immu- 
 nities here spoken of must, from the very force of the terms of the clause, be 
 such as are recognized or communicated by the Constitution of the United 
 States ; such as are common to all citizens, and are uniform throughout the United 
 States. The clause cannot be referred to rights, advantages and immunities, 
 derived exclusively from the State governments, for these do not depend upon the 
 federal Constitution. Besides, it would be impossible that all the rights, advan- 
 tages and immunities of citizens of the different States could be at the same time 
 enjoyed by the same persons. These rights are different in different States ; a 
 right exists in one State, which is denied in others, or is repugnant to other rights 
 
3 
 
 Webster’s real constitutional views. 
 
 enjoyed in others. In some of the States, a freeholder alone is entitled to vote in 
 elections ; in some, a qualification of personal property is sufficient ; and in others 
 age, and freedom are the sole qualifications of elections. In some States no citi- 
 zen is permitted to hold Slaves ; in others, he possesses that power absolutely ; in 
 others it is limited. The obvious meaning therefore of the clause is, that the 
 rights derived under the federal Constitution shall be enjoyed by the inhabitants 
 of Louisiana in the same manner as by the citizen of other States. The United 
 States, by the Constitution, are bound to guarantee to every State in the Union a 
 republican form of government ; and the inhabitants of Louisiana are entitled, 
 when a State, to this guarantee. Each State has a right to two senators, and to 
 representatives according to a certain enumeration of population pointed out in 
 the Constitution. The inhabitants of Louisiana, upon their admission into the 
 Union, are also entitled to these privileges. The Constitution further declares, 
 “ that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immu- 
 nities of citizens in the several States.” It would seem as if the meaning of this 
 clause could not be misinterpreted. It obviously applies to the case of the 
 removal of a citizen of one State to another State ; and in such a case it secures 
 to the migrating citizen all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the State 
 to which he removes. It cannot surely be contended, upon any rational interpre- 
 tation, that it gives to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities 
 of the citizens of every other State, at the same time and under all circumstances. 
 Such a construction would lead to the most extraordinary consequences. It would 
 at once destroy all the fundamental limitations of the State constitutions upon the 
 rights of their own citizens ; and leave all those rights at the mercy of the citizens 
 of any other State, wlrch should adopt different limitations. According to this 
 construction, if all the State constitutions, save one, prohibited Slavery, it would 
 be in the power of that single State, by the admission of the right of its citizens 
 to hold Slaves, to pommunicate the same right to the citizens of all the other 
 States within their own exclusive limits, in defiance of their own constitutional 
 prohibitions; and to render the absurdity still more apparent, the same construction 
 would communicate the most apposite and irreconcilable rights to the citizens of 
 different States at the same time. 
 
 It seems therefore to be undeniable, upon any rational interpretation, that this 
 clause of the Constitution communicated no rights in any State, which its own 
 citizens do not enjoy, and that the citizens of Louisiana, upon their admission 
 into the Union, in receiving the benefit of this clause, would not enjoy higher, or 
 more extensive rights than the citizens of Ohio. It would communicate to the 
 f'ormpr no right of holding Slaves, except in States, where the citizens already 
 possessed the same right under their own State constitutions and laws. 
 
 The Treaty, then, by providing for the inhabitants of Louisiana the enjoyment 
 of all the rights, advantages and immnnities of citizens of the United States, set ms 
 distinctly to have pointed to those derived from the federal Constitution, and not 
 to those, which, being derived from other sources, were enjoyed by some and 
 denied to others of the citizens of the United States. 
 
 The remaining clause of the Treaty, “ that in the mean time” the inhabitants 
 " shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, 
 and the religion, which they profess,” requires no examination. It manifestly 
 applies to the period of its Territorial government, and has no reference to the 
 terms of its admission into the Union, or to the condition of the Territory after 
 it becomes a State. But it may be confidently asked whether, if the. whole Ordi- 
 nance of 1787. which contains the prohibition of Slavery, had been extended to 
 Louisiana, there would have been anything inconsistent with the enjoyment of 
 liberty, property or religion? So far as Slaves are deemed property, it might be 
 iust that the then real owners within the Territory should be secured in the enjoy- 
 ment of that property ; but the permission to acquire such property in future , 
 like every other right of property, ought to depend upon sound legislation, and 
 be granted or denied by Congress, as its own judgment should direct. And the 
 memorialists cannot perceive, in the clause of the Treaty, any restriction upon 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 9 
 
 the right of Congress to exercise the utmost freedom of legislation as to the future 
 introduction of Slaves into the ceded Territory. 
 
 Congress, after this cession, divided the Territory into two Territorial govern- 
 ments ; and by an act passed on the 2nd of March, 1805, in the exercise of its 
 legislative discretion, directed that the Orleans Territory (which has since become 
 the State of Louisiana), should be governed by the Ordinance of 1787, excepting 
 as to the descent and distribution of estates, and the article respecting Slavery. 
 By a subsequent act of the 11th of April, 1811, authorizing the inhabitants of this 
 Territory to become a State, Congress annexed several highly important conditions, 
 to the exercise of this high act of sovereignty. Among other conditions it 
 required that the Eiver Mississippi, and the waters thereof, should be highways, 
 and remain forever free to all the inhabitants of the United States and its Terri- 
 tories, without any tax, toll or impost laid by the State therefor ; that the consti- 
 tution should contain the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, 
 and should allow the trial by jury in criminal cases, and the privilege of the writ 
 of habeas corpus, and all the laws, records and judicial proceedings of the State, 
 judicial and legislative, should be in the language, in which the laws of the United 
 States are written ; that the people should disclaim all rights to the unappropriated 
 Territory, within the limits of the State, and that the same should be at the dis- 
 posal of the United States ; that the lands sold by the United States should be 
 exempt from taxation for five years from the sale ; and that lands of non-residents 
 should not be taxed higher than those of residents. These conditions are certainly 
 very striking limitations of sovereignty, and embrace most of the fundamental 
 regulations of the Ordinance of 1787, excepting the article touching Slavery. It 
 is not known to the memorialists that any doubt of their constitutionality, or of 
 their perfect harmony with the Treaty of 1803, was ever entertained, either in 
 Congress or in Louisiana ; and yet they contained some principles as repugnant to 
 the original jurisprudence of the Territory, at the time of its cession, as could well 
 be devised; and if Congress could then impose such conditions, w'hat reason is 
 there to say, that it may not impose such conditions on the Missouri Territory ? 
 and if such conditions, why not any others, which its wisdom, its justice or its 
 policy may dictate ? 
 
 Upon the whole, the memorialists would most respectfully submit, that the terms 
 of the Constitution, as well as the practice of the governments under it, must, as 
 they humbly conceive, entirely justify the conclusion, that Congress may prohibit 
 the further introduction of Slavery into its own Territories, and also make such 
 prohibitions a condition of the admission of any New State into the Union. 
 
 If the Constitutional power of Congress to make the proposed prohibition be 
 satisfactorily shown, the justice and policy of such prohibition seem to the under- 
 signed to be supported by plain and strong reasons. The permission of Slavery 
 in a New State necessarily draws after it an extension of that inequality of repre- 
 sentation, which already exists in regard to the original States. It cannot be 
 expected, that those of the original States, which do not hold Slaves, can look on 
 such an extension as being politically just. As between the original States , the repre- 
 sentation rests on compact and plighted faith , and your memorialists have no wish , that 
 that compact should be disturbed , or that plighted faith in the slightest degree violated. 
 But the subject assumes an entirely different character , when a New Stale proposes to be 
 admitted. With her there is no compact , and no faith plighted ; and where is the reason , 
 that she should come into the Union with more than an equal share of political importance 
 and political power ? Already the ratio of representation, established by the Con- 
 stitution, has given to the States holding Slaves twenty members in the House of 
 Representatives more than they would have been entitled to, except under the 
 particular provision of the Constitution. In all probability, this number will be 
 doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not an unreason- 
 able expectation, that the inhabitants of Missouri should propose to come into the 
 Union, renouncing the right in question, and establishing a constitution, prohibit- 
 ing it for ever. Without dwelling upon this topic, we have still thought it our 
 duty to present it to the consideration of Congress. We present it with a deep 
 
10 
 
 WEBSTER S REAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS. 
 
 and earnest feeling of its importance, and we respectfully solicit for it the full 
 consideration of the National Legislature. 
 
 Your memorialists were not without the hope, that the time had at length 
 arrived, when the inconvenience and the danger of this description of population 
 had become apparent, in all parts of this country, and in all parts of the civilized 
 world. It might have been hoped that the New States themselves would have 
 had such a view of their own permanent interests and prosperity, as would have 
 led them to prohibit its extension and increase. The wonderful increase and 
 prosperity of the States north of the Ohio is unquestionably to be ascribed in a 
 great measure to the consequences of the Ordinance of 1787; and few, indeed, are 
 the occasions, in the history of nations, in which so much can be done, by a single 
 act, for the benefit of future generations, as was done by this Ordinance of 1787 ; 
 and as may now be done by the Congress of the United States. We appeal to the 
 justice and the wisdom of the National Councils to prevent the further progress 
 of a great and serious evil: We appeal to those who look forward to the remote 
 consequences of their measures, ana who cannot balance a temporary or trifling 
 convenience, if there were such, against a permanent, growing, and desolating 
 evil. 
 
 We cannot forbear to remind the two Houses of Congress, that the early and 
 decisive measures adopted by the American Government for the abolition of the 
 Slave Trade are among the proudest memorials of our nation’s glory. That 
 Slavery was ever tolerated in the Republic is, as yet, to be attributed to the policy 
 of another government. No imputation thus far , rests on any portion of the 
 American confederacy. The Missouri Territory is a new country. If its 
 extensive and fertile fields shall be opened as a market for Slaves, the Government 
 will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so many acts, through so many 
 years, it has denounced as unpolitic, unchristian, inhuman. To enact Laws to 
 punish the traffic, and at the same time to tempt cupidity and avarice by the 
 allurements of an insatiable market, is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Govern- 
 ments by sueh a course, would only defeat its purposes, and render nugatory its 
 own measures. Nor can the laws derive support from the manners of the people 
 if the power of moral sentiment be weakened, by enjoying, under the permission of 
 Government, great facilities to commit offences. The laws of the United States have 
 denounced heavy penalties against the traffic of Slaves, because such traffic is deemed 
 unjust and inhuman. We appeal to the spirit of these laws : We appeal to justice 
 and humanity : We ask whether they ought not to operate, on the present occasion, 
 with all their force? We have a strong feeling of the injustice of any toleration 
 of Slavery. Circumstances have entailed it on a portion of our community, 
 which cannot be immediately relieved from it, without consequences more inju- 
 rious than the suffering of the evil. But to permit it in a new country, where 
 yet no habits are formed which render it indispensable, what is it, but to en- 
 courage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, against which we have so long 
 pointed the denunciations of our penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud 
 fame of the country? What is it, but to throw suspicion on its good faith, and to 
 render questionable all its professions of regard for the rights of humanity and 
 the liberties of mankind? As inhabitants of a free country ; as citizens of a great 
 and rising Republic; as members of a Christian community; as living in a liberal 
 and enlightened age, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of 
 religion and humanity ; we have presumed to offer our sentiments to Congress on 
 this question, with a solicitude for the event, far beyond what a common occasion 
 could inspire. 
 
