THE SOVEREIGNTY 
 OF THE STATES 
 
THE SOVEREIGNTY 
 OF THE STATES 
 
 AN ORATION 
 
 ADDRESS TO THE SURVIVORS OF THE EIGHTH 
 
 VIRGINIA REGIMENT, WHILE THEY WERE 
 
 GATHERED ABOUT THE GRAVES OF 
 
 THEIR FALLEN COMRADES, ON THE 
 
 BATTLE-GROUND OF MANASSAS, , 
 
 JULY 21, 1910 UNJ' 1 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER NEALE 
 
 NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON 
 
 THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 1910 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1910, BY 
 WALTER NEALE 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. THE AMERICAN KINGDOMS 1 
 
 (1578-1783) 
 
 II. THE AMERICAN EEPUBLICS 73 
 
 (1783-1865) 
 
 III. THE AMERICAN ABSOLUTE MONARCHY 116 
 (1865-1910) 
 
 M1766& 
 
PREFACE 
 
 IN these days orators refer to their "ad- 
 dresses," or they refer to their "speeches." 
 Poets in these days speak of their "verses," 
 or they speak of their " rhymes." Thus ora- 
 tors and poets intend to be modest; thus they 
 try to escape ridicule. The affairs of the 
 world may not be conducted by a medium 
 more effective than oratory, by which nations 
 have been built, and by which right has ever 
 been defended; man may not find expression 
 by a medium nobler than poetry, which has 
 ever been the greatest force in literature. 
 Yet unthinking men in these days so ridicule 
 orators and poets that the existence of ora- 
 tory and poetry is threatened. The man who 
 refers to his oration as an oration is no more 
 immodest than the man who refers 1 to his 
 novel as a novel; the man who describes his 
 poetry as poetry is no more immodest than 
 the man who describes his song as music. 
 In doing so neither asserts that his work 
 equals the best of the masters of his art. 
 
Preface 
 
 The fact that there are incompetent workers 
 in oratory and in poetry, as in all the affairs 
 of men, does not supply proper motive for the 
 debasement of two noble arts. 
 
 This account of the sovereignty of the states 
 is an oration. So it is called. 
 
 WALTEE NEALE. 
 
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE 
 STATES 
 
 THE AMERICAN KINGDOMS 
 FROM 1578 TO 1783 
 
 Survivors of the Eighth Virginia Regiment, 
 Prince William County Chapter of the 
 United Daughters of the Confederacy, and 
 all others that are here gathered on the 
 battle-ground of Manassas to honour those 
 who fought to preserve the rights of the 
 American nations: 
 
 SOLDIERS of the Eighth Virginia Regiment, 
 the war is not over, not yet may you unbuckle 
 your armour: take up the arms that you laid 
 down at Appomattox, then on to the front, for 
 the hardest of the fighting is yet to be done. 
 
 In 1861 the American nations submitted 
 one question only to the arbitrament of arms. 
 That question was answered in 1865, on the 
 
2 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ninth day of April, the saddest day known 
 to Virginians, when the court of last resort 
 decided that no nation a party to the treaty 
 of 1788 and its amendments should be per- 
 mitted to withdraw from that compact; but 
 that same court, the highest of tribunals, then 
 decided that the rights of no nation should 
 be otherwise affected. In construing the 
 terms of the agreement in one respect only 
 did opinions differ. 
 
 As the victors fought for the perpetuation 
 of the treaty, in all its provisions, as in- 
 terpreted by them, the decision met with 
 their entire approval. The defeated countries 
 lost but one of their rights, while all their 
 other rights were to be theirs for ever. Each 
 fought that her sovereignty might be hers 
 for ever, and each was assured that never 
 should her sovereignty be placed in jeopardy. 
 Thus the defeated countries were victorious 
 in defeat. 
 
 But, Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Eegi- 
 ment, the decision of the court of last resort 
 has been disregarded by the victors. They 
 have violated the terms of surrender by 
 which you were induced to lay down your 
 arms, for one by one the rights of the de- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 3 
 
 feated nations have been taken from them. 
 The terms of surrender signed, sealed, and 
 delivered, the defeated peoples hoped that 
 they would be permitted to exercise at least 
 a few of the powers of sovereignty. 
 
 A vain hope! The War of Keconstruction, 
 the most horrible of all modern wars, was 
 forced upon them by their victors. They were 
 to pay billions as indemnity under an in- 
 famous pension law; they were to pay bil- 
 lions as an indemnity under an iniquitous 
 tariff. They were to see a vast republic 
 made of the American nations; they were to 
 see that republic enter upon Vars of conquest 
 in distant lands. They were to see Cleveland 
 tear down the flag that had been raised in 
 dishonour; they were to see McKinley as- 
 sassinate the treaty that he had fought to per- 
 petuate. Yes, they were to see McKinley as- 
 sassinate the treaty that he had fought to per- 
 petuate, for they were to see him replace 
 the flag that Cleveland had torn down, his 
 face livid with shame the while. They were to 
 see shrieking mobs, drunk with imperial 
 power, tasted for the first time, gather 
 about the flag that dishonoured the heavens, 
 while above the uproar they were to hear the 
 
4 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 more coherent among the rabble shout : " Let 
 the flag stay put! Get out, you little Amer- 
 icans! the flag once planted shall wave for 
 ever ! " They were to hear a trumpet sound- 
 ing throughout the world: "Awake, nations 
 of the earth, the peoples of sovereign powers 
 have become the American people!" They 
 were to see the vast American republic evolve 
 into a powerful empire, with a president for 
 king; they were to see that empire become a 
 despotic monarchy. They were to see the 
 highest court of the communities that once 
 were nations become the lowest court of the 
 new monarchy; they were to see the members 
 of the highest court of the new monarchy 
 become the minions of the despot. They 
 were to see American legislators the despot's 
 lackeys. They were to see the communities 
 that had been sovereignties with no right 
 save the rights that the despot was pleased 
 to grant them from time to time. They were 
 to see the American despot become more 
 powerful than the Kussian czar. 
 
 The ruler that is now on the American 
 throne the second that Ohio has supplied 
 to the American monarchy within a single 
 decade intends to tax directly the persons 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 5 
 
 that live in the communities that once were 
 nations. More than half the members of the 
 despot's highest court rebel, refusing to per- 
 mit him directly to tax his subjects; so the 
 despot intends to pacify the rebels by going 
 through the form of adding a section to the 
 compact of confederation that! is still sup- 
 posed to bind the communities that were once 
 sovereignties. The despot is to be permitted 
 directly to tax the income of his people. 
 
 If there be a single defect in this vast mon- 
 archy, it is the veneration in which many of 
 the people still hold the old treaty of 1788 
 and its amendments. Once let that document 
 give the American despot the moral right to 
 tax his subjects, and Anglo-Saxon civilisa- 
 tion in America shall be no more. Almighty 
 God, forbid! 
 
 Virginians, since the nations that! you 
 fought have violated the agreement under 
 which you laid down your arms, I implore 
 you, I command you, take up your arms, 
 and let every man of this old commonwealth 
 be gathered to his fathers rather than die a 
 slave. 
 
 Let us briefly review the lives of the Amer- 
 
6 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 lean nations that became parties to the treaty 
 of 1788 and its amendments. The fault will 
 be mine if I do not show that each was a 
 sovereignty from 1578, when Elizabeth is- 
 sued a patent to Gilbert, until 1865, when 
 Eleven failed to maintain their rights. As 
 the powers of the American nations did not 
 differ essentially between 1578 and 1865, the 
 greater part of our review will be devoted to 
 Virginia, that time may be saved. 
 
 GENESIS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONS 
 
 During the reign of Edward III England 
 was devastated by the worst disease known 
 to man. Large tracts of her territory were 
 left uninhabited, and not until the greater 
 part of her people were in their graves 
 or their bones were bleaching on her high- 
 ways had the disease run its course. But 
 the black death was not an unmixed evil. 
 Never able to supply food to a large popula- 
 tion, England could not at that time feed her 
 five million inhabitants. A large part of her 
 people faced starvation when death came to 
 them in a more hideous guise. 
 
 The loss in population having been regained 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 7 
 
 during Elizabeth's reign, once more famine 
 threatened the people, who could find no re- 
 lief within the boundaries of the realm. For 
 want of work tens of thousands were idle. 
 Occupation had to be found for the unem- 
 ployed, or a dynasty would fall; nor should 
 England become a power of first rank until 
 she should find an abundance of food. Al- 
 ready her wise men were saying that she 
 should soon be seized by the Spaniards. With- 
 out bread the English people could not live. 
 So the petition of the brave adventurer, 
 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, that a patent be is- 
 sued to him for land beyond the seas, was 
 heard by sympathetic ears. As Elizabeth 
 saw, here was an opportunity to establish a 
 nation of her own blood and bone, which 
 would take from England her surplus popu- 
 lation, supply her with food, and constitute 
 a market for her merchandise. Moreover, al- 
 ready England saw that her sovereignty was 
 in the keeping of her navy, and she also saw 
 that her navy would be ineffective without 
 stations in various parts of the world. Thus 
 her existence was dependent upon her com- 
 merce, her commerce was dependent upon her 
 navy, and her navy was dependent upon 
 
8 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 friendly distant lands. In 1578 Sir Hum- 
 phrey Gilbert, his patent in his pocket, sailed 
 from England, intending to found a nation 
 in the American wilds. 
 
 Elizabeth and her advisers knew that Eng- 
 land could govern no distant people. At best 
 she could bind them to her by the golden 
 chains of love ; nor have any chains other than 
 love ever bound the English peoples to one 
 another and to the mother country. No 
 other chains have ever bound two peoples 
 or more of an ancestor common to them, 
 when separated by water, nor ever will. 
 Those golden chains have ever been the 
 strength of England. To-day the great sys- 
 tem of nations that comprise all the peo- 
 ples that speak the English language are 
 bound by the same chains. There are nations 
 now that would do well to imitate the wis- 
 dom of England as expressed by her more 
 than three hundred years ago, when she 
 granted to her people the right to found na- 
 tions in the American forests. 
 
 One of Humphrey Gilbert's seven ships was 
 commanded by his half-brother, Walter Kal- 
 eigh, then a youth of twenty-six. The fleet 
 fought the Spaniards on the high seas, and 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 9 
 
 probably suffered severely, for the expedition 
 went back to England. In 1583 the daunt- 
 less Gilbert again set sail, and again his at- 
 tempt to reach America failed, this time ow- 
 ing to a violent storm, which sent the com- 
 mander to the bottom of the sea. The gal- 
 lant Ealeigh, who had been too much engaged 
 in paying court to his beautiful sovereign to 
 accompany the second expedition, proved to 
 be his half-brother's worthy successor. In 
 1584 the patent that had been granted to Gil- 
 bert was renewed in the younger man's name. 
 However, a permanent settlement was not es- 
 tablished until May 13, 1607, when the tra- 
 vail that began when Elizabeth handed Gil- 
 bert's patent to him in 1587 was ended the 
 nation Virginia was born. 
 
 FROM 1578 TO 1609 
 
 Under a provision of Gilbert's patent, re- 
 newed by Elizabeth in 1584, Raleigh acquired 
 the right to " hold by homage remote heathen 
 and barbarous lands, not actually possessed 
 by any Christian prince, nor inhabited by 
 Christian people, which he might discover 
 within the next six years." The patent also 
 
10 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 provided that the people of each of the new 
 lands "should have all the privileges of free 
 denizens and persons native of England, in 
 such ample manner as if they were born and 
 personally resident in our said realm of Eng- 
 land," and still further the patent provided 
 that the peoples should have the right to 
 govern themselves so long as their laws should 
 "conform as nearly as conveniently may be 
 with those of England, and do not oppugn 
 the Christian faith, or anyway withdraw the 
 people of those lands from our allegiance." 
 Says John Piske, a more unequivocal ac- 
 knowledgment of the rights of self-govern- 
 ment would be hard to find. 1 
 
 While the patent provided that the head of 
 the British nation also should be the head of 
 each of the American nations, the sovereignty 
 of none was affected by that provision. Two 
 countries or more may acknowledge a king 
 common to them all, yet each be a sovereign 
 entity. For example, if China, Germany, 
 and Eussia each was to call an American to 
 her throne, that course would not effect the 
 amalgamation of those nations, nor would 
 
 i John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, in 2 
 vols., vol. i, p. 31. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 11 
 
 they become thereby colonies of the American 
 monarchy; but each would be governed by 
 her own laws, which would be executed by a 
 king of her own selection, hence she would 
 continue to be a nation. While the civilised 
 countries of the world owe allegiance to Al- 
 mighty God, and to some extent are governed 
 by His laws, the sovereignty of none is 
 thereby affected. Although the head of Vir- 
 ginia's government was to live in London, 
 nevertheless she was to be her sovereign self, 
 with all departments of her government ad- 
 ministered by persons of her blood and 
 bone. 
 
 A nation consists of persons that are or- 
 ganised under one civil government. Ordi- 
 narily a nation is the sole occupant of a ter- 
 ritory within definite bounds, but not always, 
 for several nations may inhabit land that is 
 common to them all. In America, for exam- 
 ple, the Caucasian nations and the Indian 
 nations formerly occupied land that was 
 common to them. If sovereignty be power 
 to exercise supreme authority, no nation has 
 ever been sovereign, for the nations of the 
 world, constituting one great human family, 
 compel one another to observe laws for the 
 
12 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 common good. No nation even has had a 
 government with power to exercise unre- 
 strained authority over her own people. 
 
 Unless the definition of "nation" and the 
 definition of " sovereignty " are borne in mind 
 constantly, often we shall be confused during 
 the course of this oration. 
 
 In 1603 James I ascended the English 
 throne, sent the noble Raleigh to prison, took 
 his patent away from him, then put it into 
 the kingly pocket. 
 
 The charter under which Virginia became 
 a nation, issued by James I, divided Eng- 
 land's American dominion into two parts. 
 The territory lying between the thirty-fourth 
 and the forty-first parallels that is, between 
 the present capital of South Carolina and the 
 present capital of New Jersey was to be oc- 
 cupied by a commercial organisation, while 
 another commercial organisation was to oc- 
 cupy the dominion lying between the thirty- 
 eighth and the forty-fifth parallels that is, 
 between the Potomac river and the St. Law- 
 rence river, not to be exact. Thus the wily 
 James issued patents to a part of his domin- 
 ion to more than one political body for the 
 commercial companies really were political 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 13 
 
 bodies. In time this territory was divided 
 into several parts, then sold by the king. 
 
 So far as the sovereignty of each of the 
 American nations was concerned, the charter 
 under which the first permanent settlement 
 was established did not differ materially from 
 the patent that Elizabeth had issued. While 
 a royal council consisting of thirteen persons, 
 to be appointed by the king, was to advise 
 them, each nation was to govern herself. 
 They were each to be governed by a council, 
 to consist of thirteen persons, one of the mem- 
 bers to be president, who was to have a cast- 
 ing vote, and who was to be elected each year 
 by the council. Among the duties of the 
 council was to fill its own vacancies, dismiss 
 the president from his office in case of mis- 
 conduct, and to deport undesirable foreigners. 
 
 Each of the American nations was to be as 
 sovereign as the mother from whose womb 
 she was to leap. Fiske says that the au- 
 thority of the councils was supreme, although 
 their acts were liable to a veto from the king. 
 As we shall see, the king, as the head of each 
 American government, could exercise the 
 powers of his office without affecting in the 
 least the sovereignty of the American peoples. 
 
14 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 Virginia was entirely satisfied with her 
 form of government and the way that it was 
 administered. She proceeded to coin money, 
 punish offenders, raise revenue by taxation, 
 and to regulate her trade with foreign na- 
 tions. That she might defend her people she 
 organised an army of her own citizens, com- 
 manded by officers of her own selection, and 
 her people were further defended by a navy 
 of her own construction, manned by her own 
 citizens. 
 
 A nation is never made of a piece of parch- 
 ment. Although the American nations were 
 sovereign when their lands were first settled, 
 the sovereignty of each had to be maintained 
 by sweat and by blood. Within forty years 
 from the time that James I ascended the 
 throne the American nations were prepared 
 to defend their sovereignty against the world. 
 Time and again each had fought for her life, 
 and always her armies had been victorious. 
 By sweat and by blood the American nations 
 within forty years from the time they were 
 first permanently settled had earned for them- 
 selves high places among the sovereignties of 
 the world. 
 
 During the early years of the seventeenth 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 15 
 
 century no nation could have waged war suc- 
 cessfully three thousand miles from home. 
 Suppose that a power beyond the seas, brav- 
 ing the dangers of a vast unknown continent 
 inhabited by hostile Indians, defended by a 
 government with a trained military force, had 
 successfully invaded Virginia, could the in- 
 vader have long enjoyed the fruit of her vic- 
 tory? Not so. 
 
 As a nation is sovereign so long as she ex- 
 ercises the powers of sovereignty, one may not 
 say that Virginia was not sovereign because 
 she might have been taken by some European 
 state. To argue to the contrary would be to 
 contend that no nation is sovereign, inas- 
 much as no nation exists that may not be 
 overcome by some adversary, nor has any na- 
 tion ever existed that might not have fallen 
 under the assault of the combined nations of 
 the earth. Switzerland is a sovereign state, 
 although she might be held in Russia's right 
 hand. Virginia was not successfully invaded, 
 nor was her national existence affected for a 
 moment; so we may not say that she might 
 have lost her sovereignty through invasion. 
 
16 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 FROM 1609 TO 1624 
 
 On May 23, 1609, a new charter was 
 granted to the London company. In annul- 
 ling the old charter James I declared that, 
 while the first commercial company had been 
 deprived of its privileges, the sovereignty of 
 Virginia was unimpaired, and he further de- 
 clared that the new charter did not deprive 
 Virginia of any of her territory. Similar 
 declarations were made by Charles I. To en- 
 ter into a detailed account of the government 
 under the new charter is not necessary in this 
 oration, so I merely say that Virginia con- 
 tinued her sovereign existence, fighting out 
 her national destiny with axe and hoe and 
 sword. By 1612, the year that the London 
 company obtained its third charter, Virginia 
 had taken off her swaddling clothes. 
 
 Under the new charter the government ex- 
 panded. The House of Burgesses assembled 
 July 30, 1619, obedient to the writs of elec- 
 tion that Governor Yeardley had issued. 
 Eleven election districts were represented, 
 each by two delegates. The first parliament 
 to assemble in America thereafter convened 
 at stated intervals until 1776, a year after the 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 17 
 
 fight at Lexington. So early as 1624 the as- 
 sembly declared that the governor, the repre- 
 sentative of Virginia's king, the king of her 
 choice, should not tax the people against the 
 will of the Burgesses, the representatives 
 chosen by the people to make their laws. 
 
 Says Major Steele, referring to the Ameri- 
 can kingdoms: "About the only real bond 
 that tied them to the authority of England 
 was the colonial governors, but they were de- 
 pendent upon the behest of the colonial legis- 
 latures for their pay; so their vetoes were 
 easily bought off. Of a truth, the provincial 
 legislatures brought the governors to terms, 
 by refusing to vote their salaries." 2 
 
 Continuing, Major Steele in the next para- 
 graph says : " There were customs laws and 
 various other laws for taxing the colonists; 
 but all of them were ignored." 
 
