necessary to command respect abroad or secure obedience at home. If a Union could not be effected peaceably, it would be made by the sword, and a military despotism would take the place that should have been filled by a commonwealth.

These truths were too self-evident to be denied, and made their way in one form or other to the hearts of all men. Accordingly, when it became necessary to declare the independence of the Colonies, no one seems to have entertained the idea that the act would give birth to thirteen separate nationalities, and not to an American people. On the contrary, Congress, speaking professedly as the representative of the United States in their aggregate and national capacity, proceeded to declare, not the several States, not Massachusetts, Carolina, or Virginia, but these United Colonies free and independent.

war.

This was not the exercise of a legally delegated power, but was a revolutionary act, ratified by the successful result of the Hence an inference that as the States were Provinces prior to the Declaration of Independence, so they retained that character subsequently, and did not become severally or individually sovereign through a declaration made in their collective capacity as the United States.

This argument seems to be sound within certain limits; but should not be pushed too far. It was the United States, and not the several States, which sent ambassadors abroad to seek aid from foreign nations. It was with the United States that France and Spain formed treaties of recognition and alliance. If South Carolina or Massachusetts had withdrawn from the Confederacy, the Courts of Versailles and Madrid might consistently and without a breach of faith have refused to recognize the seceding commonwealth.1

It is historically as well as politically true that Virginia never had a distinct national existence. Her greatest statesmen, her most earnest patriots, Washington or Patrick Henry, made no such claim.2

1 4 Madison's Writings, 290, 321, 422.

2 "Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined and no more thought

THE STATES SOVEREIGN BUT NOT INDEPENDENT.

15

While recognizing this truth, we should be careful to distinguish between the relations of the States to foreign powers and their relations to their own citizens. In renouncing their allegiance to the English Crown, the Colonies acted severally for certain purposes, collectively for others. As it regards the former, they became, as they still are, sovereign, though not independent. As it regards the latter, they mutually agreed that the sovereign powers which had hitherto been vested in the English Crown and Parliament, should pass to a new government, which, though having no direct relation to or control over the citizen, was yet authorized to bind the States though destitute of the means to enforce the obligation. While the new country was still nascent, Articles of Confederation were executed by which the distinctive attributes of sovereignty were conferred on the United States. Congress was authorized to negotiate treaties, form alliances, regulate the value of money, make war and peace; and these powers were withheld from the several States. The authority thus conferred was not a mere delegation or letter of attorney that might be revoked at pleasure, but a frame of government which, though imperfect, was designed to last through successive generations; and that this might not be left in doubt, the Confederation was expressly declared to be perpetual.

A State or people which has forever parted with prerogatives such as those above enumerated, which cannot make treaties, send ambassadors to foreign Powers, fix the value of its coin, declare war, or when hostilities have commenced, negotiate a treaty of peace, without the consent of another and controlling power, can scarcely be said to be sovereign in the sense in which sovereignty is synonymous with independ

of by foreign powers than the county of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Gloucester County in Virginia by Massachusetts; and yet these counties, with as much propriety, might oppose themselves to the laws of the State in which they are, as an individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be, bound." Letter of Washington to Dr. William Gordon, 1 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, 320, Appendix.

ence. Such sovereignty as it possesses must be local and municipal, and wants the distinguishing features which entitle a State to rank in the family of nations. Mr. Jefferson, indeed, seems to have thought that the Confederation was temporary, and would expire by the implied limitation of the grant as soon as independence was achieved; but this is contrary to the express words of the instrument.1

If the States were manifestly wanting in the requisites to national existence, the United States as then constituted were equally deficient, although from different causes. There was

one inherent weakness that would alone have rendered the Articles of Confederation impotent for the purposes of government. The legislation of Congress was ineffectual until another law was passed to enforce it. It was a mere recommendation that might be disregarded with impunity. The Congress were, for instance, authorized to raise armies; but they could not compel a single man to serve, except by calling on the States for their respective quotas, which might be withheld. They might ascertain how much was requisite to defray the expenses of the government, but they could not lay a tax or collect dues or customs. They might borrow money, if any one was credulous enough to lend it; but the only means of payment were through requisitions on the States, which there was an increasing disposition to refuse. It was true not only in these instances, but of all the powers conferred on the Confederation, that there was no effectual means through which they could be executed.