APPENDIX F 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM “THE LCST PRINCIPLE,” BY “ BARBAROSSA,” 
 PUBLISHED AT RICHMOND IN 1860. 
 
 TIIE SECTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM.— HOW IT 17 AS CREATED. 
 
 “ In the constitutional convention of 1829, Watkins Leigh said: ‘ The federal 
 convention of 1787 had. for the first time , to arrange a representation of the people in 
 congress. What was the origin of the federal number 1 do not certainly know. I have 
 had. recourse , in vain , to every source of information accessible to ascertain how that 
 precise proportion of slaves — three-fifths — came to be adopted , what mode or prin- 
 ciple of estimate led to it. Some reason there must have been.' 
 
 “ It is my purpose, in the following pages, to solve this question of constitu- 
 tional history — to ascertain the reason that operated on the convention whioh 
 constructed the government under which we live, to adopt in the popular basis 
 the fractional representation which was awarded to the servile population of the 
 South. The report of ‘ The Debates of the Convention of 1787,’ by Mr. Madison, 
 enables me to do this. It is the only source from which that information can be 
 derived, for the fragment of those proceedings preserved by Judge Yates, affords 
 no clue whatever to the solution of this interesting problem. “ The Debates,” in 
 1829, were not published, but slept in manuscript, at Montpelier, until the death 
 of Mr. Madison broke the seal. ; 
 
 “ This part of the organic law has excited but little curiosity, and yet it is the 
 ground-work of the political edifice, with reference to which every other part was 
 made. A just understanding of this part of the constitution will furnish, if t 
 mistake not, an explanation of many of those questions that have convulsed the 
 North and South, and will supply us with the means of ascertaining how far we 
 have departed from the true meaning of that instrument — how far the ship of 
 State has drifted from the intended course. 
 
 “Mr. Madison was himself a member of the convention of 1829, and heard the 
 enquiry of Mr. Leigh, but said nothing. 
 
 “The constitution of the united states is generally understood to be a compact 
 to which the several states are parties ; and hence, that all the rights which it 
 provides are state rights, and the remedies for the violation of those rights, state 
 remedies. In consequence of this view of tie constitution, state secession and 
 state interposition have been suggested as the modes of redress in the several cases 
 to which they apply. But I shall attempt to prove, by authentic evidence, that 
 this is not true in the exclusive sense in which it has been stated. 
 
 “ The constitution is, indeed, a compact between states, but it is also a compact 
 between slaveholding and non-slaveholding sections ; and those sections are sus- 
 ceptible of obligations and injuries. This is not the least interesting light in 
 which the constitution presents itself, and thus viewed is a great treaty between 
 two nations of opposite civilizaiions, and, in many respects, o, posite interests, 
 maksng the federal system even more complex than it has been generally sup- 
 posed to be. 
 
 The true character of the constitution, and the government which has grown 
 out of it, is illustrated by the political parties which haye arisen under it. At 
 
2 
 
 EXTRACT FROM “ THE LOST PRINCIPLE.” 
 
 first, a consolidating tendency threatened to absorb the states. This produced the 
 state lights party — a school founded by Jefferson and Madison, and afterwards 
 sustained by a succession ot great men, of whom Calhoun was the most illustrious. 
 Calhoun devoted the energies of his wonderful intellect to developing this theory 
 of the constitution. Perceiving that the congressional or departmental checks 
 were of a subordinate character, and did not operate to r< strain the ruling power 
 of the constitution, he attempted to eliminate from the government a veto power 
 in the hands of the states, which he denominat'd an equilibrium, hut so denomin- 
 ated for no better reason, as I conceive, than that its originator would have em- 
 ployed it as an imperfect substitute for that wise and healing principle. 
 
 An equilibrium, properly so-called, enters into the government and is its living 
 principle. It is ever present; it assists in the deliberate 11 s of the legislature and 
 pairtak s of the enactment of Jaws; it moderates the judicial power, and in die 
 execution of the laws tempers the executive. But the states, acting as tribunes, 
 as they have been called from their fancied resemblance to that Homan officer, are 
 not piesent in the legislative chambers to arrest the passage of bills, but are to be 
 invoked to unraved that w. icn has teen woven, to repeal that which lias been 
 enacted, to undo that which has been done, and that only williin the narrow limits 
 of a state jurisdiction, and in case of a deliberate, paloable and dangerous exercise of 
 powers , not granted by the constitution. But the equilibrium is confined by no hounds 
 to its discretion, nor even to cases where the constitution is supposed to he in- 
 fracted, but decides upon lhe equity and policy as well as the constitutionality of 
 political aetion, and is omnipotent to repress corruptions and prevent extravagant 
 expenditures of public money. 
 
 The nature of the constitution is imprinted on its face, and bears unmistakable 
 traces of its two-lold origin. The states, in their sovereign capacity, are repre- 
 sented in the senate ; for, wherever sovereignty exists, equality necessarily pre- 
 vails. But the sections are represented, and their existence acknowledged in the 
 Electoral College, and in the constitution of the first branch of congress. It will 
 he seen, hereafter, that the senate was constituted on its present basis by a conflict 
 between the great and small states, and that the basis upon which the other branch 
 of congress was founded was the result of a collision between the North and 
 South, and that the differences, in both cases, were adjected upon the principle of 
 equality. 
 
 The difference between a simple compact among the states, and one to which 
 sections and states are equally parties, in respect to the range cf powers with 
 which it was thought expedient to invest government, is illustrated by the articles 
 of ccmfederation and that constitu ion under which we live. 
 
 In remarking upon that part of the constitution which contains the provision 
 for a slave representation, a recent intelligent writer says: “This was the first 
 step, and the next was the formation of the present constitution, when a contest 
 arose as to lhe ratio of representation. Should the South have as many repre- 
 sentatives, in proportion to her population, as the North ? It was just and right 
 that she should. The federal government had no eonoarn with the relations 
 between blacks and whites, the different classes of her population. It had not 
 the right to inquire whether the negro was a slave or free. The slaves were a 
 beUer population than the free negroes, and if the latter were to he counted at 
 their full number in the apportionment of representation, so ought the former. 
 The right could not he refused, because the slaves were naturally or legally 
 unequal to the whites; for so are the free negroes. It could not be refused, 
 because they have no political rights ; for neither have the free negroes, paupers, 
 womtn and children. They are an essential part of the population; if absent, 
 their places must be filled by other laborers, and if they are property as well as 
 population, it is an additional reason for giving their owners the security of full 
 representation for them. But the South, as usual, yielded to Northern exorbitance, 
 and agreed that five slaves should count only as three free negroes. Therefore, 
 instead of 105 representatives in congress, we have only 91.” 
 
 If, indeed, the constitution is to be regarded in the light of a compact between 
 
APPENDIX P. 
 
 3 
 
 two nations, it is impossible to say that it was just and right that the South should 
 have a full represemation of her slaves, without first ascertaining what effect that 
 would have upon the distribution of the powers of government between the parties. 
 If the effict of a full representation of slaves would place the government under 
 the dominion of me South, the uave power, who can say that there is any princi- 
 ple of natural justice that would have required the North to agree to any such 
 stipulation ? If their total or partial exclusion would have produced the contrary 
 effect, and placed the South under the control of the free-soil power, as little 
 could be said in defence of such an arrangement. Each party wa3 entitled to a 
 safe representation in the government, which could result alone from introducing 
 the principle of equality in the division of power; for in nature, as it is in the 
 court of chancery, equality is equity. The idea that the partial exclusion of 
 slaves from the representative basis was due to their moral and legal inferiority is 
 wholly unfounded, as will hereafter be proved, although that doctrine is incul- 
 cated by the respectable authority of the federalist. The Southern delegates in 
 the federal convention will likewise, in the progress of this narrative, be vindi- 
 cated from the insinuated charge of having submitted to Northern exorbitance ; but 
 the integrity of their me ives will be vindicated at the expense of their political 
 sagacity. 
 
 The sectional line between the Ncrth and South was almost as deeply drawn 
 in 1787, as it is at the present time. This will be clearly exhibited by an inspec- 
 tion of that part of the debates of the convention now about to pass under review. 
 It contradicts the notion entertained by some, that this sectional antagonism is of 
 recent growth and consequently that the constitution of the united states was not 
 made with reference to it. The states to the northward of Virginia and Maryland 
 were either already free states or were prepat ing to become so, and it was apparent 
 to every one that they would soon consummate their intention. The Northern 
 delegates in the convention of 1787, all acted in the free-soil interest, and the 
 delegates from the South were unanimous in the defence of the interest of slavery. 
 To reconcile that difference constituted the chief labor of the convention. The 
 year following, m the South Carolina convention of ratification, Gen. Pinckney 
 said : 
 
 “ But striking as this difference is, it is not to be compared to the difference 
 that there is between the inhalants of the Northern and Southern states; when I 
 say Southern, I mean Maryland, and the states southward of her. There we may 
 truly observe that nature has drawn as strong marks of distinction in the habits 
 and manners of the people, as 6he has in her climates and productions. The 
 Southern citizen beholds with a kind of surprise the simple manneis of the East, 
 and is too often induced to entertain undeserved opinions of the purity of the 
 Quaker, while they, in their tuin, seem concerned at what they term the extra- 
 vagance and dissipation of their Southern friends, and reprolate ) as an unpardonable 
 moral and political evil t the dominion they holdover a part of the human race.” Elliot’s 
 Debates, vol. iv, p. 310. 
 
 This feeling, which existed to so great a degree among the people in the two 
 sections, was ever showing itself in congress whenever the interests or powei of 
 either was involved. Tire Northern members objected to the admission of Ken- 
 tucky into the union, the Southern states objected to the admission of Vermont. 
 That fraternal love whicn many have supposed to have existed at that period 
 between the North and South, is purely imaginary ; instead, a strong and deep- 
 rooted antagonism characterized them both. Already had any affiliation between 
 a Northern member of congress and the Southern members been put under the 
 ban of the North. General Sullivan thus writes to Washington : “ The choice of 
 minister of war was postponed to the first of October. This was a manoeuvre of 
 Samuel Adams and others from the North, fearing that, as I was in nomination, the choice 
 would fall on me, who having apostatized from the true New England faith , by sometimes 
 voting with the Southern states, am not eligible * * 
 
 On Wednesday, the 27th June, “Mr. Butledge moved to postpone the sixth 
 resolution definin'; the powers of congress, in order to take up the seventh and 
 
4 
 
 EXTRACT FROM “ THE LOST PRINCIPLE.” 
 
 eighth, which involved the most fundamental points, the rules of suffrage in the 
 two branches. Agreed to nem. con.” Tlie seventh and eighth resolutions of the 
 report, were in the words following : 
 
 “ 7. Resolved, That the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national 
 legislature, ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of con- 
 federation, but according to some equitable ratio of r presentation, namely, in 
 proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, 
 of every sex, age and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of 
 years, and three-fifths of all other persons not compreh ndcd in the foregoing 
 description, except Indians not paying taxes in each state. 
 
