pose. Connected with all this are earnest protestations of loyalty and of a desire only for redress of grievances, and that they do not desire to sever their connection as colonies with the mother country.

As the contest is prolonged, the probability of obtaining redress becomes less, the dangers of subjugation become more apparent, and the idea of independence is entertained. The several popular organizations discuss it, act upon it, and assent that it shall be declared. But it is the independence of the several colonies, which are to become free and independent States.

The nature and character of what was proposed to be done was well expressed by the action of the Connecticut Assembly, instructing its delegates to propose to Congress "to declare the United American Colonies free and independent States," and that they move and promote a plan of union and confederation of the colonies for the security and just preservation of their just rights and liberties, and for mutual defence and security, saving that the administration of government and the power of forming governments for, and the regulation of the internal police of each colony ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legislatures, and also that such plan of confederation be laid before such respective legislatures for their previous consideration .and assent.'

The Declaration of Independence is made by the delegates representing their respective constituents in accordance with the authority thus conferred, and it is, not that the whole people are an independent nation, nor with any assertion of a common power except as it is derived from their separate populations, but with a recital of grievances common to and affecting all, and with the distinct and emphatic declaration that these colonies" are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." The assertion of independent sovereignty in each is thus made plain and explicit.

We cannot ignore the effect of these proceedings, and say that from the time Congress assembled there was a nation embracing the whole people; the people of the several colonies meanwhile professing their desire to remain separate colonies of Great Britain. The idea would be preposterous. But there was no change of organization or grant of power to Congress

altering the constitution of that body, from its first organization to the Declaration. Congress in making the Declaration represented the people of the several colonies as distinct populations, as it represented those several populations when it first commenced its sessions, and it is beyond cavil (no, not beyond that, but beyond a reasonable doubt), that the language of the Declaration of Independence does not authorize any construction or interpretation of that instrument by which it can be made to assert the existence of any entire nation, arising out of the separation of the colonies from the mother country. Congress after the Declaration differed from its first organization only in this, that the delegates severally represented independent States instead of revolted colonies. The subsequent appointment of delegates was an exercise of the sovereignty which the Declaration asserted, sovereignty in the several States.

Congress repeatedly recognized the sovereignty of the States.1 There was in fact nothing else which could be sovereign. Congress was without the powers of a nation and could in no sense be sovereign, and there was nothing besides but the States. There was no allegiance due to Congress, no treason against it. But the allegiance was to the several States, and treason was an offence against each accordingly. There were no citizens of the United States. The lack of power in Congress led to the formation of the Articles of Confederation, which as we have seen by the action of the Connecticut Assembly were contemplated when independence should be declared. The second of these articles, as they were drawn up by Congress and submitted to the several States, was in these words:

"Article 2d. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

1 The committee appointed to prepare a circular letter to accompany the Articles of Confederation, brought in the following draught: "In Congress, York Town, November 17th, 1777. "Congress having agreed upon a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States, authentic copies are now transmitted for the consideration of the respective legislatures." "Permit us then earnestly to recommend these articles to the immediate and dispassionate attention of the legislatures of the respective States. Let them be candidly reviewed 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 independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength to maintain and defend our common liberties." Journal, 1777, pp. 513, 514.

Requiring the adoption of all the States, and Maryland objecting, because there was no provision respecting the public lands, they did not go into effect until her assent in 1781, and the States were of course sovereign up to that time, for the plain reason that up to that time they retained the sovereignty which the 2d Article admitted that they possessed.

Even after the adoption of the articles, although the States had thereby parted with some of the powers of sovereignty, Congress was not a nation, nor were the States, thus confederated, a nation. There was no power under the articles to institute a national executive or legislature. Congress possessed some powers of each character. But there was still no allegiance due to Congress or to the confederacy, nor any treason against Congress or the confederacy. Congress still admitted the

sovereignty of the States.1

It was the insufficiency of the powers of the confederacy that caused the convention which framed the Constitution. The first idea of a national legislature, judiciary and executive, is found in a letter of Mr. Madison to Governor Randolph, after the convention was called; and the first movement towards the creation of a nation was in the resolution proposed by Governor Randolph in the convention. The Constitution, as framed, proposed the creation of a national life for certain limited purposes only.2

1 In Congress, Aug. 12, 1782. "On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. Lowell, Mr. Cornell, and Mr. Madison, to whom was referred a letter of the 9th of July, from the Commander-in-Chief, with sundry papers inclosed:

66

'Resolved, That Congress approve the conduct of General Washington, in refusing to enter into any discussion with General Carleton on the subject of the treason laws passed by the several States.