 In 1622 the population of Virginia was 
 fully 4,000, while her people were wealthy. 
 By that time several of the mansions for 
 which Virginia is famous had been erected, 
 and the homes of many of the workmen were 
 so substantial that a few of them are still to 
 
 2 Matthew Forney Steele, American Campaigns, 2 vols., 
 Washington, War Department, Office of the Chief of Staff, 
 Document No. 324, vol. i, p. 21. 
 
18 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 be found in a state of excellent preservation. 
 All the people enjoyed an abundance, all were 
 happy, all worked hard, all enjoyed liberty 
 in full measure the liberty that is not 
 license. 
 
 FROM 1624 TO 1776 
 
 The downfall of the London company was 
 brought about by James I in 1624. Although 
 the assembly that had been elected by the 
 people and the governor and the council that 
 had been appointed by the throne were en- 
 tirely satisfied with the relations existing be- 
 tween the Virginian government and the 
 British government, and frequently had given 
 expression to that satisfaction, and more 
 than once had said that the company ably 
 represented Virginia's king, nevertheless his 
 majesty decided to withdraw the authority 
 that he had delegated to the company, and 
 soon wielded his kingly power over all the 
 subjects of his American realm. He person- 
 ally appointed Virginia's governor and the 
 members of her upper house, known as -a 
 council; then warned his British parliament 
 and his British privy council that the affairs 
 of his American kingdoms were no part of 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 19 
 
 their proper concern, that he did not n-eed 
 their assistance in exercising his duties as 
 king of his realms beyond the seas. He 
 broadly hinted that the commercial body 
 should no longer exist. 
 
 The company contended that James had 
 no power by which he could annul the char- 
 ter, which had become a valuable vested right. 
 The argument of the attorney-general in the 
 quo warrcmto proceeding that was brought 
 before the Court of Kings Bench was worthy 
 of his profession. The charter, he said, per- 
 mitted the company to carry the king's sub- 
 jects across the seas to Virginia; therefore, 
 if the company should convey all Englishmen 
 to America, the king would be left without 
 subjects in his British kingdom. The court 
 was convinced; the charter was annulled. 
 
 The sovereignty of the American nation 
 had not even been placed in jeopardy by the 
 downfall of the company, and "self-govern- 
 ment in Virginia," says Fiske, "went on to 
 take root more deeply and strongly than be- 
 fore." 3 
 
 VIRIGINIA'S GROWTH NOW RAPID 
 
 The growth of Virginia was rapid. Courts 
 
 s Fiske, vol. i, p. 222. 
 
20 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 that held sessions monthly were established, 
 and soon a great judiciary system was per- 
 fected; the nation was divided into military 
 districts, with every able-bodied man a trained 
 soldier, his arms always within his reach; 
 all industries necessary to Virginia's exis- 
 tence as a sovereignty were developed, while 
 a single agricultural product, tobacco, alone 
 was sufficient to make her people the wealth- 
 iest of the world; her ships, which also con- 
 stituted a powerful navy able to protect her 
 commerce, for every ship was heavily 
 armed, carried her products to all parts of 
 the world, while her policy of free trade, 
 which is still her policy, added to her wealth 
 as well as to her honour. Her planters be- 
 came kings, her merchants became princes, 
 and her labourers became barons. Although 
 a banking system did not exist in Virginia 
 until 1804, her fiscal systems were as nearly 
 perfect as those of any other nation. 
 
 A table that shows Virginia's money in 
 present American values, compiled by a Vir- 
 ginian writer, 4 is so important in a consider- 
 ation of the sovereignty of the states, that I 
 now repeat it: 
 
 *J. W. Eggleston, Tuckahoe, p. ix. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 21 
 
 Fourpence-half-penny or "fo'-pence-a'-penny" $ .06i 
 
 Ninepence 12 
 
 Shilling 16 
 
 Eighteenpence 25 
 
 Two-an' threp-pence (threepence) 37 
 
 Three-an'-ninepence 62 
 
 Four-an'-sixpence 75 
 
 Seven-an'-sixpence 1.25 
 
 Nine shillings 1.50 
 
 While there was no Virginian pound, the 
 term nevertheless was often used. Mr. Eg- 
 gleston errs when he says that the only in- 
 stance in which reference was made to the 
 pound was in 1850, when the code of Virginia 
 provided that the governor's salary be 1,000 
 pounds, the governor drawing in satisfaction 
 of his salary 3,333 American dollars and 33 
 American cents. The term pound was used 
 oftener than the term dollar until long after 
 Virginia ceased to be a kingdom, while often 
 at this day one may hear a Virginian say, 
 " Not a pound will I give you for that beast." 
 
 Nor werei the fine arts neglected, nor 
 science. So early as 1621 provision was 
 made for a great public free school sys- 
 tem, the foundation of the system that 
 Jefferson perfected, and about the same 
 time various subscriptions were made to 
 a fund that was to be used in establish- 
 
22 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ing a great national university. The College 
 of William and Mary, erected in 1692, the 
 result of the movement that began in 1621, 
 may be ranked among the great educational 
 institutions of the world. Again Fiske em- 
 phasises Virginia's sovereignty, saying that 
 she had managed " her own affairs in almost 
 entire independence of the British govern- 
 ment" for more than fifty years. Continu- 
 ing, he says: "As the situation was left by 
 the death of James, so it remained without 
 essential change until 1776. The House of 
 Burgesses was undisturbed, but the governor 
 and council were henceforth appointed by 
 the crown. . . . The change from govern- 
 ors appointed by the company to governors 
 appointed by the crown was a relaxation of 
 the supervision which England exercised over 
 Virginia. For the company could devote all 
 its attention to the affairs of the colony, but 
 the crown could not. Especially in such 
 reigns as those of the two Charleses, the at- 
 tention of the crown was too much absorbed 
 with affairs in Great Britain to allow it to 
 interfere decisively with the course of events 
 in Virginia. The colony was thus in the main 
 thrown back upon its own resources, and such 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 23 
 
 a state of things was most favourable to its 
 wholesome development." 5 
 
 Fiske would not have been confused had he 
 known that Great Britain and Virginia were 
 nations independent of each other, acknowl- 
 edging allegiance to a sovereign common to 
 them both. Of course the king exercised his 
 authority through the governors that he ap- 
 pointed. They were not the emissaries of a 
 foreign potentate, but officers of a sovereign 
 of Virginia's own selection. Nor was Vir- 
 ginia's king the British government not by 
 several games of cricket. 
 
 By 1649 Virginia's population had increased 
 to 15,000 Caucasians and 300 negroes. Charles 
 I was put to death during this year. The 
 event aroused the subjects of his American 
 kingdom to great indignation. However, his 
 death did not affect the sovereignty of the 
 American nations in the least; but, as we shall 
 see, Virginia exercised a power of sovereignty 
 during the Commonwealth period among the 
 highest that a nation may exercise. 
 
 Virginia's population and her wealth con- 
 tinued to increase. In 1670, several years 
 after the fall of the Commonwealth, while 
 
 s Fiske, vol. i, pp. 238-239. 
 
24 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 Charles II was on the Virginian throne, her 
 population had increased to 38,000 Cau- 
 casians and 2,000 negroes. The authority of 
 the king, defied ( for several months during 
 1676, while a government republican in form 
 was maintained by the first American rebel 
 was reestablished by the Virginian people, 
 who overthrew Bacon's government without 
 the aid of any other people. National devel- 
 opment continued with great rapidity. 
 
 In 1750 Virginia's population, as estimated 
 by Smyth, consisted of 250,000 Caucasians 
 and 250,000 negroes. 6 So Virginia then was 
 indeed among the powerful nations of the 
 world. 
 
 According to the first federal census (1790). 
 Virginia's population consisted of 454,183 
 Caucasians and 293,427 negroes; or, exclusive 
 of Indians, her total population was 747,610. 
 After consulting several authorities, I esti- 
 mate that in 1776, twenty-six years after 
 Smyth made his estimate, and fourteen years 
 before the first federal census was taken, the 
 population consisted of about 420,000 Cau- 
 casians and about 250,000 negroes. In view 
 
 Smyth, Tours in the United States, London, 1784, vol. 
 i, p. 72, quoted by Fiske, vol. 2, p. 191. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 25 
 
 of the first census, evidently Smyth's estimate 
 of the negro population was too high, while 
 probably his estimate of the white population 
 was too low. Few persons settled in America 
 between 1776 and 1790, and few negroes were 
 brought to any part of the continent during 
 those years. 
 
 During this period of Virginia's growth, all 
 the American nations fared well so far 1 as 
 their sovereignty was concerned. Several be- 
 sides Virginia at 'this time were powerful 
 countries. For example, in 1790 the popula- 
 tion of Massachusetts, one of the small na- 
 tions, was 387,787, exclusive of Indians, but 
 including slaves. 
 
 THE POWHATAN WAR 
 
 The highest power of sovereignty that a 
 nation may exercise is the ability successfully 
 to wage war. Not only did Virginia unas- 
 sisted fight out several wars between 1607 
 and 1865, in which she was victorious, but she 
 also dictated the terms of peace. During this 
 period she fought foreign countries, European 
 as well as American, and Indian nations oc- 
 cupying her own territory. More than once 
 
26 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 she engaged in civil strife. As a world power, 
 acting within her own sovereign rights, she 
 entered into treaties with other great world 
 powers, including the united kingdoms, for 
 when she made a treaty with Cromwell's gov- 
 ernment the articles were signed by Crom- 
 well's commissioners on behalf of England 
 and by Virginia's council on behalf of Vir- 
 ginia, " as equal treating equal," an assertion 
 of sovereignty that Great Britain did not dis- 
 pute. 
 
 To review all Virginia's wars is not nec- 
 essary in this oration, but I shall refer to 
 several. 
 
 In 1622 the Powhatan nation made war 
 upon Virginia. So severe was the fighting 
 that she lost about nine per cent, of her popu- 
 lation. However, three Powhatans probably 
 gave their lives in payment of every life that 
 they took. The terms of peace were dictated 
 by Virginia, and a treaty was made between 
 the two nations. 
 
 THE WAR BETWEEN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA 
 
 The king did not always keep his word. 
 That part of Virginia's territory now known 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 27 
 
 as Maryland became an independent nation 
 through the treachery of a king who was not 
 always just while governing several nations at 
 the same time. Many rulers have found it 
 difficult to govern one nation, so we should 
 forgive the mistakes made by Virginia's liege 
 lord, I suppose. A state of war soon existed. 
 Maryland having taken possession of Kent 
 Island, a part of Virginia's territory, and in- 
 habited by her citizens, William Claiborne, 
 the Virginian secretary of state, in 1633 de- 
 manded of Maryland's sovereign, who was also 
 the British king, that he take his Maryland 
 subjects from Virginia's territory. Where- 
 upon the king commanded Lord Baltimore to 
 withdraw from Kent Island. The command 
 was not obeyed. 
 
 I have intimated that John Fiske did not 
 know that Virginia was a kingdom independ- 
 ent of all other nations, governed by a sover- 
 eign of her own selection. In justice to New 
 England's historian, who possibly did try to 
 tell the story of Virginia's people, I now 
 quote from his account of the war between 
 Virginia and Maryland: 
 
 " So the winter wore away without incident, 
 but early in April, 1635, one of Claiborne's 
 
28 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ships, commanded by one Thomas Smith, was 
 seized in the Patuxent Kiver by Captain 
 Fleete; she was condemned for trading with- 
 out a license, and was confiscated and sold 
 with all her cargo. Claiborne then sent out 
 an armed sloop, the Cockatrice, to make re- 
 prisals upon Maryland shipping; but Calvert 
 was wid-e awake and sent Cornwallis with a 
 stronger force of two armed pinnaces, which 
 overtook the Cockatrice in Pocomoke Eiver 
 and captured her after a brisk skirmish in 
 which half a dozen men were killed and more 
 wounded. That was on April 23, and on May 
 10 there was another fight in the harbour of 
 Great Wighcocomoco, at the mouth of the 
 Pocomoke, in which Thomas Smith com- 
 manded for Claiborne and defeated the Mary- 
 landers with more bloodshed." 7 
 
 In the next paragraph Fiske tells us that 
 in "the midst of these unseemly quarrels the 
 kingdom of Virginia witnessed something like 
 a revolution," meaning a civil war. Did 
 Fiske see the light for a while? " The king- 
 dom of Virginia witnessed something like a 
 revolution." For a while New England did 
 not occupy all John Fiske. 
 
 i Fiske, vol. i, p. 293. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 29 
 
 Later Virginia entered into an alliance with 
 Maryland in order to wage a common war 
 against the Indians along the Potomac. 
 
 All the American sovereignties waged wars 
 against foreign nations. Those wars need not 
 be considered here. But we should bear in 
 mind that each nation maintained her exist- 
 ence as a sovereign entity. 
 
 THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR 
 
 As I have said, the American nations fre- 
 quently combined in order to wage war 
 against sovereign powers. They frequently 
 assisted the king who was common to them 
 all in the wars in which one of his peoples or 
 more were engaged. When these wars were 
 fought on American soil the American na- 
 tions received but little assistance from the 
 English people. I shall not go into the de- 
 tails of King William's War, which was ended 
 in 1697; nor Queen Anne's War, in which 
 large armies were engaged, a single army of 
 allies numbering 7,000 soldiers and 800 ma- 
 rines, 8 and which was closed by the Treaty of 
 Utrecht, in 1713; nor King George's War, 
 
 sSteele, vol. i, p. 3. 
 
30 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 which was ended in 1748 by the treaty of Aix- 
 la-Chapelle; but I shall ask you to consider a 
 few features of the French and Indian War, 
 which really began in 1753, when Governor 
 Dinwiddie sent Major Washington to Vir- 
 ginia's frontier bearing a message to the 
 French commander, in which he was told to 
 leave Virginian soil, and which ended, we 
 may say, when the Treaty of Paris was signed 
 in 1763. In this war the British troops un- 
 der Braddock were cut to pieces, his army 
 was annihilated, and probably no British sol- 
 dier of his command would have lived to see 
 England again had not Washington and a 
 few Virginian troops taken part in the battle. 
 England and France formally declared war 
 against each other in 1756. This war did not 
 meet with the full approval of Virginians, al- 
 though they were at war with the French and 
 the Indians themselves; nor was it approved 
 by all the citizens of the other American na- 
 tions. When the British government asked 
 the American peoples for large armies, only 
 4,000 men took up their arms. However, 
 later, in 1758, says Major Steele, " Pitt asked 
 for 20,000, and they responded with alacrity." 
 In the same paragraph he goes on to say that 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 31 
 
 in June " Abercrombie had an army of more 
 than 15,000 men, over 6,000 of whom were 
 British regulars, encamped about the ruins 
 of Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake 
 George. This was the largest body of troops 
 that had ever been assembled on the American 
 continent." 9 Thus we find that much less 
 than half the men were British, in the largest 
 army that ever assembled on the American 
 continent until a few years after the middle 
 of the eighteenth century. At that time Vir- 
 ginia could have put 50,000 white men into 
 the field, inasmuch as an army of that size 
 would have been merely one-fifth of her white 
 population. 
 
 BACON'S REBELLION 
 
 The sovereignty of a nation is not affected 
 by her civil wars so long as all other nations 
 are neutral. While civil strife may overthrow 
 a dynasty, to be replaced by another dynasty, 
 or may alter the form of the government, 
 the nation becoming a republic instead of a 
 monarchy, for example, such changes in 
 themselves do not affect the nation's sover- 
 
 Steele, vol. i, p. 12. 
 
32 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 eignty. Later on I shall have occasion to re- 
 mind you of this statement of fact. 
 
 Virginia's great civil war of the seventeenth 
 century, which was fought in 1676, just one 
 hundred years before the Declaration of In- 
 dependence was signed, was the first attempt 
 to make a republic out of any one of the Amer- 
 ican kingdoms. I shall not review the strife 
 known as Bacon's Rebellion in many of its de- 
 tails. It was fought by Virginians unaided 
 by any foreign power. The political events 
 that caused Bacon and his followers to over- 
 throw the authority of their king need not be 
 discussed here, but I shall say that there is 
 no more interesting study in American his- 
 tory than Bacon's Rebellion; and no more 
 picturesque person than Nathaniel Bacon 
 has ever lived upon this continent, I safely 
 add. A leader of men, a military genius, re- 
 sourceful as few men have been resourceful, 
 he deserves a place in the front rank of great 
 Virginians. His war was not waged against 
 Virginia's sovereignty; he fought for human 
 freedom for the rights of men as men, as he 
 saw those rights. Indeed, were I asked to 
 name three men of Virginia that tower above 
 all Virginians other than themselves, I should 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 33 
 
 name them in chronological order John 
 Smith, Nathaniel Bacon, and Robert Edward 
 Lee. 
 
 Bacon's Rebellion did not originate in quar- 
 rels among communities. Later on I shall re- 
 fer to the rise of sectionalism in Virginia. 
 Now I pause but to say that probably the 
 first element that is developed in the charac- 
 ter of a nation is provincialism the entire 
 nation by the world said to be provincial. 
 There is but a step between provincialism and 
 sectionalism, for sectionalism is merely pro- 
 vincialism divided, the home rule of provin- 
 cialism, as it were. The strength of a nation 
 is sectionalism. Civil wars may result, but 
 the power of the political body is increased, 
 while the life of the people undoubtedly is 
 made more interesting. While Bacon's Re- 
 bellion did not originate in sectionalism, 
 nevertheless there were sections in Virginia 
 so early as 1624. Even then there was an 
 eastern Virginia and a western Virginia. 
 
 Governor Berkeley, the king's representa- 
 tive, found that he was not strong enough to 
 oppose Bacon, so he fled to the Eastern Shore. 
 Bacon marched his army to Middle Planta- 
 tion, which later became Williamsburg, the 
 
34 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 capital of the nation, and there he was lord 
 of all Virginia, save the Eastern Shore, a part 
 of the commonwealth that remained faithful 
 to the king. Mrs. Stanard, of Kichmond, has 
 closely studied the history of Virginia under 
 Bacon's republic, and the result of her study 
 is a valuable book. In this volume we are 
 told that before the rebel left Middle Planta- 
 tion to fight the Indians he issued a summons 
 in the name of the king, which paper, signed 
 by four members of the council, commanded 
 the assembly to convene September 4, 1676, 
 that the affairs of the colony might be man- 
 aged until the commander should return. Al- 
 ready his followers had pledged themselves 
 in writing to resist any force that might be 
 sent by England against him. 
 
 "Upon the seventh of September Berkeley 
 set sail for Jamestown, not as a prisoner, but 
 with a fleet consisting of the recaptured ship 
 and some sixteen or seventeen sloops manned 
 by six hundred sturdy denizens of Accomac, 
 whom he is said to have bribed to his service 
 with promises of plunder of all who had taken 
 Bacon's oath, * catch that catch could/ 
 twenty-one years' exemption from all taxes 
 except church dues, and regular pay of twelve- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 35 
 
 pence per day so long as they should serve 
 under his colours." 10 
 
 One historian asserts that Berkeley's force 
 was one thousand when he sailed from the 
 Eastern Shore. 11 
 
 The engineering operations of both armies 
 were quite extensive. A fierce battle was 
 fought between Bacon and Berkeley, which 
 forced the governor to return to his strong- 
 hold. But the war was not over, as the young 
 rebel probably knew. 
 
