ADDRESS.

MR. PRESIDENT,--At the close of a bloody Rebellion, instigated by

hostility to the sacred principles of the Declaration of Independence,

and inaugurated in the name of State Rights, it becomes us now to do

our best that these sacred principles shall not again be called in

question, and that State Rights shall not again disturb the national

repose. One terrible war is more than enough; and since, after

struggle, peril, and sacrifice, where every household has been a

sufferer, we are at last victorious, it is not too much to insist on

all possible safeguards for the future. The whole case must be settled

now. The constant duel between the Nation and the States must cease.

The National Unity must be assured,--in the only way which is practical

and honest,--through the principles declared by our fathers and inwoven

into the national life.

In one word, the Declaration of Independence must be recognized as

a fundamental law, and State Rights, in all their denationalizing

pretensions, must be trampled out forever, to the end that we may be,

in reality as in name, a Nation.

* * * * *

Are we a Nation? Such is the question I now propose, believing that

the whole case is involved in the answer. Are we a Nation? Then must

we have that essential, indestructible unity belonging to a Nation,

with all those central, pervasive, impartial powers which minister to

the national life; then must we have that central, necessary authority

inherent in just government, to protect the citizen in all the rights

of citizenship; and then must we have that other central, inalienable

prerogative of providing for all the promises solemnly made when we

first claimed our place as a Nation.

* * * * *

Words are sometimes things; and I cannot doubt that our country would

gain in strength and our people in comprehensive patriotism, if we

discarded language which in itself implies certain weakness and

possible disunion. Pardon me, if I confess that I have never reconciled

myself to the use of the word “Federal” instead of “National.” To my

mind, our government is not Federal, but National; our Constitution is

not Federal, but National; our courts under the Constitution are not

Federal, but National; our army is not Federal, but National. There

is one instance where this misnomer does not occur. The debt of our

country is always _National_,--perhaps because this term promises in

advance additional security to the anxious creditor. “Liberty” and

“Equality” are more than dollars and cents; they should be National

also, and enjoy the same security.

During the imbecility of the Confederation, which was nothing but

a league or _fœdus_, the government was naturally called Federal.

This was its proper designation. Any other would have been out of

place, although even then Washington liked to speak of the Nation. In

summoning the Convention which framed the National Constitution, the

States all spoke of the existing government as “Federal.” But after

the adoption of the National Constitution, completing our organization

as one people, the designation was inappropriate. It should have been

changed. If not then, it must be now. New capacities require a new

name. The word Saviour did not originally exist in the Latin; but St.

Augustine, who wrote in this language, boldly used it, saying there was

no occasion for it until after the Saviour was born.[2] If among us in

the earlier day there was no occasion for the word Nation, there is

now. A Nation is born.

* * * * *

The word Nation is suggestive beyond any definition of the dictionary.

It awakens an echo second only to that of Country. It is a word of

unity and power. It brings to mind intelligent masses enjoying the

advantage of organization, for whom there is a Law of Nations,--as

there is a Law of Nature,--each nation being a unit. Sometimes uttered

vaguely, it is simply an intensive, as in the familiar exaggeration,

“only a _nation_ louder”; but even here the word furnishes a measure of

vastness. In ordinary usage, it implies an aggregation of human beings

who have reached such advanced stage of political development that

they are no longer a tribe of Nomads, like our Indians,--no longer a

mere colony, city, principality, or state,--but they are one people,

throbbing with a common life, occupying a common territory, rejoicing

in a common history, sharing in common trials, and securing to each the

protection of the common power. We have heard, also, that a Nation is

a people with the consciousness of Human Rights. Well spoke Louis the

Fifteenth of France, when this word first resounded in his ears: “What

means it? I am king; is there any king but me?” The monarch did not

know that the Nation was more than king, all of which his successor

learned among the earliest lessons of the Revolution, as this word

became the inspiration and voice of France.

The ancients had but one word for State and City; nor did they use the

word Nation as it is latterly used. Derived from the Latin _nascor_ and

_natus_, signifying “to be born” and “being born,” it was originally

applied to a race or people of common descent and language, but seems

to have had no reference to a common government. In the latter sense

it is modern. Originally ethnological, it is now political. The French

Communists have popularized the kindred word “Solidarity,” denoting a

community of interests, which is an element of nationality. There is

the solidarity of nations together, and also the solidarity of a people

constituting one nation, being those who, according to a familiar

phrase, are “all in one bottom.”

England early became a Nation; and this word seems to have assumed

there a corresponding meaning. Sir Walter Raleigh, courtier of Queen

Elizabeth, and victim of James the First, who was a master of our

language, in speaking of the people of England, calls them “our

Nation.”[3] John Milton was filled with the same sentiment, when,

addressing England and Scotland, he says: “Go on, both hand in hand,

_O Nations_, never to be disunited! be the praise and the heroic song

of all posterity!”[4] In the time of Charles the Second, Sir William

Temple furnished a precise definition, which foreshadows the definition

of our day. According to this accomplished writer and diplomatist, a

Nation was “a great number of families, derived from the same blood,

born in the same country, and _living under the same government and

civil constitutions_.”[5] Here is the political element. Johnson, in

his Dictionary, follows Temple substantially, calling it “a people

distinguished from another people, generally by their language,

original, _or government_.” Our own Webster, the lexicographer, calls

it “the body of inhabitants of a country _united under the same

government_”; Worcester, “a people born in the same country and _living

under the same government_”; the French Dictionary of the Academy, “the

totality of persons born or naturalized in a country and _living under

the same government_.”[6] Of these definitions, those of Webster and

the French Academy are the best; and of the two, that of Webster the

most compact.

These definitions all end in the idea of unity under one government.

They contemplate political unity, rather than unity of blood or

language. Undoubted nations exist without the latter. Various accents

of speech and various types of manhood, with the great distinction of

color, which we encounter daily, show that there is no such unity here.

But this is not required. If the inhabitants are of one blood and one

language, the unity is more complete; but the essential condition is

one sovereignty, involving, of course, one citizenship. In this sense

Gibbon employs the word, when, describing the people of Italy,--all of

whom were recognized as Roman citizens,--he says: “From the foot of

the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all the natives of Italy were

born citizens of Rome. Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and

they insensibly _coalesced into one great Nation_, united by language,

manners, and _civil institutions_, and equal to the weight of a

powerful empire.”[7] Here dominion proceeding originally from conquest

is consecrated by concession of citizenship, and the great historian

hails the coalesced people as Nation.

One of our ablest writers of History and Constitutional Law, Professor

Lieber, of Columbia College, New York, has discussed this question with

learning and power.[8] According to this eminent authority, Nation is

something more than a word. It denotes that polity which is the normal

type of government at the present advanced stage of civilization,

and to which all people tend just in proportion to enlightenment and

enfranchisement. The learned Professor does not hesitate to say that

such a polity is naturally dedicated to the maintenance of all the

rights of the citizen as its practical end and object. It is easy to

see that the Nation, thus defined, must possess elements of perpetuity.

It is not a quicksand, or mere agglomeration of particles, liable to

disappear, but a solid, infrangible crystallization, against which

winds and rains beat in vain.

* * * * *

Opposed to this prevailing tendency is the earlier propensity to local

sovereignty, which is so gratifying to petty pride and ambition. This

propensity, assuming various forms in different ages and countries,

according to the degree of development, has always been a species

of egotism. When the barbarous islanders of the Pacific imagined

themselves the whole world, they furnished an illustration of this

egotism in its primitive form. Its latest manifestation has been

in State pretensions. But here a distinction must be observed. For

purposes of local self-government, and to secure its educational

and political blessings, the States are of unquestioned value. This

is their true function, to be praised and vindicated always. But

_local sovereignty_, whether in the name of State or prince, is out

of place and incongruous under a government truly national. It is

entirely inconsistent with the idea of Nation. Perhaps its essential

absurdity in such a government was never better illustrated than by

the homely apologue of the ancient Roman,[9] which so wrought upon

the secessionists of his day that they at once returned to their

allegiance. According to this successful orator, the different members

of the human body once murmured against the “belly,” which was pictured

very much as our National Government has been, and they severally

refused all further coöperation. The hands would not carry food to

the mouth; nor would the mouth receive it, if carried; nor would the

teeth perform their office. The rebellion began; but each member soon

found that its own welfare was bound up inseparably with the rest, and

especially that in weakening the “belly” it weakened every part. Such

is the discord of State pretensions. How unlike that unity of which

the human form, with heaven-directed countenance, is the perfect type,

where every part has its function, and all are in obedience to the

divine mandate which created man in the image of God! And such is the

Nation.

* * * * *

Would you know the incalculable mischief of State pretensions? The

American continent furnishes three different examples, each worthy

of extended contemplation. There are, first, our Indians, aborigines

of the soil, split into tribes, possessing a barbarous independence,

but through this perverse influence kept in constant strife, with

small chance of improvement. Each chief is a representative of State

pretensions. Turning the back upon union, they turn the back upon

civilization itself. There is, next, our neighbor republic, Mexico,

where Nature is bountiful in vain, and climate lends an unavailing

charm, while twenty-three States, unwilling to recognize the national

power, set up their disorganizing pretensions, and chaos becomes

chronic. The story is full of darkness and tragedy. The other instance

is our own, where sacrifices of all kinds, public and private, rise

up in blood before us. Civil war, wasted treasure, debt, wounds, and

death are the witnesses. With wailing voice all these cry out against

the deadly enemy lurking in State pretensions. But this wail is heard

from the beginning of history, saddening its pages from generation to

generation.