 “ 8. Resolved, That the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national 
 legislature, ought to be according to the rule established for the first.” 
 
 it will be remarked, that the whole question, which was ultimately divided into 
 two branches, was, by these resolutions, presented in one point of view. The 
 debate which ensued was extremely interesting, and shows, even in the condensed 
 and imperfect account of it which has reached us, the difficulties which the con- 
 vention enc unter d. The proposed settlement was first assailed by the small 
 states; and one of the expedients proposed by that interest tor the settlement of 
 the disputujtxhibits, in striking colors, the deep-seated apprehension, unfounded 
 as it was then pronounced, and has since turned out to be, of an absorp.ion of 
 the lesser by the greater states. It was | roposed by the delegates from New 
 Jersey and Delaware to confound all state lines and throw them into one mass, 
 or into hotchpot , as the lawyers of the convention called it, and then r -partition 
 the teriitory into equal parts among the states. But the old difficulty would still 
 have existed. Some of those equal allotments would have been greatly superior 
 to others in wealth and population, which would have cau-ed, to borrow a passage 
 from Burke respecting a similar plan in the French constitution of 1789, “ such 
 infinite variations between square and square, as to render mensuration a ridicu- 
 lous standard of power in the commonwealth, and equality in geometry tire mo t 
 unequal of all measures in the distribution of men.” New Jersey ana Delaware 
 demanded such a consolidation and re-di tribution of territory, or an equality of 
 representation for the states in every department of government. But the more 
 moderate were content with an equal Vote in the senatorial department .which 
 they insisted upon as a negative ‘‘to save them from being destroyed. Sef-pro- 
 techon was their avowed object. It was in this connection, and in reply to Mr. 
 Fllswoitli of Connecticut, that Mr. Madison delivered a speech, from which the 
 following extract is made. It bears directly on the object of this publieation, and 
 states, in the most explicit language, the purpose and meaning < f the lraeticnal 
 representation awarded to the South in both the legislative departments by the 
 7th and 8th resolutions then under discussion. It is to Jie ratio which they con- 
 tained that Mr. Madison alludes: 
 
 He admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any class of citizens, or 
 any deseripiion of states, ought to be secured as far as po-s.bie. Wherever there 
 is danger of attack, tin re ought to be jriven a constitutional power of defence. 
 But he contended that the states were divided into different _iterests, not by their 
 difference of size, but by other ciicumstances ; the most material of which resulted 
 partly from climate, bu' principally irom the etiects of 'heir having, or not having 
 slaves. These two causes concurre 1 in . owning the great division of interests in 
 the u ited states. It did not lie between the large and small states. It lay between 
 the Northern and Southern; and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought 
 to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with 
 this important truth, that he had been easting about in his mind for some expe- 
 dient that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred, was, that 
 instead ol pro; ortioning the votes of the states in both branches, to their respective 
 number of inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they 
 should be represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants 
 on y ; and in the other according to the whole number, counting the slaves as 
 free. By this arrangement, the Southern scale would have the advantage in one 
 
APPENDIX F. 
 
 5 
 
 house, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from proposing 
 this expedient by two considerations; one was his unwillingness to urge any 
 diversity of interests on an occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself-; the 
 other was the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and 
 which would destroy the equilibrium of interests.’’ 
 
 This speech, so admirable for its correct appreciation of the true principles of 
 representative government, opens the discussion, so far as the debates show, upon 
 the subject of shivery. It exhibits the principles by which the speaker as a con- 
 stitution maker was guided, and especially sets forth the principles upon which 
 he had, as a Southern delegate, insisted. There could not be produced more 
 undeniable evidence — evidence amounting to the clearest proof — that the ratio of 
 three-tilths, as it stood in the re ort of the committee of the whole, then under 
 the consideration of the convention, was looked upon as designed to produce an 
 equilibrium between the two sections. This is fortified, and if any doubt re- 
 mained, would be rendered certain, by the narrative of the introduction of that 
 compromise therefore given. This is Out the contemporaneous exposition of the 
 purpose of the proposed basis, bv a single member of the convention, but, let it be 
 borne in mind, a member speaking for the whole South, ann speaking to the whole 
 North. I will proceed to collect all the passages from the succeeding debate, 
 which concern this point, in order to prove that it was universally looke t upon in 
 the sanm light in which it was viewed by Mr. Madison. By this means, the pur- 
 pose which that body had in view, in establishing that fractional basis, that mode 
 of distributing power between jealous and at length irritated sections, will be 
 established — established, it is believed, to the satisfaction of every sound under- 
 s.anding. [He then proceeds to give extracts from the ensuing debate, which 
 tend to sustain his theory. But the only object here is to quote enough to show 
 “ Barbarossa’s ” theory. He hardly succeeds in showing a tangible written com- 
 pact in the sense that the constitution is such.J 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX O 
 
 REVIEW OF AN ARTICLE STYLED “ THE RELATIONS OF THE 
 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES." 
 
 From the Southern Magazine of September , 1872. 
 
 I beg leave to offer a few hasty notes and queries on the paper of “ Justinian,” 
 with the above title, in the Southern Magazine for September.* 
 
 I submil that the champions of the South have always failed to set forth fully, 
 and properly substantiate, the facts of constitutional history. Hayne, Calhoun, 
 and Upshur might, before the senate and the world, have convicted Webster, 
 Jackson, a. id Story of falsifying history to pervert the.constitution ; and stamped 
 infamy on the great expounding fraud of the nineteeth century, which the 
 “speeches” of the first, the “proclamation” o. the second, and the “commen- 
 tary ” of the last constitute. 
 
 The defenders assumed their premises, and adduced scrappy proofs, just as the 
 perverters did. Both parties argued ably. The facts — mainly concealed or 
 
 * EXTRACTS FROM “ JUSTINIAN’S ” ARTICLE. 
 “Formation of the Constitution. 
 
 “The original thirteen states, which had previously established the articles of confederation, 
 agreed to elect separately, each by its own people, de'egates to a general convention of the several 
 states, to be held at Philadelphia, for the purpose of forming between themselves a constitution or 
 compact of government. This convention accordingly assembled at Philadelphia, on the 14th of 
 May, 1787, and the present constitution was drawn up and reported by Mr. John Rutledge of South 
 Carolina, and was finally agreed upon on the 7th of September; 1787. In this convention the dele- 
 gates of the several states determined that each state, being a separate sovereignty, should have one 
 vote, the smallest equally with the largest. In consequence of this equality of sovereignty, the two 
 smallest states, viz : Rhode Island and Delaware, at all times outvoted the great state of New York, 
 with five times their population. * ' * * * * 
 
 “ Its Authors. 
 
 The original draft, ‘or Plan of a federal constitution,’ was [on the 9th of May, 1787], presented 
 lo the convention by the distinguished Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. But the complete 
 report of the present united states constitution was written, and on the 6th of August, 1787, sub- 
 mitted to the convention by the chairman of a special committee, the eminent statesman, John 
 Rutledge, of South Carolina. * * * * * * 
 
 “ Conditional Acceptance. 
 
 “ The states of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island expressly annexed to their ratification, the 
 condition that they ‘reserve to themselves the right to reasume the powers delegated, whenever they 
 should be perverted to the injury of the people.’ Now it i> an elementary principle of law that 
 whenever one or more parties to an instrument or agreement annex a conuition, and are admitted 
 with this condition by the other parties, such condition becomes necessarily a part of the contract 
 itself. It is, therefore, evident that this right to withdraw, or secede, is an essential component part 
 of the constitution itself. * * * * * * 
 
 “ Definition of Soverei gnty, and its Exercise. 
 
 “Sovereignty is properly the fundamental, constitution-making, government-making power 
 which resides only in the people of each separate state, and can only be exercised or delegated by 
 them. This power is, by and through the elections of these separate peoples, delegated to and 
 embodied in, and can only be exercised by, the primordial organic conventions of the people of each 
 state. In this way the thirteen original states, each acting separately for itself, formed the old 
 confederacy of 1778-81, and thus each separate state, in' its organic convention adopted the consti- 
 tution of 1786, which conventions alone gave it any validity and power, irrespective of any majority 
 of the whole people,” 
 
2 
 
 REVIEW OF “ JUSTINIAN.” 
 
 ignored — were all on the side of the South ; but numbers, wealth, governmental 
 power and influence, precedent, and print, forced her and her champions to the 
 wall. 
 
 These could, after stating their premises, have overwhelmingly proved them, 
 and shown that no facts existed on the other side, inconsistent with their theory ; 
 just as any prudent and painstaking lawyer would have made up his case. 
 
 Where the right of self-government is in the peopl •, this course is indispensable, 
 for they understand the logic of facts, and it is upon them, now and forever, that 
 the duty rests of watching, and, in the last resort acting, in the pr servation of 
 their liberty. Self-or anization and self-government are the sum and palladium 
 of all their rights. It is their “eternal vigilance” which is “the price of liberty.” 
 
 To regain in peace what she lost in war, and vindicate the true theory of Ame- 
 rican institutional freedom, the South should, through her advocates, be full, 
 correct, and precise in historical fac'.s, true in the use of words and definitions, 
 and logical and unsophistical in argument ; for adroit opponents fr quently 
 triumph over correct theoiies, by forcibly refuting a few errors found therein, and 
 disingenuously concluding with some such phrase as, ex uno disce omnes. 
 
 “Justinian’s” theory is in the main correct ; but his paper contains a number 
 of errors, which it is my | airpose now to notice. 
 
 “FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION." 
 
 Under this head, he says, “ the thirteen states” “ agreed to elect,” “each bv its own 
 people,” delegates to the convention of 1787. “Agreed,” seems to refer to some 
 agreement wherein the thirteen wills joined, before and independent of the act of 
 election. Does any such agreement exist? Again, Rhode Is. and, certaimy, did 
 not agree to elect. Again, u ,s untrue that the slates were o or < id elect, “ each 
 by its own people,” lor the delegates were appointed by the state g >v rnments. 
 Again, is it not incorrect to say that “ the present constitution was drawn up and 
 reported by Mr. John Eutledge, of South Carolina?” I shall attempt to answer 
 this question hereinafter. Again, he says that “ in this convention ” “ each 
 state” was to have “one vote,” and that “in consequence” “Rhode Is’and and 
 Delaware at all times outvoted the great state of New York, with five times their 
 population.” As to this, in the first place, Rhode Island was not in the conven- 
 tion ; and, secondly, New York had not then even three times their population. 
 Aga n. he says the states aimed to form a constitution or compact of government. 
 “Constitution ot government” is cri.ically correct, but is “compact of govern- 
 ment” so? — but let that pass. If lam correct, here are four or five errors in 
 fourteen lines. 
 
 “ITS AUTHORS." 
 
 Under the head of “its authors,” he says “the original draft or ‘plan of a 
 federal constitution,’ was (on the 9th of May, 1787,) presented to the convention 
 by the distinguished Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. But the complete 
 report of the present united states constitution was written, and on the 6th of 
 August, 1787, submitted to the convention by the chairman of the special com- 
 mittee, the eminent statesman, John Rutledge, of South Carolina,” etc. This 
 can but mean that the “authors” of the instrument were Charles Pinckney and John 
 Rutledge — “the original draft or plan” being presented by the former; and “ the 
 complete” instrument being “written” and “submitted” by the lat'er. “ The 
 present constitution ,” says he, “was drawn up asid reported by Mr. John Rutledge of 
 South Carolina, and was finally agreed unon, on the 7th of September, 1787.” 
 
