Newspaper Page Text
II)/ 1
a » Ji*
:;; "W* l»-l WVJPIW*
\
• - *• '-.f
-
WI
\ / - ‘
•
9 ,
S
.
\'n. \
SPEECH OF MR. RIVES,
OF VIRGINIA,
In the Senate of the United States, Feb. 14.
n the Bill further to provide for the Collec
tion of Duties on Imports.
(concluded.)
But, Sir, let us trace this matter a little fur-
er. Among the contemporary publications,
1 i mg and recommending the new Con-
itutio i, the essays of the Federalist, as well
r tiiC distinguished ability with which they
ere written, as ibr the high character of ^he
ilhom, two of whom were members of the
jonvention which framed the Constitution,
;cre universally read, and profoundly consid-
»d. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr.
rry, an extract of which was read the other
y, by the honorable senator from Pennsyl-
mia, [Mr. Dallas,] it is said with great force
nil propriety, that the Constitution should al-
ays be understood “ in the sense in which
was advocated by its friends, and adopted
y the states.” Now, sir, let us sec in what
glit it was presented to the people, in refer-
nee to this question of state sovereignty, by
ts disiinguished advocates and expounders,
he writers of the Federalist. Nothing would
lave Ik cu better calculated to procure its rea-
y adoption bv the states, than to have told
hem that it left tneir sovereignty entir. !y un-
mpaired. But,sir, its honest and enlightened
idviieatet, toe writers of the Federalist, nt-
empted 10 sucli imposition on the good sense
>f the ptople. They told them distinctly,
at “ s.ivtrcignty in the Union, and complete
ndependtuce in the members, are things re-
ugn.int aid irreconciieable.”—Fed. No. 15.
In the 4fili No. of that publication, where Mr.
I a .ison if i.oticin tiic objection that the new
onstitutici would curtail the slates of some
tip r! at-s tributes of their sovereignty, in.'
tea.' of de > ing the charge, as it might have
een poutictodo in order to appease the jealou-
ly reject
have been i
scholiasts
The repuli
never conte
the Constitt)
to them wi n/latest breath. But » 08 1
believe in %1 ^* e t h° 3e doctrines, I utter-
’ nous interpolations which
;ed upon them by modern
mmentators.
s of’98 & ’99, Mr. President,
that the states retained, under
an absolute and undiminished
sovereignty* 1 ^ tbe y possessed what
they had up—that the whole was not
diminished tbe subtraction of a part. But
theyconte^ that all the sovereignty, which
had not b 1 voluntarily surrendered to the
Union, wpiviolably reserved to the states;
that the f 33 are sovereign within their sev
eral sphe 518 the Union is in the sphere
marked to it; and that the harmony of
the who , y stem 13 °nly to be preserved by
e .cli po r revolving in its proper orbit. It
was resfor modern times to assert that
ecce.-fc an( l lawless state sovereignty, which
“ shod rnadl y f fom sphere” to arrest
the inr'ments and to nullify the acts of the
the F' ni l authority.
Tfcionorahle senator from South Caro-
linu,^ile admitting, in one part of his re.
marl that the people of the states had del-
egaf a portion of their sovereignty to be
exited through the General Government,
s;ii&iat to delegate,however, was not to part
wit! that as between principal and agent,
ihe'Iegated power might, at any time, be
rested ; and that, consequently, the people
ofib several states might at their pleasure,
ne the powers they had granted to the
ral Government. Now, sir, .while I
not deny the truth of the general propo-
n, that, as between principal and agent,
tl principal may at any time resume the
p. ers he has granted, I do utterly deny the
i>lic ation of it v. inch has been made by the
ulleman from South Carolina. In the lirst
uce, this is not merely a question between
lact.
derived this right, fix its true character as be- J enumeration of many of the powers which are j the departure from the letter of the iustruc- deemed treason or punished ' as such, &c.'*
ing revolutionary, and not constitutional.— vested by the present Constitution in the Con- tions in this respect, was but a sacrifice of
of sl ate ride, he boldly admits and justifies people of South Carolina and the com-
lon agent of the states, the General Govc-rn-
Ie tells the people of America that,
fit lie deiqmtrated that the Union is neces- aent j but it is a question deeply involving
ary to secire their happiness, necessary to be r *S b ^ s an( * interests ot third parties, to
('ure tlieiflagaiust foreign wars, against wi
id contentwi among the states, against vi
lent and opressivc factions, against ov
rown military establis ments, and ag.