In ancient times the City-State was the highest type, as in Greece,

where every city was a State, proud of its miniature sovereignty. The

natural consequences ensued. Alliances, leagues, and confederations

were ineffectual against State pretensions. The parts failed to

recognize the whole and its natural supremacy. Amidst all the triumphs

of genius and the splendors of art, there was no national life, and

Greece died. From her venerable sepulchre, with ever-burning funeral

lamps, where was buried so much of mortal beauty, there is a constant

voice of warning, which sounds across continent and ocean, echoing

“Beware!”

Rome also was a City-State. If it assumed at any time the national

form, it was only because the conquering republic took to itself all

other communities and melted them in its fiery crucible. But this

dominion was of force, ending in universal empire, where the consent

of the governed was of little account. How incalculably different from

a well-ordered Nation, where all is natural, and the people are knit

together in self-imposed bonds!

Then came the colossal power of Charlemagne, under whom peoples and

provinces were accumulated into one incongruous mass. Here again was

universal empire, but there was no Nation.

Legend and song have depicted the paladins that surrounded Charlemagne,

fighting his battles and constituting his court. They were the

beginning of that Feudal System which was the next form that Europe

assumed. The whole country was parcelled among chieftains under the

various names of Duke, Count, and Baron, each of whom held a district,

great or small, where, asserting a local sovereignty, he revelled in

State pretensions; and yet they all professed a common allegiance.

Guizot was the first to remark that Feudalism, taken as a whole, was

a confederation, which he boldly likens to what he calls the federal

system of the United States. It is true that Feudalism was essentially

federal, where each principality exercised a disturbing influence,

and unity was impossible; but I utterly deny that our country can

fall into any such category, unless it succumbs at last to the dogma

of State pretensions, which was the essential element of the feudal

confederation.

Feudalism was not a government; it was only a system. During its

prevalence, the Nation was unknown. Wherever its influence subsided,

the Nation began to appear; and now, wherever its influence still

lingers on earth, there the yearnings for national life, instinctive in

the popular heart, are for the time suppressed.

Curiously enough, Sweden and Hungary were not brought within the sphere

of Feudalism, and these two outlying lands, left free to natural

impulses, revealed themselves at an early day as Nations. When the

European continent was weakened by anarchy, they were already strong in

national life, with an influence beyond their population or means.

Feudalism has left its traces in England; but it was never sufficiently

strong in that sea-girt land to resist the natural tendencies to unity,

partly from its insular position, and partly from the character of

its people. At an early day the seven-headed Heptarchy was changed

into one kingdom; but a transformation not less important occurred

when the feudal lords were absorbed into the government, of which they

became a component part, and the people were represented in a central

Parliament, which legislated for the whole country, with Magna Charta

as the supreme law. Then was England a Nation; and just in proportion

as the national life increased has her sway been felt in the world.

France was less prompt to undergo this change, for Feudalism found

here its favorite home. That compact country, so formed for unity, was

the victim of State pretensions. It was divided and subdivided. North

and South, speaking the same language, were separated by a difference

of dialect. Then came the great provinces, Normandy, Brittany,

Burgundy, Provence, Languedoc, and Gascony, with constant menace of

resistance and nullification, while smaller fiefs shared the prevailing

turbulence. A French barony was an “autonomic government,” with a

moated town, in contrast with an English barony, which was merged in

the Kingdom. Slowly these denationalizing pretensions were subdued; but

at last the flag of the French monarchy,--the most beautiful invention

of heraldry,--with lilies of gold on a field of azure, and angelic

supporters, waved over a united people. From that time France has been

a Nation, filled with a common life, burning with a common patriotism,

and quickened by a common glory. To an Arab chieftain, who, in barbaric

simplicity, asked the number of tribes there, a Frenchman promptly

replied, “We are all one tribe.”

Spain also triumphed over State pretensions. The Moors were driven from

Granada. Castile and Aragon were united under Ferdinand and Isabella.

Feudalism was overcome. Strong in the national unity, her kings became

lords of the earth. The name of Spain was exalted, and her language was

carried to the uttermost parts of the sea. For her Columbus sailed;

for her Cortes and Pizarro conquered. But these adventurous spirits

could have done little, had they not been filled with the exuberance of

her national life.

Italy has been less happy. The pretensions of Feudalism here commingled

with the pretensions of City-States. Petty princes and petty republics,

restless with local sovereignty, constituted together a perpetual

discord. That beauty which one of her poets calls a “fatal gift”

tempted the foreigner. Disunited Italy became an easy prey. Genius

strove in the bitterness of despair, while this exquisite land, where

History adds to the charms of Nature and gilds anew the golden fields,

sank at last to become, in the audacious phrase of Napoleon, simply a

geographical name. A checker-board of separate States, it was little

else. It had a place on the map, as in the memory, but no place in the

present. It performed no national part. It did nothing for imitation

or remembrance. Thus it continued, a fearful example to mankind.

Meanwhile the sentiment of Nationality began to stir. At last it broke

forth like the pent-up lava from its own Vesuvius, and Garibaldi was

its conductor. Separate States, renouncing local pretensions, became

greater still as parts of the great whole, and Italy stood forth a

Nation, to testify against the intolerable jargon of State pretensions.

All hail to this heroic revival, where dissevered parts have been

brought together, as were those of the ancient Deity, and shaped anew

into a form of beauty and power!

But Germany is the most instructive example. Here, from generation to

generation, have State pretensions triumphed, perversely postponing

that National Unity which is the longing of the German heart.

Stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic and the Alps, penetrated by

great rivers, possessing an harmonious expanse of territory, speaking

one language, filled with the same intellectual life, and enjoying

a common name, which has been historic from the days of Tacitus,

Germany, like France, seems formed for unity. Martin Luther addressed

one of his grand letters _An die Deutsche Nation_ (To the German

Nation); and these words are always touching to Germans as the image

of what they desire so much. Thus far the great longing has failed.

Even the Empire, where all were gathered under one imperial head,

was only a variegated patchwork of States. Feudalism, in its most

extravagant pretensions, still prevails. Confederation takes the place

of Nationality, and this vast country, with all its elements of unity,

is only a discordant conglomerate. North and South are inharmonious,

Prussia and Austria representing two opposite sections. Other divisions

have been more perplexing. Not to speak of Circles, or groups, each

with a diet of its own, which once existed, I mention simply the later

division into thirty-nine States, differing in government and in

extent, being monarchies, principalities, dukedoms, and free cities,

all proportionately represented in a general council or diet, and

proportionately bound to the common defence, but every one filled

with State egotism. So complete was this disjunction, and such its

intolerable pretensions, that internal commerce, the life-blood of the

Nation, was strangled. Down to a recent day, each diminutive state had

its own custom-house, where the traveller was compelled to exhibit his

passport and submit to local levies. This universal obstruction slowly

yielded to a Zollverein, or Customs-Union, under which these barriers

were obliterated and customs were collected on the external frontiers.

Here was the first triumph of Unity. Meanwhile the perpetual strife

between Prussia and Austria broke out in terrible battle. Prussia has

succeeded in absorbing several of the smaller states. But the darling

passion of the German heart is still unsatisfied. Not in fact, but in

aspiration only, is Germany one nation. Patriot Poetry takes up the

voice, and, scorning the claims of individual states, principalities,

and cities, scorning also the larger claims of Prussia and Austria

alike, exclaims, in the spirit of a true Nationality:--

“That is the German’s fatherland

Where Germans all as brothers glow;

That is the land;

All Germany’s thy fatherland.”

God grant that the day may soon dawn when all Germany shall be one!

* * * * *

Confessing the necessity of a true national life, we have considered

what is a Nation, and how the word itself implies indestructible unity

under one government with common rights of citizenship; and then we

have seen how this idea has grown with the growth of civilization,

slowly conquering the adverse pretensions of States, until at last even

Italy became one nation, while Germany was left still struggling for

the same victory. And now I come again to the question with which I

began.

Are we a Nation? Surely we are not a City-State, like Athens and early

Rome in antiquity, or like Florence and Frankfort in modern times;

nor, whatever the extent of our territory, are we an Empire cemented

by conquest, like that of later Rome, or like that of Charlemagne; nor

are we a Feudal Confederation, with territory parcelled among local

pretenders; nor are we a Confederation in any just sense. From the

first settlement of the country down to the present time, whether in

the long annals of the Colonies or since the Colonies were changed into

States, there has been but one authentic voice: now breaking forth in

organized effort for Union; now swelling in that majestic utterance of

a united people, the Declaration of Independence; now sounding in the

scarcely less majestic utterance of the same united people, the opening

words of the National Constitution; and then again leaping from the

hearts of patriots. All these, at different times and in various tones,

testify that we are one people, under one sovereignty, vitalized and

elevated by a dedication to Human Rights.