 If I understand language, “ Justinian” shuts out all participation of others in 
 the authorship, and reduces the convention, its committees, and its great men to 
 the com'-arative importance of the tail of a kite, or rather a comet. I presume 
 “Justinian” bases himself on the journal and debates of the federal convention, 
 as found in the first and fifth volumes of Elliott’s Debates; for if he had had 
 private or peculiar authorities, he would gladly have cited them. 
 
APPENDIX G. 
 
 3 
 
 LET THE RECORD SPEAK. 
 
 Let us then see what those authorities prove on the subject. 
 
 All suggestions, resolutions, and plans (including Randolph's, Tatterson’s, and 
 Pinckney’s) were early received by the convention, and were considered very delib- 
 erately in committe of the whole (of which Mr. Gorham was chairman), from 
 May 30th, to June 13th, inclusive; when Mr. G., as chairman, reported nineteen 
 resolutions, w ich contain ntarly all of the elements of the plan finally auopted. 
 [V Ell. Deb. 132-191.] 
 
 THE CONVENTION’S ACTION THEREON. 
 
 The convention itself thereafter deliberated upon the plan — receiving and con- 
 sidering others at the 'same time — taking up, discussing, and passing upon the 
 said resolutions, seriatim, and occupying itself thus from June 20th to July 26th, 
 at which date the resolutions had increased in number from nineteen to twenty- 
 three ; though no material change was made of principles or ot the general plan, 
 which was constantly spoken of as Randolph’s, or the Virginia plan. [Ibid. 214- 
 376.] It was not till then, and after the convention had most deliberately determined 
 on its principles , and outlined its plan , that the committee, of which Mr. Rutledge 
 was chairman, was appointed. This was on July 24th, and the journal mentions 
 it as “a committee to report a constitu ion, conformable to the resolutions [already] 
 passed by the convention.” The other members were Mr. Rutledge’s equals, 
 being James Wilson, Edmund Rando ph, Nathaniel Gorham, and Oliver Ells- 
 worth. They were commonly called the “committee of detail.” After “Justi- 
 nian” looks at It, id. 363, let him turn to Ibid. 376, and he will see that, “with the 
 above resolutions [which were the convention’s plan, and called the Randolph plan] 
 were referred the propositions offered by Mr. C. Pinckney on the 29th of May , and by 
 Mr. Pat erson on the 15th of June.” 
 
 On July 26th, “the convention unanimously adjourned till Monday, August 
 6th, that the committee of detail might have time to prepare and report the consti 
 tution.” 
 
 On Monday, August 6 h, “ in convention, Mr. Rutledge delivered in the repon 
 of the committee of detail, as follows — a printed copy being furnished to each 
 member.” This report is the one which “ Justinian” represents as “the complete 
 report of the present * * constitution, * * written, and on the 6ih of 
 
 August, 1787, submitted to the convention by the chairman of a special committee. 
 * * John Rutledge of South Carolina.” 
 
 In corroboration of Madison’s statements, and to show “Justinian” how Mr 
 Rutledge’s committee and its subordinate and comparatively insignificant duty 
 were contemporaneously viewed, I beg leave to offer an extract from tire Virginia 
 Gazette of August 9th, 1788: 
 
 “ Richmond, August 9. — On the 26th ultimo the federal convention, having 
 resolved upon the measures necessary to discharge their important trust , adjourned till 
 Monday, the 6th instant, in order to give a committee appointed for that puipost , 
 (to-wit: Mr. Randol t h of Vir inia, Mr. Gorham of Massachusetts, Mr. Ellsworth 
 of Connecticut, Mr. Wilson ot Pennsylvania, and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina) 
 time to arrange and systematise the materials which that honorable body have collected f 
 etc. 
 
 Des all this mean that “ the present constitution was drawn up and reported 
 by Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina?” 
 
 AGAIN AND AGAIN. 
 
 Nay. more, so determined was the convention to do its whole duty, and not be 
 a mere nose of wax, that ait r the said re] oit, the convention took up, examined, 
 discussed, and passed upon, consecutively, all the articles which had been pre- 
 viously agreed to by itself, and arranged by “ the committee on detail.” It was 
 engaged thus from August 7th till September 9th, [see V Ell. Deb., 382-530], 
 
4 
 
 REVIEW OF “ JUSTINIAN.' 
 
 at which last date it elected Johnson, Hamilton, G. Morris, Madison and King, 
 “ to revise the style of, and arrange the articles , which had been agreed to by the house.” 
 [Ibid. 530. ] ■ 
 
 And finally, after Dr Johnson, the chairman of “the committee on style,” had 
 “reported a digest of the plan,” the convention again passed upon the whole work, 
 article by article, making such changes and modifications as it chose ; and crowned 
 its work, on the 17th of September, 1787, by the members signing the constitution 
 by statts, to w tness, authenticate, and recommend it to the states, whose subjects 
 and deputies they were. 
 
 “THE ORIGINAL DRAFT” OF CHARLES PINCKNEY. 
 
 It should seem to any thoughtful person that the draft of a federal government 
 said to have been, by Charles Pinckney, “ laid before the house,” at the very 
 outset of its work, viz : on the 29th of May, 1787, [V Ell. Deb. 129,] too closely 
 resembles in many features and expressions, the convention’s laboriously matured 
 federal system, and contains too many results of the convention’s long delibera- 
 tions, to be authentic. Mr. Madison himself evidently believes, and conclusively 
 proves, that the document above referred to is not genuine.* 
 
 * The following is his statement of the case as given in V Elliott’s Debates, 578 : 
 
 The length of the document laid before the convention, and other circumstances, having pre- 
 vented the taking of a copy at the time, that which is inserted in the debates was taken from the 
 paper furnished t<> the Secretary of State, and contained in the Journal of the Convention, published 
 in 1819, which, it being taken for granted that it was a true copy, was not then examined. The 
 coincidence in several instances between that and the constitution, as adopted, having attracted the 
 notice of others, was at length suggested to mine. On comparing the paper with the constitution 
 in its final form, or in some of its stages, and with the propositions and speeches of Mr. Pinckney, 
 in the convention, it was apparent that considerable error hud crept into the paper, occasioned pos- 
 sibly by the loss of the document laid before the convention, [n ither that nor the resolution offered 
 by Mr. Patterson being among the preserved papers], and b) a consequent resort for a copy to the 
 rough draught, in which erasures and interlineations, following what passed in the convention, 
 might be confounded, in part at least, with the original text, and, after a lapse of more than thirty 
 years, confounded also in the memory of the author. 
 
 There D in the paper a similarity in some cases, and an identity in others, with details, expressions 
 and definitions — the results of critical discussions and modification, in the convention,— that could 
 not have been anticipated. 
 
 Examples may have been noticed in article VIII, of the paper; which is remarkable also for the 
 circumstance, that, whilst it specifies the functions of the president, no provision is contained in the 
 paper for the election of such an officer, nor indeed for the appointment of any executive magis- 
 tracy, notwithstanding the evident purpose of the author to provide an entire plan of a federal 
 govern ment. 
 
 Again, in several instances where the paper corresponds with the constitution, it is at variance 
 with the ideas of Mr. Pinckney, as dec dedly expressed in his proposition^, and in his arguments, 
 the former in the journal of the convention, the latter in the report of its -debates. Thus, in article 
 VIII. of the paper, provision is made for removing the president by ipipeach’ment, when it appears 
 that, in the convent ion, on the 20th of July, he was opposed to any impeachability of the executive 
 magistrate. In article III, it is required that all money biLls shall originate in the first branch of 
 the legislature; which he strenuously opposed on the 8th of August, and again on the 11th of 
 August. In article V, members of each House are ma e ineligible to, as well as incapable of hold- 
 ing, any office under the union, etc,, as was the case at one stage of the constitution — a disqualifi- 
 cation highly disappr -ved and opposed by him, on the 14th of August. 
 
 A still more conclusive evidence of error in the paper, is seen in article IH, which provides, as the 
 constitution does, that the first brunch of the legis ature shall be chosen by the people of the several 
 states; whilst it appears that, on the 6th of June, according to previous notice, too, a few days only 
 after the draught was laid before the convention, its author opposed that mode of choice, urging and 
 proposing, in place ot it, an election by the legislatures of the several states. 
 
 The remarks here made, though not material in themselves, were due to the authenticity and 
 accuracy aimed at in this record of the proceedings of a public body so mtuch an object, sometimes, 
 of curious research, as at all times of profound interest. [See another note, V Ell. Deb., 579. 
 
 A. H. Stephens, in his recent “ History of the Uuited States,” falls into the s-'me error as 
 “ Justinian,” on this point. Seemingly without investigation, he ignore** $nd virtually contradicts 
 important parts of Madison's history of these matters. In the aforesaid volume, p. 245 etxeq ., Mr. S. 
 states that “ on the federal side, two propositions were also submitted, one by Mr. .Patterson * * 
 
 and the < ther by Charles Pinckney. Mr. Pinckney's plan provided not only for the delegation of 
 additional powers, * * but it is also provided a complete machinery for the execution,” etc.; 
 
 and “!y wh eh,” he continues, “the federal character of the government would be retained, aa 
 suggested by Mr. Jefferson.” 
 
 Further along he says: ‘ It was now [about 20th June, 17871, found that- Mr. Pinckney’s plan in 
 the main, was Ike only one that could be adopted. By his plan all federal legislative power delegated 
 
APPENDIX G. 
 
 5 
 
 “ CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.” 
 
 “Justinian” is not less unfortunate in saying that “New York, Virginia and 
 Khode Island expressly annexed to their ratifications the condition that they 
 ‘reserved to themselves the right 10 reassume the powers delegated whenever they 
 should be perverted to the injury of the people;’” and in saying that, as this 
 condition is “ a part of the contract itself,” the right of secession “ is an essential 
 component part of the constitution.” 
 
 I think this invo’ves both a misquotation and a misstatement. With due 
 deference to “ Justinian,” I think it can be successfully controverted that the 
 three states used those words, or that they “expressly annexed” them as a condi- 
 tion. At all events, 1 beg leave to opine that the ratifications were unconditional 
 and absolute, and were at the time understood to be so. A condition, to be bind- 
 ing, must be content plated and agreed upon. An ex parte declaration is nugatory. 
 It seems to me “Justinian” does not fully appreh'end the right of secession, which 
 is the safety-valve, so to speak, of a federation. He degrades it by making it 
 constitutional or conditional. It is original, natural, unconditional and un- 
 bounded, above the constitution and independent of it. It did not need to be 
 reserved, or in any wise secured, for it was inherent, inalienable and indefeasible ; 
 and there are numerous evidences that the fathers took it for granted, as some- 
 thing that would, ex necessitate re>\ always exist, and would be used by the 
 members of the union respectively, whenever they thought proper, and especially 
 when prompted by the instinct of self-preservation ; for self-defence is the first 
 law of nature to the moral person called the commonwealth, as much as it is to a 
 natural person, or a mere brute. And it is absurd to talk of excuses, justifications, 
 or apologies. A sovereign can do as he pleases, and when he can be authorita- 
 tively asked for his reasons, he ceases to be a sovereign. 
 
 I will observe further, that if “Justinian” were to add his ingenious “condition” 
 to the federal pact, he would simply give to three states the right to relieve them- 
 selves, and leave the rest helplessly bound, that is, reduced forever to provinces. 
 
 “VIEWS OF JEFFERSON AND MADISON.” 
 
