ARE WE A NATION?
ADDRESS
OF
HoN. CHARLES SUMNER,
BEFORE THE
"tu pith  oung,en's  tptub'itan    oitt
AT THE
COOPER INSTITUTE,
T'uesday Evening, Nov. 19, 1867.
PUBLISHED BY THE
NEW YORK YOUNG MEN'S REPUBLICAN UNION.
18677
I
f
Ir 
i
1% 
A    D DI. E S S.
MAR. 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 what we can to provide that these sacred principles shall
not again be called in question, and that the fatal pretension of
State Rights shall not again disturb the national repose.   One terrible war is more than enouglh; 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 safe..
guards 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 honlest,-through the principles declared  by our
Fathlers and inwoven into the national life.
In one word, the Declaration of Independence must be recoginized as a fundamental law, and State Rights, in all thor denatiotinalizing pretensions, must be trampled out forever, to the end that
we may be in reality as in name, a Nation.
Are lWe a Nation?
Are we a Nation? Such is the question which I now propose,
believiing, as I do that the whole case is involved in the answer.
Are we a Nation?  Then must we have that essential, indestructible Unity which belongs to a Nation, with all those central
pervasive 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 the performance of all the promises solemnly made
when we first claimed our place as a Nation.
" National" instead of " Federal."
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
il 
4
have never reconciled myself to the use of the word " Federal"
instead of "National."  To  my mind, our government is not
Federal,  uit National; our Constitution is not Federal, but
National; our courts under the Constitution are not Federal,
but National; our army is not Fedeial, but National.  There is
one instance where this misnomer does not occur.  The debt of
our country is always Ncttional;-perhaps because this term
promises in advance additional security to the anxious creditor.
Liberty and Equality are as much as 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 f~(dus, the government was naturally called Federal.  This was its proper desiguation.  Any other would'hlave
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 goverument as "Federal."  But after the adoption of that National
Constitution which completed 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 language;
but St. Augustine, who wrote in this language, boldly used it,
saying that there was no occasion for it until after the Saviour
was born.  Even if among us in the earlier day there was no
occasion for the word Nation, there is now. A Nation is born.
MJeaning of" Nation."
There is something in the word Nation which is suggestive
beyond anything supplied by the definitions 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 words, "only a Nvation louder;" btlt even here the
word furnishes a measure of vastness. In ordinary usage, it
implies an aggregation of human beings, who have reached such
an 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 inll 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 did Louis the XVth of France exclaim, when this
word began to resound in his ears: " What means it?  I am
king; is there any king but me?"  The monarch did not know
11 
5
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.  Originlally 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 I., who was a
master of our language, in speaking of the people of England,
calls them " our Nation."  John Milton was filled with the same
sentiment, when, addressing Englanid and Scotlanid, he says: " Go
on, hand in hand, O Nations, never to be disunited; be the praise
and heroic song of all posterity."  In the time of Queen Anne, 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 samne government."  Here is the modern element of living
under the same government.  Johnson, in his Dictionary, follows
Temple substantially, calling it " a people distinguished from
another people, generally by their language, origin or government."  Our own Webster, the lexicographer, calls it, "the body
of inhabitants of a country united under the same government."
Worcester calls it, " a people born in the same country and living
under the same government."   The French Dictionary of the
Academy calls it, "the totality of persons born or naturalized
in a country and living under the same government."  Of these
definitions those of Webster and the French Academy are unlquestionably the best; and of these two that of Webster is the most
compact.
These definitions all end in the idea of unity under one
government.  They contemplate  a political unity, rather  than
a iunitv of blood or language.  There  are undoubted  natioins
where these do not exist. The various accents of speech and the
various types of malnhood, with the great distincetion of color,
which we encounter daily, show that there is no such unity here.
But tliis is not required. If the inhabitants are of one blood
and one language, the unity is more complete; but the essential 
6
condition is one sovereignty, involving, of course, one citizenship.   It is in'this sense that  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." (Gibbon: Decline and Fall; Vol. I.,
p. 32, cap. II.)  Here a dominion proceeding originally from
conquest is consecrated by the concession of citizenship, and the
great historian hails the coalesced people as a Nation.
One of our ablest writers of history and constitutional law,
Prof. Lieber, of Columbia College, New York, has discussed this
question with learning and power. 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
ill proportion to their enlightenment and enfranchisement.  The
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, as
thus defined, must possess the elements of perpetuity. It is not a
quicksand, or niere agglomeration of particles, liable to disappear,
but a solid, infrangible crystallization against which the winds and
the raiiis beat in vain.
State Rights.