There is a distinction for a long time recognized by German writers,

and denoted by the opposite terms _Staatenbund_ and _Bundesstaat_,--the

former being “a league of states,” and the latter “a state formed by a

league.” In the former the separate states are visibly distinct; in the

latter they are lost in unity. And such is the plain condition of our

republic.

Of the present thirty-seven States only thirteen were originally

Colonies; three are offsets from some of these; all the rest have been

founded on territory which was the common property of the people of

the United States, and at their own request they have been received

into the fellowship of government and citizenship. If on any ground

one of the original Thirteen might renounce its obligations to the

Union, it would not follow that one of the new States, occupying the

common territory, could do likewise. It is little short of madness to

attribute such a denationalizing prerogative to any State, whether

new or old. For better or worse, we are all bound together in one

indissoluble bond. The National Union is a knot which in an evil hour

the sword may cut, but which no mortal power can unloose without the

common consent.

* * * * *

From the earliest landing, this knot has been tying tighter and

tighter. Two ways it promptly showed itself: first, in the common claim

of the rights of British subjects; and, secondly, in the common rights

of citizenship coextensive with the Colonies, and the consequent rights

of every Colony in every other Colony.

The Colonies were settled separately, under different names, and

each had its own local government. But no local government in any

Colony was allowed to restrict the rights, liberties, and immunities

of British subjects. This was often declared. Above all charters or

local laws were the imprescriptible safeguards of Magna Charta, which

were common to all the inhabitants. On one occasion, the Legislature

of Massachusetts reminded the king’s governor of these safeguards in

memorable words: “We hope we may without offence put your Excellency

in mind of that most grievous sentence of excommunication solemnly

denounced by the Church in the name of the sacred Trinity, in the

presence of King Henry the Third and the estates of the realm, _against

all those who should make statutes, or observe them, being made,

contrary to the liberties of Magna Charta_.”[10] Massachusetts spoke

for all the Colonies. Enjoyment of common rights was a common bond,

constituting an element of nationality. As these rights grew more

important, the common bond grew stronger.

The rights of citizenship in the Colonies were derived from common

relations to the mother country. No Colonist could be an alien in any

other Colony. As British subject he had the freedom of every Colony,

with the right of making his home there, and of inheriting lands. Among

all the Colonies there was a common and interchangeable citizenship,

or _inter-citizenship_. The very rule of the Constitution then began,

that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges

and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Here was another

element of nationality. If not at that time fellow-citizens, all were

at least fellow-subjects. Fellowship had begun. Thus in the earliest

days, even before Independence, were the Colonists one people, with one

sovereignty, afterwards renounced.

* * * * *

Efforts for a common government on this side of the ocean soon showed

themselves. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620. As early as 1643,

only twenty-three years later, there was a confederation under the

name of “The United Colonies of New England,” formed primarily for the

common defence; and here is the first stage of nationality on this

continent. In the preamble to the Articles the parties declare: “We,

therefore, do conceive it our bounden duty without delay to enter into

a present consociation amongst ourselves for mutual help and strength

in all our future concernments, that, as in nation and religion, so

in other respects, _we be and continue One_.”[11] Better words could

not mark the beginning of a nation. A distinguished character of the

time, recording the difficulties encountered by the Articles, says:

“But, being all desirous of union and studious of peace, they readily

yielded each to other in such things as tended to common utility, etc.,

so as in some two or three meetings _they lovingly accorded_.”[12]

Encouraged by “loving accord,” another proposition was brought forward

in Massachusetts, “for all the English within the United Colonies

_to enter into a civil agreement for the maintenance of religion and

our civil liberties_.”[13] More than a century elapsed before this

aspiration was fulfilled.

Meanwhile the Colonies grew in population and power. No longer merely

scattered settlements, they began to act a part in history. Anxious

especially against French domination, already existing in Canada and

extending along the Lakes to the Mississippi, they came together

in Congress at Albany, in 1754, to take measures for the common

defence. Delegates were present from seven Colonies, being all north

of the Potomac. Here the genius of Benjamin Franklin prevailed. A

plan from this master mind provided for what was called a “General

Government,” administered by a “President-General and Grand Council,”

where each Colony should have representatives in proportion to its

contributions,--Massachusetts and Virginia having seven each, while New

York had only four; and the first meeting of the “General Government”

was to be at Philadelphia.[14] Local jealousy and pretension were then

too strong for such a Union: and it found no greater favor in England;

for there Union was “dreaded as the keystone of Independence.”[15]

In defending this plan, Franklin, who had not yet entered into the

idea of Independence, did not hesitate to say that he looked upon the

Colonies “as so many counties gained to Great Britain,”[16]--employing

an illustration which most forcibly suggested actual Unity. Though

this experiment failed, it revealed the longing for one Cisatlantic

government, and showed how under other auspices it might be

accomplished.

Little more than ten years elapsed before the same yearning for common

life appeared again in the Colonial Congress at New York, convened in

1765, on the recommendation of Massachusetts, to arrest the tyranny of

the Stamp Act and assaults upon the common liberties. Nine Colonies,

after deliberation, united in a Declaration of Rights common to all.

Here was the inspiration of James Otis, the youthful orator of Freedom,

whose tongue of flame had already flashed the cry, “Taxation without

representation is tyranny,” and that other cry, worthy of perpetual

memory, “Equality and the power of the whole, without distinction of

color.” These were voices that heralded our Nation.

* * * * *

The mother country persisted; and in the same proportion the Colonies

were aroused to the necessity of union. Meanwhile that inflexible

Republican, Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, brooding on the perils

to Liberty, conceived the idea of what he called “a Congress of

American States,” out of whose deliberations should come what he boldly

proclaimed “an American Commonwealth,”[17]--not several commonwealths,

not Thirteen, but One. Here, in a single brilliant flash, was revealed

the image of National Unity, while the word “Commonwealth” denoted

the common weal which all should share. The declared object of this

burning patriot was “to answer the great purpose of preserving our

liberties,”[18]--meaning, of course, the liberties of all. Better words

could not be chosen to describe a republican government. This was in

1773. Every Colony, catching the echo, stirred with national life.

Delegates were appointed, and in 1774 a Congress called “Continental,”

with a representation from twelve Colonies, was organized at

Philadelphia, and undertook to speak in the name of “the good people”

of the Colonies. Here was a national act. In the Declaration of

Rights which it put forth,--fit precursor of the Declaration of

Independence,--it grandly claims, that, by the immutable laws of

Nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and the several

Charters, all the inhabitants are “entitled to life, liberty, and

property,” and then announces “that the foundation of English liberty

and of all free government is _a right in the people to participate in

their legislative council_.”[19] Here was a claim of popular rights as

a first principle of government. Proceeding from a Congress of all,

such a claim marks yet another stage of national life.

The next year witnessed a second Continental Congress, also at

Philadelphia, which entered upon a mightier career. Proceeding at once

to exercise national powers, this great Congress undertook to put

the Colonies in a state of defence, authorized the raising of troops,

framed rules for the government of the army, commenced the equipment

of armed vessels, and commissioned George Washington as “general and

commander-in-chief of the army of the United Colonies, and of all the

forces now raised or to be raised by them, and of all others who shall

voluntarily offer their service and join the said army, for the defence

of American liberty.” Here were national acts, which history cannot

forget, and their object was nothing less than American liberty. It was

American liberty which Washington was commissioned to defend. Under

these inspirations was our Nation born. The time had now come.

* * * * *

Independence was declared. Here was an act which, from beginning to

end, in every particular and all its inspirations, was National,

stamping upon the whole people Unity in the support of Human Rights.

It was done “in the name and by authority of the good people of these

Colonies,” called at the beginning “one people,” and it was entitled

“Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America

in Congress assembled,” without a word of separate sovereignty. As

a National act it has two distinct features: first, a severance of

the relations between the “United Colonies” and the mother country;

and, secondly, a declaration of self-evident truths on which the

severance was justified and the new Nation founded. It is the “United

Colonies” that are declared free and independent States; and this

act is justified by the sublime declaration that all men are created

equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that to secure these rights

governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from

the consent of the governed. Here was that “American Commonwealth,”

the image of National Unity, dedicated to Human Rights, which had

enchanted the vision of the early patriot seeking new safeguards for

Liberty. Here was a new Nation, with new promises and covenants, never

before made. The constituent authority was “the People.” The rights it

promised and covenanted were the Equal Rights of All; not the rights of

Englishmen, but the rights of Man. On this account our Declaration has

its great meaning in history; on this account our nation became at once

a source of light to the world. Well might the sun have stood still on

that day to witness a kindred luminary ascending into the sky!

In this sudden transformation where was the sovereignty? It was

declared that the _United_ Colonies are and _of right_ ought to be

free and independent States. It was never declared that the _separate_

Colonies were so _of right_. Plainly they never were so _in fact_.

Therefore there was no separate sovereignty either of right or in fact.

The sovereignty anterior to Independence was in the mother country;

afterwards it was in the people of the United States, who took the

place of the mother country. As the original sovereignty was undivided,

so also was that sovereignty of the people which became its substitute.