all the other .tuneless ills that would be
inevitable conpquence ol'separ.ition, it is ill
to object to a tonstitution, without which t|
Union cannot u maintained, that it wi
curtail the stall* of a por.ion of their sovr-
eiinty. On thocontrary he adds, that o
i’ur as the sacrilit of a portion of state $v-
ereignty shall banecessary to the object'of
tie Union, thus skwn to be indispensab] to
the li ppiness ot tfi people, the voice of ve
ry good citizen mil; be, let the s icriacibe-
mnde. Sir, the sa-itice was freely fade,
to the extent requirt by the great o^ects
>f the Union; hut al that portion ofover-
' ignty not necessaryo be vested in th Un
ion i >r those high puioses, still reman un
impaired in the respa ive states.
In pursuance of th|oadi .g truth, fee lan-
'unge habitually uset n tlie Fedir.list to
characterize the sovfeigniv of the states,
is the “residuary soveignty of the stiles,”
or “ the portion of sovfcignty remiinin, in
tlie states” after that wl;h is surre.ilerc 1 to
the Union. In rapidlyglancing over this
celebrated collection, Ijfod the expression,
“ residuary sovereignty uhe states,” as dis
tinguished from a complq and undiminished
sovereignty, used in throsever.d numbers,
(No 39, 43, 62,) dl writtiby Mr. Ma ison,
whose guidance, I conical always follow
with peculiar confidence, f no mtin, from
the relation in which he sti Is to the Consti-
tution, can be supposed to 1 more thorough
ly imbued with its true plbsophy. It is a
remarkable circumstance, evincing tlie un
varying fidelity of Mr. Mason’s mind to
wit, the other states. But, if it were purely;
a question between South Carolina and the
General Government, South Carolina alone
could not resume the powers which had been
ranted to the latter. Siie is but one out of
twenty-four principals, who joi tly granted
these powers, and she can no more, so far
as constitutional right is concerned, by her
single act, resume the powers thus jointly
granted, than an individual citizen of a st .te
can resume the powers jointly granted by
himself and the rest of the society to tneir
state government. Gentlemen seem to con
found the relation in which the people of a
state stand to the Government of tlie United
States, with that in which they stand to their
own state government. The people of S.
Carolina may, at any time, resume or modify
the powers they have granted to their state
government; because, in relatioq to tiiat,
they form the entire delegating body ; but, in
relation to the Government of the United
States, they are but one twenty-fourth part of
the delegating body, three tourtiis of which
are, by the express terms of the compact, re
quired to make any alteration in the Govern- i
ment.
[Mr. Calhoun here said that he had been
misapprehended by the senator from Virginia;
that he Had not said that the people of a state
might resume the powers w.iich had been
granted to the General Government, but that
they had a ri^ht to judge of the extent of
those powers, and whether they had been ex
ceeded.]
Mr. Rives continued. It was more proba
ble that the honorable senator, amid the di-
versity of new doctrines which had been
broached, had forgotten all that he had said.
The senator from South Carolina certainly
this fundamental truth of a p-tial surrender ; did contend'that the people of a state might
of sovereignty by the states,,uit at the
tance of more than ten years'rom the publi
cation of the Federalist, in hisplebrated Re
port of tlie Vir i .ia Legislate of ’99, he
again us s the same torm ofpxpressio.i—
the residuary sovereignty of o states.”