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 Rights.  But here a distinction must
be observed. For the 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 a Nation. Perhaps, its essential absurdity in such a government was never better illustrated than by the homely apologue
of the ancient Roman, which so wrought upon the secessionists of
his day, that they at once returned to their allegiance. Acdording
to this successful orator, the different members of the humian body 
once murmured against the "belly," which was pictured very
much as our National Government has been, and they severally
refused all further co-operation. 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 Rights.
How unlike that Unity, of which the human form with heavendirected countenance is the perfect type, where every part has its
function, and all are in obedience to that divine mandate which
created man in the image of God. And such is the Nation.
Would you know the incalculable mischief of State Rights?
Our continent furnishes three different examples, each worthy of
extended contemplation. There are first, our Indians, the Aborigines of the soil, split into tribes, possessing a barbarous indepenldence, but through this perverse influence kept in constant
strife, with small chance of improvement.   Each chief is a
representative of State Rights.  Turning their backs upon Union,
they turn their backs 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 was, wasted treasure, wounds and death are the witnesses.  All these with wailing voice cry olt against that deadly
enemy lurking in State Rights.  But this wail may be heard from
the beginning of history, saddening its pages from generation to
generation.
Warnings of History against State  Rights.
In ancient times, the City-State was the highest type, as in
Greece, where every city was a state, proud of its miniiture sovereignty. The natural consequences ensued. Alliances, leagues,
and confederations were ineffectual against State Rights.  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 its 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
7 
8
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. Hlere again was Universal Empire, but there was no
Nation.
Legenld 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 he
asserted a local sovereignty, and revelled in State Rights; 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 Rights, which was the essential element of the
feudal confederation.
Feudalism was not a government, it was only a system. During
its prevalence thi 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, which are instinctive in the popular heart, are for the
time suppressed.
Curiously enough, Sweden and Hungary were not brought
withlin 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.  It was because they were
nations.
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.  Thein was England a Nation; and just in proportion as the national life increased has her sway been felt in the
world. 
9
France was less prompt to undergo this change; for feudalism
found here its favorite home.  That compact count'ry, so formed
for unity, was the victim of State Rights. It was divided and sub  divided.  The North and South, speaking the same language,
were separated by a difference of dialect. Tlhenl came the great
provinces, Normandy, Brittanly, Burgundy, Provence, Lailgnedoc,
and Gascony, with conlstant menaces of resistance and niullifica tion, while smaller fiefs shared in the prevailing turbulence.
A French barony'was anii "autonomic government," with a moated
town, in contrast with an English barony, which was merged ill
the kingdom.  Slowly these denationalizing pretensions were sub dued; but at last the flag of the French monarchy-the most
beautifil invention of heraldry-with lilies of gold on a field
of azure, and angelic supporters, waved over a united people.
From that time Fralce has been a Nation, filled with a common
life, burlninig with a common patriotism, and quickened by a
common glory.  To an Arab clhieftain, who, in barbaric simplicity,
asked the number of tribes there, a Frenchman promptly replied,
'W We are all one tribe."
Spain also triumphed over State Rights.  The Moors were
driven from  Granada.  Castile and Aragon were united under
Ferdilnand 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
Cortez 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 c4-arms 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 it had lost its 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 ownI
Vesuvius, and Garibaldi was its conductor.  Separate States,
renouncing local pretensions, became greater still as parts of the
great whole, and Italy stood forth as a Nation, to testify against
the intolerable jargon of State Rights.  All hail to this heroic
revival, where dissevered parts have been brought together, as
2 
10
were those of the ancient Deity, and shaped anew into a t-0orm
of beauty and power.
But Germanyv is thie most instructive example.  Here have
State Righlts triumphled from generation to generation, perversely
postponing that National Unity which is the longing of the Germani heart.  Stretchiiig from the Baltic to the Adriatic and the
Alps, penetrated by great rivers, possessing a harmonious expanse
of territory, speaking one language, filled with the same intellectual life, and enjoying a commoni  name, which has been historic
from the days of Tacitus, Germany, like France, seenms formned
for unity.  Martin Luthler addressed one of his grand letters An
die Deutsche Nation, To the Germaln Nation; and these words are
always touching to Germans as the image of what they desire so
much.  But thus far this 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 tihe
place of Nationality; and this vast country, with all its elemenIts
of unity, is only a discordant  colnglomerate.  The North and
South are inharmonious, Prussia and Austria  representing the
two opposite sections. But 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 the egotism of State Rights. So complete was this
disjulnctionll, and such were its intolerable pretensions, that ilternal commerce, which is the life-blood of the Nation, was strangled.
Down to a recent day eachl diminutive State had its own customhouse, where the traveller was compelled to exhibit his passport
and submit to local levies.  This  universal obstruction slowly
yielded to a Zoll Vereiii or Customs IJiioii, under which these
barriers were obliterated and customs were collected on the external frontiers.  Here was the first triumplh of Ulnity.  MIeanwhile
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 Germinan 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 father-land
Where Germans all as brothers glow;
That is the land;
All Germany is thy father-land. 