The Confederation was not only unable to use its powers effectually, but much that is essential to national existence was withheld from it, and left to the conflicting legislation of the several States. Congress had, for instance, no power to regulate commerce or to impose or levy duties or customs on foreign or imported goods. Each State, consequently, might and did establish a separate tariff, subject to all the evils that must arise if the scale of duties was unequal, or if one State should adopt a policy of free trade, and another a policy of

1 See Mr. King's speech in the Federal Convention, June 18, 1787.

WEAKNESS OF THE CONFEDERATION.

17

protection. Nor was this all. There were no means of bringing the power of the nation to bear in aid of the domestic authority of a State. The Confederation was not authorized to maintain order or suppress insurrection, unless, perhaps, in case of a rebellion against the United States. Still less was there any power to compel the militia of one State to march for the suppression of an outbreak in any other. Such a state of things could not result in good, and the circumstances were singularly favorable to the growth of the evils which it was calculated to produce. I have already stated that the loyalty which attends on national authority did not and could not exist towards governments so provincial as the Colonies, and was, on the contrary, entertained for the British Crown as the common representative of the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides of the Atlantic; and when the Crown fell in the struggle for independence, the Confederation succeeded to its place. Had that been organized as a strong though limited government, able to enforce obedience and call forth the strength of the people, the war might have been brought to a close some years sooner, and the country would in all probability have avoided the weakness and prostration that followed. Unhappily, the Confederation, unable to compel the several States to fill their quotas or furnish the requisite supplies, left the army in a state of destitution which rendered it inefficient, and but for the patriotism of the soldiers, and the firmness of its chief, would have been attended with fatal consequences. The defect became still more apparent after the termination of hostilities when the pressure of an invading force was removed, and the impotency of the government was then so clearly revealed that it fell into contempt abroad, and could not be regarded with respect at home. The country ceased to take an interest in the proceedings of a body which could not carry its resolutions into effect, and there was an increasing disinclination on the part of the States to send del egates to Congress; while the members became remiss in their attendance, and it was difficult to obtain a quorum for the transaction of business.

Man has not yet advanced sufficiently far to dispense with

VOL. 1.-2

government, as any people that makes the experiment will find to their cost; and the United States were soon to feel the effect of placing impotence in the seat of power, and trusting weakness to do the work of strength. The termination of the war left the country in a state that threatened to produce the most serious consequences. A disbanded and unpaid soldiery found their lands devastated by the hand of war, or encumbered with debts contracted for the support of their wives and children. Suffering produced discontent; which, displayed at first in murmurs, proceeded in some parts of New England to violence. Armed bands closed the courts, or threatened the lives and property of the friends of law and order. It was demanded that debts should be expunged, and an agrarian law was suggested as the only remedy for the times. In Massachusetts these disorders culminated in an insurrection, which was not suppressed without a conflict and loss of life.

Mr. Jefferson, with a levity that seems unpardonable in a statesman of mature years and large experience of public life, noted the occurrence as a cause of gratulation. Sounder men, and among them General Washington, did not disguise their solicitude for the future; and their apprehensions, openly expressed, were among the more immediate causes that led to the meeting of the Convention which tranquillized the public mind by devising our present form of government.1

1 See 1 Curtis' History of the Constitution, 399; 2 Rives' Life of Madison, 176, 225, 577, 583.

And what

Jefferson to Colonel Smith: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. . . . We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been but one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each State. What country before existed a century and a half without a rebellion? country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. .. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts, and on the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.”

I do not impugn what may justly be termed the "sacred right of re