130 wiscoNSiisr academy sciences, aets, and letters. 



been accomplished, "receded," and selfish and local prejudices took 

 its place. Now, if the Articles of Confederation were'really drawn 

 np a year and a half after the Declaration of Independence, this 

 reasoning would have much weight. But the date here given is 

 only that of the adoption of the articles by Congress. They were 

 reported to Congress July li^, 1776, just a week after the Declara- 

 tion — the preliminary steps, indeed, were taken in June, before the 

 passage of the act of indepsndence. It is therefore perfectly legit- 

 imate to interpret the act of independence in the light of the gov- 

 ernment which was established after it. The two acts were to all 

 intents and purposes parts of one and the same act. In the very 

 act of declaring their independence, the States formed themselves 

 into a Federal Union; and in this Union the several States were ex- 

 plicitly declared to be independent and sovereign; from which it 

 necessarily follows that the Union thus formed, was, in Webster's 

 words, '"a league and nothing but a league.'" 



It will be seen that the whole controversy turns upon the period 

 between the suspension of the royal authority and the establish- 

 ment of the confederation. While the royal authority continued 

 to be recognized, sovereignty of course belonged to Great Britain; 

 after the establishment of ths C^tifeler.ition, it as manifestly be- 

 longed to the several States. Was there an interval during which 

 it was possessed by the United Colonies? Mr. Marsh says:* " it 

 was not for a moment imagined that the sovereignty was in the 

 interim lodged anywhere except in the whole people of the United 

 Colonies." But he bringr. no facts to prove this assertion. 



At the beginning of this discussion it was remarked that the 

 question was essentially an historical one, and must find its decis- 

 ion in historical facts — that is, in the series of events by which 

 the sovereignty was transferred from Great Britain to the United 

 States; and I think I have shown tho.t, as a matter of fact, this 

 transfer was not made at one stroke, but that the sovereignty was 

 actually possesed for a while by the several States, before it was 

 transferred by a deliberate act to the nation. There remain, how- 

 ever, some theoretical objections to this view, which it w^ill be ne- 

 cessary to consider. 



Mr. Pomeroy states these theoretical objections in the lollowing 

 strong terms: " Grant that in the beginning the several states 



* The Nation. No. 21. 