 " His plans were now suddenly interrupted 
 by a report from Kappahannock County that 
 Colonel Brent, who, it seems, had gone over 
 to the Governor's side, was advancing upon 
 him at the head of eleven hundred militia. 
 No sooner had he heard this news than he 
 ordered the drums to beat up his soldiers, un- 
 der their colors, and told them of the strength 
 of the approaching army, and of Brent's 
 ' resolution ' to fight him, and ' demanded 
 theirs.' 
 
 "With their wonted heartiness, his men 
 made answer in ' shouts and acclamations, 
 while the drums thundered a march to meet 
 the promised conflict.' 
 
 10 Mary Newton Stanard, The Story of Bacon's Rebel- 
 lion, p. 111. nFiske, vol. ii, p. 87. 
 
36 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 " Thus encouraged, Bacon set out without 
 delay to give the enemy even an earlier chance 
 to unload his guns than he had bargained for. 
 He had been on the march for several days 
 when, instead of meeting a hostile army, he 
 was greeted with the cheerful tidings that 
 Brent's followers, who were described as 
 ' men, not soldiers,' had left their commander 
 to ' shift for himself.' They had heard how 
 the Kebel had beat the Governor out of town, 
 and lest he should 'beat them out of their 
 lives,' some of them determined to keep a safe 
 distance from him, while most of them un- 
 blushingly deserted him, deeming it the part 
 of wisdom * with the Persians, to go and wor- 
 ship the rising sun.' " 12 
 
 Not long after these events Bacon died of 
 malaria, which he contracted while he was 
 about Jamestown. Other civil wars that were 
 fought in Virginia need not be mentioned here. 
 
 VIRGINIA'S SOVEREIGNTY CONCEDED 
 
 That Virginia was a sovereignty from 1578 
 until 1783 was held by many eminent persons 
 during all those years. 
 
 12 Standard, pp. 135-136. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 37 
 
 In his dedication of Faerie Queene, written 
 during Elizabeth's time, Edmund Spenser re- 
 fers to his lovely sovereign as the queen of 
 England, France, and Ireland, and of Vir- 
 ginia. He undoubtedly considered each of 
 those countries to be kingdoms. 
 
 Charles I made William Claiborne secre- 
 tary of state in " our kingdom of Virginia." 
 Beverley says that Charles II was proclaimed 
 by Virginia as her sovereign before he was 
 called to the British throne. 13 This statement 
 was accepted by many historians until a few 
 years ago. Fiske says that the story is absurd, 
 that Charles II was proclaimed king in Eng- 
 land on the eighth of May, 1661, and in Vir- 
 ginia on the twentieth of September follow- 
 ing, and for authority refers to some docu- 
 ment printed in William and Mary Quarterly. 
 While Charles II did not exercise the powers 
 of the office of king of Virginia before he was 
 proclaimed as the English sovereign, still he 
 actually was proclaimed king of Virginia be- 
 fore he was proclaimed king of England, even 
 if the Virginian proclamation was not heard 
 around the world. In the meanwhile the 
 
 is Robert Beverley, History of Present State of Virginia, 
 London, 1705, p. 56, cited by Fiske, vol. ii, p. 21. 
 
38 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 young nation acknowledged no other king 
 than the man whom she had called to her 
 throne. 
 
 Already we have seen that the news of the 
 execution of Charles I was received in Vir- 
 ginia with deep indignation. Fiske himself 
 says: "In October the assembly declared 
 that the beheading of the king will enact a 
 treason which nobody in Virginia must dare 
 to speak in defence of under penalty of death. 
 It also spoke of the fugitive Charles II as 
 'his majesty that now is,' and made it trea- 
 son to call his authority in question." ** So 
 Fiske himself quotes from Virginia's proc- 
 lamation, made by the parliament of her peo- 
 ple, and published to the world nearly two 
 years before Charles II was proclaimed king 
 of England. Even if Virginia did not for- 
 mally issue her proclamation before England 
 issued hers, still the spirit of the times is 
 shown in the assertions of contemporaneous 
 historians. Fiske himself probably would 
 have admitted that Virginia might have pro- 
 claimed Charles II as her sovereign at any 
 time after the death of Charles I without 
 asking the leave of any other nation. 
 
 i* Fiske, vol. i, p. 312. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 39 
 
 FROM 1776 TO 1783 
 
 I shall not enter into a detailed account 
 of the causes that led the rabble of a part of 
 the people of each of the American nations 
 to rebel against their king. The sovereignty 
 of none of the countries was thereby affected, 
 although one may hold that the sovereignty of 
 each was placed in jeopardy, inasmuch as 
 George III tried to make his American king- 
 doms and his European kingdoms into one 
 vast empire. I shall remind you that the 
 sovereignty of a nation is not necessarily af- 
 fected by governmental changes. 
 
 The rebels did not fight that independent 
 nations might be made of colonies. The 
 American nations had been sovereign entities 
 from the time that they were first settled. 
 They had successfully resisted the attacks 
 made upon them by the British kingdom. The 
 honest men among the rebels fought that they 
 might establish governments republican in 
 form, believing that all the people could not 
 be independent in a kingdom, with all the 
 rights that all human beings should be free 
 to exercise. The rebels were unwilling to be 
 
40 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 taxed without their consent, they said; but 
 no one believes that they would have given 
 their consent to be taxed by the British gov- 
 ernment or by any other. 
 
 We shall see that the American kingdoms 
 became republics; but we shall also see that 
 the rabble did not bring about the change. 
 We shall see that the rebellion never reached 
 the proportions of a revolution, for we shall 
 see that only a small part of the people 
 of any of the American nations wished to de- 
 pose their king. True, few were willing to 
 permit a foreign government to exercise over 
 them the high power of sovereignty that would 
 be maintained were that government to tax 
 them for its own benefit; but, the rabble ex- 
 cepted, the peoples of the American nations 
 thought that the conditions then existing did 
 not make a war with Great Britain necessary. 
 More than once the king of the united king- 
 doms and the American kingdoms that were 
 not united had attempted to make laws com- 
 mon to the peoples of all his nations, but such 
 international complications had been adjusted 
 without an appeal to arms, and very little 
 diplomacy had been used in settling all differ- 
 ences. The American kingdoms always had 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 41 
 
 put their king right when he had been wrong, 
 and in doing so he had been made to suffer 
 very little inconvenience. 
 
 At this time Tories controlled the British 
 ministry. Not only was the government in 
 sympathy with the rabble, but the king had 
 no wish to be harsh with any of his American 
 subjects. The rebellion was not taken seri- 
 ously by him, nor by the rebels themselves, 
 while nearly all of the American peoples con- 
 sidered the acts and the utterances of the mobs 
 very much as we now consider the crimes and 
 the intemperate words of the rabble that is 
 always with us. I do not go too far when I 
 say that the rebellion would have been 
 brought to an end within a few days from the 
 time that it began had the British command- 
 ers and the American peoples considered the 
 rebellion to be more than the temporary ex- 
 pression of a rabble muttering against con- 
 stituted authority. 
 
 Already I have quoted from Major Steele. 
 His American Campaigns, in two volumes, 
 was published last year by the Office of the 
 Chief of Staff, War Department, Washington, 
 and is known as Document No. 324. It is used 
 as a text-book in the post-graduate military 
 
42 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 schools, where officers of the army, selected be- 
 cause of the high degree of their proficiency, 
 pursue their studies in the science of war. 
 These volumes represent a part of Major 
 Steele's work of three years as lecturer in 
 military history in the Army Service Schools 
 at Fort Leavenworth. Their value is very 
 great. In his department of science I know of 
 no writer of higher authority than Major 
 Steele. 
 
 Another book of great value from which I 
 shall quote frequently is The Military Policy 
 of the United States, by General Emory Up- 
 ton, U. S. A., a new edition of which recently 
 has been published by the Office of the Chief 
 of Staff, War Department, as Document No. 
 290, with an introduction by Elihu Boot, 
 written by him while he was secretary of war. 
 This book also is studied by army officers that 
 are students rather than pupils at military 
 schools. 
 
 FIGHTING STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN NATIONS 
 
 According to the first census, the population 
 of the American nations in 1790 was 3,231,317 
 Caucasians and 697,897 negroes, making a 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 43 
 
 total of 3,929,214, or a population of nearly 
 four millions. In estimating the fighting 
 strength of the nations the negro must be 
 taken into consideration, for the people of 
 a nation must live while they are at war. The 
 negroes were easily controlled. There has 
 never been a widespread uprising of negroes 
 on this continent. The Southampton Insur- 
 rection, the most important of negro revolts 
 that have occurred on this continent, involved 
 a small territory only. When we consider the 
 character of the negro, we readily understand 
 that there could never be an important negro 
 organisation. Nevertheless, in considering 
 this rebellion I shall eliminate the negro, and 
 I shall accept General Upton's estimate of 
 the population of the American nations, which 
 apparently does not include negroes. He as- 
 sumed the number of the American peoples 
 at the beginning of the Revolution to be three 
 millions. 15 There were more than three mil- 
 lion white persons in the American nations in 
 1776, I think. But, as I have said, I shall 
 accept General Upton's estimate for the pur- 
 pose of this oration. 
 
 IB Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United 
 States, War Department, Document No. 290, Office of the 
 Chief of Staff, p. 66. 
 
44 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 I shall also consider the fighting strength 
 of the American peoples to have been so small 
 as one-fifth of the population. This is a very 
 low estimate when we find that so late as 1880 
 the natural militia of Virginia males be- 
 tween the ages of eighteen and forty-four years 
 inclusive was 264,033 Caucasians and 102,- 
 426 negroes, a total of 366,459 in a male 
 population of 747,589, or nearly one-half the 
 male population. Surely in earlier days, when 
 men were not penned up in cities, when males 
 were more numerous than females in new 
 countries, when men were sturdy at eighty, the 
 fighting strength of the American peoples 
 must have exceeded one-fifth of their popula- 
 tion. 
 
 CHARACTER OP THE RABBLE FORCE 
 
 The rebels always had a large paper army, 
 although that army was never more than nine 
 per cent of the fighting strength of the Amer- 
 ican nations. By " paper army." I mean the 
 men that were counted as soldiers who never 
 saw service, who enlisted in militia organisa- 
 tions for periods ranging from a day to sev- 
 eral months, and who were usually bribed to 
 violate the allegiance that they owed to their 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 45 
 
 king. A table submitted by the secretary of 
 war to congress in 1790 shows that the entire 
 paper army of the rebels for the year 1776 
 was 89,661; yet, says General Upton, the 
 average of that paper army could not have 
 been more than between 40,000 to 50,000 men. 
 As we presently shall see, the largest force 
 that Washington could have put into the field 
 during the entire war was 17,000 men. 
 
 I will show you how paper soldiers were 
 made. On March 29, 1779, congress recom- 
 mended Virginia and North Carolina to raise 
 as many men for their defence as they could, 
 the soldiers to serve for one year, and not to 
 be obliged to go north of the Potomac river. 
 A bounty of two hundred dollars was to be 
 given to each of these soldiers, and their 
 names were to be entered in the rebels' ar- 
 chives as a part of their military force. To 
 quote from General Upton again : " Large for 
 the time as were the bounties granted by con- 
 gress, those offered by the states were still 
 larger. The legislature of New Jersey, to fill 
 its quota for its three battalions, offered two 
 hundred and fifty dollars to each recruit, in 
 addition to the clothing, land, and two hun- 
 dred dollars allowed by congress. While the 
 
46 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 legislature of Virginia, on the third of May, 
 offered to every recruit for the war seven hun- 
 dred and fifty dollars, a suit of clothes once 
 a year, and one hundred acres of land." 16 In- 
 deed was the patriotism of the rabble suffi- 
 cient to make them blush in their confusion 
 of innocence. 
 
 According to the tables that the secretary 
 of war prepared in 1790, many men, includ- 
 ing the paper militia, enlisted for a few days 
 only. These tables show that the whole paper 
 force for 1775 was 37,623. The tables also 
 give the following information: whole rebel 
 paper force, for 1776, 89,661, of which Vir- 
 ginia supplied 6,181 and Massachusetts 20,- 
 372; for 1777, 68,720, of which Virginia sup- 
 plied 11,013 and Massachusetts 12,591; for 
 1778, 51,046, of which Virginia supplied 7,830 
 and Massachusetts 13,437; for 1779, 44,275, 
 of which Virginia supplied 8,573 and Massa- 
 chusetts 7,738; for 1780, 43,076, of which Vir- 
 ginia supplied 6,986 and Massachusetts 7,- 
 889; for 1781, 29,340, of which Virginia 
 supplied 6,119 and Massachusetts 5,298; 
 for 1782, 18,006, of which Virginia supplied 
 2,204 and Massachusetts 4,423; for 1783, 13,- 
 
 i Upton, p. 41. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 47 
 
 477, of which Virginia supplied 629 and 
 Massachusetts 4,370. Thus of rebel paper 
 soldiers, Virginia supplied 49,935 and Massa- 
 chusetts 80,118 ; while the combined paper 
 strength of the rebels was 395,224. The high- 
 est number of paper soldiers that Virginia 
 supplied during any one year was 11,013, 
 while the lowest number that she supplied in 
 any one year was 629, yet Virginia's fighting 
 strength was something like 100,000 men. The 
 small state of Massachusetts supplied nearly 
 double the number of men that were supplied 
 by Virginia. 
 
 During the last year of the rebellion Vir- 
 ginia had fewer men under arms than she has 
 had from 1624 to the present day. During 
 the entire insurrection the Virginian rebel 
 paper force, the bulk of which admittedly 
 stayed at home, was less than 5,000 men. The 
 average paper force during the rebellion was 
 less than 44,000 men, or about one and one- 
 half per cent of the whole population, or 
 about one man out of every 350 white men. 
 
 During 1776, when the aggregate number 
 of rebel insurgent paper troops reached 89,- 
 661, the enemy had but 20,121 troops in all 
 America, although operating in the enemy's 
 
48 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 territory, and in one year only did the English 
 force number so many as 42,075. The aver- 
 age force of the British was about 30,000 men. 
 These figures, save for the average, are taken 
 from General Upton's book. 17 
 
 In 1775 the military strength of the Amer- 
 ican nations was 600,000 men, based on the 
 low estimate of one-fifth of the white popula- 
 tion alone. Nevertheless, as General Upton 
 tells us, " The largest force, Continental and 
 militia, that Washington could lead to battle 
 at any one time was less than seventeen thou- 
 sand, while at the battles of Trenton and 
 Princeton, during the time of our greatest 
 peril, his effective strength was less than four 
 thousand." 18 Thus at no time were the rebels 
 able to put on the field much more than one- 
 half of one per cent of the white population 
 of the American nations. 
 
 Let us consider the kind of force that 
 was supposed to constitute an army. Ma- 
 jor Steele says that when Washington took 
 command at Boston, July 2, 1775, his men 
 made "a rabble without uniforms, without 
 tents, without supplies, without discipline." 19 
 
 " Upton, p. 59. is Upton, p. 65. 
 
 i Steele, vol. i, p. 25. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 49 
 
 In the same paragraph he takes Washington 
 to task, saying that he had plenty of time to 
 make an army of his rabble, " for no fighting 
 took place within the northern colonies until 
 the Battle of Long Island, more than a year 
 later, August 27, 1776." General Upton also 
 pays his respects to Washington and to his 
 creatures, saying: "When Washington took 
 command his army numbered 17,000 men, 
 but the number fit for duty did not exceed 14,- 
 500. The strength of the enemy was estimated 
 by the council of war at 11,500; but after de- 
 ducting the sick and wounded his real effective 
 strength was not over 6,500. Notwithstand- 
 ing this disparity in numbers, neither Wash- 
 ington nor his generals deemed it prudent to 
 attack, and the year passed away in hopeless 
 inactivity." 20 
 
 General Howe and Admiral Howe, says 
 Major Steele, both sympathised with the col- 
 onies, and he quotes Goldwin Smith, thus: 
 "As a member of Parliament he [General 
 Howe] had pledged himself to his constituents 
 not to fight against the Americans, and he 
 must have been fettered by that pledge." In 
 the same paragraph Major Steele says that 
 
 20 Upton, p. 9. 
 
50 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 it " is too much to say that he was unfaithful 
 to the trust imposed upon him, although the 
 evidence certainly points to that verdict." 21 
 The inactivity of the British thus was due to 
 several causes, a few of which I shall show 
 later. 
 
 Even John Adams admitted that one-third 
 of his people were loyal to their king. Had 
 he entirely obeyed the demands of his con- 
 science he would have said that a larger part 
 of his people by far were their sovereign's 
 obedient subjects. In Virginia nearly all the 
 people were loyal, as presently we shall see. 
 
 PROGRESS OF THE REBELLION 
 
 Not many of the inhabitants of New Eng- 
 land accompanied Washington to New York 
 after the evacuation of Boston, for Ma- 
 jor Steele says that Washington, in taking the 
 bulk of his force, took only 8,000 men with 
 him. 
 
 Again to quote from General Upton : " The 
 total loss of Washington's Army in killed, 
 from the time that he took command, to the 
 end of the siege of Boston, did not reach 20, 
 while the whole loss in killed from the battle 
 
 21 Steele, vol. i, p. 37. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 51 
 
 of Lexington was less than 200." 22 Major 
 Steele, further commenting on the evacuation 
 of Boston, says : " The strangest thing of all, 
 he [Howe] left there, to be seized by the 
 rebels, ' more than 200 cannon, tons of pow- 
 der and lead, thousands of muskets, and all 
 sorts of miscellaneous military stores.' It 
 was not until after the 17th of March that he 
 [Howe] sailed twelve days after Washing- 
 ton had seized the heights. He certainly had 
 time to destroy those arms and supplies. This 
 and all of General Howe's subsequent con- 
 duct cannot fail to make the impartial stu- 
 dent suspect him." 23 On the next page he 
 says that Howe's withdrawal to Halifax so 
 encouraged the insurgents that the Declara- 
 tion of Independence followed a few months 
 afterward. 
 
 Washington seems to have understood that 
 his rabble capitalised the insurrection, ex- 
 ploiting the American peoples all they could. 
 I will quote from a letter that he wrote to 
 the president of the council of Massachusetts 
 Bay under date of August 7, 1775 : 
 
 " By the general return made to me for last 
 
 22 Upton, p. 12. 23 Steele, vol. i, p. 25. 
 
52 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 week, I find that there are great numbers of 
 soldiers and non-commissioned officers who ab- 
 sent themselves from duty, the greater part of 
 whom, I have reason to believe, are at their 
 respective homes in different parts of the 
 country; some employed by their officers on 
 their farms and others drawing pay from the 
 public, while they are working on their plan- 
 tations or for hire. My utmost exertions have 
 not been able to prevent this base and per- 
 nicious conduct. I must, therefore, beg the 
 assistance of the General Court to cooperate 
 with me in such measures as may remedy this 
 mischief. 
 
