26

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic State sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in Heaven, for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration says, it is not in me. The Constitution says, it is not in me." It is found in the Articles of Confederation. They are full of it. "Each State retains its sovereignty, etc.," is the first article, after giving the style of the confederacy. But the whole is a barren assertion, a baseless assumption. The one people, in whose name the Declaration of Independence had been issued, did not immediately institute a formal government for themselves; "but instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate State legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy." It was a departure from the principles affirmed in the Declaration. The people were ignored in it, and the States foisted into their place. The Constitution was a return to the great principles of 1776. It was announced as the work of the people, and was not to be valid till, besides the assent of Congress and the State legislatures, it should be ratified by the people themselves.

Thus was the government fully organized. The Nation began its existence July 4, 1776; but it existed in an imperfect state till the adoption of the Constitution. There was government in the mean time, and an exercise of the functions of national sovereignty; but it was by the implied consent of the people. The Confederacy was not the work of the people. It was the unauthorized act of Congress and the State legislatures. It was an excrescence on the body politic. The fruits it bore at the time were bitter enough, yet were they sweet compared to what we are now experiencing.

The Nation was not formed by the States, but the States by the Nation. When the people as a whole dissolved their connection with Great Britain, their colonial existence ceased; they could no longer properly be called Colonies, and they were called States. But this gave them no sovereignty. So far as I know, not a single Colony had declared itself a State before the Declaration of Independence. In the latter part of 1775, from the peculiar situation of New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Virginia, Congress had recommended to them to establish governments, to continue during the disputes with Great Britain. And in May, 1776, a like recommendation was made to "the several colonies where no governments sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs had been established."

In accordance with these recommendations, eight new systems of government were established during the year 1776. New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia, and New Jersey adopted theirs before the

NO STATE CONSTITUTIONS BEFORE THE DECLARATION.

27

Declaration of Independence; though, with the exception of Virginia, they were expressly declared to be temporary governments, limited to the continuance of the dispute with Great Britain. The Constitution of New Hampshire was formed by the representatives who had met in a provincial congress. "They assumed the name, power, and authority of a house of representatives, or an assembly of the Colony of New Hamp shire; and as a house proceeded to elect twelve persons to constitute a council or upper house. "Should the disputes with Great Britain continue longer than the year 1776, and the general congress should give no instructions to the contrary, it was provided, etc., etc." This was the Constitution of the sovereign State of New Hampshire till 1792.

In that of New Jersey, adopted July 2, 1776, the word colony is continually used, and not state. All commissions were to run thus: "The Colony of New Jersey to A. B., etc., greeting." And it closes with an express provision that if a reconciliation should take place with Great Britain," and these colonies be again taken under the protection and government of the crown of Great Britain, this charter shall be null and void, otherwise to remain firm and inviolable."

Of similar import is the so-called Constitution of South Carolina, adopted March 26, 1776. It was intended to be temporary, "during the present situation of American affairs, and until an accommodation of the unhappy differences between Great Britain and America can be obtained, etc." The term colony is used throughout, and not state. And the Constitution was formed by the provincial congress of South Carolina, who formed themselves into a general assembly, and then from their own number elected a council of thirteen members. These two bodies choose a president and vice-president, and so the popular (?) government of South Carolina is organized!

In March, 1798, the president, council, and general assembly of South Carolina, in their legislative capacity, form a new constitution, in which it was declared that "the style of this country be hereafter the State of South Carolina." This constitution, thus enacted by the legislature, was "to be in force until altered by legislative authority."

Thus much for the constitutions formed before the Declaration of Independence. We look in vain for any delegation of power by the people. If there was any sovereignty in governments so formed, it was not derived from the people. It should be stated here that Connecticut remained under the old colonial charter granted by Charles II, until the year 1818; and Rhode Island formed no State constitution till 1842.

28

THE TWO QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

I have thus attempted to answer the two questions, Why do we owe allegiance? and Where do we owe it?

Allegiance is due from us, not because civil government is composed, in part, or in whole, of powers which we, as individuals, have conferred upon it, but because civil government is a necessity, and we are necessarily subject to it. We are born under government as we are born into the family; we are so constituted as to make its existence a necessity. In other words, government is of divine origin; and it is as much our duty to obey it as it is to avoid theft and murder. "The powers that be are ordained of God," and we are to respect and obey them for conscience sake, that is, because it is right to do so. Exceptions are to be judged of as in regard to other moral questions; and no disobedience can be allowed that is not strictly conscientious, and that does not itself sustain authority.