 Under this head, “Justinian” is equally at fault. Neither they, nor their reso- 
 lutions of 98 and ’99, (which were written by politicians, fora party contest; 
 and which are of but little direct force on these questions), aid the cause of seces- 
 sion, or even refer to it. Neither they nor “ Justini in” rise to the height of the 
 great argument of secession, for they simply claim that the states have the right 
 of redress, if the constitution “be perverted to the injury of the people;” and 
 that such perversionary acts or laws are nullities. 
 
 “DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND ITS EXERCISE.” 
 
 Under this head “Justinian” attempts a definition of sovereignty, but imme- 
 diately shows a verv erroneous apprehension of it, by saying it “resides only in 
 the people of each separate state, and can only be exercised or delegated by them.” 
 Mr. A. H. Stephens, and others, are under the same error, seeming not to know 
 that sovereignty is not identical with, or divisible into, powers ; and certainly is 
 not susceptible of being delega ed. Sovereignty never leaves the people. In 
 self-government they delegate their powers to agencies ; and do it by virtue of 
 their supreme, absolute and uncontrollable authority — their sovereignty. 
 
 was still to be vested in the congress of the united states; but this congress itself was to be divided 
 into two branches,” etc. 
 
 Again he says that ifter Yates, Lansing, and Martin- left, “ most of the nationals” “devoted all 
 their powers in per ecting a plan conforming to the outlines submitted by Mr. Pinckney.” 
 
 If we believe Messrs. “ Justinian ” and Stephens, and compare Pinckney’s plan with the ultimate 
 comtitution, we shall believe the august federal convention and its deliberations of 1787, to haYO 
 been an arrant sham, and Charles Pinckney to have been the Lycurgus of federal America. 
 

 
 
 
 . 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 - . 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 ... ...... . 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX II 
 
 REVIEW OF A. H. STEPHENS’ AND J. A. JAMESON’S WORKS ON 
 THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 [From the Round Table of October 10th, 1868], 
 
 1 . A Constitutional view of the late war between the Slates ; its causes, character , 
 conduct and results. Presented in a series of colloquies at Liberty Hall. By 
 Alexander H. Stephens. Philadelphia: National Publishing Co., IS68. 
 
 2. The Constitutional Convention ; its history , powers , and modes of proceeding. By 
 John Alexander Jameson, Judge, etc., and Professor of constitutional law, 
 etc., in the Chicago University. New York : Charles Scribner & Co., 1867. 
 
 The architects who builded the real and only temples of American liberty — 
 the states; and those who afterwards combined them, for increased security, into 
 the structure of surpassing grandeur, beauty, and excellence, called “the united 
 states essayed to avoid the old-world despotic theory of Divine right, which 
 really signified army-supported polities, and to build entirely upon the idea of 
 man’s capacity for self-government. A.l questions were to be settled without 
 force, by reason, on principles of justice ; and all political authority except deri- 
 vative and delegated, was to be kepi out ot the governmental contrivances to be 
 made, and left forever in the people — this being popular sovereignty, or the right 
 of self-government. Under Providence, our people naturally grew into organized 
 republics, and ruled themselves by the only true Divine right of government ; 
 for, being created free moral agents, they must have free choice in all personal, 
 social, and political affairs, in order to make it just that God should hold them 
 responsible for their probationary acts. 
 
 And as the people could not attend personally to polilical government in large 
 commonwealths, much less throughout a “republic of republics,” the plan had to 
 be adopted, of appointing certain persons to do this part of “ the people’s business,” 
 and of putting their commission to act, in carefully written form, so as to empower, 
 direct, and, at the same time, control them — the absolute right of such empowering 
 (and necessarily of withdrawing power) always remaining in the people, as their 
 sovereignty, or right of self government, and being inalienable. The writing in 
 question is their frame of government, or constitution, and is the most important 
 and sacred of public things — the very palladium of law, order, and all private 
 rights and blessings. It is the only procuration or warrant of the public function- 
 ary. Within it, he is justifiable in his doings; while in acting outside of it, he 
 becomes a malefactor, nay more, an outlaw, for he has neither its authorization 
 nor its protection. Moreover, to secure the sacred observance of this vital rescript, 
 and to prevent usurpation, the people provided for the exaction of an oath from 
 such servants and trustees. That oath being to support the constitution ; to obey 
 its commands ; to observe all its reservations ; and to keep themselves under it, 
 and consequently subordinate to its makers; the functionaries must commit perjury 
 and treason, if they “act, in this business, outside of the Constitution!” 
 
 This is our written system. The same general principles apply to both the state 
 and the federal constitutions. The people were above them. They must remain 
 so, unless a revolution has occurred, which has made them subjects. 
 
 What people? How organized? And how capacitated politically to act? 
 
2 
 
 REVIEW OF STEPHENS AND JAMESON. 
 
 These questions must be answered from contemporaneous authorities, as questions 
 of fact. "What did the founders say upon these points? and induce the people to 
 declare as their will ? Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissimo. In all our 
 remarks we shall hold this idea in view. 
 
 Mr. Stephens’ book well and forcibly presents the true theory of our “ republic 
 of republics ; ” but, with an exception to be mentioned, its evidences and arguments 
 are generally those of the great intellects who have shone in our partisan politics 
 and statesmanship ; and thus a noble and true theory is narrowed and degraded to 
 a, matter of party doctrine, and made to suffer all the odium and antagonism that 
 befall the Democratic party, whereas the setting forth of the original formation 
 of the states : their character ; their acts in federating : and the contemporaneous 
 expositions of all these things by the fathers ; would have placed the discussion 
 above a partisan grade and atmosphere ; would have been more worthy of a leading 
 pen ; and would have been much more likely to bring our people from wandering 
 in the “ wilderness of sin,” to the promised land — the political and liberty-pre- 
 serving system of their fathers. 
 
 However, it is a valuable labor to group even these authorities upon the points 
 of the book; and it is a highly creditable compilation, skilfully arranged, so as to 
 make a cogent, and, indeed, a conclusive argument, to sustain the federal theory 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 No criticism upon the style, plan, or purpose, need be made, further than to 
 say that the English is good, and the diction respectable — the graces being few ; 
 the plan has the shape, without the ease, grace, sparkle, wit, humor, or point of 
 good colloquy ; and the purpose is to show, by facts, authorities and arguments 
 that our political system is a federation of sovereign States. 
 
 The peculiar advantage of the colloquial mode to the author is, that he fights 
 ideal foes whose strength being within that of their creator, cannot prevent his 
 predetermined victory. In the cause of truth, however, it is better to grapple 
 wi ill the real deceivers and misleaders, who stand thickly around, vulnerable at 
 every point. Vanquishing the foes of conservatism and peace, in presence of the 
 governing people of our country, does practical and instant good : while battling 
 with prototypes and old dogmas, and trusting to the voters’ seeing points, and 
 tracing analogies, postpones indefinitely the victory, to which the author’s right- 
 eous cause and superior powers entitle him, and which would be a public blessing ! 
 Mr. Stephens’ fine faculties should be exerted on the rostrum, and in Congress, 
 against the Shermans, Sumners, Binghams, Butlers, Greeleys, and suchlike 
 breathing evils, rather than the ideal Heisters, Bynums, and Nortons, or even the 
 defunct Storys and Websters. 
 
 If it was well to go back to the “Expounders,” it was better to keep on to the 
 < 'institutional era, where the very dogmas of the said “ expounders,” appear in 
 the shape of charges against the Constitution, made by its enemies, to defeat it. 
 This would have enabled the author, upon every point and argument of his book, 
 to reproduce Hamilton, Madison, "Wilson, Dickinson, "Washington, and others, 
 with far greater effect than results from repeating Calhoun, Bibb, Gin. Jackson’s 
 writers, senate resolutions, and Democratic platforms. And, in truth,, as exposi- 
 tors of our system, these are at best but excellent copies of Madison, Jefferson, 
 Tucker, and Taylor of Caroline; and even the latter merely repeated what had 
 been said , at the time and act of forming the Constitution , by its founders. Therefore 
 we r'egret that the stones of Mr. Stephens’ mosaic work, were mainly quarried 
 from the mine of partizan politics instead of constitutional history. 
 
 However the calm, candid, and truthful tone of the work is admirable — the 
 spirit of the constitutional era running through all its pages. And it is to be 
 regretted that the superabundant proofs which that era affords, are so sparingly 
 used, when they would have added to the conclusions of the work 
 “ Confirmation strong 
 As proofs of Holy writ.” 
 
 One of Mr. Stephens’ collocutors opens the discussion, by speaking of that 
 gentleman’s apparent inconsistency, in supporting sece«ion, aftc# making his great 
 
APPENDIX H. 
 
 3 
 
 Union speech of November 14th 1860 ; whereupon Mr. S. proceeds at length, and 
 most satisfactorily, to explain that our polity was a union of states, of which 
 Georgia was an equal member ; that our political system is merely the government 
 of republican states by themselves — the governmental contrivances being their 
 creations, administered by their citizens, and only possessing and exercising their 
 power ; that he advised Georgia to acquiesce in Lincoln’s election ; that she did 
 not do so, but withdrew from the association of states she, as to herself, had 
 formed ; that in all this she simply exercised her sovereignty, and demanded of 
 him her due obedience and devotion. He has no difficulty in vindicating his 
 consistency. 
 
 He clearlv sets forth the history of the Union ; the action taken by all the states 
 to form the first federation, which he analyses ; the defects of the system, and the 
 consequent general desire for a change ; the Annapolis Convention of 1786; the 
 Philadelphia Convention and the credentials of the delegates from their States ; 
 the action of the Convention ; the constituiion they proposed, with an excellent 
 analysis thereof; maintaining throughout and establishing irrefutably the propo- 
 sition that the Constitution i* a compact of federation between sovereign States. 
 
 He introduces a decisive mode of proof, which seems not to have be n much 
 appreciated till an English publication entitled “ Davis and Lee,” in 1S64 or 5, 
 (republished here) put it prominently forward, viz: The history of the conven- 
 tions, debates and ratifications of the several states — thus exhibiting precisely 
 what gave the federal constitution its existence and validity, and the federal 
 functionaries their sole warrant of jurisdiction within a given state. He then 
 quotes and comments on Calhoun, Bibb, Jackson, Webster, the dicta of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, the Senate resolutions of 1838 and 1860, etc., 
 — all supporting state sovereignty ; and criticises Story and Motley, as well as 
 Webster’s efforts, that oppose that theory. And after quoting Jefferson, Hamilton, 
 Tucker, Itawle, John Q. Adams, Lincoln, Greeley, and the Hartford convention 
 on secession, he concludes with a powerful chapter on the strength of confedera- 
 tions, and the working of our system. 
 
 Altogether we consider this work very valuable, from its calm, judicial spirit, 
 and from its strong and logical presentation of overwhelming proois, on the most 
 important of all political questions. Its appearance is timely, for public attention 
 is more than ever directed to the questions discussed. It is, however, like the 
 most of judicial opinions, founded entirely upon precedents; and much disap- 
 pointment will be felt, that so superior and fertile a mind, should have produced 
 a work with so little originality, profound thought, careful analysis, and philoso- 
 phical reasoning. As a commentary it is far below Upshur and Calhoun ; as a 
 criticism on Story and Webster, it does not approach Bledsoe; and in its most 
 valuable argument, it has been anticipated by the English work before mentioned. 
 In short, a student of constitutional science will find little that he has not seen 
 before. 
 