 " I need not enlarge upon the ruinous con- 
 sequence of suffering such infamous deserters 
 and defrauders of the public to go unnoticed 
 or unpunished, nor use any arguments to in- 
 duce the general court to give it immediate 
 attention." 24 
 
 The Battle of Long Island was disastrous to 
 the rabble, so Washington retreated to New 
 Jersey. By the time that he had reached New 
 Brunswick his force was reduced to 3,000, the 
 
 2* Sparks, Writings of Washington, vol. iii, pp. 65-66, 
 quoted by Upton, pp. 8-9. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 53 
 
 rest of his followers having deserted or their 
 terms of service having expired. 25 January 3, 
 1777, Washington reported to Congress that 
 " the whole of our numbers in New Jersey, fit 
 for duty at this time, is under 3,000. These, 
 981 excepted, are militia and stand engaged 
 only until the last of this month." Virginians 
 will be interested to know that in his report 
 he said that of Virginians a " handful of men " 
 only were with him. Commenting on this 
 paper, quoting Sparks, General Upton says 
 that Washington's regular soldiers were thus 
 reduced to less than 1,000, while his enemy 
 had more than 20,000 veterans in and about 
 New York. 
 
 Everybody seemed to think that the rebel- 
 lion was effectually suppressed. Major Steele 
 says that when "Washington retreated into 
 New Jersey, instead of pursuing his demoral- 
 ised band to its destruction, Howe followed it 
 slowly a short way," that "he made no at- 
 tempt to do anything at all during the win- 
 ter months but riot in the fleshpots and fri- 
 volities of social life in New York or Phila- 
 delphia." The rebels entered New York and 
 left as they pleased. 26 
 
 25 Steele, vol. i, p. 30. 20 Steele, vol. i, p. 37. 
 
54 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 Many of the intelligent inhabitants of the 
 American nations did not even know that 
 there was a rebellion until several years after 
 the British soldiers had been fired on at Lex- 
 ington, this for the reason that the operations 
 of the rabble were confined to a few places, 
 beyond which there were few evidences of re- 
 bellion, if any. After a bit of flurry in South 
 Carolina in June, 1776, the southern nations 
 were not again annoyed by the presence of the 
 English until the autumn of 1778, we are 
 told by Major Steele. Few of the inhabitants 
 of Virginia saw a redcoat during the entire 
 nine years of the rebellion. By the late au- 
 tumn of 1778 the British occupied New York 
 City alone, and, says Major Steele : " Outside 
 of the immediate theatre of operations, the 
 Americans up to this time had suffered few 
 of the discomforts of war." 2T 
 
 BABBLE FIGHTING 
 
 We have seen how these bribed creatures 
 fought or did not fight at Boston and at 
 New York, and we have imagined their speed 
 as they ran through New Jersey. Now I am 
 unable to resist the temptation to refer to the 
 
 27 Steele, vol. i, p. 43. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 55 
 
 Battle of Camden, so I quote from two de- 
 scriptions of that extraordinary conflict. I 
 begin with Major Steele's account: 
 
 " Meanwhile Cornwallis had arrived with 
 reinforcements. The Americans, however, 
 still outnumbered the British. There were 
 3,052 Americans, only 1,400 of whom were 
 regulars, to 2,000 British. Gates, however, 
 had not learned of the arrival of Cornwallis, 
 and he detached 400 of his best Maryland 
 regulars to join Sumter in cutting the British 
 line of communication with Charleston. 
 
 "At ten o'clock at night the two little ar- 
 mies advanced toward each other, each hoping 
 to take the other by surprise. The result was 
 the Battle of Camden, August 16, 1780, on a 
 narrow piece of ground with an impassable 
 swamp on each flank. Gates' Virginia and 
 North Carolina militia threw down their 
 arms, and fled without firing a shot. ' Within 
 fifteen minutes,' says Fiske, ' the whole Amer- 
 ican left became a mob of struggling men, 
 smitten with mortal panic, and huddling like 
 sheep in their wild flight, while Tarleton's 
 [British] cavalry gave chase and cut them 
 down by scores.' The Maryland brigade be- 
 
56 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 haved better; but it also was driven from the 
 field. The patriots were badly defeated. Gen- 
 eral Gates himself escaped to Hillsboro, rid- 
 ing 200 miles in four days." 28 
 
 Now I quote from the description written 
 by one of the officers in that battle, " Light 
 Horse Harry " Lee, the father of the greatest 
 of all Virginian soldiers: 
 
 " The Maryland leading regiment was soon 
 recovered from the confusion produced by the 
 panic of Armand's cavalry. [Here I break 
 in upon "the noble Harry" that I may tell 
 you that even to this day the whereabouts 
 of no man of all Armand's cavalry is known. 
 When an unknown horseman madly rushes 
 along a South Carolinian highway, excite- 
 ment in all his features, his clothes awry, the 
 onlookers say, " There goes one of Armand's 
 cavalrymen."] Battle, although unexpected, 
 was now inevitable, and General Gates ar- 
 rayed his army with promptitude. The Sec- 
 ond Brigade of Maryland, with the regiment 
 of Delaware, under General Gist, took the 
 
 28Steele, vol. i, pp. 45-46. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 57 
 
 right; the brigade of North Carolina the cen- 
 ter, and that of Virginia, under Brigadier 
 Stevens, the left. The First Brigade of Mary- 
 land was formed in reserve under the com- 
 mand of General Smallwood. To each bri- 
 gade a due proportion of artillery was al- 
 lotted, but we had no cavalry, as those who 
 fled in the night were still flying. Maj. Gen. 
 Baron de Kalb, charged with the line of bat- 
 tle, took post on the right, while the general 
 in chief, superintending the whole, placed 
 himself on the road between the line and the 
 reserve. 
 
 "The light of day dawned the signal for 
 battle. Instantly our centre opened its artil- 
 lery, and the left of our line, under Stevens, 
 was ordered to advance. The veterans of the 
 enemy, composing its right, were of course 
 opposed to the Virginia militia, whereas they 
 ought to have been faced by the Continental 
 Brigade. Stevens, however, exhorting his 
 soldiers to rely on the bayonet, advanced with 
 his accustomed intrepidity. Lieut.-Col. Otho 
 Williams, adjutant-general, preceded him 
 with a band of volunteers, in order to unite 
 the fire of the enemy before they were in 
 reach of the militia, that experience of its ef- 
 
58 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ficiency might encourage the latter to do their 
 duty. 
 
 "The British general, closely watching our 
 motives, discovered this movement on the left, 
 and gave orders to Webster to lead into bat- 
 tle with the right. The command was exe- 
 cuted with the characteristic courage and in- 
 telligence of that officer. Our left was in- 
 stantly overpowered by the assault; and the 
 brave Stevens had to endure the mortifying 
 spectacle exhibited by his flying brigade. 
 Without exchanging more than one fire with 
 the enemy, they threw away their arms and 
 sought that safety in flight which generally 
 can be obtained only by courageous resistance. 
 The North Carolina brigade, imitating that 
 on the right, followed the shameful example. 
 Stevens, Gaswell, and Gates himself struggled 
 to stop the fugitives and rally them for bat- 
 tle; but every noble feeling of the heart was 
 sunk in base solicitude to preserve life; and 
 having no cavalry to assist their exertions, 
 the attempted reclamation failed entirely. . . . 
 
 "Our loss was very heavy. More than a 
 third of the Continental troops were killed 
 and wounded; and of the wounded 170 were 
 made prisoners. The Eegiment of Delaware 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 59 
 
 was nearly annihilated. . . . The North 
 Carolina militia also suffered greatly; more 
 than 300 were taken and nearly 106 killed 
 and wounded. Contrary to the usual course 
 of events and the general wish, the Virginia 
 militia who set the infamous example which 
 produced the destruction of our army escaped 
 entirely." 29 
 
 General Upton tells us that an incident of 
 the Battle of Guilford Court-house should not 
 be overlooked. He says that Stevens, "prof- 
 iting by his experience at Camden, where he 
 had been deserted by his brigade, placed a 
 chain of sentinels in the rear of the second 
 line with orders to shoot the first man who 
 should try to desert his post." 30 
 
 In the spring of 1781 La Fayette was in 
 command in Virginia, with 3,000 men, where 
 he was to resist Cornwallis, who had an army 
 of 5,000 veterans. La Fayette was joined by 
 1,000 Pennsylvanians, and later was further 
 reinforced by Steuben, with 1,000 men. Let 
 us pause: 420,000 white Virginians, whose 
 fighting strength could not have been less 
 
 2 Lee, Memoirs, vol. i, pp. 178-183, quoted by Upton, 
 pp. 44-45. 
 so Upton, p. 56. 
 
60 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 than 80,000, and may have been 100,000, re- 
 sisted the invasion of Virginia with French- 
 men assisted by a few Pennsylvanians. There 
 may have been a few Virginians skulking 
 about hedges. Does any Virginian believe 
 that story? 
 
 I think not. I recall that so early as 1676 
 the two small counties that constitute the 
 Eastern Shore raised an army of one thou- 
 sand men to uphold the authority of the king. 
 No, Virginia was not invaded. Her rabble 
 was in rebellion, which would be suppressed 
 by Virginia's sovereign at his pleasure. If 
 you take any other position, Virginians, go 
 hide your faces in shame! 
 
 THE KING ABDICATES 
 
 The surrender of Cornwallis did not force 
 the British to withdraw from American ter- 
 ritory. Long before that event Burgoyne had 
 surrendered a large army. General Upton 
 says that during the entire rebellion two 
 military events only " had a direct bear- 
 ing upon the expulsion of the British. One 
 of these was the capture of Burgoyne; the 
 other that of Cornwallis an event which 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 61 
 
 was only made possible by the cooperation 
 of a French army and a French fleet." 
 
 But while these two events possibly led 
 George III to leave the throne of his Ameri- 
 can kingdom, they could not have greatly in- 
 fluenced him. He lived in England, and Eng- 
 land had been at war for more than two cen- 
 turies, with brief respites snatched at inter- 
 vals. During the time of the rebellion of 
 his American subjects England was at war 
 with France, with Spain, and with Holland, 
 his subjects in India were in rebellion, while 
 beyond his own English realm he was with- 
 out a friend in all Europe. Even at home his 
 enemies were thick. The Tories would shout 
 with joy every time a British subject laid 
 down his life under fire. Says Major Steele: 
 "There are, indeed, many points of likeness 
 between the Philippine Insurrection and our 
 own Revolution; but there is this main dif- 
 ference: our Revolution succeeded. Had it 
 failed, it would be in the world's annals 
 merely an insurrection, too, occupying a few 
 pages in British history, and having no na- 
 tional history of its own." 31 
 
 Many forget that the American nations 
 
 si Steele, vol. i, p. 23. 
 
62 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 were world powers at the time of the rebel- 
 lion. They forget that the last Revolution- 
 ary pensioner died but a few years ago. In- 
 deed, the last of the Kevolutionary rabble 
 did not die until 1869, while in 1875 there 
 were 379 widows of Revolutionary soldiers 
 drawing pensions. No, the period of the Revo- 
 lution was not long ago. At that time the 
 population of England was not greater than 
 twice that of the American peoples. The 
 first reliable British census, taken in 1801, 
 shows that the population of England and 
 Wales combined was then 8,892,536. Prob- 
 ably the population of England in 1775 was 
 not greater than six millions. 
 
 England at that time had her naval sta- 
 tions in all parts of the world. She had an 
 abundance of territory for her surplus popu- 
 lation on the American continent without 
 drawing on the nations to the south of Can- 
 ada. She had bound the American peoples 
 to her with chains that had been forged by 
 Almighty God, and she knew that no link 
 could ever be broken. George descended 
 from the throne of each American nation ; but 
 surely he was forced off the throne of none. 
 
 Thirteen nations, with a military strength 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 63 
 
 of 600,000 men, could have driven away those 
 6,500 effective men who occupied Boston. 
 Yet there are persons who contend that a 
 force of 6,500 effective men, three thousand 
 miles from home, was able to hold the vast 
 territories of thirteen kingdoms, in which 
 there were large tracts of unsurveyed lands, 
 and in which there were more than three mil- 
 lion Caucasian inhabitants besides hosts of 
 hostile savages ! One person only in five hun- 
 dred willing to resist an invasion of his 
 country? 
 
 Not so! Americans were virtuous beyond 
 all other peoples: the rabble, 1; the worthy, 
 500. If the American peoples were fighting 
 a war with Great Britain or if they were 
 resisting the authority of their lawful king 
 they permitted thirty thousand men to hold 
 three million men in check in check while 
 they had a fighting force of six hundred thou- 
 sand men. If that be the calibre of the peo- 
 ple that comprised this monarchy, then, I 
 say, the most savage of the tribes of darkest 
 Africa were superior to those American peo- 
 ples, for no nation would undertake to con- 
 quer three million savages with thirty 
 thousand men. 
 
64 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 How many Americans would be required to 
 conquer the Philippine peoples? Not all the 
 people of this vast monarchy may conquer 
 the Philippine peoples in all time. Why, you 
 say, they have been conquered! If so, why 
 are they permitted to buy and sell human 
 beings? Why in the Philippines are men and 
 women sold into a slavery vastly more brutal 
 than ever has been known on this continent? 
 No, despite warfare that has been waged in 
 our foreign " possessions " for twelve years, 
 the various Philippine nations are still sover- 
 eign, and they will remain sovereign so long 
 as the American monarchy exists, even though 
 American soldiers occupy Philippine lands 
 until the crack of doom. Turn back the 
 hands of Time, O Despot of this Monarchy, 
 and when you reach the period of Elizabeth, 
 learn the lesson that she taught her subjects 
 more than three hundred years ago: no peo- 
 ple may ever be possessed by any other peo- 
 ple; no colonies may ever be established; the 
 only bonds that may bind humanity are those 
 of love. 
 
 Highway robbers, the rabble fought for 
 themselves. There were exceptions. At least 
 one gentleman was a rebel; the gallant 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 65 
 
 "Light Horse Harry." But, I repeat, few 
 Virginians desired to alter the government 
 under which they lived. Few hated the 
 mother at whose breast they were nursed. 
 
 After the Treaty of Paris all worthy per- 
 sons in the American nations supported their 
 new governments. They showed that the 
 American peoples of 1775 were among the 
 powerful nations of the earth, for those same 
 peoples after the Treaty of Paris continued 
 to develop the American republics until they 
 became powerful in all that makes a great 
 people great. But do not mistake the rabble 
 that fought their king for the patriots who 
 established the American republics. 
 
 GOVERNMENT BY THE RABBLE 
 
 Although the rebels constituted but a small 
 proportion of the population of any of the 
 American nations, yet they gained control of 
 each of the American governments. That 
 they were able to do so is the most inexplic- 
 able part of American history. In Virginia 
 the rabble constituted so small a part of the 
 population, I am lost in wonder that con- 
 ditions could have been as they were in this 
 old commonwealth. 
 
66 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 However, in more than one period of Vir- 
 ginia's life native Virginians have governed 
 Virginia in a manner that would have made 
 carpetbaggers blush in their shame; neverthe- 
 less the people of no other land, in no other 
 time, have been so noble as Virginians. They 
 have seen carpetbaggers purchase split-bottom 
 chairs at sixty-seven cents apiece while act- 
 ing as private citizens, then sell the same 
 chairs to the Virginian government while act- 
 ing as Virginian legislators at sixty-seven dol- 
 lars a piece; but also Virginians have seen 
 Virginian legislators bribe the Virginian rab- 
 ble at seven hundred and fifty dollars a head 
 to become paper soldiers to fight on paper 
 against their king. 
 
 Virginia, according to the point of view of 
 these legislators, was invaded. For several 
 years the rabble had drawn good pay, more 
 than they had ever received before in their 
 lives, year in and year out, and their serv- 
 ice had consisted in having their names made 
 a part of the archives of their country as sol- 
 diers serving at home ; and further service con- 
 sisted in wanton crimes committed on the 
 persons and the estates of noble Virginians, 
 men and women who were the pride of Vir- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 67 
 
 ginia; and they still further served Virginia 
 by taking their pay as soldiers and their 
 bounty of seven hundred and fifty dollars a 
 head to taverns, where they spent it in all 
 sorts of beastly sensualities. Thus had Vir- 
 ginians rewarded these faithful servants. 
 
 "Assuming three millions as a total num- 
 ber of our people at the beginning of the Rev- 
 olution, the whole cost of this country to 
 each man, woman, and child was $123, while, 
 upon the basis of a population of 31,000,000 
 in 1861, the total cost per capita of the War 
 of the Rebellion was but $96." 32 
 
 They were further rewarded: 
 
 " The total amount paid to Revolutionary 
 pensioners up to June 30, 1876, for a period 
 of service of six months and over, was $46,- 
 177,845.44." 33 
 
 General Upton goes on to tell us that " the 
 total of pensions in round numbers amounts 
 to $80,000,000," basing his figures on the re- 
 port of Bentley, Commissioner of Pensions. 
 
 I shall not further recite the awful 
 crimes committed against Virginia by Vir- 
 ginians while they governed Virginia dur- 
 ing the rebellion. None of us for one mo- 
 
 82 Upton, p. 66. 33 Upton, p. 65. 
 
68 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ment can believe that the mass of Virginians 
 were other than faithful to Virginia's high 
 traditions and high ideals. A handful of rab- 
 ble dominated her and we wonder. That 
 the rabble of the other nations were quite as 
 bad as Virginians I have already intimated. 
 Now I quote from a letter that George Wash- 
 ington wrote to Joseph Reed, and then I am 
 done with the character of the rabble. The 
 letter is one of probably a hundred similar 
 letters that Washington wrote to Congress 
 and to his subordinates. 
 
 " Such a dearth of public spirit and such 
 want of virtue, such stock- jobbing and fertil- 
 ity in all the low arts to obtain advantages 
 of one kind or another in this great change 
 of military arrangement, I never saw before, 
 and pray God's mercy that I may never be 
 witness to again. What will be the end of 
 these manoeuvre is beyond my scan. I trem- 
 ble at the prospect. We have been till this 
 time enlisting about three thousand five hun- 
 dred men. To engage these I have been 
 obliged to allow furloughs as far as fifty men 
 to a regiment, and the officers, I am per- 
 suaded, indulge as many more. The Con- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 69 
 
 necticut troops will not be prevailed upon to 
 stay longer than their term, saving those who 
 have enlisted for the next campaign, and are 
 mostly on furlough; and such a mercenary 
 spirit pervades the whole that I should not 
 be at all surprised at any disaster that may 
 happen. In short, after the last of this month 
 our lines will be so weakened that the min- 
 ute men and militia must be called in for 
 their defence, and these being under no kind 
 of government themselves will destroy the lit- 
 tle subordination I have been laboring to es- 
 tablish, and run me into one evil while I am 
 endeavoring to avoid another; but the less 
 must be chosen." 34 
 
 GOVERNMENT UNDER FIRST FEDERAL COMPACT 
 
 At no time during the rebellion did the 
 American nations act as a single nation. A 
 treaty was entered into by them on Novem- 
 ber 15, 1777, the treaty being known as Arti- 
 cles of Confederation. Says Frothingham, 
 the treaty as amended, and as accepted by all 
 the American nations, provides that " < each 
 state retains its sovereignty, freedom and in- 
 
 3* Sparks, Writings of Washington, vol. iii, pp. 178-179, 
 quoted by Upton, p. 6. 
 