If authority were needed for this irresistible conclusion, I might

find it in the work of the great commentator, Mr. Justice Story, and

in that powerful discourse of John Quincy Adams entitled “The Jubilee

of the Constitution,” in both of which the sovereignty is accorded to

the People, and not to the States. Nor should I forget that rarest

political genius, Alexander Hamilton, who, regarding these things as a

contemporary, declared most triumphantly that “the Union had complete

sovereignty”; that “the Declaration of Independence was the fundamental

constitution of every State”; and, finally, that “the union and

independence of these States are blended and incorporated in one and

the same act.”[20] Such was the great beginning of national life.

* * * * *

A beautiful meditative poet, whose words are often most instructive,

confesses that we may reach heights we cannot hold:--

“And the most difficult of tasks to keep

Heights which the soul is competent to gain.”[21]

Our nation found it so. Only a few days after the great Declaration

in the name of “the People,” Articles of Confederation were brought

forward in the name of “the States.” Evidently these were drawn before

the Declaration, and they were in the handwriting of John Dickinson,

then a delegate from Pennsylvania, whom the eldest Adams calls “the

bell-wether of the aristocratical flock,”[22] and who had been the

orator against the Declaration. Not unnaturally, an opponent of the

Declaration favored a system which forgot the constituent sovereignty

of the people, and made haste to establish the pretensions of States.

These Articles were not readily adopted. There was hesitation in

Congress, and then hesitation among the States. At last, on the 1st

of March, 1781, Maryland gave a tardy adhesion, and this shadow of

a government began. It was a pitiful sight. The Declaration was

sacrificed. Instead of “one people,” we were nothing but “a league” of

States; and our nation, instead of drawing its quickening life from

“the good people,” drew it from a combination of “artificial bodies”;

instead of recognizing the constituent sovereignty of the people, by

whose voice Independence was declared, it recognized only the pretended

sovereignty of States; and, to complete the humiliating transformation,

the national name was called “the style,” being a term which denotes

sometimes title and sometimes copartnership, instead of unchangeable

unity. Such an apostasy could not succeed.

Even before the adoption of this denationalizing framework, its failure

had begun. The Confederation became at once a byword and a sorrow.

It was not fit for war or peace. It accomplished nothing national.

It arrested all the national activities. Each State played the part

of the feudal chieftain, selfishly absorbing power and denying it to

the Nation. Money could not be collected even for national purposes.

Commerce could not be regulated. Justice could not be administered.

Rights could not be assured. Congress was without coercive power,

and could act only through the local sovereignty. National unity was

impossible, and in its stead was a many-headed pretension. The country

was lapsing into chaos.

From Boston, which was the early home of the Revolution, had already

proceeded a cry for Nationality. A convention of delegates from

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, with Thomas Cushing as

President, assembled at Boston in August, 1780, where, among other

things, it was recommended “that the Union of these States be fixed

in a more solid and permanent manner, that the powers of Congress be

more clearly ascertained and defined, and that the important _national_

concerns of the United States be _under the superintendency and

direction of one supreme head_,” and the word _Nation_ is adopted as

the natural expression for our unity.[23] But the time had not yet come

for this fulfilment.

* * * * *

In the prevailing darkness, two voices made themselves heard, both

speaking for National Unity on the foundation of Human Rights. The

singular accord between the two, not only in sentiment, but also in

language, and in date of utterance, attests concert. One voice was

that of Congress, in an Address and Recommendations to the States

on the close of the war, bearing date 18th April, 1783, where,

urging “effectual provision” for the war debts, as demanded alike by

national honor, and the honor of the cause in which they had been

contracted, it was said, in words worthy of companionship with the

immortal Declaration: “Let it be remembered that it has ever been the

pride and boast of America that _the rights for which she contended

were the rights of Human Nature_.”[24] The other voice was that of

Washington, in a general order, also bearing date 18th April, 1783,

announcing the close of the war, where, after declaring his “rapture”

in the prospect before the country, he says: “Happy, thrice happy,

shall they be pronounced hereafter who have contributed anything, who

have performed the meanest office, in erecting this stupendous fabric

of Freedom and Empire on the broad basis of Independency, _who have

assisted in protecting the rights of Human Nature_.”[25] This appeal

was followed by a circular letter to the Governors, where, after

announcing that it is for the United States to determine “whether they

will be respectable and prosperous or contemptible and miserable _as a

Nation_,” Washington proceeds to name first among the things essential

to national well-being, if not even to national existence, what he

calls “an indissoluble union of the States under one federal head”; and

he adds, that there must be a forgetfulness of “local prejudices and

policies,” and that “Liberty” must be at the foundation of the whole

structure.[26] Soon afterwards appearing before Congress to surrender

the trust committed to him as commander-in-chief, he hailed the United

States as a “Nation,” and “our dearest country,”[27]--thus embracing

the whole in his heart, as for seven years he had defended the whole by

his prudence and valor.

An incident of a different character attested the consciousness of

National Unity. The vast outlying territory, unsettled at the beginning

of the war, and wrested from the British crown by the common blood and

treasure, was claimed as a common property, subject to the disposition

of Congress for the general good. One by one, the States yielded their

individual claims. The cession of Virginia comprehended all that grand

region northwest of the Ohio, fertile and rich beyond imagination,

where are now prosperous States rejoicing in the Union. All these

cessions were on the condition that the lands should “be disposed of

for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed

into distinct _republican States_.”[28] Here was a National act, with

the promise of republican government, which was the forerunner of the

guaranty of a republican government in the National Constitution.

The best men, in their longing for national unity, all concurred in

the necessity of immediate action to save the country. Foremost in

time, as in genius, was Alexander Hamilton, who was prompt to insist

that Congress should have “complete sovereignty, except as to that

part of internal police which relates to the rights of property and

life among individuals and to raising money by internal taxes”; and

still further, in words which harmonized with the Declaration of

Independence, that “the fabric of the American empire ought to rest on

the solid basis of the consent of the people.”[29] In kindred spirit,

Schuyler announced “the necessity of _a supreme and coercive power_

in the government of these States.”[30] Hamilton and Schuyler were

both of New York, which, with such representatives, took the lead in

solemn resolutions, which, after declaring that “the situation of

these States is in a peculiar manner critical,” and that “the present

system exposes the common cause to a precarious issue,” concluded with

a call for “a general convention of the States, specially authorized

to revise and amend the Confederation.”[31] The movement ended in the

National Convention. Other States followed, and Congress recommended

it as “the most probable means of establishing in these States a firm

National Government.”[32] Meantime, Noah Webster, whom you know so well

as author of the popular Dictionary, in an essay on the situation,

published at the time, proposed a new system of government, which

should act directly on the individual citizens, and by which Congress

should be invested with full powers of legislation within its sphere,

and for carrying its laws into effect.[33] But this proposition

involved nothing less than a National Government with supreme powers,

to which the States should be subordinate.

* * * * *

Here I mention three illustrious characters, who at this time lent the

weight of their great names to the national cause,--Jay, Madison, and

Washington,--each in his way without a peer. I content myself with

a few words from each. John Jay, writing to John Adams, at the time

our minister in London, under date of 4th May, 1786, says: “One of

the first wishes of my heart” is “to see the people of America become

_One Nation in every respect_; for, as to the separate Legislatures,

I would have them considered, with relation to the Confederacy, _in

the same light in which counties stand_ to the State of which they are

parts, viz., merely as districts to facilitate the purposes of domestic

order and good government.”[34] Even in this strong view Jay was not

alone. Franklin had already led in likening the colonies to “so many

counties.”[35] Madison’s desires were differently expressed. After

declaring against “an individual independence of the States,” on the

one side, and “a consolidation of the States into one simple republic,”

on the other side, he sought what he called a “middle ground,” which,

if varying from that of Jay, was essentially national. He would have

“_a due supremacy of the National authority_, and leave in force the

local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.”[36]

Here is the definition of a Nation. Washington, in a letter to Jay,

dated 1st August, 1786, stated the whole case with his accustomed

authority. Insisting upon the importance of “a coercive power,” he

pleads for national life: “I do not conceive we can exist long as _a

Nation_ without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the

whole Union in _as energetic a manner as the authority of the State

governments extends over the several States_.” He then adds: “To be

fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with _ample

authorities for National purposes_, appears to me the very climax of

popular absurdity and madness.”[37] Such were the longings of patriots,

all filled with a passion for country. But Washington went still

further, when, on another occasion, he denounced State sovereignty as

“bantling,” and even “monster.”[38]

* * * * *

The Constituent Convention, often called Federal, better called

National, assembled at Philadelphia in May, 1787. It was a memorable

body, whose deliberations have made an epoch in the history of

government. Jefferson and John Adams were at the time abroad in the

foreign service of the country, Samuel Adams was in service at home

in Massachusetts, and Jay in New York; but Washington, Franklin,

Hamilton, Madison, Gouverneur Morris, George Mason, Wilson, Ellsworth,

and Sherman appeared among its members. Washington, by their unanimous

voice, became President; and, according to the rules of the Convention,

on adjournment, every member stood in his place until the President had

passed him. Here is a glimpse of that august body which Art may yet

picture. Who would not be glad to look upon Franklin, Hamilton, and

Madison standing in their places while Washington passed?