Sir, that report, in recogiiizingas it does, in
xpr.ssti rms, “the sovereignty ofq U.. totes,”
as w ell as in ntlrinuling to toe save states a re-
iduiry sovereignty only, shows, a t the idea
fan absolute und undiminishedsovereignty
Infill remaining in the states, was a little en-
ertained by the fathers of the politic church
from which the senator from SoutBRnrolina
ro: asses to derive his tenets, as by loun
gers and original advocates of the institu
tion. In farther illustration of thispoint,
since \ir inia authority h -s grown verj^uch
in vogue, 1 may be permitted to refer ti tne
address ot the Legislature of Vir_,i.ua Ufc lie
people of the st.aes, which accompanied i 1( >
famous resolution of ’98. In that addrt 3
generally supposed to be the production C
resume the powers wliich they had granted to
the General Government, and in this, I am
What, sir, was the Declaration of Independ
ence? Was it not a declaration of natural,
not of conventional rights—of revolutionary,
not of constitutional remedies, of remedies
not founded on or consistent with the continu
ance of the Constitution, but springing into
existence from such a fundamental violation
of its guarantees as to amount to a virtual dis
solution of Government ? Sir, I should be
the last man to deny, or to impair that sa
cred right of resisfcince to oppression, wliich
is consecrated by the Declaration of Inde
pendence—the right of every people, when
ever their Government shall prove destruct
ive of those great ends for which all Govern
ment was instituted, “ to throw offsuch Gov
ernment, and to provide new guards for their
future security.” But, sir, this is not the
ground on which South Carolina has placed
herself. She seeks to throw off, not the Gov
ernment, but the obligations it imposes—to
enjov its protection, but to yield it .o obedi
ence—to participate in all its benefits, but to
bear no share of its burthens. And all these
contradictions are to be reconciled by the ta-
lismanic interposition of state sovereignty.
Now, sir, lot us see iiow this is to be done.
The argument of the gentleman from South
Carolina, is this, that as the citizen was ori
ginally bound to obedience to the General
Government by the act of his state, in its
sovereign capacity, a like act of his state
may release him from that obligation—tiiat if
the act of a st ate, absolv ing its citizens from
obedience to a law of the United States should
be a breach of the compact with the other
tates, it is the state alone which is responsi
ble, and that there is, thenceforward, no
right on the part of the General Government,
to execute the law by acting on the individual
citizens of the state. Sir, this/argument is
plainly founded on a total misconception of
the nature of our .present political system,
and of the characteristic differences between
it and the articles of confederation. From
the moment of the adoption of the present
Constitution, a direct relation is created be
tween the Government of the United States,
and the citizens. The authorities of the* Unio;
no lo .ger act through the states by requisition,
as under the articles of confederation, but di
rectly on perso is and thi igs by its own laws.
The ;reat object of the change of system was
to render the Government of the Union en
tirely independent of the action of states, in
the performance ofits high constitution d func
tions. For this purpose, it was not only in
vested with the power of making laws, but of
executing them, by regular, judicial and ex
ecutive organs, and by the physical force of
the country also, if need be; for it will not be
forgotten tiiat, among the powers expressly
vested in Congress, is that of “ provuli i; for
calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
the Union.” To m irk still more unequivo
cally the intention of the new Constitution to
place the Government of the Union in the ex
ercise of its powers, above the control of the
individual st ates, it is expressly declared that
tlie “ Constitution and the laws of the United
States, which shall be made ia pursuance
thereof, die. shall be the supreme law of the
land, any thing in the Constitution or laws of
any itatc to the. contrary notwithstanding.”
Now, sir, woull not all these characteristic
features of the new Constitution be utterly ef
faced by the doctri ie of tne gentleman iro n
South Carolina, and should we not be brought
back by it at once to the fatal weakness and
inefficiency of the articles of confederation ?
Would not the Government be superseded in
its direct and authoritative action on individu.
als, the vital principle of the present constitu
tion ?—would not its laws become mere re
quisitions, subject at Any time to be defeated
or arrested at the will of a state ? Would it
not, in short, lose every characteristic proper-
gressoftheU. States. But, sir, the great power, form to substance—a preference of the end to
the vital power ofcarryingthese powers into ef- the means.
feet, was wholly wanting. The measures of Sir, the great end of the assembling of the
the old Congress were addressed to the states, Convention, that which was called for by the
and depended for their effect on the action of universal voice, was-an efficient government—
the states. It was the principle of legisla- an institution “ adequate to the exigencies of
tion for political communities, and not for the I government and the preservation of the Union.”