70 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 dependence' the first statement after the 
 Confederation had been given a name." 35 
 This was the first governmental union made 
 by the American nations for purposes other 
 than war, and the object of this union really 
 was to wage war successfully. The nations 
 parties to the compact each continued to ex- 
 ercise full powers of sovereignty, and when 
 they disapproved any provision of the con- 
 federation such provision was disregarded by 
 them. 
 
 For a moment let us look closely at the 
 "government" under the compact of 1777 
 and its amendments. In 1784 the citizens of 
 the western part of North Carolina seceded 
 from that nation and formed themselves into 
 a republic, to which they gave the name State 
 of Franklin. 86 A government was organised, 
 consisting of a parliament with two houses, 
 a governor, and a full judiciary department. 
 London Carter was; chosen speaker of the 
 Senate and Thomas Talbot clerk, while Wil- 
 
 35 Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United 
 States, p. 561; quoted by Ewing, Northern Rebellion and 
 Southern Secession, p. 14. 
 
 36 An excellent history of the State of Franklin is con- 
 tained in Prof. Francis M. Turner's Life of General John 
 Sevier, one of the authorities that I consulted in the prep- 
 aration of this oration. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 71 
 
 liam Gage was chosen speaker of the House 
 of Commons, and Thomas Chapman* clerk; 
 General John Sevier was elected governor, 
 and the Supreme Court was presided over 
 by three judges. A constitution was adopted, 
 and for several years the government was ef- 
 fectively administered, until March, 1788, 
 when Sevier's term of office expired. During 
 the life of this little republic it exercised all 
 the functions of sovereignty, including the 
 waging of civil war. Civil strife only was the 
 cause of her destruction. In time the re- 
 public became the present state of Tennessee. 
 
 No matter what view one may take of the 
 strife known as the Revolutionary War, 
 whether the American nations fought to re- 
 sist powers of sovereignty that England at- 
 tempted to exercise over them, whether they 
 fought to change their nations from king- 
 doms to republics, or whether they fought to 
 establish nations, one must admit that they 
 were sovereignties the moment that the Treaty 
 of Paris became effective. 
 
 Let us consider one of the provisions of 
 that treaty: 
 
 "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges that 
 
72 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 said United States, viz: New Hampshire, 
 Massachusetts Bay, Khode Island and Provi- 
 dence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- 
 land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro- 
 lina, and Georgia, to be Free Sovereign, and 
 Independent States; that he treats with them 
 as such." 37 
 
 Thus the king common to Great Britain 
 and all the American nations, and to other 
 nations, such as Canada, acting as the 
 head of the British Government, acknowl- 
 edged the independence of each of the Ameri- 
 can nations not the independence of those 
 nations confederally, but the independence 
 of those nations individually, as separate po- 
 litical entities. At the same time the Ameri- 
 can nations ceased to be kingdoms. 
 
 Thus we find that the ^Revolutionary War 
 never affected the sovereignty of any one of 
 the American countries. 
 
 87 Art. i, Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783. 
 
s 
 
 II 
 
 THE AMEKICAN EEPUBLICS 
 FROM 1783 TO 1865 
 
 THE treaty known as Articles of Confedera- 
 tion was the only compact that existed be- 
 tween the American nations from 1777 until 
 the treaty of 1788 went into effect. 
 
 That the treaty of 1788 and its amend- 
 ments was not nearly perfect as an in- 
 strument by which the nations expressed 
 their views of the confederation that they 
 had formed, is shown by the trouble that 
 it caused from the time that it was adopted 
 until the present day. That document has 
 been the cause of more litigation than any 
 other instrument ever written. Tens of thou- 
 sands of human beings have lost their lives 
 in trying to interpret it. Not only was it 
 imperfect as an agreement, but it was the 
 means of defeating the object that the par- 
 ties to it wished to attain. While I shall 
 not attempt to point to all its defects, I shall 
 ask you to consider these few: 
 
 73 
 
74 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 A powerful blow was dealt to the sover- 
 eignty of the American nations when the com- 
 pact permitted the federal power to levy any 
 kind of tax. Nor should any nation permit 
 a holding company to make her money, change 
 her fiscal system at will, nor in any other 
 way to interfere with her domestic affairs. 
 No nation should permit a holding company 
 to organise and to control her militia. 
 
 Here I stop recounting the defects of the 
 treaty that was intended to regulate the Amer- 
 ican nations in their intercourse with one an- 
 other and with other nations, for I should take 
 your time unnecessarily were I able to point 
 out all the defects that mar a compact that 
 might have been perfect. Let me say, however, 
 that at least one Virginian apparently saw all 
 the defects of that compact. I refer to Pat- 
 rick Henry, the greatest statesman of his 
 period, and among the great statesmen of all 
 time. 
 
 "Congress," said he, "by the power of tax- 
 ation by that of raising an army, and by 
 their control over the militia, have the sword 
 in one hand, and the purse in the other. 
 Shall we be safe without either?" 38 So 
 
 ss William Wirt, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence 
 and Speeches, 3 vols., vol. 3, p. 495. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 75 
 
 spoke that great statesman June 9, 1788; and 
 then he went on to say : " Let him candidly 
 tell me, where and when did freedom exist 
 when the sword and purse were given up 
 from the people? Unless a miracle in human 
 affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its 
 liberty after the loss of the sword and 
 purse." 39 There were Virginians other than 
 Patrick Henry who saw many of the defects 
 of the compact. 
 
 There were statesmen in all the American 
 nations that were in sympathy with Patrick 
 Henry's views. Samuel Adams in a letter 
 to Eichard Henry Lee said, " I stumble at the 
 threshold." Evidently he viewed the instru- 
 ment with misgivings. 
 
 TREATY OF 1788 AS VIEWED BY THE NATIONS 
 
 Few of the American nations, if any, were 
 willing to become parties to the written agree- 
 ment until they had been assured that it 
 should not be construed to affect their sover- 
 eignty in the least. They were willing to del- 
 egate specified powers to a holding company, 
 such as the federal agents would make, 
 for each nation would have the right to take 
 
 sWirt, vol. 3, p. 495. 
 
76 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 back the powers so delegated. The relations 
 of each country to the federal agents were 
 to be similar to those that exist between 
 client and lawyer. Each nation intended 
 carefully to guard her rights under the treaty 
 as well as her sovereignty. 
 
 In the constitutional convention that as- 
 sembled in Philadelphia in 1787, one of the 
 delegates from Delaware declared that his 
 nation would form an alliance with some 
 European power rather than enter into 1 a 
 union that would empower stronger nations 
 to treat her unfairly. 
 
 Unwilling to jeopardise her sovereignty, 
 Massachusetts had refused to become a party 
 to the treaty of 1788 unless that agreement 
 should be amended in this: "First, That it 
 be explicitly declared that all Powers not ex- 
 pressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitu- 
 tion are reserved to the several States to be 
 by them exercised." 40 The "amendments & 
 alterations" that were demanded by Massa- 
 chusetts were held to be necessary "to re- 
 move fears & quiet apprehensions of many of 
 the good people of this Commonwealth & 
 
 40 Documentary History of the Constitution of the 
 United States, vol. ii, p. 94. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 77 
 
 more effectually guard against an undue ad- 
 ministration of the Federal Government." 41 
 
 New York became a party to the compact 
 after she had made known her interpretation 
 of the agreement in the following language: 
 " That the Powers of Government may be re- 
 sumed by the People, whensoever it shall be 
 necessary to their Happiness; that every 
 Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not 
 by the said Constitution clearly delegated 
 to the Congress of the United States, or the 
 departments of the Government thereof, re- 
 mains to the People of the several States, or 
 to their respective State Governments to 
 whom they may have granted the same; And 
 that those clauses in the said Constitution, 
 which declare, that Congress shall not have 
 or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that 
 Congress is entitled to any Powers not given 
 by the said Constitution; but such Clauses 
 are to be construed either as exceptions to 
 certain specified Powers, or as inserted 
 merely for greater caution." 42 
 
 Khode Island, one of the nations that re- 
 fused to enter into the compact, in time of- 
 
 Ibid., p. 93. 
 
 * 2 Documentary History of the Constitution of the 
 United States, vol. ii, p. 94. 
 
78 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 fered to enter into trade relations with her 
 sister nations, and " at the request and in be- 
 half of the General Assembly " her governor 
 forwarded " To the President, the Senate, 
 and the House of Representatives of the 
 eleven United States of America " her " dis- 
 position to cultivate mutual harmony and 
 friendly intercourse." The papers were of- 
 ficially labeled " Rhode Island desires to 
 maintain friendly relations with the United 
 States," and bearing that label were laid be- 
 fore the federal congress by Washington Sep- 
 tember 26, 1789. Rhode Island continued to 
 exercise her sovereign rights unmolested un- 
 til May 29, 1790, when she became a party 
 to the treaty between the American nations, 
 at her request, but not before she had im- 
 posed the following conditions: "That the 
 powers of government may be resumed by the 
 people whenever it shall become necessary 
 to their happiness: That the rights of the 
 States respectively, to nominate and appoint 
 all State Officers, and every other power, 
 jurisdiction and right, which is not by the 
 said constitution clearly delegated to the 
 Congress of the United States or to the de- 
 partments of government thereof, remain to 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 79 
 
 the people of the several states, or their re- 
 spective State Governments to whom they 
 may have granted the same." * 3 
 
 No nation made known her interpretation 
 of the treaty of 1788 in clearer terms than 
 did Virginia, for she published to the world 
 that the powers that she intended to delegate 
 to the federal government might be 'taken 
 back by her people " whenever the same shall 
 be perverted to their injury or oppression 
 and every power not granted remains with 
 them at their will." 44 The Constitution, she 
 said, would have to contain the following 
 words, or words of similar purport : " That 
 each state in the Union shall, respectively, 
 retain every power, jurisdiction and right 
 which is not by this Constitution delegated 
 to the Congress of the United States, or to 
 the Departments of the Federal Govern- 
 ment." 
 
 When assured that the treaty would be al- 
 tered to meet their requirements, the nations 
 that had refused to enter the union became 
 parties to the compact, which was later 
 
 43 Documentary History of the Constitution of the 
 United States, vol. ii, p. 311. 
 
 *4 David L. Pulliam, Constitutional Laws of Virginia, 
 pp. 39-45. 
 
80 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 amended in language that is not open to 
 misinterpretation: "The powers not dele- 
 gated to the United States by the Constitu- 
 tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
 reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
 people." 45 
 
 TREATY OF 1788 AS VIEWED BY STATESMEN 
 
 Of the five men that Fiske says moulded 
 the confederation of states, Washington, Jef- 
 ferson, and Madison held that the Constitu- 
 tion was a compact between the states, and 
 that each state was an independent sover- 
 eignty. 
 
 In a letter to Madison, dated August 3, 
 1778, Washington used the following words: 
 " . . . till the States begin to act under the 
 new compact." Time and again Washington 
 said that the states were independent nations, 
 their sovereignty unaffected by the treaty to 
 which they were parties. 
 
 Said Madison in 1799: "The Constitution 
 of the United States was framed by the sanc- 
 tion of the States, given by each in its sover- 
 eign capacity." 46 Mr. Jefferson Davis, in his 
 
 Amendments to the Constitution, Art. x. 
 *6 Edward Payson Powell, Nullification and Secession in 
 the United States, p. 102. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 81 
 
 splendid book, The Rise and Fall of the Con- 
 federate Government, reports that Madison 
 also said, "The people but not the people 
 as composing one great body; but the people 
 as composing thirteen sovereignties," made 
 the compact of 1788 and its amendments. 
 
 That the sovereignty of no one of the na- 
 tions was affected by the federal union Jef- 
 ferson frequently contended. Gordy reports: 
 " Jefferson's opinion began as follows : ( I 
 consider the foundation of the Constitution 
 as laid on this ground that all powers not 
 delegated to the United States by the Consti- 
 tution or prohibited by it to the States are 
 reserved to the States or to the people. To 
 take a single step beyond the boundaries thus 
 specially drawn around the powers of con- 
 gress, is to take possession of a boundless 
 field of power no longer susceptible of any 
 definition/ " 47 
 
 President Monroe wrote that two proposi- 
 tions were beyond dispute : " The first is, that 
 in wresting the power, or what is called the 
 sovereignty, from the crown, it passed di- 
 rectly to the people. The second, that it 
 
 *7J. p. Gordy, A History of Political Parties in the 
 United States, p. 135. 
 
82 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 passed directly to the people of each colony, 
 and not to the people of all the colonies in 
 the aggregate to thirteen distinct communi- 
 ties, and not to one." 48 
 
 In Ware vs. Hylton (3 Dallas, 224) Justice 
 Chase, of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and one of the signers of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, in his opinion said: 
 " I consider this a declaration, not that the 
 united colonies, jointly, in a collective capac- 
 ity, were independent states, &c., but that 
 each of them was a sovereign and independ- 
 ent state, that is, that each of them had a 
 right to govern itself by its own authority 
 and its own laws, without any control from 
 any other power on earth." 
 
 Judson A. Landon, referring to the Declar- 
 ation of Independence, says : " The thought 
 in the mind of the framers no doubt was that 
 every colony was free and independent of the 
 king. There was no need to say independent 
 of each other; they had always been so, and 
 the idea of erecting a common, central gov- 
 ernment out of all, was not yet suggested." * 9 
 
 48 Niles, Register, vol. xxii, p. 366. 
 
 *e Judson A. Landon, The Constitutional History and 
 Government of the United States, p. 59 ; quoted by Ewing, 
 Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession, p. 12. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 83 
 
 As a union is a combination that consists 
 of two or more entities, either an American 
 union or an American nation was formed 
 when the Constitution was adopted. Bear 
 this in mind, if you please, you who spell 
 union with a big U, and who seem to think 
 that " union " means " nation." 
 
 Lincoln at the time of his first inaugural 
 address evidently knew the meaning of "un- 
 ion " as well as " nation." In his first in- 
 augural address " union " appears twenty 
 times, but only once was the word " nation " 
 used. Three years later, in his Gettysburg 
 oration, the word " union " is not mentioned, 
 but the word " nation " is used five times. 
 Such is the influence of power. Indeed 
 should the warning of Patrick Henry be 
 heeded: "If your American chief be a man 
 of ambition, and abilities, how easy it is for 
 him to render himself absolute ! " 50 
 
 Possibly no human being who has studied 
 the affairs of men ever believed that a sover- 
 eign entity ever willingly surrendered her 
 powers. Is it thinkable that Virginia, a na- 
 tion two hundred years old, with her tradi- 
 tions jealously guarded by her, ever willingly 
 
 vol. 3, p. 452. 
 
84 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 laid down her life, to enter the American hell? 
 One with the intelligence of a boy of ten may 
 not read the reports of the debates on the 
 adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States without reaching the conclusion that 
 the parties to that compact never intended to 
 create a nation. 
 
 Here I yield to the temptation to point out 
 one more defect in the agreement between the 
 American sovereignties. The name of the 
 holding company never should have been The 
 United States of America; but that name 
 should have been The American States United. 
 Possibly, for the benefit of the late Daniel 
 Webster and many of those of his period and 
 of ours, a dictionary should have been made 
 a part of the treaty of 1788. Such words as 
 " state " and " nation " and " union " and 
 " sovereignty " and " delegate " and " re- 
 serve " and " power " should have been de- 
 fined. True, everybody knows the meaning of 
 those words as ordinarily used; but as used 
 in the agreement of confederation they mean 
 everything or nothing to nationalists. 
 
 GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TREATY OF 1788 
 
 The domestic affairs of the American na- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 85 
 
 tions were not materially affected by the hold- 
 ing company immediately after their compact 
 became operative. Each nation went about 
 her own affairs. As we have already seen, 
 Virginia had a splendid military system as 
 long ago as 1624. She continued to perfect 
 this organisation after she became a party to 
 the compact of confederation. Says Mr. Armi- 
 stead Gordon, now rector of the University of 
 Virginia, in his admirable Life of General 
 Fitzhugh Gordon : " Each county raised a cer- 
 tain number of troops, and because it was not 
 convenient for men to go many miles from 
 home in assembling for purposes of drill, the 
 county was subdivided into military districts, 
 each with its company, according to the rules 
 laid down by the governor." This system 
 therefore was not unlike that which came into 
 being way back in 1624. 
 
 " In 1804 the legislature chartered the Bank 
 of Virginia and its branches, and this was the 
 beginning of the Virginia banking system that 
 by 1860 had grown and developed into the 
 most perfect banking system that the world 
 has ever seen." 51 
 
 81 William L. Royall, A History of Virginia Bank* and 
 Banking Prior to the CwU War, p. 0. 
 
86 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 I again refer to the rise of sectionalism in 
 Virginia. From an early part of the seven- 
 teenth century there were sections within sec- 
 tions, and by 1840 the differences between 
 eastern Virginia and western had become 
 acute. In 1840 western Virginians were 
 clamouring for more liberal representation in 
 the Virginian House and Senate, and by 1860 
 civil war between eastern Virginia and west- 
 ern was threatened. I mention this as an in- 
 cident in the national development of the old 
 commonwealth. Some day I shall tell you a 
 great deal concerning the war that was about 
 to be fought between eastern Virginia and 
 western at the time the War between the 
 States deprived Virginians of the joy of what 
 would have been an extremely interesting 
 fight. 
 
 Nbt long did the American nations live 
 peaceably under their compact. The rabble, 
 greatly encouraged by the course events had 
 taken, sought to make further mischief. A 
 brigand never becomes a good citizen. The 
 rabble, still the rabble, still highway robbers, 
 would continue to prey upon society. In the 
 name of humanity the rabble had overthrown 
 a kingdom, that a republic might be estab- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 87 
 
 lished; in the name of humanity the rabble 
 now intended to overthrow a republic, that a 
 kingdom might be established. Alexander 
 Hamilton, a leader of the rabble that had 
 fought one king, was now the leader of the 
 rabble that fought for a new king. Again 
 the highwaymen were successful. The treaty 
 was their work. Now for another kingdom! 
 
 GOVERNMENT UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 Through the kindness of Mr. Fontaine T. 
 Fox, of the Louisville bar, I am able to quote 
 from his valuable book, A Study in Alexander 
 Hamilton, which is now in press. As the book 
 is not yet in pages, I am unable to refer to 
 page numbers. 
 
 Says Mr. Fox, " Alexander Hamilton begat 
 the Federal party, the Federal party begat the 
 Whig party, the Whig party begat the Eepub- 
 lican party, and these three parties were one 
 and the same yesterday, they are one and the 
 same to-day, and they will be one and the same 
 for ever and for ever. Hamilton's sole object 
 was to create a government outside the fed- 
 eral constitution, and to-day that is the chief 
 object of the Republican party. This new 
 
88 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 government was to be made out of the doctrine 
 of ' implied powers.' Under the constructive 
 decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, which always has been merely the ex- 
 ponent of Hamilton's political opinions, as it 
 is to-day the exponent of those opinions, no 
 restrictions limit the kind of government that 
 may be established under the doctrine of im- 
 plied powers. John Marshall was the judicial 
 exponent of Alexander Hamilton no more, 
 no less." 
 
