D"< the ultimate remedy. But they preferred to reach this great conclusion by successive steps. They preferred to justify the South at the bar of history, by offering to the North an ultimatum, which yet they did not expect to be accepted. They desired all the slave States, as they were involved in a common peril, after mutual conference, to move together in unbroken phalanx ; both as a precaution against the contingency of civil war, and as a method of securing consideration to the new Confederacy. We shall certainly not discuss the wisdom of these suggestions. That is now a perfectly dead issue, and the disclosures which have since been made, alike in the deliberations of the Peace Conference, and in the Federal Congress at "Washington, have probably more than satisfied them in acquiescing in the course which was actually pursued. If proof was needed that this difference of opinion related only to immaterial issues, it is the heartiness of this acqui- escence. Certain it is, that no sooner were the Ordinances of Secession actually passed than Cooperationists stood shoulder to shoulder with extreme Secessionists, and have proved the most unflinching advocates of the new Govern- ment. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, that, since its inauguration, the secession movement has been . drawing deeper every day, and j)ublic opinion has drifted rapidly against the possibility, or even desirableness, of a Secession and the South. 23 reconstruction. If there be a predestinated reaction — which Dr. Breckinridge seems to decree — he must sit longer on the mount of observation than did the prophet of old, before he shall see the sign of its coming. The charge of "ulterior and concealed designs" is handled with a delicacy that altogether surprises us. Dr. Breckinridge is rarely satisfied to puncture with an inuendo. lie always employs the genuine weapons of war, and would not be suspected of a resort to the stiletto. Why, then, does he take up this allegation so gingerly upon his fingers, as though it had thorns to prick him? In his Fast-Day Discourse — which, though the briefer, is far the abler doc- ument of the two — he significantly asks the people of Kentucky, "Do you want the slave trade reopened ? Do you want some millions more of African cannibals thrown amongst you, broadcast throughout the whole slave States?" This, then, on the fourth of January, was one of the " ulte- rior designs" of secession. Was it the recollection of this splendid prophecy, unexpectedly spoiled by the Congress of "the Cotton Confederacy," in the interdict of this traffic by an organic law, that renders him now suddenly prudent — contenting himself with generalities that can not pres- ently be falsified ? In that same discourse, he continues his interrogatories to the people of Kentucky : " Do you want to begin a war which shall end when you shall have taken possession of the whole Southern part of this Continent, down to the Isthmus of Darien?" Perhaps this is the bug- bear now haunting his prophetic dreams. Well, there may be some thing here, for we see the wise men at Wash- ington proposing to the powers of Europe a gracious pro- tectorate over Mexico against the ambitious schemes of the Infant Republic ; and benevolently hinting to Spain our very dangerous proximity to Cuba, a sugar-plum that Louisiana especially would like to swallow, in better security of her own great staple. Who knows but there may be in the midst of us military adventurers, as there 24 A Vindication of are iu all lands, who are ambitious of making history a little prematurely ? We know not how to quiet these ner- vous forebodings, but by suggesting that the South has notoriously been content to walk in historic paths. In all the long battle about slavery, we have planted ourselves upon history, as well as upon revelation. We have im- plored the ISTorth to look upon the whole subject as a ques- tion of history, and to leave it to history for solution. We have not the prescience of the prophet to forecast the dis- tant future. We are content to deal with present realities, and leave the future to posterity, when it shall become their present. This has always been our position — nothing more, nothing less. Of all nations upon earth, we are the last to go poaching upon the inheritance of our neighbors. With the motto "noZi 7ne tangere" inscribed upon the ban- ner of our defence, every instinct of self-preservation, as well as every sentiment of public decency, restrains us from military oppression ; and the world may rest satisfied that in our waters, at least, the buccaneer can not find his sheltering cove. If we desire territory, we will not, with school-boy greed, pluck the apple when it is green, but will wait upon history till the time of ripeness, when it shall fall into the lap. But insinuations admit no reply. Our author is lawyer enough to know that no indictment crouched in generalities can lie in any court. The transition is easy to his pathetic lamentation over the pious degeneracy which makes the universal extension of slavery the mission of the American people — (pp. 12, 34, 36). Was a purer fiction ever coined before? Where, in all the productions of Southern writers, political or religious, will Dr. Breckinridge find this thesis defended?. Has it not alwaj^s been admitted, by writers on both sides of the line, that, if African slavery exists at all, its limits must be determined by climate and soil — that precisely where it ceases to be profitable, there it will inevitably cease to exist ? It is alone for this we have been contend- Secession and the South. 