individuals of which they are composed, that Sir, if it were not for the great sensitiveness
constituted the radical vice, and led to the which has been discovered of late in regard
total and melancholy failure of the articles of to the term national, I might remind gentle-
confederation. The great object of the new men that in the resolution of the old Congress
Constitution, was to correct the fatal defect, under which the Convention was assembled,
and to extend the authority of the Union di- the object of its labors was expressly stated
rectly to the persons of individuals. The to be the establishment of “ afirm national
difference, in this respect alone, between the government” I am very far, Mr. President,
two systems, make a. perfect contract running from saying that the government actually cs-
through all their operations and results. tablished is a national one, in the sense which
Gentlemen would do well to refresh their is now generally attached to that term. But,
historical recollections a little on this subject, sir, I cannot, in compliance with the temper
Have they forgotten that melancholy picture and fashion ol the times, so far renounce the
of embarrassment, humiliation, and distress, ideas and language which, till lately, were
every where exhibited in this country, in the universally familiar to the American mind, as
interval between the close of our revolutionary | to say that this government has no national
struggle and the adoption of the present Con- j features. Sir, though federal in its basis and
stitution, all resulting from the fata! ineffici
ency of the articles of confederation ? Our
most sacred engagements with foreign na
tions, us well as with our own citizens, unful
filled—theirs with us consequently unper
formed—the requisitions of Congress upon
the states regarded « as the idle wind”—the
non-compliance of one state an (fxample for
principal relations, it does possess some na
tional features, and those of‘an important
character, i.n the very relation involved in
this discussion, the operation of the govern
ment iu the execution of its powers, it is .na
tional, not federal. The fundamental dis
tinction between a federal and national gov
ernment, in this respect, is, that thp former
the refusal of another—commerce paralysed operates on the'States, composing the confed-
for the want of uniform regulation—credit, eracy, in their political capacities ; while the
public and private, extinguished—industry latter operates directly on the individual citi-
languishing—every thing, in short, tending to zens. In this respect, no one can deny that
anarchy and confusion, and in one part of the the present government of the United States
Union the banner of rebellion and defiance to is strictly national. In the representation of
the laws, openly unfurled ! From all these the people, in the other branch of the Legis-
calamities and disasters, we were happily res- lature, the government is also clearly n ition-
cued by the adoption of our present Constitu- al 5 while iu the representation of the states
tion. Would gentlemen, by construing away ia this branch, and in other important res
all its vital energies, « its whole constitution- pects, particularly the foundation on which
al vigor,” to use the expression of Mr. Jef. it stands of compact between the states and
ferson, convert it back into those inefficient the limited extent of its powers for special
articles of confederation, for which it was purposes, it is decidedly federal. But, sir,
substituted, and thus rene w the reign of an- on this subject I will only refer gentlemen to
archy, and of public and private distress, a well known number of the Federalist, [the
wliich attended that ill-fated system ? 39th] written by Mr. Madison, where they
There was another observation of my ho- will find a thorough analysis of the govern-
norable colleague, founded as it seems to me, ment in all its relations ; and where it is
in the same erroneous view of our system, clearly shown that it is neither wholly federal
from which in all kindness and respect, I am nor wholly national, but a composition of
compelled to express my dissent. He ad- both. ^ Sir, no construction of the Constitu
verted to the instructions given to the delegates tion can be a sound one, or lead to results
of the states in convention, “ to revise the ar- just in theory or sale in practice, which does
ticies of confederation,” not to abolish them, not keep steadily in view this mixed charac
as a proper guide in determining the charac- ter of the government, and look as well to its
ter and operation of the present Constitution, national as to its federal features.