 Yet time was when John Marshall was faith- 
 ful to the nation that gave him birth. That 
 was the time when he had not dreamed his 
 dreams of empire, the time when he held that 
 the states were nations. During the debate 
 on the adoption of the Constitution he used 
 the following words: "Can they [Congress] 
 go beyond the delegated powers? If they were 
 to make a law not warranted by any of the 
 powers enumerated, it would be considered by 
 the judges [Supreme Court] as an infringe- 
 ment of the Constitution which they are to 
 guard. . . . They would declare it void." 52 
 
 But, as Mr. Fox says : " The American peo- 
 ples through the doctrine of implied powers 
 
 52 Allan Bowie Magruder, John Marshall, p. 82. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 89 
 
 are living not under the federal constitution, 
 but under the government of the federal su- 
 preme court a government created out of its 
 own imagination, in defiance of the constitu- 
 tion which the judicial oath required it to 
 support and defend. And that court is to- 
 day, as it never has ceased to be, the exponent 
 of Alexander Hamilton's political principles, 
 through John Marshall's judicial decisions, 
 which have been accepted and followed as in- 
 fallible." 
 
 Jefferson was alarmed by the inroads made 
 upon the rights of the nations by the supreme 
 federal court. In his first inaugural address 
 he said: "I deem as an essential principle 
 of our government, the support of the State 
 governments in their rights, as the most com- 
 petent administrations for our domestic con- 
 cerns and the surest bulwarks against anti- 
 republican tendencies." 53 No wonder that the 
 Sage of Monticello "wrote a spiteful letter 
 about Marshall which made the latter angry, 
 and he went home to Virginia and ran for 
 Congress against the opposition of Jefferson, 
 who called him ' a monarchist and an unprin- 
 cipled impudent Federal bulldog.' " 
 
 Statesman's Manual, vol. i, p. 151. 
 
90 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 "Loose construction had come to mean the 
 right of the federal government to do what- 
 ever was forbidden by the Constitution pro- 
 vided the act was deemed to be for the gen- 
 eral good." 5 * 
 
 Again I quote from the admirable book by 
 Mr. Fox: "How to control if not to get rid 
 of this principle [the personality of man] un- 
 der the federal constitution was the moral 
 treason of Alexander Hamilton and John Mar- 
 shall. To create a corporation under the old 
 theory was an act of sovereignty, hence Hamil- 
 ton advocated a bank, although he knew per- 
 sonally that the power to organise a bank 
 expressly had been denied to the federal gov- 
 ernment. John Marshall announced that a 
 charter passed by a state government was a 
 contract and therefore was protected by the 
 federal constitution. The next step was to de- 
 cide that the federal congress had the implied 
 power to create a corporation, and Marshall 
 did so decide. The work was accomplished. 
 The treasonable design of Alexander Hamil- 
 ton and John Marshall was a judicial success, 
 and the grand work of the American Revolu- 
 tion was undone, and once more in defiance 
 
 B* William MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy, p. 77. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 91 
 
 of God and human rights, Man was sunk to a 
 subject and government with its divine right 
 to reign was announced to the world. Conse- 
 quently the old conflict that has surged 
 through all human history the conflict be- 
 tween freedom and tyranny has not yet been 
 settled." 
 
 Under the "elastic" clause of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States Hamilton and 
 Marshall constructed a government. Let us 
 take a look at that clause, well nicknamed. 
 " To make all laws which shall be necessary 
 and proper for carrying into execution the 
 foregoing powers, and all other powers vested 
 by this constitution in the government of the 
 United States, or in any department or of- 
 fice therefore." 65 Great God, that statesmen 
 ever should have permitted that clause to have 
 become a part of the treaty! 
 
 The doctrine of " implied powers " was di- 
 rectly denied to congress by the compact, but 
 was decided by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States to have been granted by im- 
 plication. In effect, says the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, the compact between the 
 
 55 Art. i, sec. viii, clause 18, Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
92 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 American nations makes this court a despotic 
 monarch and makes a monarchy of these na- 
 tions. During the session of 1820-1821 the 
 Virginian House of Delegates by a majority 
 of 138 protested against the assumption of 
 jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States in the case of Cohens vs. Vir- 
 ginia : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Supreme Court of the 
 United States have no rightful authority un- 
 der the Constitution, to examine and correct 
 the judgment for which the Commonwealth 
 of Virginia has been ' cited and admonished 
 to be and appear at the Supreme Court of the 
 United States,' and that the General Assem- 
 bly do hereby enter their most solemn protest 
 against the jurisdiction of that Court over the 
 matter." 
 
 " This pronunciamento declared the attitude 
 of the Commonwealth towards what it re- 
 garded as an unwarranted assumption of 
 jurisdiction over a sovereign State by the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States, then pre- 
 sided over by Chief Justice Marshall. The 
 Cohens were indicted by the State Court at 
 Norfolk for a violation of the State anti-lot- 
 tery statute. The defendants claimed the pro- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 93 
 
 tection of an act of Congress relating to the 
 District of Columbia. Judgment went against 
 them; and being without right of appeal to 
 any Virginia court, they appealed directly to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States." 56 
 
 Too much of your time would be taken were 
 I to further enlarge upon the powers that the 
 Supreme Court of the United States exercised 
 while trying to make a monarchy out of the 
 American sovereignties. Later I shall refer 
 to the court, and then I shall tell you how it 
 became one of the executive departments of 
 the American despot. 
 
 THE SOUTHERN NATIONS DEFEND THEIR 
 SOVEREIGNTY 
 
 Congress neglected few opportunities to lay 
 the foundation upon which was constructed 
 the temple erected to despotism. Seldom did 
 representatives of the southern nations mem- 
 bers of Congress fail to do all in their power 
 to prevent encroachment on the rights of the 
 sovereignties that they represented. I shall 
 not enter upon the details of the battles that 
 
 5Armistead C. Gordon, William Fitzhugh Gordon, 
 1787-1858, p. 128. 
 
94 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 were waged in Washington. I shall merely 
 mention a few of the fights. 
 
 The position of Virginia with respect to the 
 Missouri Compromise was couched in lan- 
 guage that could not be mistaken. I quote 
 from the resolutions adopted by her parlia- 
 ment: 
 
 " 1. That the Congress of the United States 
 have no power under the Federal Constitu- 
 tion to dictate to the people of the Missouri 
 territory what principles shall govern them 
 in the formation of their constitution or sys- 
 tem of government or in the adoption of regu- 
 lations respecting their property, but are sim- 
 ply bound to guarantee to them (in common 
 with the other States) a republican form of 
 government. 
 
 " 2. That the Congress of the United States 
 are bound in good faith by the treaty of ces- 
 sion of 1805 to admit the good people of the 
 Missouri Territory into the Union upon equal 
 terms with the existing States. 
 
 "3. That the General Assembly of Virginia 
 will support the good people of Missouri in 
 their just rights to admission into the Union, 
 and will cooperate with them in resisting with 
 manly fortitude any attempt which Congress 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 95 
 
 may make to impose restraints or restrictions, 
 as the price of their admission, not authorised 
 by the great principles of the Constitution, 
 and in violation of their rights, liberty and 
 happiness. 
 
 "4. That the Senators from this State in 
 the Congress of the United States be in- 
 structed, and the representatives requested, to 
 use their best efforts in procuring the admis- 
 sion of the State of Missouri into the Union, 
 upon the principles contained in the forego- 
 ing resolutions, and in resisting any attempt 
 which shall be made in Congress to impose 
 conditions upon the people of Missouri not 
 warranted by the treaty of cession and the 
 Constitution of the United States." 57 
 
 In a letter to General William F. Gordon, 
 dated January 1, 1826, Jefferson said : " It 
 is but too evident that the branches of our 
 foreign department of government, executive, 
 judiciary, and legislative, are in combination 
 to usurp the powers of the domestic branch 
 also reserved to the States, and consolidate 
 themselves into a single government without 
 limitation of powers. I will not trouble you 
 with details of the instances, which are thread- 
 
 7 Gordon, p. 125-6. 
 
96 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 bare and unheeded. The only question is, 
 what is to be done? Shall we give up the 
 ship? No, by heavens, while a hand remains 
 able to keep the deck! Shall we, with the 
 hot-headed Georgian, stand at once to our 
 arms? Not yet, nor until the evil, the only 
 greater one than separation, shall be all but 
 upon us, that of living under a government of 
 discretion. Between these alternatives there 
 can be no hesitation." 58 
 
 Congress and the Supreme Court did not 
 intend to leave to the nations a single field of 
 human endeavour. But without surcease Vir- 
 ginia resisted the attacks that were made on 
 her sovereignty. Her House of Delegates 
 February 28, 1826, adopted a resolution 
 couched in the following language: 
 
 "That the Congress of the United States 
 does not possess the power, under the Con- 
 stitution, to adopt a general system of internal 
 improvements in the States, as a national 
 measure;" and "that the: appropriation by 
 the Congress of the United States to construct 
 roads and canals in the States is a violation of 
 the Constitution." 
 
 On March 2, 1827, the general assembly of 
 Virginia adopted the following resolutions : 
 
 "Gordon, p. 133. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 97 
 
 " The General Assembly of Virginia, actu- 
 ated as it always has been by the most sincere 
 disposition for the preservation of the Union 
 of these States, believing that the Union can 
 only be preserved by keeping the General and 
 State governments within their respective 
 spheres of action as marked out by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States; being also sin- 
 cerely desirous that the General Government 
 should be protected in the full and free exer- 
 cise of all the specified powers granted to it 
 by the Constitution of the United States, and 
 being at the same time deeply impressed with 
 a sense of its own duty to preserve unimpaired 
 all the rights of the people and government of 
 this State conferred upon it by the Constitu- 
 tion of the State and of the United States, 
 finds itself reluctantly constrained to enter 
 its most solemn protest against the usurpa- 
 tions of the General Government, as described 
 in the Report of the Committee. 
 
 "Therefore, Eesolved That the General As- 
 sembly in behalf of the people and govern- 
 ment of this State, does hereby most solemnly 
 protest against the claim or exercise of any 
 power whatever on the part of the General 
 Government to make internal improvements 
 
98 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 within the limits and jurisdiction of the sev- 
 eral States, and particularly within the limits 
 of the State of Virginia and also against the 
 claim or exercise of any power whatever as- 
 serting or involving a jurisdiction over any 
 part of the territory within the limits of this 
 State, except over the objects and in the mode 
 specified in the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 "Kesolved, In like manner that this Gen- 
 eral Assembly does most solemnly protest 
 against the claim or exercise of any power 
 whatever on the part of the General Govern- 
 ment to protect domestic manufactures, the 
 protection of manufactures not being among 
 the grants of power to the government speci- 
 fied in the Constitution of the United States; 
 and also against the operation of the Act of 
 Congress, passed May 22d, 1824, entited 'An 
 Act to amend the several acts imposing duties 
 or imports/ generally called the Tariff law, 
 which vary the distributions of the proceeds 
 of the labor of the community in such a man- 
 ner as to transfer property from one portion 
 of the United States to another, and to take 
 private property from the owner for the bene- 
 fit of another person not rendering public serv- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 99 
 
 ice as unconstitutional, unwise, unjust, un- 
 equal and oppressive." 59 
 
 The resolutions .adopted by the Virginian 
 House in February, 1829, show that Virgin- 
 ians had nullification in mind as well as had 
 South Carolinians. The latter, you will recall, 
 did not pass their ordinance of nullification 
 until more than two years later. I quote 
 from the resolutions: 
 
 "1. That the Constitution of the United 
 States, being a federative compact between 
 sovereign States in construing which no com- 
 mon arbiter is known, each State has the 
 right to construe the compact for itself. 
 
 2. * * * 
 
 "3. That this General Assembly of Vir- 
 ginia, actuated by the desire of guarding the 
 Constitution from all violation; anxious to 
 preserve and perpetuate the Union, and to 
 execute with fidelity the trust reposed in it 
 by the people as one of the high contracting 
 parties, feels itself bound to declare, and it 
 hereby most solemnly declares, its deliberate 
 conviction that the acts of Congress, usually 
 denominated the Tariff laws, passed avowedly 
 for the protection of domestic manufactures, 
 
 6 Gordon, pp. 136-7. 
 
100 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 are not authorized by the plain construction, 
 true intent, and meaning of the Constitution. 
 Also, That the said acts are partial in their 
 operation, impolitic, and oppressive to a large 
 portion of the people of the Union, and ought 
 to be repealed." 60 
 
 The time was approaching when the proph- 
 ecy of John Eandolph of Roanoke was to be 
 fulfilled. "Who," asked that excitable gen- 
 tleman, " can bind posterity? When I hear 
 gentlemen talk of making a constitution for 
 all time, and yet see men here that are older 
 than the constitution we are about to destroy, 
 I am older myself than the present consti- 
 tution; it was established when I was a boy, 
 it reminds me of the truces and peaces of 
 Europe." 
 
 About this time John C. Calhoun was heard 
 thundering out the rights of the nations to 
 withdraw from the compact to which they 
 were parties, for " in the adoption of the Fed- 
 eral Constitution, the States adopting the 
 same acted, severally, as free, independent, 
 and sovereign States," he said. The southern 
 nations had been fulfilling all the duties im- 
 posed upon them by the terms of the treaty, 
 
 eo Gordon, 129. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 101 
 
 yet the northern and the eastern nations had 
 been violating its terms daily since 1789, 
 when it first became effective. Their oppres- 
 sions became so outrageous that the south- 
 ern nations saw that they would be compelled 
 to withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
 amendments, for already the right to exer- 
 cise many of their powers as sovereignties 
 was denied to them. Long-suffering were the 
 nations of the south, nor had the world be- 
 fore witnessed such forbearance. Nowhere 
 else, save in heaven, had such charity been 
 found. 
 
 THE NASHVILLE CONVENTION 
 
 In June, 1850, the first session of the Nash- 
 ville convention was held. I shall not enter 
 upon a recital of the important work of that 
 session, nor of the second session, which was 
 convened in November of the same year that 
 the first session was convened. I shall merely 
 note the address to the peoples of the United 
 States that was adopted at the first session, 
 the resolutions being as follows: 
 
 "1. Kesolved, That the territories of the 
 United States belong to the people of the sev- 
 eral States of this Union, as their common 
 
102 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 property; that the citizens of the several 
 States have equal rights to migrate with their 
 property to these territories and are equally 
 entitled to the protection of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment in the enjoyment of that property so 
 long as the territories remain under the charge 
 of that government. 
 
 "2. Resolved, That Congress has no power 
 to exclude from the territory of the United 
 States any property lawfully held in the 
 States of the Union, and any acts which may 
 be passed by the Congress to effect this result 
 is a plain violation of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 "3. Resolved, That it is the duty of Con- 
 gress to provide governments for the territor- 
 ies, since the spirit of American institutions 
 forbids the maintenance of military govern- 
 ments in time of peace; and as all laws here- 
 tofore existing in territories once belonging 
 to foreign powers which interfere with the full 
 enjoyment of religion, the freedom of the 
 press, the trial by jury, and all other rights of 
 persons and property as secured or recognized 
 in the Constitution of the United States, are 
 necessarily void so soon as such territories be- 
 come American territories, it is the duty of 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 103 
 
 the Federal Government to make early pro- 
 vision for the enactment of those laws, which 
 may be expedient and necessary to secure to 
 the inhabitants of and emigrants to such ter- 
 ritories the full benefit of the constitutional 
 rights we assert. 
 
 "4. Kesolved, That to protect property ex- 
 isting in the several States of the Union, the 
 people of these States invested the Federal 
 Government with the powers of war and nego- 
 tiation, and of sustaining armies and navies, 
 and prohibited to State authorities the exer- 
 cise of the same powers. They made no dis- 
 crimination in the protection to be afforded 
 or the description of the property to be de- 
 fended, nor was it allowed to the Federal 
 Government to determine what should be held 
 as property. Whatever the States deal with 
 as property, the Federal Government is bound 
 to recognize and defend as such. Therefore it 
 is the sense of this convention that all acts of 
 the Federal Government which tend to dena- 
 tionalize property of any description recog- 
 nised in the Constitution and laws of the 
 States, or that discriminate in the degree and 
 efficiency of the protection to be afforded to 
 it, or which weaken or destroy the title of any 
 
104 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 citizen upon American territories, are plain 
 and palpable violations of the fundamental 
 law under which it exists. 
 
 " 5. Kesolved, That the slave-holding States 
 cannot and will not submit to the enactment 
 by Congress of any law imposing onerous con- 
 ditions or restraints upon the rights of mas- 
 ters to remove with their property into the 
 territories of the United States, or to any 
 law making discriminations in favor of the 
 proprietors of other property against them. 
 
 "6. Resolved, That it is the duty of the 
 Federal Government plainly to recognize and 
 firmly to maintain the equal rights of the citi- 
 zens of the several States in the territories 
 of the United States, and to repudiate the 
 power to make a discrimination between the 
 proprietors of different species of property 
 in the federal legislation. The fulfilment of 
 this duty by the Federal Government would 
 greatly tend to restore the peace of the coun- 
 try, and to allay the exasperation and excite- 
 ment which now exist between the different 
 sections of the Union. For it is the deliber- 
 ate opinion of this Convention that the tol- 
 erance Congress has given to the notion that 
 federal authority might be employed incident- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 105 
 
 ally and indirectly to subvert or weaken the 
 institution existing in the States confessedly 
 beyond federal jurisdiction and control, is a 
 main cause of the discord which menaces the 
 existence of the Union, and which has well 
 nigh destroyed the efficient action of the Fed- 
 eral Government itself. 
 
 " 7. Resolved, That the performance of this 
 duty is required by the fundamental law of 
 the Union. The equality of the people of the 
 several States composing the Union cannot 
 be disturbed without disturbing the frame of 
 the American institutions. This principle is 
 violated in the denial to the citizens of the 
 slave-holding States of power to enter into 
 the territories with the property lawfully ac- 
 quired in the States. The warfare against this 
 right is a war upon the Constitution. The 
 defenders of this right are defenders of the 
 Constitution. Those who deny or impair its 
 exercise are unfaithful to the Constitution; 
 and if disunion follows the destruction of the 
 right, they are the disunionista 
 
 "8. Resolved, That the performance of its 
 duties, upon the principle we declare, would 
 enable Congress to remove the embarrass- 
 ments in which the country is now involved. 
 
106 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 The vacant territories of the United States, 
 no longer regarded as prizes for sectional 
 rapacity and ambition, would be gradually 
 occupied by inhabitants drawn to them by 
 their interests and feelings. The institutions 
 fitted to them would be naturally applied by 
 governments formed on American ideas, and 
 approved by the deliberate choice of their 
 constituents. The community would be edu- 
 cated and disciplined under a republican ad- 
 ministration in habits of self-government, and 
 fitted for an association as a State, and to the 
 enjoyment of a place in the Confederacy. A 
 community so formed and organized might 
 well claim admission to the Union, and none 
 would dispute the validity of the claim. 
 
 "9. Eesolved, That a recognition of this 
 principle would deprive the questions between 
 Texas and the United States of their sectional 
 character, and would leave them for adjust- 
 ment without disturbance from sectional 
 prejudices and passions, upon considerations 
 of magnanimity and justice. 
 
 " 10. Resolved, That a recognition of this 
 principle would infuse a spirit of conciliation 
 in the discussion and adjustment of all the 
 subjects of sectional dispute, which would af- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 107 
 
 ford a guarantee of an early and satisfactory 
 determination. 
 