25 ing — that, in the language of Mr. "Webster, slavery may be left to be determined by nature and God. The simple statement out of which this great story of the three bhiek crows has grown, is this, that slavery having come, in God's providence, to be the inheritance of the South, thoroughly interwoven with every iibre of society, and giving the very complexion and form of our civilization — and the historic moment having arrived, at the close of more than a Peloponnesian war, for concluding the con- flict for ever — it is therefore the duty of the South, in the discharge of a great historic trust, to conserve and transmit the same. She must bravely rebuke the presumption which undertakes by legislative enactment to restrict that which can only be determined by God Himself, in the out- working of His providential purposes ; and she must set over against it a claim of rio-ht to q:o wherever the provi- dence of God shall choose to have it go. We have never said that it was the mission of the whole American people to extend it any where. We have never said that it was the mission of the South to do nothing but labor for that extension ; but simply that, in the great impending crisis, the South would be recreant to every obligation of duty, and to every principle of honor, and to every instinct of interest, if she did not effectively contradict and rebuke the insufferable arrogance of those who assume into their hands the prerogatives of Divine legislation. If this offends the pious sensibilities of our brethren all over the land, we take occasion to say it will require some thing more to overthrow it than a holy exclamation. With real pain we read the next specification against the South, of being actuated by the lust of power. In a penny paper, this would not have surprised us; but we expect generosity from the brave. It betrays a want of states- manship to overlook the real causes of a great popular movement, and to base a political remedy upon motives which are purely fanciful. Why will not Kentucky and 4 26 A Vindication of the world believe the constant averment of the seceding South, that she has acted under the conviction of an amazing peril, and from a sense of compelling justice? Through nearly a half a century a party has been strug- gling for political rule, in sworn hostility to that institution upon which the life and being of the South depend. It has grown through all opposition, until it has imbued the public mind of the ISTorth with a kindred, though somewhat restrained, abhorrence of slavery. It has laid hold upon all parties as instruments of its will ; and now at length, subor- dinating the Republicans as its pliant tool, it has throned itself upon the chair of State, and speaks with the authority of law. "We need not go through all the details of a long and too familiar story, and recite the utterances and dis- close the platforms of the dominant party now represented in the occupancy of the White House. "What was the South to do ? Submission at this stage would have been submission for ever ; and since this was impossible without the surrender of all that a people can hold dear — liberty, honor, and safety — she simply, and, as we think, with great dignity, withdrew from the disgraceful and destruc- tive association. Yet, while struggling thus for life itself, she is stigmatized by such a man as Dr. Breckinridge, with a base lust of power, or peevishly resenting the loss of a political control which she can not hope to recover. It is certainly strange that a motive sufficiently strong to unite seven States in the solemn act of secession from the Union should never have combined them whilst in that Union ; for it is notorious, upon all questions of public policy, the South has ever been found divided into parties, and arrayed often against herself. How does this fact — true up to the very date of secession — comport with this grasping ambition, which suddenly relinquishes all the tra- ditions and advantages of the Federal Union, that she may vent her spleen for the loss of dominion ? Plow does this allegation further consist with the exemplary patience with Secession and the South. 27 ■vrbich she has endured a system of revenue legislation, flagrantly and systematically discriminating against her, and in favor of the North? But the abundant fertility of her soil has enabled her to grow rich, even whilst con- tributing two-thirds to the revenue of the Government. 'Not for causes like these did she care to rupture the bonds of association which linked the whole country together. There is just so much truth as this in the charge now tabled against her. The South has looked with increasing alarm at the great increase of power at the Xorth, by the addition of new free States ; well knowing this power was destined to be wielded to her destruction. This she had reason to dread, and if, amongst the possible contingencies of the future, the question of reconstruction should be opened to debate, the South, unless she be given over to judicial blindness, will enter into no union in which the balance of power is not in some way preserved between the two sections. She will scarcely again hazard her all by trusting to a paper Constitution, without an effective provision, whether by a dual Executive, or by a perpetual equilibrium in the Senate, or by some other expedient, against the lawless will of an unscrupulous majority. She has preferred the better way of secession, and of a separate Government. Having