* * * * *

On the first day after the adoption of the rules, Edmund Randolph, of

Virginia, opened the great business. He began by announcing that the

“Confederation” produced no security against foreign invasion; that the

“Federal Government” could not suppress quarrels or rebellion; that

the “Federal Government” could not defend itself against encroachments

from the States; and then, insisting that the remedy must be found in

“the republican principle,” concluded with a series of propositions for

a National Government, with a “National” Legislature in two branches,

a “National” Executive, and a “National” Judiciary, the whole crowned

by the guaranty of a republican government in each State. This series

of propositions was followed the next day by a simple statement in the

form of a resolution, where, after setting forth the insufficiency

of “a union of the States merely Federal,” or of “treaties among

the States as individual sovereignties,” it was declared “that _a

National Government ought to be established_, consisting of a supreme

legislative, executive, and judiciary.” Better words could not have

been chosen to express the prevailing aspiration for national life.

After ample debate, the resolution in this form was adopted. At a

later stage, in seeming deference to mistaken sensibilities, the

word “National” gave place to the term “the government of the United

States”; but this term equally denoted National Unity, although it did

not use the words. The whole clause afterwards found a noble substitute

in the Preamble to the Constitution, which is the annunciation of a

National Government proceeding directly from the People, like the

Declaration of Independence itself.

From the beginning to the end of its debates, the Convention breathed

the same patriotic fervor. Amidst all difference in details, and above

the persistent and sinister contest for the equal representation of

the States, great and small, the sentiment of Unity found constant

utterance. I have already mentioned Madison and Hamilton, who wished

a National Government; but others were not less decided. Gouverneur

Morris began early by explaining the difference between “Federal”

and “National.” The former implied “a mere compact, resting on the

good faith of the parties”; the latter had “a complete and compulsive

operation.”[39] Constantly this impassioned statesman protested against

State pretensions, insisting that the States were originally “nothing

more than colonial corporations,”[40] and exclaiming, “We cannot

annihilate, but we may perhaps take out the teeth of the serpents.”[41]

Wilson was a different character,--gentle by nature, but informed

by studies in jurisprudence and by the education brought from his

Scottish home. He was for a National Government, and did not think it

inconsistent with the “lesser jurisdictions” of States, which he would

preserve;[42] he would not “extinguish these planets,” but keep them

“within their proper orbits for subordinate purposes.”[43] He was too

much of a jurist to admit, “that, when the Colonies became independent

of Great Britain, they became independent also of each other,” and

he insisted that they became independent, “not individually, but

unitedly.”[44] Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, was as strong on this

point as Gouverneur Morris, insisting that “we never were independent

States, were not such now, and never could be, even on the principles

of the Confederation.”[45] Rufus King, also of Massachusetts, touched

a higher key, when he wished that “every man in America” should be

“secured in all his rights,” and that these should not be “sacrificed

to the phantom of State sovereignty.”[46] Good words, worthy of him

who in the Continental Congress moved the prohibition of Slavery in

the national territories.[47] And Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina,

said, in other words of precious significance, that “every freeman has

a right to _the same protection and security_,” and then again, that

“equality is the leading feature of the United States.”[48] Under such

influences the Constitution was adopted by the Convention.

It is needless to dwell on its features, all so well known; but there

are certain points not to be disregarded now. There is especially

the beginning. Next after the opening words of the Declaration of

Independence, the opening words of the Constitution are the grandest

in history. They sound like a majestic overture, fit prelude to the

transcendent harmonies of National life on a theatre of unexampled

proportions. Though familiar, they cannot be too often repeated; for

they are in themselves an assurance of popular rights and an epitome

of National duties: “_We, the people of the United States_, in order

to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic

tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general

welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United

States of America.” Thus by the people of the United States was the

Constitution ordained and established; not by the States, nor even by

the people of the several States, but by _the people of the United

States_ in aggregate individuality. Nor is it a league, alliance,

agreement, compact, or confederation; but it is a Constitution, which

in itself denotes an indivisible unity under one supreme law, permanent

in character; and this Constitution, thus ordained and established,

has for its declared purposes nothing less than liberty, justice,

domestic tranquillity, the common defence, the general welfare, and a

more perfect union, all essentially National, and to be maintained by

the National arm. The work thus begun was completed by three further

provisions: first, the lofty requirement that “the United States

shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of

government,”--thus subjecting the States to the presiding judgment of

the Nation, which is left to determine the definition of a republican

government; secondly, the practical investiture of Congress with

authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for

carrying into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution in

the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer

thereof,”--thus assuring the maintenance of the National Government,

and the execution of its powers through a faithful Congress chosen

by the people; and, thirdly, the imperial declaration, that “this

Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made

in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made

under the authority of the United States, shall be _the supreme law

of the land_, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,

_anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

notwithstanding_,”--thus forever fixing the supremacy of the National

Government on a pinnacle above all local laws and constitutions. And

thus did our country again assume the character and obligations of a

Nation. Its first awakening was in the Declaration of Independence; its

second was in the National Constitution.

* * * * *

On its adoption, the Constitution was transmitted to Congress with a

letter from Washington, where, among other things, it is said that “in

all our deliberations we kept steadily in our view that which appears

to us the greatest interest of every true American, _the consolidation

of our Union_, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety,

perhaps our National existence.”[49] Enough that this letter is signed

“George Washington”; but it was not merely the expression of his

individual sentiments. It was unanimously adopted by the Convention,

on the report of the committee that made the final draught of the

Constitution itself, so that it must be considered as belonging to

this great transaction. By its light the Constitution must be read.

If anybody is disposed to set up the denationalizing pretensions of

States under the National Constitution, let him bear in mind this

explicit declaration, that, throughout all the deliberations of the

Convention, the one object kept steadily in view was _the consolidation

of our Union_. Such is the unanimous testimony of the Convention,

authenticated by George Washington.

The Constitution was discussed next in the States. It was vindicated

as creating a National Government, and it was opposed also on this

very ground. Thus from opposite quarters comes the concurring

testimony. In Connecticut, Mr. Johnson, who had been chairman of

the committee that reported the final draught, said, in reply to

inquiries of his constituents, that the Convention had “gone upon

entirely new ground: they have formed _one new Nation_ out of the

individual States.”[50] George Mason, of Virginia, proclaimed at home

that “the Confederation of the States was entirely changed into _one

consolidated government_,”--that it was “a _National_ government,

and no longer a Confederation.”[51] Patrick Henry, in his vigorous

opposition, testified to the completeness with which the work had been

accomplished. Inquiring by what authority the Convention assumed to

make such a government, he exclaimed: “That this is a consolidated

government is demonstrably clear.… Give me leave to demand, What right

had they to say, _We, the people_?… Who authorized them to speak

the language of _We, the people_, instead of _We, the States_?… If

the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great

consolidated National government of the people of all the States.”[52]

Then again the same fervid orator declared, with infinite point, “The

question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, _We,

the people_, instead of _the States_.”[53] Patrick Henry was right.

The question did turn on that grand expression, _We, the people_, in

the very frontispiece of the Constitution, filling the whole with

life-giving power; and so long as it stands there, the denationalizing

pretensions of States must shrink into littleness. Originally “one

people” during colonial days, we have been unalterably fixed in this

condition by two National acts: first, the Declaration of Independence,

and then again, the National Constitution. Thus is doubly assured the

original unity in which we were born.

* * * * *

Other tokens of Nationality, like the air we breathe, are so common

that they hardly attract attention; but each has a character of its

own. They belong to the “unities” of our nation.

1. There is the National Flag. He must be cold indeed, who can look

upon its folds rippling in the breeze without pride of country. If in

a foreign land the flag is companionship, and country itself, with all

its endearments, who, as he sees it, can think of a State merely? Whose

eyes, once fastened upon its radiant trophies, can fail to recognize

the image of the whole Nation? It has been called “a floating piece of

poetry”; and yet I know not if it have an intrinsic beauty beyond other

ensigns. Its highest beauty is in what it symbolizes. It is because

it represents all, that all gaze at it with delight and reverence. It

is a piece of bunting lifted in the air; but it speaks sublimely, and

every part has a voice. Its stripes of alternate red and white proclaim

the original _union_ of thirteen States to maintain the Declaration

of Independence. Its stars of white on a field of blue proclaim that

_union_ of States constituting our national constellation, which

receives a new star with every new State. The two together signify

Union, past and present. The very colors have a language, officially

recognized by our fathers. White is for purity; red, for valor; blue,

for justice. And all together, bunting, stripes, stars, and colors,

blazing in the sky, make the flag of our country, to be cherished by

all our hearts, to be upheld by all our hands.