But,' sir, it appears to me, that so far As the I have been led, Mr. President, into this
true character of the Constitution is concern- digression on 1 the gonerel character of our
ed, the enquiry is not wh it tlie delegates in present political system, as distinguished
convention were instructed to do, but what from the articles df confederation, to which it
they actually did, and what the people of the is said to bear so close an affinity, because,
United States gave their assent to by their I do firmly believe that if the doctrines now
subsequent ratification. The members of the contended for shall prevail, as complete
convention, from high considerations, sug- subversion of -our existing institutions will
gested by the deranged and critical state of have been effected, practically, as if the Con-
the country, may have felt themselves justified stitution ol* the United States were formally
in exceeding their instructions, and yet their abolished, and the articles of Confederation
work when subsequently sanctioned by the again established ! Is not the distinguisiiin
adoption of the people, would not be the less leature, the vital principle ot the present
legitimate and valid. Every thing depended Constitution, the power which it vests in the
upon the voice of the people, to whom the government ot executing its laws by a direct
Constitution was submitted for ratification. I action on individuals ? But it is contended
If they should disapprove it, though it might be I that the government ot the Union may, at
in exact pursuance of instructions, the work I any time, be superseded in this direct action
would be of no effect. If, on the other hand, on individuals for the purpose of exccutin
though departing from instructions, it shouid its laws, by the interposition of a state declar-
be approved bv the people, that high appro- ing a law of the United St .tes to be null and
val Would blot out all antecedent irregulari- 1 “ :J ’ " " ' **•“
sustained not only by my own
but by the pri ited report of his remarks,
which seems to nave been very carefully pre
pared, and I presume, under his own eye.
[Mr. Calhoun again explained. He had
contended that if a state should resume the
power granted to the General Government,
such resumption would only be a breach of
compact tor which the state, as a community,
would be responsible, and not its citizens in
dividually.]
Mr. Rives replied. If, Mr. President, it be
admitted that an attempt, on the part of a
state, to resume the pqwers granted by it and
the other states to the General Government
would be a breach of compact, then it nec s-
sarily follows that no state has a right, under
the Constitution, to make such resumption. In
other words, no state can have a constitutional
right to break the Constitution. In regard
to the effect of such an unconstitutional act of
n this, 1 am ty of government, and become a mere league ? j adopted by the states ! It i
recollection, l Such, sir, are ihe inevitable efiect and fatal tion, the people's Constitute
void. If this be sn, is it not obvious, that the
government of the Union is, at once, reduced
again to that depcndance on the authorities of
the individual states, in the performance ot
its Constitutional functions, which it was no.
toriousl v the chief object of the present Con
but what Constitution was actually I stitution to avoid and remedy ?
is that Constitu-1 That the interposition of a state acting in
The true question always is, not what pro
ject of a Convention may have been original
ly contemplated by this or that state, or
brought forward by any member of the Con
vention
John Taylor, of Caroline, as thorough gouq: a state, in reference to the obligations of its
a champion of state rights us the senator jeitizens to the Union, I shall presently show
from South Carolina could nesire, we .find the
following declaration—“ It was then admitted
that the state sovereignties were only dimin
ished by powers specincally enumerated, or
necessary to curry the specified powers into
effect,” tlius acknowledging, of course, tiiat
to that extent, the state sovereignties had been
diminished.
Sir, I claim myself to be an humble but de.
voted disciple of this good old school ot ’98
and ’99, and I might speak, if it were proper
to do so, of some little opportunity I have en-
joyed of being instructed in its doctrines, by
*he great men who were its teachers and foun
ders. | cherish their doctrines, air, as I do
their fame, with reverence, and I will adhere
W
b
at it caiiuot, in any manner, disturb the re
ar action of the Geueral Government on
hividuals.
Wt, before I do so, permit me to remark
hertagain, upon that confounding of things
entirfy distinct in their natures, of which we
have »ad so many examples in the course of
this dih.ussion. I could not but observe, the
other Oy, that the honorable senator from
KentucV, (Mr. Bibb ,) in developing the prin
ciples (A the senator from South Carolina,
had appeied to the Declaration of Iudepend.
ence, in sioport of the ri„ht of a people of a
state to re»me the powers granted to the
General Gb-emment. Now, sir, does not
the source frim which the honorable senator
tendency of the doctrines now broached—to
subvert, by refined constructions, the present
Constitution of the United States, and set up
again, in its place, the abandoned articles of
confederation. ,
Do we not already, Mr. President, hear
the Constitution of the United States in vari
ous quarters and in the grdvest manner, de
nominated a league, a treaty of alliance and
confederation. It was with regret, sir, that I
heard my worthy friend and honorable col
league, [Mr. Tyler] the other day call.itin
express terms a league, and insist upon the
close resemblance and identity in many res.
pects, which he supposed to exist between it
and the articles of confederation. Sir, to me,
the two systems are as opposite as light and
darkness. The articles of confederation were
a true league, constituting a common consult
ative body for all the states, but depending
entirely on the sovereign will und pleasure of
each state for the execution of its measures.