In all governments, obedience is due to all laws in force, and to all persons in authority. In our own mixed government, the highest allegiance is due to the Nation, and not to the State. If the State can absolve its citizens from their allegiance to the General Government—that is, to the government which represents the whole people-anarchy at once ensues. The doctrine of State Sovereignty, using the word in its strict and proper signification, is utterly destructive of all government, for it leads legitimately to secession, and secession is political disintegration. There is no true sovereignty attributed to the States in the Constitution; but, on the contrary, all the powers involving it are delegated to the General Government, and expressly prohibited to the States. The more we study the history of our country, both before the adoption of the Constitution and since, the more shall we be convinced that State Sovereignty never had any legitimate place in our government. State Sovereignty is utterly antagonistic to nationality; and the consistent advocates of the doctrine are those who deny that we are a nation; and who assert that "from beginning to end, from the preamble to the clause of execution, the Constitution does not contain one single national phrase, idea, or epithet!" Is it not time that those who believe we are a nation, as truly as is France or England, should give up the use of an expression, which, however harmless it be as they mean it, has been employed by political demagogues to drag whole States into rebellion?

There is not the slightest desire on the part of any one to obliterate State lines. Though apparently complicated in structure, our Government is, practically, far more simple in its operation because of the division of the powers and functions between the State and the Nation. Keep out this insane jealousy lest the rights of the States shall be encroached upon, and infuse more reverence for law and more respect for

THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY TO SUPPRESS THE REBELLION.

29

rulers, whether State or National, and there is nothing to fear. If a man has a controversy with another, whether private citizen or governmental official, a jury of twelve men will set the matter right. And if a State has a controversy, a jury of States-the General Government— will set that right. The only difference between the two cases is, that the man can not be one of the jury in his own case, while the State can.

I have no sympathy with that feeling, so intensely pervading many of our States, which prompts a man abroad to prefer to be known as a Mississippian or Kentuckian, rather than as an American. I am thankful that neither the State which gave me birth, nor the State in which more than half my life has been spent, can change its name into an adjective euphonious, or even respectable. Let my love of country not be confined to a part, but let it embrace the whole. Let no sectional feeling dwarf or pervert my patriotism.

The discussion of these and kindred questions seems to me to be timely. The people are inquiring, with an earnestness never before manifested, into the principles which lie at the foundation of civil government, and into the governmental history of our own country.

The doctrine of State sovereignty has furnished the pretext for secession, and secession has plunged the Nation into civil war. The falsity of the doctrine is now written in bloody lines, and the groans of the battle-field call upon us to abandon it. The Nation's life must be preserved; and the Government, whose duty it is to preserve it, must be sustained. The allegiance of the citizen, as we have seen, is not a matter of choice, but a duty. And if the citizen owes allegiance, the Government owes protection. As it is the duty of the parent to protect his family, so it is the duty of the ruler to defend the nation over whom he has been placed. He must do it. He has no option in the case. The duty grows out of the very nature of his office as ruler. Even were there no written constitution, and no oath of office, the duty to suppress a rebellion would still be imperative.

But our Chief Executive has taken a solemn oath, and the Constitution has conferred upon him almost unlimited powers. Those who honestly think, if such there are, that the President has violated the Constitution in his efforts to suppress the rebellion, can hardly have studied that instrument with the care and attention it deserves. To such, and to all, let me commend the words of one whose patriotism was as pure as his statesmanship was profound. They are the words of one who had himself held that high office, and were spoken during the administration of a political opponent:

"It has, perhaps, never been duly remarked, that, under the Constitu

30

HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.

tion of the United States, the powers of the executive department explicitly and emphatically concentrated in one person, are vastly more extensive and complicated than those of the legislative. The language of the instrument, in conferring legislative authority, is, '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.' But the executive trust it committed in unrestricted terms: 'THE executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.'

Under the Articles of Confederation there was no executive; the Nation had no head. The experience of those few years was enough. The Constitution not only provided for an executive, but it conferred upon him almost unlimited power. The powers of Congress are clearly specified in it, but we look in vain for any specifications of the powers of the President. In him was vested the executive power.

The President, then, has vast authority. Whether wisely or unwisely, the Constitution has conferred it upon him. In the hands of a wicked or imbecile ruler, this power might cause untold mischief; but the people should confer this high office upon no such man. In all public offices we want honest, capable men, and such we believe is Abraham Lincoln. Notwithstanding all the clamor about executive usurpations, no instance has yet been pointed out in which he has exceeded his rightful authority. Let us be thankful that at this time, when the very life of the nation is in peril, God has given us a Chief Magistrate whose honesty, fidelity, and conscientiousness are manifest to all who do not place party above country.