Not at once did this ensign come into being. Its first beginning was

in the camp before Boston, and it was announced by Washington in these

words: “The day which gave being to the new army, we hoisted the _Union

flag_, in compliment to the United Colonies.”[54] The National forces

and the National flag began together. Shortly afterwards, amidst the

acclamations of the people, a fleet of five sail left Philadelphia,

according to the language of the time, “under the display of a _Union

flag_ with thirteen stripes.”[55] This was probably the same flag, not

yet matured into its present form. In its corner, where are now the

stars, were the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, red and white,

originally representing England and Scotland, and when conjoined, after

the union of those two countries, known as “the Union.” To these were

added thirteen stripes, alternate red and white, and the whole was

hailed at the time as the Great Union Flag. The States, represented by

the stripes, were in subordination to the National Unity, represented

by the two crosses. But this form did not continue long. By a

resolution adopted 14th June, 1777, and made public 3d September, 1777,

Congress determined “that the flag of the thirteen United States be

thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that _the union_ be thirteen

stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”[56]

Here the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew gave place to white

stars in a blue field; the familiar symbol of British union gave place

to another symbol of union peculiar to ourselves; and this completed

the national flag, which a little later floated at the surrender of

Burgoyne. Long afterward, in 1818, it was provided by Congress that a

star be added on the admission of a new State, “to take effect on the

fourth day of July next succeeding such admission.”[57] Thus, in every

respect, and at each stage of its history, the National Flag testifies

to the National Unity. The whole outstretched, indivisible country is

seated in its folds.

There is a curious episode of the national flag, which is not without

value. As far back as 1754, Franklin, while attempting a union of the

Colonies, pictured the principal ones in a wood-cut under the device of

a snake divided into eight parts marked with their initials, and under

the disjointed whole the admonitory motto, “_Join or die_,”--thus

indicating the paramount necessity of Union. In the heats of the

Revolutionary discussion, a similar representation of all the Thirteen

Colonies was adopted as the head-piece of newspapers, and was painted

on banners; but when the Union was accomplished, the divisions and

initials were dropped, and the snake was exhibited whole, coiled

in conscious power, with thirteen rattles, and under it another

admonitory motto, “_Don’t tread on me_,”--being a warning to the mother

country.[58] This flag was yellow, and it became the early standard of

the Revolutionary navy, being for the first time hoisted by Paul Jones

with his own hands. It had a further lesson. A half-formed additional

rattle was said by Franklin “to represent the province of Canada,”

and the wise man added, that “the rattles are united together so as

never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces.” Thus the snake

at one time pictured the necessity of Union, and at another time its

indissoluble bond.[59] But these symbols were all in harmony with the

national flag, which, from its first appearance, in all its forms,

pictured the common cause.

2. There is next the National Motto, as it appears on the national

seal and on the national money. A common seal and common money are

signs of National Unity. In each the supreme sovereignty of the Nation

is manifest. The first is like the national flag, and stands for

the Nation, especially in treaties with foreign powers. The second

is a national convenience, if not necessity, taking its distinctive

character from the Nation, so that everywhere it is a representative

of the Nation. Each has the same familiar motto, _E pluribus

unum_,--“From many one.” Its history attests its significance.

On the 4th of July, 1776, the very day of Independence, Benjamin

Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were appointed a committee

to prepare a device for a great seal. They were of the identical

committee that had reported the Declaration of Independence itself.

Their report on the seal was made 20th August, 1776; and here we first

meet the national motto, in such entire harmony with the Declaration,

making us “one people.” Questions of detail intervened, and no

conclusion was reached until 20th June, 1782, when the present seal was

adopted, being the American bald eagle, with the olive-branch in one

talon and a bundle of thirteen arrows in the other, and in his beak a

scroll, bearing the inscription, _E pluribus unum_. Familiar as these

Latin words have become,--so that they haunt the memory of manhood,

youth, and childhood alike,--it is not always considered how completely

and simply they tell the story of our national life. Out of Many

Colonies was formed One Nation. Former differences were merged in this

unity. No longer Many, they were One. The Nation by its chosen motto

repeats perpetually, “We are One”; and the Constitution echoes back,

“We, the people of the United States.”

3. There is next the National Name, which of itself implies National

Unity. The States are not merely allied, associated, coalesced,

confederated, but they are _United_, and the Constitution, formed to

secure a more perfect union, is “for the _United_ States of America,”

which term was used as the common name of the Nation.

A regret has been sometimes expressed by patriots and by poets, that

some single term was not originally adopted, which of itself should

exclude every denationalizing pretension, and be a talisman for the

heart to cherish and for the tongue to utter,--as when Nelson gave his

great watchword at Trafalgar, “_England_ expects every man to do his

duty.” Occasionally it is proposed to call the country _Columbia_, and

thus restore to the great discoverer at least part of the honor taken

from him when the continent was misnamed _America_. _Alleghania_ has

also been proposed; but this word is too obviously a mere invention,

besides its unwelcome suggestion of Alligator. Another proposition

has been _Vinland_, being the name originally given by the Northmen,

four centuries before Christopher Columbus. Professor Lieber, on one

occasion, called the nation _Freeland_, a name to which it will soon

be entitled. Even as a bond of union, such a name would not be without

value. As long ago as Herodotus, it was said of a certain people,[60]

that they would have been the most powerful in the world, if they had

been united; but this was impossible, from the want among themselves of

a common name.

Forgetting that the actual name implies Unity, and, when we consider

its place in the preamble of the National Constitution, that it

implies Nationality also, the partisans of State pretensions argue

from it against even the idea of country; and here I have a curious

and authentic illustration. In reply to an inquirer,[61] who wished

a single name, Mr. Calhoun exclaimed: “Not at all; we have no name

because we ought to have none; we are only States united, and have

no country.” Alas, if it be so!--if this well-loved land, for which

so many have lived, for which so many have died, is not our country!

But this strange utterance shows how completely the poison of these

pretensions had destroyed the common sense, as well as the patriotism,

of this much-mistaken man.

Names may be given by sovereign power to new discoveries or

settlements; but, as a general rule, they grow out of the soil,

they are autochthonous. Even Augustus, when ruling the Roman world,

confessed that he could not make a new word,[62] and Plato tells

us that “a creator of names is the rarest of human creatures.”[63]

Reflecting on these things, we may appreciate something of the

difficulty in the way of a new name at the formation of the National

Constitution. As this was little more than a transcript of prevailing

ideas and institutions, it was natural to take the name used in the

Declaration of Independence.

And yet it must not be forgotten that there was a name of

different character which was much employed. Congress was called

“Continental,” the army “Continental,” the money “Continental,”--a

term certainly of unity, as well as vastness. But there was still

another national designation, accepted at home and abroad. Our

country was called “America,” and we were called “Americans.” Here

was a natural, unsought, and instinctive name,--a growth, and not

a creation,--implying national unity and predominance, if not

exclusive power, on the continent. It was used not occasionally or

casually, but constantly,--not merely in newspapers, but in official

documents. Not an address of Congress, not a military order, not a

speech, which does not contain this term, at once so expansive and so

unifying. At the opening of the first Continental Congress, Patrick

Henry, in a different mood from that of a later day, announced the

national unity under this very name. Declaring the boundaries of the

several Colonies effaced, and the distinctions between Virginians,

Pennsylvanians, New-Yorkers, and New-Englanders as no more, he

exclaimed, in words of comprehensive patriotism, “I am not a Virginian,

but an _American_.”[64] Congress took up the strain, and commissioned

Washington as commander-in-chief of the armies “for the defence

of _American_ liberty”;[65] and Washington himself, in his first

general order at Cambridge, assuming his great command, announced

that the armies were “for the support and defence of the liberties of

_America_;[66] and in a letter to Congress, just before the Battle

of Trenton, he declared that he had labored “to discourage all kinds

of local attachments and distinctions of country, _denominating the

whole by the greater name of American_.”[67] Then at the close of the

war, in its immortal Address, fit supplement to the Declaration of

Independence, Congress said: “Let it be remembered that it has ever

been the pride and boast of _America_ that the rights for which she

contended were the rights of Human Nature.”[68] Washington again,

in his letter to Congress communicating the National Constitution,

says, in other words, which, like those of Congress, cannot be too

often quoted, that “the _consolidation of our Union_” is “the greatest

interest of _every true American_.”[69] Afterwards, in his Farewell

Address, which from beginning to end is one persuasive appeal for

nationality, after enjoining upon his fellow-citizens that “_unity of

government_ which constitutes them _one people_,” he gives to them a

national name, and this was his legacy: “_The name of American, which

belongs to you in your national capacity_, must always exalt the just

pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local

discriminations.”[70] Thus did Washington put aside those baneful

pretensions under which the country has suffered, even to the extent of

adopting a National Name, which, like the Union itself, should have a

solid coercive power.

It is not impossible that in the lapse of time history will vindicate

the name adopted by Washington, which may grow with the Republic, until

it becomes the natural designation of one country. Our fathers used

this term more wisely than they knew; but they acted under Providential

guidance. Is it not said of the stars, that God “calleth them all by

names, by the greatness of His might”?[71] Is it not declared also that

He will make him who overcometh a pillar in the temple, and give to him

a “new name”?[72] So, as our stars multiply, and the nation overcometh

its adversaries, persuading all to its declared principles, everywhere

on the continent, it will become a pillar in the temple, and the name

of the continent itself will be needed to declare alike its unity and

its power.