The present constitution creates a Govern
ment—Government it is true, resting on
compact between the states and limited by
the terms or that compact, but still to the ex
tent of its granted powers, possessing all the
means and organs of efficient action as com
pletely as any other Goverfiment under the
sun. Compare the two instruments, sir, and
their very form admonishes you of this radi
cal difference. The one is, in form as in
substance, a treaty by which “ the states sev
erally enter into a firm league of friendship
with each other.” The other is "a. Consti
tution ordained and established by the people
of t]ie United States” It is true, that you
will find in the articles of confederation, an
Constitution, and not the her sovereign capacity through a convention
project of Muther Martin, of Mr. Patterson, I of the people, as in the case of South Caro
or of any other member of the Convention, I lina, is of no more avail to arrest the execa
which we have sworn to support. tion of the laws of the United States, than an
The true character of that Constitution de- interposition in her ordinary political capacity
pends on the sense itt which it was under- is apparent from the language oi that clause
stood and accepted by the people of the states of the constitution which asserts the suprem-
at the time of its adoption; and that: again, aey of the constitution and laws of the United
as Mr. Jefferson so forcibly remarked in his States, “ any thing in the constitution or laws
letter to Mr. Gerry, on the sense in which it of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
was explained and advocated by its friends. The constitution of a state is always the act
It is in this view, that the papers of the Fede- of a state in her highest sovereign capacity
ralist are entitled to greater weight, in I and if it can oppose no obstacle to the laws of
fixing the true construction of the Constitu- the Union, as is here declared, it follows
tion, than any other commentary whatever; that neither the sovereign, nor the legislative
for it was, in reference to the explanations I interposition of a state is sufficient, under the.
given by it of the new system of government, constitution, to defeat a law of the U. States,
proposed that the public mind throughout the If any thing farther wtsre wanting to show
United States formed its judgment in the final that the interposition of a state, cannot, un er
adoption of the Constitution. the constitution, absolve the citizen from his
Now, sir, in regard to this matter of in- obligations to the Union, conclusive proo is
structions, it was distinctly admitted by the furnished by the rejection of the amendment
writers of the Federalist and other friends of proposed in the convention by Mr. Luther
the Constitution, that the Convention had, in Martin, which was brough to the view of* the
Constitution,
some respects, departed from their instruc.
tions. But still the departure was more in
form than substance. Their authority, it is
true, was “ to revise tlie articles of C-onfede
ration, and to propose alterations and further
provisions thereinbut the purpose of that
revision was expressly declared to be to ren
der “ the Federal Constitution adequate to the
exigencies of Government and the preservation
of the Union.” These were the great ob-«
jects to be kept constantly in- vieAr by the 1
Convention, anff should never be lost sight ofi
by us in our interpretations of their work.
If, to accomplish these objects, it was found
necessary to propose in entirely new system,
senate, a few days since, by the hon. senator
from Delaware (Mr. Clayton.) Mr. Martin,
with the express view, as he tflls us, of se
curing the citizens of the respective states
against the effects of their responsibility to
the United States, where, in obedience to the
authority of their own state, they should op
pose the laws of the Union, submitted a pro
position in the following words, as an amend
ment to the article in the Constitution con
cerning treason: : k provided that no act or
acts done by one or more of the states against
the United States, or,: by any citizen of any
one of the United States under the authority of
any one or more of-the said, states, shall be
This proposition, sir, waa rejected, and tha-
inference drawn from the fact by Mr. Martin
is irresistible—thatit was intended to preservo
the constitutional authority of the Union oV« T
the citizens ot the United States in full force
and effect, whatever might be done or 6H-
joined by a state to the contrary*
But among the new constitutional theories-
to which the controversies of the times have
given birth, it seems to be now gravely con
tended that there is no such tiling as a citizen
of tlie United States—that it is only us citizen
of a particular State, add in virtue of their 4*
legiance to that state, that the ptople of this
country are under any obligations of obedi- *
ence to the Government of the Union.
[Mr* Tyicr here said that he had not asser
ted that there was no such thing as a citizen,
of the (Jnited States. He had asked, who
had even seen a citizen of tlie government of
the United States.]
