oughly demonstrative fact, to confute the theory of secession, and to rob its advocates of all basis for even a difference of opinion on the subject.

WERE THE STATES EVER SOVEREIGN?

It is possible to conceive of a Philadelphia convention, in 1787, meeting as a body of ambassadors from sovereign states, to form a league for their mutual convenience, just as the secessionists insisted was the case. But if the thirteen states were not then so many sovereigns, and never had been, the premises most vital to the secession theory are seen to be, and to have always been, wholly wanting. The most important question in the whole inquiry then is, what sort of a government resulted from the Declaration of Independence? Was there or not, one central government, supreme over the thirteen states, and deriving its powers from the entire people of the United States?

Let the limits of this inquiry be carefully observed. It is not material that we should see a complete and fully rounded nationality assumed or acting at the outset. It may be granted that many steps taken were tentative, and that the era was a changeful one. Beyond doubt there was some sort of a union between the thirteen states, from the beginning. The immediate inquiry is as to the general character of that Union. Did it, in its essentials, display more the characteristics of a Nation, or more those of a league? Or if it be urged, and granted, that the general character did not then clearly appear, still, was there not manifested a distinct tendency toward a certain definite ideal? Which thought was dominant, Nation or League? Were not certain steps taken in one direction, namely, toward nationality, which were quite inconsis

tent with the idea of a mere league, which were never retraced, and which ever pointed toward the final goal? If, to this extent, the impress of nationality was made by the Declaration of Independence, then is our inquiry answered. If the United States was at first but an embryo Nation, then it was not a League.

It is often insisted that there was separate and individual state action in the beginning, because of the fact that each state provided for its own local government. A favorite assertion is, that all the colonies united in declaring each to be free and independent, "each free to do all that any nation might or could do." If such were the intent, why was not language used appropriate to express that intent? In that single Declaration, the colonists spoke as one people, about to assume one station in the family of nations; and "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," they declared that "these United Colonies" are now "free and independent States," and that as such "they" possess national powers, and may do all "acts and things which independent states may of right do." These national attributes were predicated of the "United Colonies," the word "United" having been here carefully added to Jefferson's original draft. In the light of the fact that no one of the colonies ever undertook to do alone the acts and things that "independent states may of right do," the intent seems plain to declare a joint and united independence of Great Britain, and to step as one Nation into the world's arena.

Such names as Marshall and Motley are cited as supporters of a contrary opinion on this question. But the glory which surrounds great names should not be allowed to blind us to the facts of history. While Marshall and Motley were not only men of conceded ability, but men

whose patriotism we may well emulate, yet they were not infallible. Great Homer might sometimes nod; and if we find our Homer nodding, let us jog his elbow and bid him awaken to the truth of history. In recent years, such writers for the public as General Francis A. Walker, Professor Albion W. Small and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge have seen, or fancied they saw, some intrinsic merit in the secession arguments. But on the other hand, Story, Cooley, Pomeroy, Hare and Jameson among our jurists; Lincoln, C. C. Pinckney and John Q. Adams among our statesmen; Bancroft, Landon, Frothingham and Brownson among our historians, and Lecky and Trevelyan across the water, have placed the origin of our nation at the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. George Ticknor Curtis is cited as saying in his Constitutional History, when speaking of the Articles of Confederation;

"The parties to this instrument were free, sovereign, and independent political communities, each possessing within itself all the powers of legislation and government over its own citizens, which any political society can possess." (vol. I, p. 98.)

But surely Mr. Curtis is not to be understood to impute to each state the national characteristics which belonged to the central government; for he elsewhere says,

"The powers exercised by the Congress before the Declaration of Independence, show that its functions were those of a revolutionary government." (v. I, p. 26.)

And he suggests as among the consequences flowing from the adoption of the Declaration, the following:

"That the people of the country became thenceforth the rightful sovereign of the country; that they became united

in a national capacity, as one people; that they could thereafter enter into treaties and contract alliances with foreign nations, could levy war and conclude peace, and do all other acts pertaining to the exercise of a national sovereignty; and finally, that, in their national capacity, they became known and designated as the United States of America." (p. 36.)

In his oration delivered on July 4th, 1862, at Boston, Mr. Curtis became more specific. He said:

"We thus see that from the first dawn of our national existence, through every form which it has yet assumed, a dual character has constantly attended our political condition. A nation has existed, because there has all along existed a central authority, having the right to prescribe the rule of action for the whole people on certain subjects, occasions and relations." (v. 2, 551.)

"We have seen that our National Union has had three distinct stages. The first was the Union formed by sending delegates to the Revolutionary Congress, and by a general submission to the measures adopted by that body for the common defense. The second was the closer league of the Confederation, the powers of which were defined by a written charter. The third was the institution of a government proper, with sovereign but enumerated powers, under the Constitution." (v. 2, p. 553.)

Judge Cooley, in his treatise on "Constitutional Limitations," thus summarizes the governmental conditions existing under the leadership of the Continental Congress :

"When the difficulties with Great Britain culminated in actual war, the Congress of 1775 assumed to itself those powers of external control which before had been conceded to the crown or to the Parliament, together with such other powers of sovereignty, as it seemed essential a general government should exercise, and became the national government of the United Colonies. By this body, war was conduct-ed, independence declared, treaties formed, and admiralty jurisdiction exercised. It is evident, therefore, that the States, though declared to be "sovereign and independent," were never strictly so in their individual character, but that they were always, in respect to the higher powers of sovereignty,. subject to the control of a central party, and were never separately known as members of the family of nations."

(Cooley's Const. Lims. p. 5-6.)

THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.

But the question has been seriously propounded, was the Declaration "a conscious step toward the establishment of an American State, in the purposes of its framers ?"

Doubtless it would be impossible to predicate one general purpose to that end, in the minds of all the signers of the instrument. Doubtless there was difference of individual opinion, as is usual in such cases. But our history abounds in evidences that the specific purpose named did exist among the framers.

In their address to the inhabitants of Great Britain, on July 6th, 1775, the Congress assumed the name of "The United Colonies of North America," a title which they retained until they exchanged it for that of "The United States of America." In the month previous, Rhode Island had recommended to the Congress the establishment of a Continental Navy. The Continental Army had already been established and a Code of Regulations, or Articles of War, provided for its government. On January Ist, 1776, one flag bearing thirteen stripes had been unfurled at the head of the Army. Thus was being realized the wish uttered by Gadsden of South Carolina, in the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, for joint action on a continental basis, "as Americans."

In 1776, before the Declaration was signed, there were before the Congress for consideration, two plans of united government; Galloway's Plan of 1774, and Franklin's Plan of 1775. Each of these embraced some details differing from those of the one finally adopted, and Franklin's plan contemplated some elements of nationality. Paine's pamphlet, "Common sense," written at the special instance of Dr. Benjamin Rush, (who was