4. To these “unities,” derived from history and the heart of the

people, may be added another, where Nature is the great teacher. I

refer to the geographical position and configuration of our country,

if not of the whole continent, marking it for one nation. Unity is

written upon it by the Almighty hand. In this respect it differs much

from Europe, where, for generations, seas, rivers, and mountains kept

people apart, who had else, “like kindred drops, been mingled into

one.” There is no reason why they should not commingle here. Nature in

every form is propitious. Facility of intercourse, not less than common

advantage, leads to unity: both these are ours. Here are navigable

rivers, numerous and famous, being so many highways of travel, and a

chain of lakes, each an inland sea. Then there is an unexampled extent

of country adapted to railways; and do not forget that with the railway

is the telegraph, using the lightning as its messenger, so that the

interrogatory to Job is answered, “Canst thou send lightnings that they

may go?”[73] The country is one open expanse, from the frozen Arctic

to the warm waters of the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Rocky

Mountains,--and there already science supplies the means of overcoming

this barrier, which in other days would have marked international

boundaries. The Pacific Railway will neutralize these mountains, and

complete the geographical unity of the continent. The slender wire of

the telegraph, when once extended, is an indissoluble tie; the railway

is an iron band. But these depend upon opportunities which Nature

supplies, so that Nature herself is one of the guardians of our nation.

He has studied history poorly, and human nature no better, who

imagines that this broad compacted country can be parcelled into

different nationalities. Where will you run the thread of partition? By

what river? Along what mountain? On what line of latitude or longitude?

Impossible. No line of longitude or latitude, no mountain, no river,

can become the demarcation. Every State has rights in every other

State. The whole country has a title, which it will never renounce, in

every part, whether the voluminous Mississippi as it pours to the sea,

or that same sea as it chafes upon our coast. As well might we of the

East attempt to shut you of the West from the ocean as you attempt to

shut us from the Mississippi. The ocean will always be yours as it is

ours, and the Mississippi will always be ours as it is yours.

Our country was planned by Providence for a united and homogeneous

people. Apparent differences harmonize. Even climate, passing through

all gradations from North to South, is so tempered as to present an

easy uniformity from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. Unmeasured

supplies of all kinds, mineral and agricultural, are at hand,--the

richest ores and the most golden crops, with the largest coal-fields of

the world below and the largest corn-fields of the world above. Strabo

said of ancient Gaul, that, by its structure, with its vast plains and

considerable rivers, it was destined to become the theatre of a great

civilization.[74] But the structure of our country is more auspicious.

Our plains are vaster and our rivers more considerable, furnishing a

theatre grander than any imagined by the Greek geographer. It is this

theatre, thus appointed by Nature, which is now open for the good of

mankind.

Here I stop, to review the field over which we have passed, and to

gather its harvest into one sheaf. Beginning with the infancy of the

Colonies, we have seen how, with different names and governments, they

were all under _one sovereignty_, with common and interchangeable

rights of citizenship, so that no British subject in one Colony could

be made an alien in any other Colony; how, even at the beginning,

longings for a common life began, showing themselves in “loving

accord”; how Franklin regarded the Colonies “as so many counties”;

how the longings increased, until, under the pressure of the mother

country, they broke forth in aspiration for “an American Commonwealth”;

how they were at last organized in a Congress, called, from its

comprehensive character, “Continental”; how, in the exercise of powers

derived from “the good people,” and in their name, the Continental

Congress put forth the Declaration of Independence, by which the

sovereignty of the mother country was forever renounced, and we were

made “one people,” solemnly dedicated to Human Rights, and thus became

a Nation; how the undivided sovereignty of all was substituted for

the undivided sovereignty of the mother country, embracing all the

States as the other sovereignty had embraced all the Colonies; how,

according to Franklin, the States were locked together, “so as never to

be separated, but by breaking them to pieces”; how in an evil hour the

Confederation was formed in deference to denationalizing pretensions

of the States; how the longings for national life continued, and

found utterance in Congress, in Washington, and in patriot compeers;

how Jay wished the States should be like “counties”; how “Washington

denounced State sovereignty as “bantling” and “monster”; how at last

a National Convention assembled, with Washington as President, where

it was voted that “a National Government ought to be established”;

how in this spirit, after ample debate, the National Constitution was

formed, with its preamble beginning “We, the people,” with its guaranty

of a republican government to all the States, with its investiture of

Congress with all needful powers for the maintenance of the Government,

and with its assertion of supremacy over State constitutions and laws;

how this Constitution was commended by Washington in the name of the

Convention as “the consolidation of our Union”; how it was vindicated

and opposed as creating a National Government; how on its adoption we

again became a Nation; then how our nationality has been symbolized

in the National Flag, the National Motto, and the National Name; and,

lastly, how Nature, in the geographical position and configuration of

the country, has supplied the means of National Unity, and written her

everlasting guaranty. And thus do I bind the whole together into one

conclusion, saying to all, We are a Nation.

Nor is this all. Side by side with the growth of National Unity was

a constant dedication to Human Rights, which showed itself not only

in the Declaration of Independence, with its promises and covenants,

but in the constant claim of the rights of Magna Charta, the earlier

cries of Otis, the assertion by the first Continental Congress of the

right of the people “to participate in their legislative council,” the

commission of Washington as commander-in-chief “for the defence of

American liberty,” and the first general order of Washington, on taking

command of his forces, where he rallies them to this cause; also in

the later proclamation of Congress, at the close of the Revolution,

that the rights contended for had been “the rights of Human Nature,”

and the farewell general order of Washington, on the same occasion,

where the contest is characterized in the same way: so that Human

Rights were the beginning and end of the war, while the nation, as it

grew into being, was quickened by these everlasting principles, and its

faith was plighted to their support.

* * * * *

As a Nation, with a place in the family of nations, we have the powers

of a nation, with corresponding responsibilities. Whether we regard

these powers as naturally inhering in the nation, or as conferred upon

it by those two title-deeds, the Declaration of Independence and the

National Constitution, the conclusion is the same. From Nature, and

also from its title-deeds, our nation must have all needful powers:

first, for the national defence, foremost among which is the power to

uphold and defend the national unity; secondly, for the safeguard of

the citizen in all his rights of citizenship, foremost among which is

equality, the first of rights, so that, as all owe equal allegiance,

all shall enjoy equal protection; and, thirdly, for the support

and maintenance of all the promises made by the nation, especially

at its birth, being baptismal vows which cannot be disowned. These

three powers are essentially national. They belong to our nation by

the very law of its being and the terms of its creation. They cannot

be neglected or abandoned. Every person, no matter what his birth,

condition, or color, who can raise the cry, “I am an American citizen,”

has a right to require at the hands of the nation, that it shall do

its utmost, by all its central powers, to uphold the national unity,

to protect the citizen in the rights of citizenship, and to perform

the original promises of the nation. Failure here is apostasy and

bankruptcy combined.

It is vain to say that these requirements are not expressly set

down in the National Constitution. By a law existing before this

title-deed, they belong to the essential conditions of national life.

If not positively nominated in the Constitution, they are there in

substance; and this is enough. Every word, from “We, the people,” to

the signature, “George Washington,” is instinct with national life, and

there is not a single expression taking from the National Government

any inherent power. From this “nothing” in the Constitution there can

come nothing adverse. But there has always been a positive injunction

on the nation to guaranty “a republican form of government” to all the

States; and who can doubt, that, in the execution of this guaranty,

the nation may exercise all these powers, and provide especially for

the protection of the citizen in all the rights of citizenship? There

are also recent Amendments, abolishing slavery, and expressly securing

“the privileges and immunities of citizens” against the pretensions of

States. Then there is the Declaration of Independence itself, which is

the earlier title-deed. By that sacred instrument we were declared “one

people,” with liberty and equality for all, and then, fixing forever

the rights of citizenship, it was announced that all just government

was derived only from “the consent of the governed.” Come weal or woe,

that great Declaration must stand forever. Other things may fail, but

this cannot fail. It is immortal as the nation itself. It is part of

the nation, and the part most worthy of immortality. By it the National

Constitution must be interpreted; or rather, the two together are the

Constitution,--as Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights together are

the British Constitution. By the Declaration our nation was born and

its vital principles were announced; by the Constitution the nation

was born again and supplied with the machinery of government. The two

together are our National Scriptures, each being a Testament.

* * * * *

Against this conclusion there has been from the beginning one perpetual

pretension in the name of States. The same spirit which has been so

hostile to national unity in other countries, which made each feudal

chief a petty sovereign, which for a long time convulsed France, which

for centuries divided Italy, and which, unhappily, still divides

Germany, has appeared among us. Assuming that communities never

“sovereign” while colonies, and independent only by the national

power, had in some way, by some sudden hocus-pocus, leaped into local

sovereignty, and forgetting also that two sovereignties cannot coexist

in the same place, as, according to the early dramatist,

“Two kings in England cannot reign at once,”[75]

the States insisted upon sovereign powers justly belonging to the

Nation. Long ago the duel began. The partisans of State pretensions,

plausibly professing to _decentralize_ the Government, have

done everything possible to _denationalize_ it. In the name of

self-government, they have organized local lordships hostile to Human

Rights; in the name of the States, they have sacrificed the Nation.