 All things considered, however, the book is a worthy addition to our political 
 literature. While it gathers, and puts in available and useful form, a multitude 
 of scattered fragments of statesmanship and political philosophy, it comments 
 upon them, and the errors it opposes, with a most commendable temper, candor, 
 truthfulness and logical force. Every citizen can read it with profit, and every 
 library should contain it. 
 
 The other work, mentioned in the heading, is written by a professor of consti- 
 tutional law, who seems not to be a professor of constitutional facts ; but as a 
 literary performance, and as an effort of original reasoning, it is far superior to 
 that of Mr. Stephens; and it exhibits more research, and profundity of thought. 
 It is however replete with inexcusable and pernicious errors. Like Story and 
 Webster, the author comes to his work with a cherished theory. Assuming his 
 premises, culling such facts of constitutional history as suit him, and arguing 
 logically, he finally reaches the conclusions he desires. 
 
 He sets out bv dividing conventions into four classes: “I. The spontaneous 
 convention, or public meeting. II. The ordinary legislative convention, or general 
 
4 
 
 REVIEW OF STEPHENS AND JAMESON. 
 
 assembly. III. The revolutionary convention. IY. The constitutional con* 
 vention. The first three classes are sufficiently described for our purpose by the 
 appellations : the fourth is the main subject of the work, which may be described 
 as the full gospel of consolidation and centralism. The author is unable to imagine 
 a voluntary “ Government,” or union, that can be other than “ a rope of santi : ” 
 he attributes to “ Government ” that coercive power over States, that was expressly 
 denied to it by its makers : he transforms the federal agency into a Briareus, 
 whose hundred or less hands grasp as many helpless but sweetly captiva ed states, 
 which are thus strongly attached 10 the Union : and, to cap the climax, he thinks 
 the constitution of a state, a straight-jacket, put upon the people thereof, by a 
 superior power (because they are crazy, idiotic, or otherwise incapable of self 
 government — we presume) which they cannot put off wknout leave, no matter 
 how dirty, ragged, hurtful, or otherwise objectionable it may be. 
 
 That this is a fair presentation of the constitutional law this professor professes, 
 is evinced, we think, by the following samples of his theory, as well as style. He 
 sets out by defining the word “ state ” as meaning “ 1st, any organized political 
 community ; ” and 2nd, “ In a limited sense * * * a member of the 
 
 American union.” With great parade of definition, and show of careful reasoning, 
 he asks where “sovereignty resides?” and remarks that “the difficulty is, in the 
 jumble of national and State organizations, to locate it ” He finally “locates” it 
 in the nation, and generalizes thus — paraphrasing Webster: “The people of the 
 United States, in 1789, threw the existing constitutions of the several States into 
 hotchpotch, and repartitioned among these bodies, the powers tliey were thence- 
 forth to exercise, giving a portion thereof to the States, a portion to the general 
 government, and reserving the re-idue to thi mselves. And the States have habit- 
 ually conformed to the edict, which thus curtailed, and ascertained their powers.” 
 [p. 29. J Under the constitution of the nation, * * * each State is permitted, 
 by the sovereign, to frame for its own people, its local constitution.” And, con- 
 tinues he, in doing this, “they perform a delegated function.” [p. 65.] 
 
 Not a fact, or a phantom of a tact, in all American history, supports such ideas ; 
 but every thing disproves them. But it were a mistake to suppose the author’s 
 ideas to be a “jumble ; ” or that the contents of his head are hotchpotchy. On 
 the contrary, he reasons clearly from consolidation premises, though he evinces 
 some creative genius in making them. It must be noted, however, that the con- 
 stitutional construction of the school to which he belongs, means building , rather 
 than construing; and their structure is like the temple of Fame in the picture, 
 majestic and “ cloud-capped,” but unsubstantial, unpractical, unhistorical, and 
 unconstitutional. They seem to think it right, or at least “ smart,” to make the 
 facts of their great political fabric. Why should they not? Did not the French 
 at Suez fabricate stone for their piers, jetties, and other constructions? Is it not 
 better and easier to make the fabrications for constitutional construction, since 
 neither materials nor manipulation are required? If Professor Jameson and 
 Fnginecr Ltsseps had been coeval with the Civil engineer of Syracuse, “the great 
 globe itself” might have become vagrant, like the lost Pleiad, for they would 
 have said: “ Assume your fulcrum, Archimedes;” and the premises we all occupy, 
 and reason from, would have been forced to yield to the assumption. And why 
 should we not, in like manner, be logically evicted from our houses or farms, 
 some professor, engineer, or less reputable character, assuming the premises, and 
 saving to us — “ Vamon.' ’’ 
 
 But seriously, the professor has merely made a bull. It would be as sensible 
 to expect, by throwing thirteen suits of clothes into a rag-bag, to consolidate their 
 owners inio a giant, equal to all of them, as to expect to make a nation by throwing 
 the State constitutions into hotchpotch. The elements of a nation must be 
 people, and all our people were States. It was they (and not their constitutions— 
 or mere written evidences of their will) that must have been put into his vast 
 brick machine (let us call it, as hotchpotch is rather vague) ground over* re- 
 moulded, and baked anew, in one stupendous “brick with all the corners on.” 
 Amei.can history only shows one other liigh-sourced blunder as amusing. Another 
 
APPENDIX H. 
 
 5 
 
 eminent Illinois gentleman, named Lincoln, said the union made the States , and 
 gave them tueir only status and rights ! 
 
 Starting from such premises as the above, the author goes sublimely but logically 
 along, through all his 550 large octavo pages, never deigning to look at the being, 
 “born of poor but respectable parents,” in 1788 (not 1789), called the federal 
 government, together with what Mr. Stephens calls the res gestoe — probably mean- 
 ing the things happening at the gestation. He ignores, or gives no weight to, the 
 following facts: 1, that the states are named and described in the constitution, as 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, et als., without the 
 slightest qualification ; 2, that they became members of the Union without the 
 least imaginable change; 3, that they are called States throughout the constitution, 
 not in any limited sense, but in the same sense as France, Spain, and Russia are, 
 [Art. Ill § 2 ; Amendments Art. XI] ; 4, that each colony was formed and 
 governed by herself till independence, when she became a complete body politic 
 or state, which, having no superior, must have been sovereign ; 5, that George III, 
 at the instance of the American commissioners who negotiated the treaty of 1783 
 acknowledged each state to be sovereign; 6, that each declared or implied sover- 
 eignty to be in herself; 7, that all declared and guarantied that each had sover- 
 eignty, and every possible power, except what she delegated ; 8, that this sover- 
 eignty was a matter of essential character distinguishing tire state from a province 
 or other subdivision of a state or nation ; 9, that when tne constitution was formed, 
 these States were pre-existent, with sovereign characters solemnly established, 
 and they could but have acted in such characters ; 10, that the federal convention 
 of 1787, unanimously wrote the preamble of the constitution as follows: “We 
 the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut ” etc., “ do 
 ordain this constitution” etc., and they never changed their will; but as it was 
 provided that nine of the States might make the federation, and as it could not 
 be foretold which of them might accede to it, the Committee on style properly 
 struck out the names, but put in the equivalent expression, now in the preamble; 
 11, that Article VII provides “for the establishment of this constitution between 
 the States so ratifying the same, thus showing that the States , by ratifying, established, 
 and alone became the potential parties ; 12, that the States have the original and 
 absolute elective power, and the exclusive control of the same [Art. I % 2, 3 ; II 
 | 1], and that they act severally in electing both houses of congress and the presi- 
 dent, while these, as their agents, appoint all other officers ; 13, that there are no 
 citizens in the federation but citizens of States [Art. III $ 2; IV \ 2] each federal 
 officer necessarily remaining a citizen of a state, owing allegiance thereto, and, 
 indeed, being sworn to support his state’s “ supreme law,” which the Constitution 
 is ; 14, and finally that we have no nation but States — “ united States,” the consti- 
 tution throughout, thus phrasing the political arrangement of 178S, or calling it 
 a “ union of States ” [Art. I § 2 ; IV $ 3, 4], These facts destroy without remedy, 
 the fabric of consolidation, built, con amore, and with such signal ability, by the 
 professor. If he had been seeking for truth, and had come to ruin, which could 
 hardly be, we should sympathize with him ; but he started with a palpably wrong 
 theory; sought to prove it; and, as Carlyle once said, “mashed his face to a pan- 
 cake against the adamant of things:” and we can neither pity him, -nor hope he 
 will have the face to go further. A nation is a good thing to have, but he must 
 manage to get along with one which absolute sovereigns constitute by federalizing 
 themselves, and governing themselves jointly. The people might have been one 
 state, but for the stubborn fact that they were many. And the consolidation of 
 them might have been advisable, but our fathers all thought and acted contrariwise; 
 and we protest against discarding their wisdom, after experiencing for two or 
 three generations, and up to 1860, that “ its ways are ways of pleasantness, and 
 all its paths are peace.” It is sad to Gradgrind to death a theory of so much 
 esthetic merit, but it is a matter of absolute history, that the raw materials of 
 which alone a nation could be made, viz : the people, the land, and the political 
 power, all belonged to the then existent and acting States of New Hampshire, 
 Massachusetts, et als., which were, after their federation, the selt-same iStaLes, in 
 
6 
 
 REVIEW OF STEPHENS AND JAMESON. 
 
 every respect, that they were before — thus showing that a nation or state com- 
 prising them, was a political impossibility. 
 
 Of the two author*-, under review, however, we must concede to this one the better 
 understanding of sovereignty, though he makes a bad use of his superior knowl- 
 edge. He sees the nature of it, but errs in regard to its location ; while Mr. 
 Stephens, who is correct, in the main, as to its location, is evidently sonvwhat 
 mistaken concerning its nature. Though the tenor of his book, and the proofs he 
 marshals, make against it, yet he seems now and then to have a vague idea that the 
 States can be partly sovereign and partly subject, for he quotes Web ter, as “ fully 
 admittin g, that the States are sovereign, except in so far as they have delegated 
 specific sovereign powers.” (pp. 398, 403). Hon. Geo. IT. Pendleton, in a re.ent 
 speech at Bangor, said: “It is a union of States, sovereign, except in so far as 
 they have delegated,” etc. The N. Y. World expresses it, that the States are “ not 
 sovereign, except as to their reserved rights.” Nearly all our statesmen, imitating 
 Story and Webster, use the same expression, forgetting that “sovereign” and 
 “sovereignty” are superlative in signification; that divisible sovereignty is a 
 solecism, and is not known to publicists [see Yattel and Lieber] ; that what 
 they call exceptions from sovereignty are precisely identical with the powers abso- 
 lutely owned by sovereignty, and delegated to its agents ; and that it is absurd to 
 talk of soveieignty making an exception out of sovereignty, and thereby forming 
 a sovereignty, which, if resisted, can coerce and destroy sovereignty. 
 
