STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND SLAVERY.

CHAPTER I.

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNION, THE CONFEDERATION AND THE STRUGGLE FOR THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION.

The opinion is not uncommon in Europe, that American politics, up to the outbreak of the civil war, were exceedingly complicated and difficult to be understood. Such, however, is not the case. If we do not allow ourselves to be confused by matters of secondary consideration, and once get hold of the right thread, it soon becomes evident that the history of the United States, even as far back as the colonial period, is unusually simple, and the course of their development consistent in a remarkable degree.

Turgot1 and Choiseul had very early recognized that the separation of the colonies from the mother country was only a question of time; and this irrespective of the principles which might guide the colonial policy of England. The narrow and ungenerous conduct which parliament observed towards the colonies in every respect, brought about the decisive crisis long before the natural course of things and the diversity of interests growing out of this had made the breach an inevitable necessity.

'1750. DeWitt, Thomas Jefferson, p. 40.

21761. Bancroft, History of the United States, IV., p. 399; DeWitt, 1. c., p. 42. Durand wrote in August, 1766: "They are too rich to remain in obedience."

To this circumstance it is to be ascribed that the colonists were satisfied that an amicable solution would be found to the questions debated between them and the mother country, long after England had given the most unambiguous proof that she would not, on any consideration, yield the principle in issue. A few zealots like John Adams harbored, during the English-French colonial war, a transitory wish that the guardianship of England should cease forever. But, shortly after the conclusion of peace, there was not one to be found who would not have "rejoiced in the name of Great Britain."

It was long before the ill-will, which the systematic disregard by parliament of the rights of the colonists had excited, triumphed over this feeling. Even in August and September, 1775, that is, half a year after the battle of Lexington, so strong was the Anglo-Saxon spirit of conservatism and loyalty among the colonists, that the few extremists who dared to speak of a violent disruption of all bonds entailed chastisement upon themselves and were universally censured. But the eyes of the colonists had been for some time so far opened that they hoped to make an impression on parliament and the king only by the most energetic measures. They considered the situation. serious enough to warrant and demand that they should be prepared for any contingency. Both of these things could evidently be accomplished in the right way and with the requisite energy, only on condition that they should act with their united strength.

The difficulties in the way of this, however, were not insignificant. The thirteen colonies had been founded in very different times and under very different circumstances. Their whole course of development, their political institu

1 Works of John Adams. X., p. 394.

American Archives, III., pp. 21, 196, 644, etc. See also Dickinson's course towards J. Adams, in the Works of J. Adams, II., p. 423.

ORIGIN OF THE UNION.

3

tions, their religious views and social relations, were so divergent, the one from the other, that it was easy to find more points of difference between them than of similarity and comparison. Besides, commercial intercourse between. the distant colonies, in consequence of the great extent of their territory, the scantiness of the population,' and the poor means of transportation at the time, was so slight that the similarity of thought and feeling, which can be the result only of a constant and thriving trade, was wanting.

The solidarity of interests, and what was of greater importance at the time, the clear perception that a solidarity. of interests existed, was therefore based mainly on the geographical situation of the colonies. Separated by the ocean, not only from the mother country, but from the rest of the civilized world, and placed upon a continent of yet unmeasured bounds, on which nature had lavished every gift, it was impossible that the thought should not come to them, that they were, indeed, called upon to found a "new world." They were not at first wholly conscious of this, but a powerful external shock made it soon apparent how widely and deeply this thought had shot its roots. They could not fail to have confidence in their own strength. Circumstances had long been teaching them to act on the principle, "Help thyself." Besides, experience had shown. them, long years before, that-even leaving the repeated attacks on their rights out of the question-the leadingstrings by which the mother country sought to guide their steps obstructed rather than helped their development, and this in matters which affected all the colonies alike.

Hence, from the very beginning, they considered the struggle their common cause. And even if the usurpa

2

'The census of 1790 gives the population, slaves included, at 3,929,827. The duty controversies in Massachusetts and James Otis's celebrated speech against the writs of assistance (Feb., 1761) found it is true, no echo whatever in the rest of the colonies. As early as June, 1765, however, Otis induced the Massachusetts assembly to reply to the Stamp

tions of parliament made themselves felt in some parts of the country much more severely than in others, the principle involved interested all to an equal extent.

Massachusetts recommended, in 1774, the coming together of a general congress, and on September 4, of the same year, "the delegates, nominated by the good people of these colonies," met in Philadelphia."

Thus, long before the colonies thought of separation from the mother country, there was formed a revolutionary body, which virtually exercised sovereign power.3 How far the authority of this first congress extended, according to the instructions of the delegates, it is impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of time. But it is probable that the original intention was that it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its orders, approved this transcending of their written instructions. The congress was therefore not only a revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a thoroughly revo

Act by the calling of a congress. A congress, in fact, met on Oct. 7 of the same year in New York, but only nine of the colonies were represented in it.

1 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, I., § 200. This peculiar designation, which the congress used in its formal enunciations, was not without significance in after years.

2 All the colonies, with the exception of Georgia, were represented. Story, Comm. I., § 201, maintains that this congress had sovereign power both de jure and de facto. He bases his view on the fact that a part of the delegates were nominated directly by the people. But he forgets that the view that the people alone are sovereign and the only source of legitimate power, was not at that time a recognized principle of law in America. Compare Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, p. 7.

THE REVOLUTIONARY CONGRESS.

5

lutionary character. The people, also, by recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt measures national in their nature, to that extent the colonists declared themselves prepared henceforth to constitute one people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the people.2

This state of affairs essentially continued up to March 1, 1781. Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles of confederation by all the states, congress continued a revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies as de jure and de facto the national government, and which as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England and did not take a single step which could have placed them before the mother country or the world in the light of de facto sovereign states. They remained colonies until the "representatives of the United States" "in the name of the good people of these colonies" solemnly declared "these united colonies" to be "free and independent states.' The transformation of the colonies into "states"

1 "The powers of congress originated from necessity, and arose out of and were only limited by events, or, in other words, they were revolu tionary in their very nature. Their extent depended on the exigencies and necessities of public affairs." Jay, in Ware v. Hylton, Dallas' Reports, III., p. 232; Curtis, Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, I., p. 176.

2

Story's Commentaries, I., §213. This view was shared by chief justice Jay and justices Chase and Patterson, all very distinguished statesmen of the Revolution. Story, Com., § 216.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States, do, in the