This pretension, constantly showing itself, has broken out on three

principal occasions. The first was in the effort of Nullification,

which occurred in 1832, where, under the lead of Mr. Calhoun, South

Carolina attempted to nullify the Revenue Acts of Congress, or, in

other words, to declare them void within her limits. After encountering

the matchless argument of Daniel Webster, enforced by his best

eloquence, Nullification was blasted by the thunderbolt of Andrew

Jackson, who, in his Proclamation, as President, thus exposed it, even

in the form of Secession, which it assumed at a later day: “Each State,

having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly

with the other States _a single nation_, cannot from that period

possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a

league, but destroys the unity of a nation.”[76] The pretension next

showed itself in the Rebellion; and now that the Rebellion is crushed,

it reappears in still another form, by insisting that each State at

its own will may disregard the universal rights of the citizen, and

apply a discrimination according to its own local prejudices,--thus

within its borders nullifying the primal truths of the Declaration of

Independence. Here again do State pretensions, in their anarchical

egotism, interfere with the National Unity.

The pretensions of States have found their ablest and frankest upholder

in John C. Calhoun. I take a single instance, on account of its

explicitness. In reply to a Northern Senator, the defender of Slavery

said:--

“Now let me tell the Senator that the doctrines which we

advocate are the result of the fullest and most careful

examination of our system of government, and that our

conviction that we constitute _an Union, and not a Nation_, is

as strong and as sincere as that of the Senator or any other in

the opposite opinion.”

“We are as devoted to the Union as any portion of the American

people (I use the phrase as meaning the people of the Union);

but we see in a national consolidated government evils

innumerable to us. Admit us to be a Nation and not an Union,

and where would we stand? _We are in the minority._”[77]

Evidently, in that minority he saw the doom of Slavery.

* * * * *

Local self-government, whether in the town, county, or State, is of

incalculable advantage, supplying the opportunities of political

education, and also a local administration adapted precisely to local

wants. On this account the system has been admired by travellers

from abroad, who have found in our “town meetings” the nurseries of

the Republic, and have delighted in local exemption from central

supervisorship. De Tocqueville, who journeyed here, has recorded his

authoritative praise,--and Laboulaye, who has visited us only in his

remarkable studies, unites with De Tocqueville. Against that exacting

centralization, absorbing everything, of which Paris is the example, I

oppose the American system of self-government, which leaves the people

to themselves, subject only to the paramount conditions of national

life. But these conditions cannot be sacrificed. No local claim of

self-government can for a moment interfere with the supremacy of the

Nation, in the maintenance of Human Rights.

According to the wisdom of Plutarch, we must shun those pestilent

persons who would “carry trifles to the highest magistrate,” and, in

the same spirit, reject that pestilent supervisorship which asserts

a regulating power over local affairs, and thus becomes a giant

intermeddler. Let these be decided at home, in the States, counties,

and towns to which they belong. Such is the genius of our institutions.

This is the precious principle of self-government, which is at once

educator and agency. In the former character, it is an omnipresent

schoolmaster; in the latter, it is a suit of chain-armor, which, from

flexibility, is adapted to the body of the nation, so that the limbs

are free. Each locality has its own way in matters peculiar to itself.

But the rights of all must be placed under the protection of all; nor

can there be any difference in different parts of the country. Here the

rule must be uniform, and it must be sustained by the central power

radiating to every part of the various empire. This is according to the

divine Cosmos, which in all its spaces is pervaded by one universal

law. It is the rule of Almighty Beneficence, which, while leaving

human beings to the activities of daily life and the consciousness

of free-will, subjects all to the same commanding principles. Such

centralization is the highest civilization, for it approaches the

nearest to the heavenly example. Call it imperialism, if you please: it

is simply the imperialism of the Declaration of Independence, with all

its promises fulfilled. It is rendering unto Cæsar the things that are

Cæsar’s. Already by central power Slavery has been abolished. Already

by central power all have been assured in the equality of _civil_

rights.

“Two truths are told,

As happy prologues to the swelling act

Of the imperial theme.”

It remains now that by central power all should be assured in the

equality of _political_ rights. This does not involve necessarily

what is sometimes called the “regulation” of the suffrage by the

National Government, although this would be best. It simply requires

the abolition of any discrimination among citizens, inconsistent with

Equal Rights. If not by Act of Congress, let it be by a new Amendment

of the Constitution; but it must be at once. Until this is done, we

leave undone what ought to be done, and, in pitiable failure to perform

a national duty, justify the saying that “there is no health in us.”

The preposterous pretension, that color, whether of the hair or of the

skin, or that any other unchangeable circumstance of natural condition

may be made the “qualification” of a voter, cannot be tolerated. It is

shocking to the moral sense, and degrading to the understanding.

As in the Nation there can be but one sovereignty, so there can be

but one citizenship. The unity of sovereignty finds its counterpart

and complement in the unity of citizenship, and the two together are

the tokens of a united people. Thus are the essential conditions

of national life all resolved into three,--_one sovereignty, one

citizenship, one people_.

* * * * *

I conclude as I began. The late Rebellion against the nation was in the

name of State Rights; therefore State Rights in their denationalizing

pretensions must be overthrown. It proceeded from hostility to the

sacred principles of the Declaration of Independence; therefore must

these sacred principles be vindicated in spirit and in letter, so that

hereafter they shall be a supreme law, coëqual with the Constitution,

in whose illumination the Constitution must be read, and they shall

supply the final definition of a Republic for guidance at home and for

example to mankind.

In this great change we follow Nature and obey her mandate. By

irresistible law, water everywhere seeks its level, and finds it; and

so, by law as irresistible, man seeks the level of every other man

in rights, and will find it. Human passions and human institutions

are unavailing to arrest it, as Nature is stronger than man, and the

Creator is mightier than the creature. The recognition of this law

is essential to the national cause; for so you will work with Nature

rather than against it, and at the same time in harmony with the

Declaration of Independence. Here I borrow a word from Locke, who, in

his Essay “Of the Conduct of the Understanding,” says, that, in dealing

with propositions, we must always examine upon what they “bottom.”[78]

Now, in dealing with the Rebellion, we find, that, though in the name

of State Rights, it “bottomed” on opposition to National Law and open

denial of the self-evident truths declared by our fathers, especially

of that central truth which Abraham Lincoln, at Gettysburg, in the

most touching speech of all history, thus announces: “Four-score and

seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new

Nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that

_all men are created Equal_.”[79] Slavery was “bottomed” on the direct

opposite; and so was the Rebellion, from beginning to end. Therefore

we must encounter this denial. We do not extinguish Slavery, we do

not trample out the Rebellion, until the vital truth declared by our

fathers is established, and Nature in her law is obeyed. To complete

the good work, this is necessary. Liberty is won: Equality must be won

also. In England there is Liberty without Equality; in France, Equality

without Liberty. The two together must be ours. This final victory

will be the greatest of the war; it will be the consummation of all

other victories. Here must we plant the national standard. To this

championship I summon you. Go forth, victors in so many fields, and

gather now the highest palm of all. The victory of ideas is grander far

than any victory of blood. What battle ever did so much for humanity

as the Sermon on Mars Hill? What battle ever did so much as the

Declaration of Independence? But Sermon and Declaration are one, and it

is your glorious part to assure the National Unity on this adamantine

base.

All hail to the Republic, redeemed and regenerated, One and

Indivisible! Nullification and Secession are already, like the extinct

monsters of a former geological period, to be seen only in the museum

of History. With their extinction must disappear the captious,

litigious, and disturbing spirit engendered by State pretensions. The

whole face of the country will be transformed. There will be concord

for discord, smiles for frowns. There will be a new consciousness

of national life, with a corresponding glow. The soul will dilate

with the assured unity of the Republic, and all will feel the glory

of its citizenship. Since that of Rome, nothing so commanding.

Local jealousies and geographical distinctions will be lost in the

attractions of a common country. Then, indeed, there will be no North,

no South, no East, no West; but there will be One Nation. No single

point of the compass, but the whole horizon, will receive our regard.

Not the Southern Cross flaming with beauty, not even the North Star,

long time guide of the mariner and refuge to the flying bondman, but

the whole star-spread firmament, will be our worship and delight.

As the Nation stands confessed in undivided sovereignty, the States

will not cease their appropriate functions. Interlocked, interlaced,

and harmonized, they will be congenial parts of the mighty whole, with

Liberty and Equality the recognized birthright of all, and no local

pretension to interfere against the universal law. There will be a

sphere alike for the States and Nation. Local self-government, which

is the pride of our institutions, will be reconciled with the national

supremacy in maintenance of human rights, and the two together will

constitute the elemental principles of the Republic. The States will

exercise a minute jurisdiction required for the convenience of all; the

Nation will exercise that other paramount jurisdiction required for

the protection of all. The reconciliation--God bless the word!--thus

begun will embrace the people, who, forgetting past differences, will

feel more than ever that they are One, and it will invigorate the still

growing Republic, whose original root was little more than an acorn, so

that it will find new strength to resist the shock of tempest or time,

while it overarches the continent with its generous shade. Such, at

least, is the aspiration in which all may unite.

“Firm like the oak may our blest nation rise,

No less distinguished for its strength than size;

The unequal branches emulous unite

To shield and grace the trunk’s majestic height;

Through long succeeding years and centuries live,

No vigor losing from the aid they give!”[80]