 Obviously, the excepted sovereignty must have supremacy and coercive power. 
 So we find these gentlemen, and the World , agreeing with Webster, in his great 
 speech of 1833, that “so far, State sovereignty is effectually controlled;” and 
 with Lincoln, who said — States are counties of the nation, as well as with the 
 Philadelphia convention, that the “Government” “has absolute supremacy,” 
 and holds “ the States in allegiance.” And, indeed, they can all stand with Pro- 
 fessor Jameson, who concedes “that the States are sovereign, except in so far as 
 they” are not; and that so far as they are not, “State sovereignty is effectually 
 controlled ! ” 
 
 It is amusing to find the extreme advocates of antagonistic theories occupying 
 the same ground. Is Grant’s prayer to be answered ? The truth is, our State- 
 rights men do not clearly understand their own platform. They forget that there 
 is nothing to distinguish our States from the States or nations of public law ; that 
 the constitution makes no distinction between our States, and “foreign States,” 
 but recognizes their sameness of character and description — as we have seen ; 
 that the possession of sovereignty (which, in nature, is indivisible and absolute), 
 is the only thing that distinguishes a State or nation from a province, colony, 
 satrapy, county, municipality, or other subdivision, or dependence of a State or 
 nation ; that if sovereignty is out of our States, they are, (and ought to be called) 
 united provinces or united counties, instead of united States ; and, finally, that 
 if they are under a sovereignty that can control them, they have gone back to 
 where' they were, under Britain, for then the will of the political body now called 
 a State, was dominated by an outside sovereignty ; and taxation without repre- 
 sentation of any given State is as rightful and practicable now as it "'as then. 
 Are we united provinces or colonies again ? One of these advocates (the World,) 
 happily affords us the reductio ad absurdum , by saying we have a “ national sover- 
 eignty,” and that the States have “ no sovereignty, except as to their reserved 
 rights.” It also says, with Lincoln, that the only rights of the States are reserved 
 in the constitution, by this “national sovereignty.” Of couse this paramount 
 authority can judge what they are, and decide pro or con as to their continuance. 
 u Sovereignty ” must be able to do this, and enforce its decree ! This answers to 
 the verv consolidation our fathers strove to avoid. Having gone thus far, pari 
 passu with Mr. Lincoln, The World should have joined him in his climax. “ In 
 what, on principle is a State better than a county ? ” 
 
 We conclude with a few remarks on another apparent error of Mr. Stephens. He 
 generally tree's of the States as possessing undivided sovereignty, but seems to 
 concede that it might have been, though it was not, alienated or divided ; and, in 
 
APPENDIX H. 
 
 7 
 
 one place, he distinctly degrades it to a power, or the sum of powers, that could 
 be surrendered or reserved. Was not sovereignty, says he, “ most clearly retained 
 and reserved to the people of the several States, in that mass of residuary rights, 
 * * which was clearly reserved in the constitution itself? It is true, it was 
 
 not so expressly reserved in the constitution at first, because it was deemed * * 
 
 wholly unnecessary. * * But to quiet the apprehensions of Patrick Henry, 
 
 Samuel Adams, and the Conventions of a majority of the States, this reservation 
 of sovereignty, was soon after put in the constitution.’’ And to prove that this 
 sovereignty was reserved in the constitution, to the States, he quotes the amend- 
 ment, declaring that “ the powers not delegated * * are reserved to the 
 
 States.” [p. 489, et seq]. 
 
 Sovereignty, which is thus grossly degraded, can be nothing less than the life 
 and soul of the State, in point of importance. It is an essential characteristic, 
 and is neither the subject nor the result of any acknowledgement, agreement, 
 guaranty, or reservation ; but when in the war for independence, the force of the 
 colonies prevailed, severeignty came to exist in each of them as a new-born soul 
 — an adamantine, eternal fact, which the words of George III, or the federated 
 States no more produced, than their confession could have produced Truth or 
 God ! The most of our statesmen seem unable to distinguish between “ sover- 
 eignty” and its “powers.” It is evident that these are no part of sovereignty, 
 for all possible. “ powers” of government may be delegated, and sovereignty 
 remain intact. Sovereignty and ownership are sufficiently analogous for the lat- 
 ter to throw light on the former. One who has ownership, has the absolute right 
 of control and disposal — the jus disponcndi. This includes all the powers required 
 for its exercise. If the owner delegate “powers” to manage, improve, repair, 
 rent, lease, mortgage, or sell, his ownership remains intact, and the agent neither 
 has, nor exercises it. So with sovereignty: it is, so to speak, the ownership of 
 all persons and things subject to it, or it is like an owner’s dominion over them ; and 
 after delegating a thousand “powers” (of government, etc), it is undiminished. 
 England has a myriad of agents with “ powers,” in every part of the globe, while 
 her sovereignty is always at home. Sovereignty sent, but did not accompany, 
 the victorious armies of the Crimea. So in our country, sovereignty sends “ sub- 
 stitutes and agents” with “powers” to govern, but remains quietly at home. 
 That the. general “government” has only “powers,” the constitution everywhere 
 shows. It is wrong then to say that sovereignty is the soul of a State ? This 
 political body was the only fit receptable for such soul, and the solemn record 
 shows that it did enter and dwell therein. The two were vitally joined. Have they 
 been put asunder ? If yea, when ? 
 
 Finally, it seems to us to be unquestionable, that our States are absolutely 
 sovereign republics ; only self-bound in a purely voluntary association, which is 
 solely motived by amity "and mutual interest ; and that the federal contrivance is 
 their instrumentality for self-government and self-protection — is their creation- 
 lives solely with their life and acts solely with their powers — and must ever be 
 subject to their “ supreme law,” and, a fortiori to themselves. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 CRITICISM OF A PASSAGE IN RIVES’ LIFE OF MADISON. 
 
 From the Richmond Enquirer of March 17, 18G8 — the latter part is revised and somewhat amplified. 
 
 M THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES— AN ABLE DOCUMENT. 
 
 “We surrender a portion of our space to-day, to an able paper which discusses 
 a topic of importanc in connection with the rights of the states, as those rights 
 wer_- regarded prior to the recent civil war. This paper is an advance chapter of 
 a forthcoming work by one of the counsel of Mr. L^vis, on the sovereignty, citi- 
 zenship and allegiance of the American polity. The subject of the paper, and 
 the ability with whim, it is handled, will commend it to our readers.” 
 
 Considering the lessons of the recent war, its causes and its effects, in destroy- 
 ing the freedom of Virginia, it is simply amazing that one of her cherished sons, 
 the Hon. William C. Rives, af er the investigations necessary for his most elaborate 
 lile of Madison, should adopt the palpably false theory of Story, or should 
 fail to denounce it with indignation and abhorrence, especially as the identical 
 theory was urged in the Virginia convention and throughout the country as a 
 charge against the constitution, and was tr.umphantly refuted by the advocates of 
 that system, which was thereby alone saved trom defeat. 
 
 Mr. Rive-, in vol. II, p. 607, quotes the declaration with which Virginia 
 accompanied her ratifying ordinance as iollows : ‘‘ That the powers grant d under 
 the Constitution, being derived from the people of the united states , be resumed by them 
 whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” 
 
 He then says: “A very extraordinary attempt has been someiimes made to 
 show that Virginia, by the language of her ratification of the constitution, reserved 
 to herself the expr ss right to secede from the compact whensoever, in tier judgment, 
 it should be proper to do so.” He then says the nature of the transaction, as 
 well as the history of it, shows that no such reservation was, or could have been, 
 contemplated by the convention ; and that the above protest was not intended to 
 be more than the re-affirmation of tne maxim in the declaration of independence, 
 that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” 
 and that the people can change their government when it abuses its powers. 
 
 No “ focman worthy of his steel ” claims secession to be a constitutional right. 
 Some unthinking people talk of “ rights reserved to the states in theconstitu'ion,” 
 as if this instrument were the source of such rights, when really the said rights 
 pre-existed and were, by the owmers, kept out of the compact; and this is all that 
 “reserve” means, though the Lincolns of the country, who are ver) r numerous, 
 say that the states have no rights but tlio-e reserved to them in the constitution. 
 
 The federal instrument has nothing to do with the right of secession. Neither 
 has any ordinance ot ratification. If such right exist, it must be of the nature of 
 that sovereignty which is inherent in the people, as organized. It is a truth that 
 the said people were sovereign states when they ratified, and unless they in ratifying 
 abdicated self-government, or committed suicide, they remain sovereign. And 
 we see no change in name, organization or faculties of the states, and no hint ol 
 
2 
 
 CRITICISM ON RIVES’ LIFE OF MADISON. 
 
 change is found in the federal compact, where, if anywhere, such change would ap- 
 pear. If the state had the right (by virtue of her innate sovereignty — i. e., the “all 
 power” which our states declare to be inherent in their people, and which must 
 be so if they have never ceased to be republics) to “assent to,” “ratify,” “ordain,” 
 “delegate,” etc., and thereby impart life and validity to a constitution of govern- 
 ment, she has necessarily (not a constitutional, but) an inherent sovereign right 
 to dissent from, to unratify, to secede, or to withdraw delegations; for it is an 
 axiom that the ordaining (or enacting) and repealing powers are precisely commen- 
 surate. Indeed, they are the affirmative and negative manifestations of the same 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Rives not only means that Virginia, does not assert her right to withdraw 
 her own delegations, but he more than implies that there is no such right in a state. 
 That is to say, a state cannot repeal her own ordinance or le v; recede from her 
 own compact; annul what she has established; revoke her own grants, or with- 
 draw her own delegations; and yet everybody knows that she “ordained,” “estab- 
 lished,” “ratified,” “delegated,” etc., as a sovereign! The odious word “seces- 
 sion” is, unfortunately, the one in common use to signify the undoing of the acts 
 indicated by the above q oted words, but it expresses a right which there is noth- 
 ing in the nature of things, in the constitution, or in American history, to deny. 
 And, indeed, the right of secession is absolutely essential to freedom. — A people 
 held against their will are not free ; they are not republican ! 
 
 The ratifying ordinance of Virginia was the sole act that ever gave the federal 
 compact force within her borders. The assumption now Is, that she ordained this 
 law — this “supreme law” — when she had no earthly superior, and — bound her- 
 self forever! — What an absurdity ! Whom did she bind herself to? Mr. Rives 
 will probably answer, “ to the government.” But the said government did not 
 exist till the act of binding was un fait accompli , and the said government is the 
 result of the bond. How can it be supreme over the makers? If Mr. R. were 
 to answer, “to the union,” “to the nation,” or “to the united states,” he would 
 be equally unfortunate, because the existence and only legal force of said “union,” 
 “nation” or “ fedeiation,” result from the preceding sovereign act of Virginia ; and 
 surely she cannot be presumed to have committed self-sub ,ugation or self-extinc- 
 tion ! No reflectirg person can fail to see that she merely made a compact and 
 imparted specific powers to “ substitutes and agents,” but underwent no change 
 in her integrity of being, or her absolute right of self-government. 
 
 Now, having shown the anti-secession ideas to be absurd, I shall proceed to 
 show that Virginia did intend to declare that “the powers granted” in the consti- 
 tution were subject to be “ resumed " by her, when “ perverted to her injury or 
 oppression.” At the outset, it should be observed that all the states were co-equal 
 republics, federating and delegating power ; and that any general principle, though 
 uttered by but one, was equally applicable to all. Virginia was, at the time she 
 uttered the protest in question, delega.ing her own powers. And it was in refer- 
 ence to said powers that she spoke. Did she mean to say that when the powers 
 she delegated were perverted, the whole people of the united states had the right 
 to “ resume ” them ? Did she not rather mean that each or anization of people 
 that del < gated, could “ resume ” or “re- assume” to use New York's expression, what 
 it had delegated ? Virginia, or New York delegating, and the whole American 
 people “ resuming” or “re-assuming,” is a manifest solecism. 
 