Mr. Rives resumed. My honorable friend will
perceive that this is but an evasion, not a. so-
lution of the difficulty. Who, sir, has ever seen
a citizen of the governmentof Virginia? There
is no more a citizen of the governmentof Vir
ginia than there is a citizen of the government-
of the United States.
The relation of allegiance, sir, is it not be
tween citizen and government—it is between
citizen and sovereign. It is the whole body
of the community winch is, with us, the sov
ereignty, and it is to that sovereignty that al
legiance is due. Now, sir, I have already
shown that the United States, for Certain pur
poses, do form one great political community,.
in which the sovereignty of the Union resides
just as the sovereignty of the respective stated
resides iu the people of each state separately
considered. It is to the United States, then#
in their sovereign character, and not to the
Government of the United States, that allegi
ance is due. That there is a direct relation
of allegiance between the United States and
the citizens of this country, so far as the ob
jects of the Union are concerned,i3 sufficient,
ly manifested* not only by what is intrinsi
cally implied in the term “ citizen of the Uni
ted States” which is frequently used in the
Constitution, but by the fact that the Consti.
►tution provides for the punishment of “ trcascrt
against the United States.”—Treason is es
se iitially the breach of the allegiance due to
the sovereign powe r against which it is com
mitted. There is then, a direct allegiancd
due from the people of this country to the U*
States, as citizens of the U. States, to tlie ex-
tent of the sovereignty which for special pur
poses, resides in the Union. We are, at the
same time, citizens of our respective States,
and as such owe allegiance, each one to lifer
own State, to the full extent of the sovereign
ty abiding in the States severally. To each
power we owe allegiance, within the limits of
their respective sovereignties ; to neither be
yond. But, sir, it is said that allegiance and
protection are reciprocal, and that our protec
tion in all t hq most interesting relations of life
is derived from our respective States ; to them
our allegiance is exclusively due.- It has
been contended that we derive no protection
from the United States, except when , we are
on the ocean or in foreign countries, beyond
the limits of the states. If this were so, still
it would be something, that we arc efficient,
ly protected by the strong arm of the Union,
where the States are powerless to protect.—-
But sir, is it true that we receive no protec
tion from the .United States, while we remain
within the limits of the country? Do not the
United States on the contrary, protect us even
against the arbitrary and unjust legislation of
our own states, in declaring, as the Constitu
tion declares, that “ no state shall pass any
bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law im-
posing the obligation of contracts ?” Is it not
the United States which, through the medium
of the judici .1 power, secures to uaan impar
tial administration of justice in all controver
sies with citizens of other states or foreigners?
Is it not the United States again, which se
cures to us the privileges and immunities of
citizens of tha other states? What power nit
that protects us in the enjoyment ot our mo9t
inestimable political rights—which guaran
tees to us the blessia is of a“ republican torm
of government”—-which defends us against Ihe
excesses of“ domestic violence” and faction,
as well us the calamities of hostile “invasion?’*
Is it not this same despised United States ?
Sir, wherever we are, at home or abroad, on
the bosom of the ocean or by the tranquil fire
side, whether danger threaten us in oar civil,
political, or i iternation.il relations; the broad
iEgis of the Union is over U9 and covers us
with its ample protection. Let it not be said
then, that we derive no protection from the
United States,which mi;nt merit some small
return of allegiance. Sir, proud as I arn<jf
the title of citizen of Virginia, gratefid as I ara
for the unmerited favour which that honored
mother has shown to me, I yet feel - with the
father of the country, that “the just pride of pat
riotism is exalted” by the mors comprehensive
title of citizen of the United States—that title
which gives me a share in the common inher-.
itance of glory which has descended to us
from our revolutionary, sages, patriots* and
heroes that title which enables-me tar claim'
the name of the Rutledges* the Pinckneys, and
the Sumpters of South Carolina, of the Han
cocks, the Adams’ and the Otis’ of Massachu
setts, and all the other proud names which
nave illustrated the annals o£ each and all of
these states, as“ Os compatriot with my own”
I have thus, Mr. President,.rtviewedtheftOPf
d&inentel tenets of that new school of consti
tutional law, which has sprung up within to©
:
4
—JL.
: > •• 4.