 "11. Resolved, That in the event a domi- 
 nant majority shall refuse to recognize the 
 great constitutional rights we assert, and 
 shall continue to deny the obligations of the 
 Federal Government to maintain them, it is 
 the sense of this convention that the terri- 
 tories should be treated as property, and di- 
 vided between the sections of the Union, so 
 that the rights of both sections be adequately 
 secured in their respective shares. That we 
 are aware this course is open to grave objec- 
 tions, but we are ready to acquiesce in the 
 adoption of the line of 36 30' north latitude, 
 extending to the Pacific Ocean, as an extreme 
 concession, upon considerations of what is 
 due to the stability of our institutions. 
 
 " 12. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this 
 convention that this controversy should be 
 ended, either by a recognition of the constitu- 
 tional rights of the Southern people, or by an 
 equitable partition of the territories. That the 
 spectacle of a Confederacy of States, involved 
 in quarrels over the fruits of a war in which 
 the American arms were crowned with glory, 
 is humiliating. That the incorporation of the 
 
108 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 Wilmot proviso, in the offer of settlement, 
 a proposition which fourteen States regard as 
 disparaging and dishonorable, is degrading 
 to the country. A termination to this con- 
 troversy by the disruption of the Confederacy, 
 or by the abandonment of the territories to 
 prevent such a result, would be a climax to 
 the shame which attaches to the controversy 
 which it is the paramount duty of Congress 
 to avoid. 
 
 "13. Resolved, That this convention will 
 not conclude that Congress will adjourn with- 
 out making an adjustment of this controversy ; 
 and in the condition in which the convention 
 finds the questions before Congress, it does 
 not feel at liberty to discuss the methods suit- 
 able for a resistance to measures not yet 
 adopted, which might involve a dishonor to 
 the Southern States." 
 
 NORTHERNERS, EASTERNERS AND WESTERNERS 
 PETITION CONGRESS TO DISSOLVE THE UNION 
 
 Apparently disunion was at hand. Peti- 
 tions to both houses of congress asking for a 
 dissolution of the confederation were received 
 from citizens of nearly all the nations par- 
 ties to the compact. There were petitions 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 109 
 
 from citizens of Pennsylvania, from citizens 
 of Delaware, from citizens of Ohio, and from 
 citizens of the New England nations. On 
 February 1, 1850, Mr. Hale of New Hamp- 
 shire presented to the Senate petitions pray- 
 ing for the dissolution of the union, and 
 Seward of New York and Chase of Ohio voted 
 for their reception, as did Hale. The north- 
 ern nations had not the least desire to remain 
 parties to a contract when that contract 
 threatened their pockets. 
 
 The southern nations were becoming power- 
 ful commercially. In these days we hear 
 many persons say that the southern nations 
 had no commerce. They were among the large 
 producers of manufactured articles, and their 
 wealth in nearly all the industries of the time 
 was prodigious. In agricultural products 
 they probably led the world. They were about 
 to make all their own cotton into fabrics. 
 Whereupon their northern sisters said, We 
 had better part. 
 
 I shall say but little about the southern 
 confederacy. But I wish to speak of a few 
 of the breaches made in the rampart that was 
 intended to protect the American nations 
 breaches made long before the great breach 
 
110 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 was made by the southern sovereignties. To 
 please our northern friends, I shall speak of 
 these breaches as being the work of rebels. 
 
 NORTHERN, EASTERN, AND WESTERN REBELLIONS 
 
 In 1791, soon after the treaty was made ef- 
 fective, the first rebellion was fought out. The 
 name " Whiskey Insurrection " was given to 
 that war of generous proportions for a war 
 it was, and of magnitude conceived by few. 
 The good people of Pennsylvania were the 
 rebels. A tax had been levied on a commodity 
 dear to the Pennsylvania's heart indeed, his 
 head also was affected, for the commodity was 
 a fluid not altogether unknown to Virginians. 
 The president of the United States called out 
 the federal troops, and for four years the au- 
 thority of the United States was defied. Three 
 counties alone of the rebel nation sent 11,000 
 men to the field, and Ewing tells us that the 
 "movement was not suppressed until Presi- 
 dent Washington called for 75,000 troops, and 
 sent Governor Lee, of Virginia, against the 
 rebels." 61 
 
 Mr. Ewing also tells us that there " can be 
 
 6i E. W. R. Ewing, Northern Rebellion and Southern 
 Secession, p. 30. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 111 
 
 no doubt that from 1803 to perhaps 1814 New 
 England furnishes some of the boldest seces- 
 sion and rebellion projects having the least 
 justification which the history of our country 
 affords." John Quincy Adams while presi- 
 dent of the United States wrote quite an in- 
 teresting letter. The epistle bears date of 
 December 20, 1828, and in it he says: "It 
 was ... in 1808 and 1809 that I mentioned 
 the design of certain leaders of the Federal 
 party to effect a dissolution of the Union and 
 the establishment of a Northern confederacy. 
 This design had been formed in the winter of 
 1803-'04, immediately after, and as a conse- 
 quence of, the acquisition of Louisiana. Its 
 justifying causes to those who entertained it 
 were: That the annexation of Louisiana to 
 the Union transcended the constitutional 
 power of the government of the United States ; 
 that it formed, in fact, a new confederacy, to 
 which the States united by the former com- 
 pact, were not bound to adhere; that it was 
 oppressive to the interests and destructive to 
 the influence of the Northern section of the 
 confederacy, whose right and duty it was, 
 therefore, to secede from the new body politic 
 and to constitute one of their own. The plan 
 
112 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 was so far matured that the proposal had 
 been made to an individual to permit himself, 
 at the proper time, to be placed at the head 
 of the military movements which, it was fore- 
 seen, would be necessary for carrying it into 
 execution." 62 
 
 But I was about to overlook that lovely 
 rebellion, that thing of beauty, that creature 
 now a fancy in New England, known as the 
 Hartford Convention. During the course of 
 his duty, the president of the United States 
 called upon each of the nations to suppy sol- 
 diers for the War of 1812. " This at once gave 
 occasion for a fresh outburst of this rebellious 
 spirit. Not only was it [not] confined to in- 
 dividuals, but it reached as well the highest 
 officials of the New England States. Massa- 
 chusetts refused to obey; Connecticut refused 
 to send her citizens in response to the Federal 
 call; Khode Island stood firm on her State- 
 rights and asserted her sovereignty. Each de- 
 fied the Federal Government, and refused to 
 rally to her flag; each insisted that she was 
 not bound to obey unless she felt it to the in- 
 terest of the citizens of her State to do so. 
 During this opposition to the United States in 
 
 62 Henry Adams, New England Federalism, p. 52-3, 
 quoted by Ewing, p. 32. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 113 
 
 the War of 1812, <A large meeting in Boston 
 declared the act [an embargo on shipping] 
 arbitrary and unconstitutional, and that all 
 who assisted in carrying out the law should be 
 regarded as enemies of the State and as hos- 
 tile to the liberties of the people.' 'The 
 Government of Massachusetts refused to sub- 
 mit [to the demands of Congress], and the 
 authorities of the latter State passed a law 
 for raising a provisional army of two thou- 
 sand for ' special State defense/ of which one 
 of her own citizens was made commander. 
 (Am. State Papers: Misc., v. II., 186; Adams, 
 New Eng., Fed., 297.) And ever ready to 
 appeal to religious convictions for support, 
 the Massachusetts Legislature refused to ex- 
 tend a vote of thanks to Capt. Lawrence for 
 the capture of the Peacock because that 
 august body said ' it was not becoming a 
 moral and religious people ' to approve the 
 course of the United States at that time! 
 
 " The burdens of the war fell heavily upon 
 them, yet they did not have such a love for 
 the United States, as a nation, as to be will- 
 ing patiently to wait the rifting of the war 
 cloud ; they loudly protested that the interests 
 of the people of their several States were first, 
 
114 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 paramount, and second and last, the na- 
 tional interests. They argued that they had 
 entered the Union and had temporarily sus- 
 pended their sovereign independence to facili- 
 tate State success, and that they had a right 
 to determine when individual State happiness 
 was jeopardized. 1 In the Hartford Conven- 
 tion, which met in 1814, Connecticut, Khode 
 Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont were 
 more or less largely represented. As a result 
 of their deliberations, they came forth in what 
 was called the REPORT, in which, among 
 other things, they made the following declara- 
 tion: 
 
 " ' In case of deliberate, dangerous, and pal- 
 pable infractions of the Constitution, AF- 
 FECTING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF A 
 STATE AND THE LIBERTIES OF THE 
 PEOPLE, it is not only the right, but the 
 duty of such State to interpose its authority 
 for protection in the manner best calculated 
 to secure that end.' And they declared that 
 when cases arise which jeopardize the happi- 
 ness and peace of the citizens, States ' must 
 be their own judges and execute their own 
 decisions.' " 63 
 
 63Ewing, p. 33-4. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 115 
 
 I shall not trace the progress of the events 
 that occurred between 1850 and 1860. But, 
 in passing, let me say that the northern na- 
 tions evidently believed that they could ex- 
 ploit the southern nations time without end 
 in the manner that they had exploited them 
 in the past, provided that the union of the na- 
 tions should not be dissolved. Again the 
 Yankee knew what he was about. From Ap- 
 pomattox to this minute the northern nations 
 have fleeced the southern nations as no other 
 peoples of the world ever have been sheared. 
 My friends, this I say to our shame. Meek 
 humility may become the crime of suicide. 
 But more of this later. 
 
Ill 
 
 THE AMERICAN ABSOLUTE 
 MONARCHY 
 
 FROM 1865 TO 1910 
 
 THE genesis of the southern treaty was 
 similar to the genesis of the treaty made be- 
 tween the American nations in 1788, which 
 treaty was the result of the desire of its par- 
 ties to form an alliance to protect them from 
 invasion and to regulate their relations with 
 one another and with other sovereignties. 
 The compact of confederation that existed be- 
 tween the southern peoples did not make a 
 single nation of them. The southern coun- 
 tries were to fight the greatest war of mod- 
 ern days, a fight to the death, that their 
 sovereignty might be preserved, that they 
 might continue to be an nations, hence the 
 southern confederation would have been 
 peaceably dissolved upon the successful ter- 
 mination of the war, although later the na- 
 tion's parties to the compact of confederation 
 
 116 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 117 
 
 doubtless would have entered into a treaty 
 with one another similar in its various pro- 
 visions to the compact of 1788 and its amend- 
 ments, which was the basis of their compact 
 of union. The new treaty would have defined 
 the relations of the nations to one another, 
 and to other nations; but that instrument 
 would not have affected the sovereignty of any 
 party to the agreement. To hold that a na- 
 tion was formed of the southern peoples 
 would be equivalent to holding that the south- 
 ern nations did not know why they were to 
 fight. 
 
 THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA A 
 TEMPORARY CONFEDERATION 
 
 Never spell the southern section of this con- 
 tinent that once consisted of sovereign coun- 
 tries with an initial capital letter. There never 
 was a " South " in America. The Confederate 
 States of America, a temporary association, 
 was an agreement between sovereignties. The 
 words in which that agreement was written 
 never were intended to mean that sovereign- 
 ties would be merged into a single nation. 
 
 Please pardon this brief digression. I wish 
 to say that the proper title of the war that 
 
118 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 was fought between 1861 and 1865 is, the 
 War between the American States; or, the 
 War between the American Nations. There 
 was no Civil War, there was no War of the 
 Bebellion; there was no War between the 
 United States of America and the Confeder- 
 ate States of America; there was no War be- 
 tween the North and the South ; but there was 
 a war between American sovereignties, in 
 which the nations were divided into two sets 
 of allies. 
 
 To show you how jealously the parties to the 
 southern confederation guarded their rights, 
 I will quote from the letters that passed be- 
 tween the war governor of Georgia, Joseph E. 
 Brown, and the confederation's secretary of 
 war, James A. Seddon. When Georgia was 
 invaded by General Sherman, Governor 
 Brown raised an army to resist the invaders. 
 Whereupon Secretary Seddon, in obedience to 
 the instructions that he had received from 
 President Davis, made requisition on the gov- 
 ernor for his entire army. Here in part is 
 the governor's answer to the secretary: 
 
 " I have an organization of gallant, fearless 
 men, ready to defend the State against usurpa- 
 tions of power as well as invasions by the 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 119 
 
 enemy. . . . Her militia have been organized 
 and called into active service under her own 
 laws for her own defence, and I do not feel 
 that I am authorized to destroy her military 
 organization at the behest of the President, or 
 to surrender to him the command of the troops 
 organized and retained by her by virtue of 
 her reserved power for her own defence when 
 greatly needed for that purpose, and which 
 are her only remaining protection against the 
 encroachments of centralized power. I there- 
 fore decline to comply with or fill this extraor- 
 dinary requisition. . . . And if you will not 
 consider the remark acrimonious, I will add 
 that the people of my State, not being de- 
 pendent, and never intending to be, upon that 
 government for the privilege of exercising 
 their natural and Constitutional rights, nor 
 the Executive of the State for his official ex- 
 istence, I shall on all occasions feel at liberty 
 to exercise perfect independence in the dis- 
 charge of my official obligations, with no other 
 restraints than those thrown around me by a 
 sense of duty, and the Constitution of my 
 country, and the laws of my State." 6 * 
 That great and good man Jefferson Davis, 
 
 64 Fielder, Life and Times of Joseph E. Broum, pp. 318- 
 335. 
 
120 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 who, posterity will say, belongs to that small 
 band of men of which are Alexander, Caesar, 
 Hannibal, and Bonaparte, and I say that 
 despite the opinions to the contrary of many 
 persons who fought for the cause for which 
 their great leader would have given his life, 
 even as they offered theirs to heaven or to hell, 
 I was going to say that the war would not 
 have lasted three months had Jefferson Davis 
 been willing to invade the lands of sovereign 
 powers. The battle that was waged in the 
 soul of that great man was greater than any 
 that you fought, Soldiers of the Eighth Vir- 
 ginia Regiment, or by your comrades that now 
 sleep about us beneath their white " silent 
 tents." Peace was at hand, the sovereignty of 
 all the nations assured, but Jefferson Davis 
 would not follow the Mississippi to her source, 
 for he would have been obliged to enter the 
 dominions of sovereignties. Jefferson Davis 
 made a mistake; but we Virginians like men 
 that make mistakes of that kind. 
 
 VICTORS AND VANQUISHED NEVER MATE 
 
 The irascible John Randolph of Roanoke 
 once said : " I do not recall a single instance 
 of cordiality between reconciled friends." 
 
The, Sovereignty of the States 121 
 
 Some day those who have not read the writ- 
 ings of the "lunatic" of southwestern Vir- 
 ginia should lay aside Shakespeare for awhile, 
 then take up the writings of John Randolph 
 of Roanoke. What would the old " lunatic " 
 have said had he been told that in the days 
 that were to come these days that the peo- 
 ples of the north, hating the people of the 
 south for more than three centuries, should 
 profess for them a most ardent love? Has a 
 victorious people ever loved the people that 
 they vanquished? Has a vanquished people 
 ever loved the people that vanquished them? 
 Come, while we are among ourselves, let us 
 admit that we hate our enemies, and also let 
 us admit that we know that they are still our 
 enemies. During the last past twenty years I 
 have travelled in all the southern communities 
 that once were nations, and I have had ex- 
 cellent opportunity to study them closely; I 
 was born in Virginia, received a part of my 
 education there, and lived there during my 
 boyhood. For the last past eighteen years I 
 have lived in the city of Washington, or in 
 the city of New York, and during those years 
 I have travelled in the north, the east, the 
 west, as well as in the south. I say, with de- 
 
122 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 liberation, that the hatred of those of the 
 north toward those of the south is an hun- 
 dredfold greater than those of the south to- 
 ward those of the north. There is a reason. 
 The injured never hate those that injure them 
 so much as the injurers hate those that they 
 injure. Yes, O Shade of the Mighty " Luna- 
 tic " of Roanoke, if your spirit be about this 
 battle-ground, the " cordialty " that exists be- 
 tween them that live north and them that 
 live south of the Potomac river is of the kind 
 that would have brought from your " crazy " 
 brain an immortal expression. 
 
 The war over, apparently over, you, Sol- 
 diers of the Eighth Virginia Eegiment, when 
 you laid down your arms, were told that your 
 country should have all the powers of sover- 
 eignty, save one : she should not be permitted 
 to withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
 amendments. Not long after that promise 
 was made to you one of the victors, Mr. Chief 
 Justice Chase, hastened to assure you that the 
 disastrous ending of the war did not take 
 from the southern nations their rights as 
 sovereignties. In one of his great decisions 
 Texas vs. White he said : " The Constitution 
 of the United States in all its provisions looks 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 123 
 
 to an indestructible union of indestructible 
 states." By "states" he did not mean sec- 
 tions of a single country, but he used the 
 word "states" in the sense in which it has 
 been used from the time that it became a part 
 of our language until a few years ago, when 
 the people of this monarchy began to say that 
 the meaning of " states " as it was known for 
 centuries is archaic, that " states " now means 
 sections of a country. Now we speak of the 
 "nations" of Europe and the "states" of 
 America. 
 
 JOHN MARSHALL LEFT BUT LITTLE OF THE CON- 
 STITUTION FOR OTHERS TO DESTROY 
 
 But Mr. Chief Justice Chase was not the 
 whole Supreme Court of the United States. 
 As I have said, the members of the highest 
 tribunal of the American monarchy were 
 merely the minions of the American despot. 
 From the time that the shade of Alexander 
 Hamilton first hovered above the heads of 
 the members of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States until the time that the Amer- 
 ican monarchy was firmly established, the 
 opinions of the highest judicial body under 
 the federal government all were designed to 
 
124 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 extend its own jurisdiction or to maintain 
 its own despotic powers. The opinion of 
 Mr. Chief Justice Chase was to be disregarded 
 by his court. 
 
 Probably the most outrageous of the juris- 
 dictional opinions was the one in which the 
 " fiction of the law " was expanded until that 
 "fiction" became this "truth" that a cor- 
 poration is a citizen of the state to whose laws 
 the corporation owes its existence. The " nig- 
 ner in the wood-pile " could be seen by all, of 
 course. Little did the court care for that, for 
 long since the Supreme Court of the United 
 States was lost to shame. The object of the 
 court was effected : corporations were enabled 
 to remove their suits to federal courts. Thus 
 the last vestige of power was stripped from 
 the tribunals of the states. As I have said, 
 the state tribunals became the lowest courts 
 of the new monarchy. They would have been 
 made so by the decision to which I have just 
 referred had they not already been nisi prius 
 federal courts. 
 