"Resolved, That the States of America which compose the Union, being sovereign and independent, the laws respectively passed by them for their internal government and the punishment of their offending citizens, cannot be submitted to the discussion of a foreign power, much less of an enemy." - Journals of Congress, 1781-82, p. 436. The report of the committee in favor of the admission of Vermont into the confederacy proposed, "That the district or territory called Vermont, as defined and limited in the resolutions of Congress of the 20th and 21st of August, 1781, be and it is hereby recognized and acknowledged by the name of the State of Vermont, as free, sovereign, and independent; and that a committee be appointed to treat and confer with the agents and delegates from said State, upon the terms and mode of the admission of the said State into the Federal Union." — Journal, 1781-82, p. 343.

2 A friend who was somewhat inclined to this heresy of the existence of an entire nation from the Declaration of Independence, after a short discussion which appeared to convince him that the proposition was untenable, said to me, "Well, there was a sentiment of nationality from the first." The reply was, "You have hit it precisely." There was a sentiment of nationality. It was but a sentiment, until the adoption of

Having thus ascertained that the nation of the United States did not, and could not, under the circumstances, exist anterior to the Constitution, that the Constitution was framed by the peoples of the several States, and that these several populations, acting separately through the instrumentality of the Constitution, formed the nation; and, moreover, that this nation thus formed is a sovereignty only for particular and limited purposes, the States existing as perfect sovereignties from the time of the Declaration of Independence until they themselves, by their voluntary acts, parted with portions of their sovereignty, retaining the rest; and that these sovereignties would exist and be competent to act as perfect sovereignties if the nation under the Constitution of the United States should be destroyed, we may well question the soundness of the proposition, that this nation of limited powers has any right to exercise any powers other than those granted, even for its own preservation. All powers not delegated to it expressly, or by implication, are retained by the States and the people. There is no grant of power to go outside of the Constitution for any purpose, not even for self-preservation. There is no power of that character incident to any of the powers granted. All incidental powers, or powers by implication, are inside and under the Constitution, and not outside of it. It is not "bound to protect its life at all costs, and all hazards." It is not authorized to protect its life at the cost of the life of the States, or the liberties of the citizens of the several States. To do so would be to pervert the purposes of its creation, would be flagrant usurpation, which any State might lawfully resist for its own preservation, and so might come revolution.

But let us consider the proposition respecting the right of self-preservation a little farther, and assume, for the sake of the argument, that there is, incidental to the powers granted, an implied power in the nation of the United States, of self-preservation, and that it is bound to protect its life at all the costs and

the Constitution. There was a common sympathy arising from the common perils; and common rejoicings when they were surmounted. There was a feeling of common interest in the maintenance of the independence which had been achieved, - a desire for the strength to be found in united action, an agreement to join in consultation, and in certain measures in relation to foreign intercourse. There was confederation, and powers conferred on Congress. But nationality consisted only in sentiment, not in fact.

hazards which may result consistently with the Constitution itself. We cannot say which are inconsistent with it. On this principle the result is the same. The nation cannot go outside of the Constitution by which it was created, and exercise powers not incident to the powers granted by the Constitution, and at costs and hazards which the Constitution does not justify. There can be no such incidental powers.

The principle of self-preservation, then, is to preserve itself in its constitutional form, to save to itself the powers which it possesses, as those powers exist in its relations to the States and the peoples of the States. Exercising all its powers, incidental and implied, it is not, in its efforts at self-preservation, to acquire any new power, or to subvert any of the powers of the States, or the liberties of the people as citizens of the States.

Its right of self-preservation is to keep itself as it is, not only in reference to its own existence and power, but in reference also to the existence and powers of the States, and the liberties of the peoples of the States.

This right of self-preservation, therefore, does not avail anything towards supporting the argument that the nation has a right to treat the "States lately in rebellion" as conquered States, or to deny them a representation in Congress, because of the treason committed by the citizens of a State.

A few words further upon "reconstruction," which, as the result of all these various theories of the loss of State rights, it is so violently insisted, must take place before the disorganized States can be represented in Congress, and which it is also insisted, is within the power of Congress alone.

The rebellion was of such extent, that the contest was not between the government on one side, and a handful of insurgents on the other, of such limited numbers that only a small exertion of the military power was required to suppress it. It involved, to a greater or less extent, nearly all the people of eleven of the States. The State governments were in the hands of the rebels, who professed to exercise the powers of those governments as if they were legitimately in their possession, and to do this in opposition to, and in subversion of, the authority of the United States. In whatever light this may be viewed, so far as the States themselves were concerned, and in relation to their local affairs, it was, as to the United States,