long borne the burden of unequal taxation, it was proposed she should sustain that of politi- cal subjection also. The time had not come for her to accept the lot of Issachar, that " of a strong ass crouching between two burdens." The truth of history must be vindicated, touching the seizure of forts and other national property, alleged against us as acts of spoliation and robbery. Let it be remem- bered that nothing of this sort was initiated until Major Anderson, under cover of night, spiked the cannon of Fort Moultrie, and threw himself into the impregnable fortress opposite to it in the harbor of Charleston. We have nothing to say of this as a piece of military strategy, 28 A Vindication of except that it changed at once the status of the two par- ties in this controversy. We have no anathemas to hurl against this gallant officer ; for, his act being endorsed by the Cabinet, all censure is transferred from the subaltern to the principal. But the signiiicauce of this movement could not be mistaken. It meant coercion. The intol- erable outrage was meditated of turning the batteries, which had been erected for the defence of the harbor against a foreign foe, upon the very people on whose soil they had been built. Instantly, upon the electric Avires the convic- tion flashed throughout the South, that they were dealing with an imbecile and treacherous Government, which could not be trusted on its own parole. As a matter of simple self-defence, forts were seized, with all the public arms to be found within their domain. But at this very time of seizure, it was proclaimed by State authority that the pro- prietorship of the United States was distinctly recognized, that the seizure was intended only to prevent an unlawful and monstrous perversion of these munitions of war to their destruction, and that in final negotiations with the other party, the whole should be accounted for as the property of the entire country. Precisely so with the mint at New Orleans. Money is the sinew of war ; and Louisiana resolved the Federal Gov- ernment should not draw from these coffers the means of her own subjugation. What then? She first takes a faith- ful inventory of all the mint contained, places the same on file, and publishes it to all the world. She then passes a special ordinance, through her Convention, by which the seal of the State is impressed upon this as a sacred deposit, held in trust, to be accounted for even to the uttermost farthing, in the final reckoning. We have private knowl- edge of the fact, that of this money, she has already paid out large sums upon drafts of the Government at Wash- ington, to meet their public contracts. Under this expo- sition, what becomes of the charge of gross immorality Secession and the South. 29 preferred against tlie seceding States ? "We smile in sad- ness over the recklessness of party zeal wliicli draws a good and great man under the censure — "Ao?u' soit qui mat y pense." But enough of apology. Having disposed of these allegations, the severer part of our task remains, in the discussion of the theory which Dr. Breckinridge advances concerning the nature of our Government. The funda- mental fallacy pervading his entire argument is the mis- conception that it is a consolidated popular Government, instead of being a Congress of Republics. It is this which gives point to his charge of anarchy — it is this that enables him to define secession as sedition and rebellion — it is this view of the case that drives him, in logical consistency, and against the better impulses of his heart, to advise a coercive policy, tempered with as much forbearance as may consist with a due enforcement of the supreme law. Here, then, is the TTpwzov (j'BO'ltx; of the pamphiet: and our defence of the South is incomplete, if we spare the refutation it de- mands. "VVe are well aware that the controversy is as old as the Constitution itself, and has at various periods enlist- ed the ablest minds of the country, who have canvassed the subject both in popular speeches and in the calmer productions of the closet. But the pressure of this grave crisis, and the nature of the assaults made upon us, compel the reopening ot a discussion which might well be thought closed up and sealed for ever. In proof that we do not misrepresent our author's position, consider the emphasis with which he speaks of this "great nation," and dwells upon the unity of its life — (pp. 11, 12). "We constitute," says he, " one nation, whose people, however, are divided into many sovereign States" — (p. 31). "It is a political falsehood that the people of a State are citizens of the United States only through the Constitution and Govern- ment of that State " — (p. 38). This is brought out still more articulately in his Fast-Day Discourse, which in a 30 A Vindication of note is assumed as a part of the argument of the essay in the Review. '•'■'Eo State," writes he, "in this Union ever had any sovereignty at all, independent of, and except as they were United States. When they speak of recovering their sovereignty — when they speak of returning to their condition as sovereigns, in which they were before they were members of the Confederacy, called at first the United Colonies, and then the United States — they speak of a thing that has no existence; they speak of a thing that is historically without foundation." Again: " as United Colonies they were born States." " So born that each State is equally and for ever, by force of its very existence, and the manner thereof, both a part of this American nation, and also a sovereign State of itself." " The people, therefore, can no more legally throw off' their national alle- giance, than they can legally throw off" their State allegiance; either attempt, considered in any legal, in any constitu- tional, in any historical light, is pure madness."