 Again, in the language of Mr. Fox's admir- 
 able book: 
 
 " Before quoting from Justice Gray's most 
 remarkable opinion in Millard vs. Greenman 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 125 
 
 (vol. 110, U. S. R., page 421), in many points 
 possibly the most remarkable ever given to the 
 country by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States (it goes to the very verge of pronounc- 
 ing the rights of the States and their citizens 
 as merely spontaneous and unmerited gifts 
 of the federal government, which that govern- 
 ment has the right to withhold at any time, or 
 to prohibit the enjoyment and exercise thereof 
 at its discretion), I quote three articles of 
 the Constitution itself. . . . 'No question 
 [says Justice Gray] of the scope and extent 
 of the implied powers of congress under the 
 Constitution can be satisfactorily discussed 
 without repeating much of the reasoning of 
 Chief Justice Marshall in the great judgment 
 in McCullough vs. Maryland (4 Wheat., 316), 
 by which the power of congress to incorporate 
 a bank was demonstrated and affirmed.' Never- 
 theless the Constitution does not enumerate, 
 among the powers granted, that of establish- 
 ing a bank or creating a corporation. Chief 
 Justice Marshall, did not demonstrate nor 
 could demonstrate that congress under the 
 Constitution had the power to create a bank 
 or any other corporation, for that power was 
 positively refused to congress by a very large 
 
126 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 majority. . . . This statement by Justice 
 Gray is a perfect illustration of the intellec- 
 tual cowardice and moral slavery of the court 
 to Hamilton's and to Marshall's political 
 opinions . . . Mr. Justice Gray makes this 
 quotation from the chief justice's opinion in 
 the McCullough vs. Maryland case : ' Let the 
 end be legitimate, let it be within the scope 
 of the Constitution, and all means which are 
 appropriate, which are plainly adapted to 
 that end, which are not prohibited but con- 
 sistent with the letter and spirit of the Con- 
 stitution, are constitutional.' " 
 
 John Marshall indeed left but little of the 
 Constitution of the United States for others 
 to destroy. If a schoolboy of any part of this 
 monarchy were asked to name the most in- 
 famous of all American traitors he probably 
 would mention the name of Benedict Arnold, 
 a New England man. If I were asked that 
 question, in reply I should name John Mar- 
 shall, a Virginian, than who no greater traitor 
 has lived since the time of Judas Iscariot. 
 There have been men who by treachery have 
 destroyed several nations; but I venture to 
 say that John Marshall by treachery has de- 
 stroyed more nations than any other man of 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 127 
 
 recorded time. Not by the armies of Sherman 
 and Grant was the Constitution of the United 
 States destroyed, but by the political opin- 
 ions of Alexander Hamilton judicially ren- 
 dered by John Marshall. 
 
 Indeed has Patrick Henry's prophecy been 
 fulfilled. Said that great statesman: "We 
 drew the spirit of liberty from our British 
 ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed 
 over every .difficulty. But indeed, sir, the 
 American spirit, assisted by the ropes and 
 chains of consolidation, is about to convert 
 this country into a powerful and mighty em- 
 pire." 65 Again, was he wrong on the ninth 
 day of June, in 1788, when he thundered out 
 this question: "Will not absolute despotism 
 ensue? " 
 
 THE TENTACLES OF THE AMERICAN DESPOT 
 
 All in Virginia know that Maryland, My 
 Maryland! recently has been made over into 
 one of the patriotic songs of the American 
 monarchy. The pupils of the public schools 
 of the nation who breathed and burned, but 
 who did not come, are to be taught the new 
 song. Possibly the politics of the American 
 
 5 Wirt, p. 446. 
 
128 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 monarchy is not taught in the public schools 
 of the City of Baltimore as yet. 
 
 But in the City of New York studies in 
 the politics of the American monarchy and 
 studies in her patriotism now are begun in 
 the kindergarten. Here is the first lesson of 
 a long course in each of those studies, for this 
 one lesson combines politics and patriotism. 
 The lesson is entitled Our Flag. Even now 
 I can see the dear little boys and girls salute 
 the Stars and Stripes, and even now I can 
 hear them earnestly intone this chant : " I 
 pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Re- 
 public for which it stands. One nation, in- 
 divisible, with liberty and justice for all." 
 There are not even state lines to separate the 
 communities that form the American mon- 
 archy not if the teachings of the public 
 schools of the City of New York be true. 
 " One nation, indivisible," is the American 
 monarchy whose institutions the pupils of 
 New York City are taught to revere. 
 
 Yet, no one of the communities that com- 
 pose our monarchy is more jealous of her 
 rights than is New York state. We recently 
 read that a South Carolinian legislative body 
 by a vote of one hundred to three declared 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 129 
 
 that South Carolina no longer desired to re- 
 sist the encroachments of the federal govern- 
 ment; but no New York legislative body will 
 vote to surrender to the federal government 
 such powers of sovereignty as New York may 
 now have left to her. There are other com- 
 munities north of the Potomac that will vote 
 against the proposed income tax amendment, I 
 think. Few of the people of the state of New 
 York know that the federal government is 
 teaching their children that New York as a 
 community no longer exists. Yet the des- 
 pot that is now on the American throne has 
 his agents in every community in this land 
 those agents by their influence controlling the 
 public instruction of each community. 
 
 Whence this great force, this . organisation 
 that is so powerful as to be all inclusive? 
 Federal patronage, is my answer. During the 
 year 1909 there were 370,065 persons on the 
 federal pay roll exclusive of the new census 
 force, as against 306,141 in 1907, an increase 
 in two years of about 64,000 persons, or about 
 twenty per cent. No federal employee would 
 long retain his office if he gave expression to 
 a belief entertained by him in the right of the 
 communities to govern themselves in accord- 
 
130 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 ance with the terms of their compact of con- 
 federation. Those minions of the despot, like 
 the tentacles of some huge octopus, are every- 
 where, and in the clutch of each tentacle is to 
 be found a schoolteacher. The minions con- 
 trol indirectly where they do not directly 
 control well-nigh every department of gov- 
 ernment of the American communities. 
 
 The American despot may select the mem- 
 bers of his Congress and he does. He may 
 " break " congressmen as well as make them 
 and he does. He may make as well as 
 " break " the officers of the federal courts 
 and he does. Indeed is the American ruler 
 a despotic monarch absolutely controlling ev- 
 ery department of the American government. 
 
 A " DEMOCRAT " SEEKS THE AMERICAN THRONE 
 
 So far all the American monarchs have been 
 Republicans, but the right to the throne of 
 each was bitterly contested by a " Democrat " 
 by one who, had he been permitted to as- 
 cend the throne, would have been as ruthless 
 as Nero in wielding the powers of an absolute 
 despotism. 
 
 In a speech that this demagogue recently 
 made in Chicago he actually contended that 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 131 
 
 the larger unit has a right to control the 
 smaller unit. In commenting on this speech 
 The Houston Post says: 
 
 " The proposition that the larger unit has 
 a right to control the smaller unit is in con- 
 flict with not only every principle of Democ- 
 racy, but with the federal Constitution itself, 
 and if any attempt were made to assert it the 
 country might be thrown into a furor scarcely 
 less intense than that which once involved 
 the states in civil war. . . . The doctrine of 
 centralization or the federalism of Hamilton 
 never included, so far as we know, such an 
 extreme assertion of the right of the majority 
 to strangle the rights of minorities, either in- 
 dividually or as political entities." 
 
 Even The New York Tribune, commenting 
 on the Chicago speech and on The Houston 
 Post's views, is moved to say: 
 
 " The will-of-the-larger-unit theory is sound 
 enough when applied to the subdivisions of 
 a state which are not federated in order to 
 form a limited political sovereignty. The au- 
 thority of a state is paramount in every 
 county, city and township within its limits. 
 But the power of the nation over the state is 
 not unconditional. It is strictly defined and 
 
132 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 narrowed by the terms of the federal compact, 
 and it is an extravagance to say that, simply 
 because a majority in Congress favors na- 
 tional prohibition, laws can be passed which 
 will forbid a state to sanction the manufac- 
 ture or sale of liquor within its borders." 
 
 To think, that from The New York Tribune! 
 One of the important newspapers of New 
 York, a newspaper that for many years has 
 been immensely influential in Europe as well 
 as in America, in a leading editorial article 
 refers to the Constitution of the United 
 States as " the federal compact," and yet a 
 legislative body of South Carolina by a vote 
 of one hundred to three says that the compact 
 of 1788 and its amendments made a nation 
 which they are now willing to have ruled by 
 a despot. 
 
 I shall again quote from The New York 
 Tribune's leading editorial article of June 8, 
 1910, thus: 
 
 " For a professed disciple of Jefferson Mr. 
 Bryan has advocated some curiously nation- 
 alistic policies. In proposing that the federal 
 government should own and operate all the 
 instrumentalities of interstate commerce he 
 committed himself to a startling experiment 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 133 
 
 in centralization. He favored dwarfing the 
 states and giving a gigantic grant of power 
 to the nation, In his last suggestion he has 
 gone even further. He has practically wiped 
 out state lines by proposing that the will of 
 a mere majority in Congress shall be compe- 
 tent to determine how the states shall employ 
 their police powers and manage their purely 
 domestic concerns. He has become an extra- 
 Hamiltonized Jeffersonian." 
 
 Yet this man Bryan, who three times has 
 sought to be America's despot who still in- 
 tends to become America's despot receives 
 the electoral votes of all the southern com- 
 munities that once were nations, and that 
 once fought that the nations might ever be 
 sovereign. At the same time the electoral 
 votes of all the other communities are cast 
 for men that would be less despotic than 
 Bryan. Under his leadership the southern 
 communities' have said that they wish the 
 American despot directly to tax their in- 
 comes; they have said that they no longer 
 wish to exercise any power of sovereignty. 
 " Home rule? We want the rule of a despotic 
 sovereign ! " they cried aloud. Virginians, to 
 our shame I say, had it not been for the com- 
 
134 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 munities that as nations defeated us, this day 
 our common carriers would be operated under 
 the direction of a monarch, and all your af- 
 fairs would be directed by an absolute power 
 wielded by a single man. 
 
 The Virginian that this man who aspires to 
 be a despot claims to admire above all other 
 men, held that men were not to be governed, 
 that the purpose of organised society was to 
 prevent men from preying upon one another. 
 Nevertheless, the man that would be a despot 
 at the time that he professes to be a follower 
 of the Virginian that he hails as master, 
 would take from all American human beings 
 their natural rights as well as those acquired. 
 He would form the tastes of every man and 
 of every woman in this monarchy. He would 
 deny to every man and to every woman every 
 human right. That is the kind of ruler that 
 the south wants and whom the north and the 
 east and the west will not tolerate. 
 
 The rights of those that live in the south 
 must not be left wholly to the direction of 
 the persons that once constituted the peo- 
 ples that they fought, This man Bryan 
 no southerner would take from the south- 
 ern communities the little wealth and power 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 135 
 
 that they have left to them. I thank God that 
 no southern blood flows through his veins. 
 
 THE SHAME OF SOUTH CAROLINA 
 
 Let our total destruction be brought about 
 by our natural enemies, not by ourselves. This 
 man Bryan, hearing that the legislators of 
 South Carolina would defeat by an overwhelm- 
 ing majority the proposed income tax amend- 
 ment, addresses those legislators in a speech, 
 thus interfering in the domestic affairs of 
 South Carolina, and lo! South Carolinians 
 again harken to his voice. By a vote of 
 one hundred to three they agree that those 
 who once were the inhabitants of a proud na- 
 tion should have the last vestige of their sover- 
 eignty taken from them. 
 
 Virginians, are we also to say that we wish 
 to become slaves? I hear that an attempt is 
 again to be made to force Virginia to adopt 
 the proposed income tax amendment. If that 
 attempt succeeds, then indeed will Virginia 
 have fallen from the high estate that once 
 was hers. I appeal to you, Virginians, as 
 bone of your bone and blood of your blood I 
 appeal to you, do not let so infamous an 
 outrage be perpetrated upon you. Drive out 
 
136 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 of this old commonwealth the false leaders of 
 her people, be they Nebraskans or Virginians, 
 and resume the place that you once held 
 among proud nations. To-day your hearths 
 are in danger as they were not in danger in 
 1861. To-day you are to say if your children 
 and your children's children are to be slaves. 
 I do not speak in mere figures of speech. A 
 real slavery is threatened a bondage of mind 
 and of body. Civilisation can not endure un- 
 der any government that does not recognise 
 the principles of home rule, and practice those 
 principles. 
 
 Under the form of federal confederation 
 that our fathers intended to establish, the 
 human race in America would have been 
 capable of its highest development. To be- 
 come higher types of man the peoples of the 
 world may not be amalgamated. To the con- 
 trary, degeneration would certainly be the re- 
 sult of amalgamation. Provincialism and 
 sectionalism are necessary to a high develop- 
 ment of mankind. Home rule may not be 
 too elastic, but should stretch from the fam- 
 ily life to the life of the nation, yes, even 
 to the life of the world, including all nations. 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 137 
 
 THE PEACE COMMISSION 
 
 In these days we witness the attempts that 
 are being made in all parts of the world to 
 break down the borders that separate the na- 
 tions one from another and to make of the 
 peoples of the world one vast nation. The 
 people of the new nation are to think alike, 
 they are to dress alike, and all their acts are 
 to spring from one process of thought. The 
 Peace Commission threatens the human race. 
 War is not an unmitigated evil. But whether 
 we desire perpetual peace or not, the object 
 of the Peace Commission is not alone to make 
 wars among nations impossible, but to 
 bring about the amalgamation of all the peo- 
 ples of the world. If I be mistaken, if the 
 principal object that the peace commissioners 
 wish to attain is not the creation of a single 
 nation, to be made of all the nations of the 
 earth, still, I say, the work of the Commis- 
 sion may effect the amalgamation of all the 
 nations of the earth ; and may reduce all men, 
 by stages of degeneration, to mere barbarians. 
 In the Peace Commission I see a cloud in the 
 horizon that already has reached ominous 
 proportions. Already I see that the first page 
 
138 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 of another federal compact, similar to that 
 of 1788, has been written. 
 
 But whether you be a federalist, or one who 
 contends that the highest form of government 
 is to be found where home rule prevails, you 
 must admit that the way to make a nation of 
 the American peoples was not through the 
 methods by which this monarchy was made 
 you must admit that the peoples of the Amer- 
 ican nations should have formed that mon- 
 archy in the manner provided by the treaty 
 of 1788 and its amendments. In that compact 
 of confederation there is no clause that pro- 
 vides for the compact's amendment by its 
 ruthless destruction. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States has 
 been torn up by a few persons while the 
 American peoples slept. Indeed, the people 
 of the American monarchy are yet asleep. 
 When they awake after their long slumber, as 
 did Eip Van Winkle of old, they will find 
 that they are slaves under a despotism more 
 powerful than any other that the world has 
 ever known. 
 
 Thus, Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Eegi- 
 ment, the victorious nations violated the 
 terms of surrender by which you were induced 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 139 
 
 to lay down your arms before the ink dried 
 on the paper that contained those terms. I 
 shall not recall the details of the outrages 
 that have been committed upon the defeated 
 nations by the victors, for those details are 
 indelibly written on the memory of each Vir- 
 ginian written in blood, then burned into 
 memory by countless fires. So I shall not re- 
 late the horrors of the War of Reconstruction 
 in detail ; nor shall I trace in detail the growth 
 of the American monarchy; but I shall ask 
 you to consider several of countless outrages 
 that have been committed by the victors upon 
 their defeated foes. I refer to these because 
 they are existing evils, continuing outrages, 
 . which cause me to tremble with indigna- 
 tion and shame as I utter these words. 
 
 INDEMNITY BY PENSION LAWS 
 
 First I shall refer to the infamous pension 
 laws now in force, by which laws the van- 
 quished have been forced to pay to the victors 
 an indemnity amounting to billions. While 
 all the American sovereignties fought out a 
 great war in order that a question arising un- 
 der the interpretation of the treaty to which 
 they were parties might be decided, yet the 
 
140 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 defeated nations in pensions alone have been 
 required to pay out billions to their victors. 
 Even now the defeated peoples are paying 
 millions annually as indemnity in pensions. 
 
 It is a pitiful sight as well as a shameful, to 
 see those old veterans of the defeated nations 
 yearly pay tribute to the men that they 
 fought fifty years ago. 
 
 The defeated nations were right in their 
 contention that as sovereignties they could 
 withdraw from the treaty of 1788 and its 
 amendments, for they had reserved that right 
 to themselves; but the force of might made 
 right, so the victors, in violation of the terms 
 of surrender, seized all the right that might 
 gave to them. Not only were the vanquished 
 made to pay billions in pensions to those that 
 they had fought, their widows and their minor 
 children, but they were made to pay fully 
 three times as much more in pensions to those 
 that they had not fought, and their widows 
 and their minor children. Every dollar of 
 indemnity save for a small amount paid to 
 negroes was spent beyond the lands of the 
 defeated nations, and not one penny of all 
 those enormous payments was returned to the 
 defeated peoples. Moreover, unless the pen- 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 141 
 
 sion laws are changed, the posterity of the 
 men that fought for the southern nations will 
 continue to pay pensions during the next fifty 
 years or more. 
 
 Has any victorious people other than those 
 who fought against the southern countries 
 ever so horribly mulitated a fallen foe? I 
 contend that the peoples of the defeated na- 
 tions should have received the same pension 
 benefits as did the victors from Appomattox 
 to the present day. A new pension law should 
 be enacted without loss of time, and that law 
 should provide that the soldiers of the south- 
 ern nations, their widows and their minor 
 children, during the future should receive the 
 same benefits as the soldiers of the northern 
 nations, their widows and their minor chil- 
 dren. Furthermore, the new law should pro- 
 vide that the soldiers of the southern nations, 
 their heirs or their assigns, should receive as 
 much as the soldiers of the northern nations, 
 their heirs or their assigns, have received. 
 Until such a law is enacted I shall advocate 
 this cause so long as I live. 
 
 To think of the immense amount of money 
 that would be circulated in the south if such 
 a law were enacted! Yet, my friends, such 
 
142 The Sovereignty of the States 
 
 an immense sum divided among southerners 
 would not make them nearly so wealthy as 
 the people of the other part of this monarchy. 
 Why? The devices of the victors by which 
 they took the frugal earnings of the van- 
 quished from them were not limited to the 
 pension outrages. 
 
 INDEMNITY BY TARIFF LAWS 
 
 For half a century the southerner communi- 
 ties have been forced to bear burdens of taxa- 
 tion under a tariff more outrageous than I 
 have words to describe. The industries of the 
 south have been stifled, the fields of the south 
 have been laid bare, that northern industries 
 might be built up. The infernal tariffs of 
 the last past fifty years have really constituted 
 indirect income taxation levied upon all south- 
 erners. Scornfully do the victors revile us. 
 They say that we of the south are poor. But 
 they do not say that they steal from us the 
 little that they permit us to earn now by 
 tariff laws, now by pension laws, now by legis- 
 lation so varied that for want of time such 
 federal enactments may not be discussed in 
 this oration. Some day a more humane tariff 
 may be enacted. May Almighty God so touch 
 
The Sovereignty of the States 143 
 
 the hearts of those who have held us in com- 
 mercial bondage for more than a century, 
 that they may have pity on us, that their 
 hearts may be melted by the tears of widows 
 and of orphans, and that they may cease to 
 fatten on our poor bodies! Indeed have we 
 suffered at their hands. 
 
 Soldiers of the Eighth Virginia Eegiment, 
 again I say, the war is not over. Here, on 
 the battle-ground that is hallowed by the 
 ashes of your fallen comrades, I again ask 
 you to take up the arms that you laid down 
 at Appomattox, that you fight without ceas- 
 ing, until southerners again enjoy the rights 
 so long denied to them. You and your chil- 
 dren must not die slaves. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 170ec'57i 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 DEC 31357 
 
 
 
 DEC u '* -KM 
 
 LD 21A-50m-8,'67 
 (C8481slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
M176G62 
 
 M 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY