U^STITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY. 131 



M'ere, in any true sense independent sovereignties, and I see no 

 escape from the extreme positions reached by Mr. Calhoun."* No 

 arguments are presented in support of this startling assertion, ex- 

 cept the doctrine that among the attributes of sovereignty, "the 

 one whirh underlies all others, and is. in fact, necessarily implied 

 in the very conception of separate natioi:ality, is that of supreme 

 continued self-existence. This inherent right can only be destroyed 

 by overwhelming opp)3ia^ fo.-C3; it cmnot ba p,3rnixriently parted 

 with by any constitution, treaty, league, or bargain, which shall 

 forever completely resign or essentially limifc their sovereignty, and 

 restrain the people from asserting it." There is no attempt made 

 to prove this doctrine; it rests simply upon Mr. Pomeroy's assertion, 

 backed by references to the works of half a dozen European pub- 

 licsts. According to this doctrine Texa-3 was never annexed; if the 

 United States had conquered her, and forced her into the Union, 

 her status would have been a legal one; bat as she came in volun- 

 tarily, surrendering her sovereignty and individual existence, the act 

 was null and void. According to this doctrine the act of union by 

 which, in 1703, England and Scotland surrendered their individual 

 sovereignty, and united into the new sovereignty of Great Britain, 

 was an impossible act; and Scotland might now, if she chose, re-es- 

 tablish her Parliament at Eiin burgh, and crown a Presbyterian 

 King at Scone. Again; on this theory, what are we to do with 

 Rhode Island and North Carolina in the interval between the es- 

 tablishment of the Federal Government, and their accession to it? 

 They were certainly not members of the new Union; which made 

 no claim to extenl its power over them. The Confederation of 

 which they had been members, no longer existed. There is but 

 one answer to the this question. They weri indepsndent, sovereign 

 States, as independent and as sovereign as Costa Rica, or San Ma- 

 rino, or the Free City of Hamburg. 



In arguing for the original sovereignty of the States, I would not 

 be understood to advocate the modern doctrine of State Rights. I 

 hold with Mirshall, Webster and Story, with Mr. Marsh and 

 Mr. Pomeroy, that the United States form a nation, and possess full 

 powors of sovereignty. But I hold that this sovereignty was formally 

 and voluntarily conferred upon them by the States in the act of 

 forming the Federal Constitution. The doctrine advance:! by Mr. 