— (Discourse, p. 8.) From these quotations it is evident Dr. Breckiu-. ridge does not use the term nation in a loose popular sense, to signify a body of people, inhabiting the same country, speaking the same language, deduced from the same origin, and recognizing substantially the same laws ; but in the fixed political sense of a people fused into one common and solid mass, who are merely distributed into States, for the convenience of local government. His conception, therefore, of the nation, is primary ; that of States, second- ary and derived. The relation of the people to the central authority is immediate, and not as they are the people of the separate States. While, in a sense which it would be diificult to define, sovereignty is ascribed to the latter, it is not original and independent, but only as they are born in and under the Union ; out of connection with which, they would have none. Consequently, separation from the Union is simply felo de se. We do not remember ever to have seen a more complete inversion of the facts of history Secession and the South. 31 to sustain an a priori theory. The discussion narrows itself down to a single point. There is no dispute upon the fact that sovereignty, the Jus summi imperii, resides in the people. But the dispute is, wliether this sovereignty resides in the people as they are, merged into the mass, one undivided whole; or in the people as they were originally formed into colonies, and afterwards into States, combining together for purposes distinctly set forth in their instruments of Union. Dr. Breckinridge maintains the former thesis ; we defend the latter; and in the whole controversy upon the legal right of secession this is the " cardo causa.." What, then, is the testimony of history ? We find the first Continental Congress, at Xew York, in 1765, called at the suggestion of the House of Representatives of Mas- sachusetts, and composed of deputies from all the Colonial Assemblies represented therein. We find, in 1773, at the instance of the Virginia House of Burgesses, the difterent Colonial Assemblies appointing Standing Committees of Correspondence, through whom a confidential communi- cation was kept up between the Colonies. We find the votes in the Continental Congress of 1774, at Philadelphia, cast by Colonies, each being restricted to one only. We find in the celebrated Declaration of Independence, in 1776, "the Representatives of the United States, in general Congress assembled," publishing and declaring "in the name and by the authority of the people in these Colonies." We find the Articles of Confederation, matured in 1777, remanded to the local Legislatures, and ratified b}^ the sev- eral States — by Maryland, not until 1781. The circular in which this form of confederation was submitted, requests the States "to authorize their delegates in Congress to subscribe the same in behalf of the State," and solicits the " dispassionate attention of the legislatures of the respect- ive States, under a sense of the difficulty of combining, in one general system, the various sentiments and interests of a continent, divided into so many sovereign and indepen- 32 A Vindication of dent communities." * We recite these familiar facts to show that during the first period of our history, embracing the revolutionary struggle, the people were accustomed to act, not as an organic whole, but as constituting separate States, and combining for common and specified ends. In- deed, it could not be otherwise. Upon throwing ofi' their allegiance to the British crown, and the sovereignty revert- ing to themselves, they were not destitute of a political organization through which to act. They had existed as 'organized, though not independent, communities before. "What more natural, in their transition to new political rela- / tions, than to stand forth the communities they actually j were ? , As separate Colonies they had been dependencies of the British Crown : when that dependence was thrown aside, in whom could the original sovereignty reside, but in the people, who were now no longer Colonies, but States — in which form of existence the people are first presented to our view. The fact that they combined against a com- mon foe, and to secure their independence together, does not impeach their inherent sovereignty. It remains per- ,■• fectly discretionary with them — that is, with the people, as States — to determine how much of this sovereignty they will retain, and how much they will surrender, in the , arrangements afterwards made. In the language of Chief Justice Jay, quoted by Mr. Story, " thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerging from the principles of the Revolution, combined by local convenience and considera- tions — though they continued to manage their national con- cerns as '■ one people.' 'J. We accordingly reverse Dr. Breck- inridge's proposition; we are not " one JSTation divided into many States," but we are many States uniting to form one !N"ation. But let us see how the matter stands from the period of the old Confederation to the adoption of the present Con- * Story's His. of the Confederation, Vol. I., p. 212. Secession and the South. 33 stitution, in 1787. When the former was found to be breaking down from its own imbecility, and the necessity of a more perfect union was becoming apparent, it is curious to see how the pathway was opened through the ahiiost accidental action of State Legislatures. In 1785, cornmissioners were appointed by the States of Virginia and Maryland to form a scheme for promoting the naviga- tion of the River Potomac and the Chesapeake Bay. As they felt the need of more enlarged powers to provide a local naval force, and a tariff of duties upon imports, this grew into an invitation from Virginia to the other States to hold a Convention for the purpose of establishing a general system of commercial relations — and this, at length, at the instance of !N^ew York, was enlarged, so as to pro- vide for the revision and reform of the articles of the old Federal compact. Thus grew up, by successive steps, the Convention which met at Philadelphia in 1787, by which the present Constitution was drafted, submitted to Con- gress, as the common organ of all the States, and by it referred for ratification to these States respectively. Here we have the same great principle of the sovereignty of the people, as they are States, clearly recognized. The tenta- tive efforts towards improving the interior commercial rela- tions of the country, are initiated by two State Legisla- tures ; by a third, a Convention of Delegates from all the States is suggested; and the new Constitution is finally debated and ratified by separate Conventions of the people in each — North Carolina withholding her assent till 1789, and Rhode Island till 1790. This historical review seems, to us, conclusive of the point in hand. The people — not j -*^ as one, but as thirt^eeii^revolt from the English yoke ; ' because only as thirteen, and not as one, did they ever owe allegiance. The people — not as one, but as thirteen — unite to carry on a defensive and successful war; granting to the Continental Congress just the powers they saw fit — neither more nor less — as their common agent. The people — not %, 34 A Vindication of as one, but as thirteen — prepare and adopt Articles of Confederation, under wliich they manage their common concerns for seven years. And finally — not as one, but - again as thirteen — they frame and adopt a permanent Con- stitution ; under which they have lived for seventy years, - and have grown from thirteen to thirty-four. But suppose the two dilatory States, which withheld their assent to the Constitution for two and three years, had withheld it altogether — What then ? Why, says Dr. Breckinridge, " they would have passed by common consent into a new condition, and have become, for the first time, separate sove- reign States." — (Disc, p. 8.) Yes, truly, if by ^'sejyarate" he only means isolated ; but not separate in the sense of being distinct. But he has denied sovereignty to any State, "except as they are United States." How, then, shall these two States, who, by supposition, refused to be united, be- come sovereign ? "By common consent," says Dr. Breck- inridge, " they will pass into that condition." But on what is this common consent to be based? Why not coerce them into Union, if the people is one Nation, and these States are fractions of that unit? ' Certainly it is just be- cause their refusal to concur w^ould be an exercise of sove- reignty, and it must needs be recognized as such. Yet, if the refusal to concur would be an act of sovereignty, then, by equality of reason, was their agreement to con- > cur an act of sovereignty. In either case, the people of these two States — and so of all the others — were antece- dently and distinctively sovereign ; \and hence, could not. owe their sovereignty to the Union which they themselves „ created.,' It is reasoning in a circle, to say that the States are sovereign only as they are United States, when by thp force of the term, as well as by the express testimony of history, they are united only by a Union which is created in the exercise of that sovereignty. We commend this fact to the attention of Consolidationists ; that tw^o States did, for the term of three years, delay to come into the ./ ^ ^ -'-^ ■ .^ . Secession,- and Die South. 35 Union under tlie Constitution, although they were pre- >/ii4/ (M viously in it under the Confederation. It clearly proves .Vuzv^i^ that the people formed the Constitution as States, and not tii^(^ j > as a consolidated Nation : and that these States were not ^ (/\4/[ merely election districts, into which the one Nation was / ' ^ . conveniently distributed — but were organized communi- ties, invested with the highest attributes of sovereignty, which they exercised again and again, by and through their supreme Conventions. [If as Sl^itos they could legally': v/ . refuse to come into the Union, why may they not as legally | //' 4 withdraw from it 1/ Upon the law maxim, " expressio unius ( .:^i est exclusio alterius," this attribute of sovereignty remains, ;-' unless in the instrument it can be shown to be explicitly resigned. It is plain, then, that before and at the adoption of the Constitution, the States were independent and sove- reign. Have they ceased to be such by their assent to that instrument ? Or, is the Federal Union simply a covenant between the people of these States for mutual benefits, and under conditions that are distinctly entered into the bond ? Let us see. Much stress is laid upon the use of the words, "the people," in the preamble of the Constitu- tion — conveying, it is alleged, the idea of an undivided nationality. It is, however, a plain canon of interpreta- tion, that particular terms are to be explained by the con- text in which they occur. This preamble further states, that "we the people," are "the people of the United States;" a title evidently intended to embody the history of the formation of the Union as a Congressus of States, . which, by aggregation, make up one People. In proof of this, it is a title simply transferred from the old Confedera- tion, when no one denies that the States were separate and independent. This fact is conclusive. As the Nation is formed by the confluence of States, a periphrastic title is given, which defines the character of this nationality, as not being consolidated, but federative. It is not a little / 36 A Vindication of remarkable, that no other title is employed throughout the Constitution, but this of "United States;" the composition of which, historically, describes confederation, and dis- criminates against consolidation. How does it happen, if the idea of a nation, as composed of individuals, simply districted into States, is the fundamental idea, not only that a baptismal name was withheld which should embody that conception, but that, on the contrary, a composite title was given, which marks j^^^ecisely the opposite ? Let us now pass from the vestibule, and examine the frame-work of the Constitution itself. The first section of Article I. vests the Legislative power in a Congress, con- sisting of two Chambers, a Senate and House of Represen- tatives. In the latter, population is represented. But what population ? the people of the I^ation as a unit, or the people of the States? Unquestionably, the latter: for Section 4 provides that "the time, places, and manner of holding the election shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." Should a vacancy occur, "writs of election are to be issued by the executive authority of each State./'' Thus the States, individually, direct the elec- tion, and count and declare the vote. Plainly, this is done by the States, either as mere election districts, or else as organized communities, in the exercise of'a supreme right. In addition to what has already been urged, the fact of apportioning these Representatives to the States respect- ively, according to the population of each, concludes against the theory that the people are fused into the mass, and determines for the idea that, under the Constitution, as before its adoption, the people represented are the peo- ple of the States in Congress assembled. In the Senate, the case is still clearer, for these States are represented as such, all being placed upon the same footing, the largest having no more power than the least. If we turn to the Executive branch of the Government, the President and Vice President are chosen by the people, indeed, but still Secession and the South. 37 by the people as constituting States. The electors must equal in number the representation which the State enjoys in Congress ; j and they must be chosen in such manner as. each State, tbrough its Legislature, shall determine. — (Con. Art. II.) Should the election fail with the people, it must go into the Congressional House of Representatives, with the remarkable provision, that the " vote is there to be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote." Why so ? if not to forestall the possibility, through the inequality of the States in that Chamber, of a President being chosen by a numerical majority merel}^, without being chosen by a concurrent majority of the States ? We submit to the candor of the reader, if these constitutional provisions arc not framed upon the concep- tion that the people are contemplated as States, and not as condensed into a Nation. If this latter were the funda- mental idea, could arrangements be made more effectively to conceal or to cancel it ? But it is urged that, in the adoption of the Constitution,! the States have remitted, in great part, their sovereignty ;L and have clothed the General Government with supreme; authority in the powers they have conferred./ "Congress shall have power," says the Constitution (Sec. 8, Art. I.), "to levy and collect taxes, to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, to negotiate peace," and the like; all which, it is alleged, are the acts of a sovereign. Pre- cisely so: Congress shall have the executive i^oioer ; but the Constitution does not say the Jnherent right. The distinc- tion between these two goes to' the bottom of the case, and will clear up much prevalent misconception. The people of the States have not parted with one jot or tittle of their original sovereignty/'' According to primitive republicanism, it is impossible they should do so. It exists unimpaired, just where it always resided, in the People constituting Sttites.X But these States, sustaining many relations to each other and to foreign nations, concur to manage those WT W> i : ' • /J llL A Vindication of ^xc- i^-tvndiy '^a/jH*^\/\ I 4U/tj external matters iu common. In their confederation for '^ this purpose, they create an organ common to them all. •^^^Cl^iTo that agent they confide certain trusts, which are par- jf y ffl ticularly enumerated ; and that it may be competent to ^ discharge the same, they invest it with certain powers, ''" which are carefully d'efined. They consent to put a limita- ^/^^-tyii tion upon the exercise of their individual sovereignty, so ^^'t^i^C^ far as to abstain from the functions assigned to this com- " : mon agent./ They come under a mutual pledge to recognize; ^-, ,'/ '/and to sustain this established Constitution, quoad its pur-i !^