 And the phraseo! y affords positive proof that Mr. R. is mistaken. Whom 
 are “the powers grained” “derived from?” The people of Virginia, of course. 
 When “ the same shall be perverted,” what is to be done? “ The same ” are to “ be 
 resumed by them.” “The same” must refer to the powers of Virginia, and “be 
 resumed by them,” must refer to the delegators, and to their taking back what 
 they gave. The phrase “the people of the united states” of course meant the 
 people as political bodies. So they existed, and so only could they act. They had 
 no capacity to act as a nation either in delegating, re erving or resuming. 
 
 Now let us see what the great men of Virginia said, in her convention on this 
 very snbject. Said Marshall: “We [the" people of Virginia] are threatened 
 
APPENDIX I.] 
 
 3 
 
 with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the 
 maxim, that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power, 
 and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give 
 it, and of whom the servants hold it. The government is not supported by force, 
 but depends on our free-will.” 
 
 Said Chancellor Pendleton: “Who but the people can delegate powers? 
 When we were forming our state constitution, we were confined to local circum- 
 stances. In forming a government for the union, we must consider our situation 
 as connected with our neighboring stat s.” As to the danger of the abuse of the 
 powers, he said : “ We will assemble in convention — wholly recall our delegated 
 powers, * *' and punish those servanis who have perverted powers designed 
 for our happiness to their own emolument.” 
 
 Said Governor Randolph : “Her weakness compels her to confederate with 
 twelve other governments. She trusts certain powers to the general government, 
 in order to support, protect and defend the union.” It is absurd to say that “ she 
 trusts” powers to her own creature, which she cannot “resume,” when they are 
 abused. 
 
 Said Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland: “It [the constitution proposed] goes on the 
 principle that all power is in the people, and that rulers have no powers, but what 
 are enumerated in that paper. * * I am convinced that it secures the liberty 
 
 of Virginia. * * Those who go to congress, will be the servants of the people. 
 They are created and deputed by us, and removable by us. * * It [the 
 
 constitution] is now submitted to the people of Virginia for their adoption. If we 
 do not adopt it, it will always be null and void as to us.” 
 
 Said Mr. Innes : “ Let us try it. Experience is the best test. It will bear 
 equally on all the states from New Hampshire to Georgia, * * I consider 
 
 congress as ourselves, and no more different from us than our state legislature.” 
 
 Said George Nicholas, one of the ablest members of the convention : “ No new 
 power can be exercised. As to those granted we trust our representatives, and if 
 we are deceived, we then trust to altering our government.” At the close of the 
 debate he uttered the iollowing, which met no dissent, and which shows the com- 
 plete error of Mr. Rives : “ The language of the proposed ratification will secure 
 everything which gentlemen desire, as it declares that all powers vested in the 
 constitution, are derived from the people, and may be resumed by them whenso- 
 ever they shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power, 
 not granted thereby, remains at their wi'l. No danger whatever can arise, for 
 these expressions will become a part of the contract. The constitution cannot be 
 binding on Virginia but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about 
 to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares, that he 
 understands its meaning, signification, and intent to be, (what the words of the 
 contract plainly and obviously denote), that it is not to be construed so as to 
 impose any supplementary condition on him, and that he is to be exonerated from 
 it, whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted , — I ask whether these conditions, 
 on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve ?” 
 
 This, which met no dissent, and seemed to be the general understanding, shows 
 that Mr. Rives is entirely and inexcusably in error; and that Virginia’s right to 
 withdraw her delegations in case of abuses, was understood by all, and questioned 
 by none. Mr. Nicholas, however, belittled the said right, by deducing it from the 
 compact; for it was inherent and inalienable — a part of the all-power or sove- 
 reignty, remaining above the compact it made, and ready to be used for self-pre- 
 servation, under the paramount law of nature, governing states as well as persons. 
 
 I have now fully shown how Virginia thought on this subject, and spoke through 
 her sons. Upon abuse of her delegations, or upon their failure to protect her and 
 hers, she was, by reversing her sovereign will, to dissolve her voluntary connection 
 ■with the other states. And it was she alone that was to “resume ’ the “powers ;” 
 for no proposition could be more absurd than to say that the powers delegated by 
 Virginia, were, in case of abuse, to be “resumed” by the people of Georgia, 
 Texas New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, and California, and all the other 
 
4 
 
 CRITICISM ON RIVES’ LIFE OF MADISON. 
 
 states that might happen to be in the union ? But for respect for Mr. Rives, I 
 would not argue such a matter. 
 
 Let us now see what was said by Mr. Madison, (the very subject of Mr. Rives’ 
 book,) belore he had become, from interest in the success of the federal system he 
 is often called “the father of,” an incompetent witness, and before age had 
 weakened his faculties, and impaired his judgment.— What did he say, at the very 
 time and place of the polity being formed, and of Virginia’s power over her own 
 delegations? Said he, in article 46, Federalist: “The federal and state govern- 
 ments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with 
 different powers. * * The ultimate authority- — wherever the derivative may 
 
 be found — resides in the people alone.” He means, of course, where it wa 
 “residing” at the time he wrote — in the communities of people called states. In 
 article 40, he said : “ Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the confe- 
 deration were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have 
 been varied’? I ask what were tho e principles? Do they require that in the 
 establishment of the constitution, the states should be regarded as distinct and 
 independent soverigns? They are so regarded by the constitution proposed.” 
 In article, 89 he said : “Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as 
 a sovereign body , independent of all others, and only to be bound by her own 
 voluntary act.” 
 
 He repeated the same idea in the Virginia convention, and, moreover, while 
 arguing to the said convention on that most important subject — the organizing 
 and training of the militia, under regulations prescribed by congress, he said on 
 the very point before us, “ If we be disatisfied with the national government , if we 
 should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence Is not this 
 an assertion of the right of Virginia to renounce the national government? 
 Would the delegated powers revert to the nation instead of going, ipso facto , to 
 her? Could it have been the ultima ratio , as Mr. Rives vainly quotes senile Mr. 
 Madison to prove, that Virginia meant ? 
 
 Madison considered our “federal union as analogous to the fundamental com- 
 pact by which individuals compose our society.” In either case, he said, “ a 
 breach of the fundamental principles of the compact, by a part of the society, 
 would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it.” If then, her 
 eo-states did not comply with the bargain, Virginia was “absolved,” and could 
 “renounce” it. These were Mr. Madison’s mature views, and they are identical 
 with those of Mr. Webster in 1819, as shown herein — and near the close of his 
 life. “A bargain,” said he, “ cannot be broken on one side, and still bind the 
 other side.” (Capon Springs, speech 1851.) 
 
 Throughout the debates in the Virginia convention as all these extracts show, 
 it was assumed by all and denied by none, that Virginia was delegating her powers 
 lor her own safety, and for the common good, and was declaring her right oi 
 withdrawing them, in case they should be abused. Indeed no one questioned, in 
 any of the state conventions, that the states were to be the sovereign parties to, 
 and the sovereign actors under the compact, and hence absolute over their own 
 delegations, and over the federal “ substitutes and agents ” appointed to exercise 
 the said powers.' 
 
 In Mr. Rives’ attempt to reduce the above declaration of Virginia to a mere 
 “re-affirmation” of a “fundamental maxim,” his proofs are quite worthy of his 
 position and argument. He quotes letters of Madison to Hamilton and Washing- 
 ton, which say, that the convention of Virginia will put in their act of ratification 
 “ some plain and general truths, which cannot affect the validity of the act," (the 
 italics are Mr. R’s.;) and seems to think he has proved that Virginia retained no 
 right to “ resume ” the powers she imparted, for her own uses, to her “ substitutes and 
 agents." Surely no one but Mr. R. can perceive how “ the validity of the act” of 
 ratification — which act was absolute — could be affected by a declaration of sove- 
 reign right, which was not offered as a condition, and did not purport to be one, 
 and, moreover, was not acceded to by the other parties. 
 
 Her position, then, is as much beyond cavil, as if her declaration had been as 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 5 
 
 follows : * T, Virginia , have ever the sovereign right to withdraw the powers I now dele- 
 gate ; and I shall do so , if they ever be abused.” 
 
 I must take this occasion to observe, that Mr. Madison’s fame is marred by 
 quoting inconsistent utterances, made forty years after the formation of our polity 
 was complete ; after the records of the fathers and founders were made up ; after 
 he had become an interested witness to the full extent of all the fame he hoped 
 for ; and after his faculties had become so impaired that he could but be swept 
 along in the flood of sophistry and misstatement, which marked the era of per- 
 version, in the clouds and confusion of which, he passed his latter and senile 
 days. 
 
 The ante-ratification record should be taken as it stands. Motions or efforts to 
 amend, in such cases, are always highly objectionable. In this case, they are 
 improper, for the evidence had been completed, and the case closed for over forty 
 years. 
 
 My constant aim is to show by the words of the fathers, the truth of history, 
 and the principles of public law and constitutional liberty — not to advocate the 
 right of secession. It must be said, however, that to get rid of this right, we must 
 destroy the sovereignty of the states, for this right is elemental — an integral part 
 of sovereignty, and not a mere power, to be granted or reserved by sovereignty. 
 It is original, indivisib'e, indefeasible, and inalienable ; and, as apart of sove- 
 reignty, it must ever remain above sovereignty’s institutions or federal pacts. 
 Control it, and it is gone like a bubble — the commonwealth has lost its soul, and 
 become provincial ! And it is an utter absurdity to say, that the declaration of 
 independence, did but announce a truth as old as the world, i. e., the right of 
 revolution, or in other words, that a worm has the right to turn, or a people resist, 
 when trodden on. 2S”o, no ! the intent was to insist upon a republican people’s 
 absolute and peaceable right, at all times, and for any cause that suited them, to 
 change their political institutions. This is the common law of the land — funda- 
 mental and supreme — founded on God’s gift of self-government to man ; and 
 Massachusetts declares now, as she did before the federal pact was established, 
 that her “ people alone , have an incontestible , inalienable , and indefeasible right to insti- 
 tute government , and to reform , alter , or totally change the same , when ” they think 
 proper. [See Constitutions Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania.] 
 
 In fine, our republican commonweaths are self-organised, self-governing, intel- 
 lectual, sentient, and conscionable beings; and their r ght of self-defence is far 
 above that of the beast or worm. It is the obvious intent of the Almighty ; that 
 such society , or self-governing people , shall exercise foresight and judgment, to provide for 
 their safety in peace , and avoid coming to the last desperate remedy — the death struggle ! 
 It was this very aim, that caused our republics to form their federation. If they 
 find, as is often the case with human devices, that their work is defective, and 
 likely to bring evil and ruin, instead of safety and welfare, it is absurd to say that 
 the some collective and corporate reason, judgment, and will, is not to be freely 
 exercised again, on the same subject, and for the same end ! 
 

 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

260810 
 
 
 973.71 Si 29 
 
 Sage 
 
 p g piiblic ^ of^egHfeligs 
 
 973.71 S129 
 
 260310