11
God grant that the day may soon0  dawni  when all Germany shall
be one.
National Uniity in our Country.
Confessing thle necessity of a true national life we have  con sidered what is a Nation, and how the word itself imiplies inde structible unity under one government with  common rights of
citizenship; and thein we have seen how this idea has grown withl
the growth of civilization, slowly conquerilng  the adverse pretelnsions of State Rilghts, until at last even Italy became one Nation,
while Germanly was left still struggling for the same victory.  And
now I come again to the question with which I began.
Are we a Nation?  Sturely we are not a City-State, like Atlens
and early Rome  in antiquity, or like Florence and Frankfort in
modern times; nor, whatever may be the extent of our territory,
are we an empire cemented by conquest, like that of later Rome,
or like that of Chlarlemagne; nior are we a feidal confederation, with our territory parcelled amonlg local pretenders; nor are
we a confederation in any just sense.  Fromn the first settlement of
the counltry downi to thlle 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 the people, the Declaration of Independence; now souniding, in
the scarcely less majestic utterance of the people, the openling words
to the constitutioni of the United States, and tllen 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.
Of thle present thirty-six States, only thirteen were originally
colonies.  All the rest have been bfounded on territory which was
the commolni property of the people of the United States, and they
have been received into the fellowsllii) of government and citizenship at their own request.  If on any grLoitd one of the original
thirteen mighlt renounce its obligations to the Unlion,-it would
not follow that one of tlhe new States, occupying the common
territory could  do likewise.  It is little short of madness  to
attribute suclh a denlationaliziing 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, whicil, in
an evil hour, the sword may cut, but which no mlortal power can
uloose witliout the common consent.
Cobiniio't Citizenslip aomon- thle Colonies.
From tlie 2t'iliest l anding, this knot hlas been tyig, tighlter and
tigl itei.  Tlhere wiere two ways iin whiclh it promptly sliowed itself:
first. ill tlhe Colniiio. claim of tlhe rights of Britislh  utbjects, and 
12
secondly, inl the commonl rights of citizenship co-extensive with
the colonies, and the consequenit righlts of every cololly in every
otler cololly.
The colonies were settled separately, under different names,
and e ach had its own local goverimnent.  But 1no local government
was allowed in ally colony to restrict the righits, liberties and
immunities of 31Britishl subjects.  This was often declared.   Above
all chlarters or local laws were the imprescriptible safeguards of
AIagna  Chlarta,  whlichl  were  common  to all the inhabitants.
Oi  one occasion, the legislature of Massaclhusetts reminded  the
king's goverillor of these safeguards in memorable  words, sayillg:
AVe hope we may, without offence, put your excellency ill lunlld
of that most grievous  sentence  of excomminunicatioii, solemnly
denounced by the church  in the name of the sacred Triiiity, in
the presence of King Heiry the Third and the estates of the
realm, against all those wvlo should make  statt,es, or observe
them, being made contrary  to the liberties of Ma,A,rna Chlarta."
(Hzttchlinson's  History  of  Miassachusetts, Vol.  III.,  p. 472.)
AIassachusetts, on this occasion, spoke for all the colonies.  Clearly
the enjoyment of common rights was a common bond, coIstituting ail  element of nationality.   In proportion  as thlese  righlts
grew miore important, the commono   bond grew stronger.
The rigllts of citizenship in the colonies were derived from
common relations to the mother country.  No  colonist could be
made an alien in any other colony.  As a British subject he had
the freedom of every colony with the ri,ght of making his home
there and of inheriting lands.   Among all thle 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 the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States."  Here again was
another element of nationality.  If not at that time fellow-citizenis,
all were at leastfellow-subjects.  Fellowship had begun.  Thus
in tl-e earliest days, eveni before Independence, were the colonists
One'People, with one sovereignty, afterwards renounced.
Longing, for Union among the Colonies.
Efforts for a common government on this side of the ocean soon
showed themselves.  The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth in 1620.
As early as 1642, only twenty-two years later, there was a colifederation  under  the  name  of'" tllhe 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  coliceive it our bounden duty without delay to enter into a present
consociation amongst ourselves for mutual  help and strength
in all our future concerlnmenrts, that, as in nation and religion, so 
13
in other respects, we be and continue One." (Palfrey's History of
lNew Eii,,land, Vol. I., p. 624.)  Better words could not mark the
beginiling of a Nation.  A.distinguished character of the time,
after recording the difficulties encountered by the articles, says
"But being all desirous of union and studious of peace, they readily
vielded to each other in such things as tended to common utility,
so as, in some two or three meetinigs, they lovingly accorded."
(WiithlIrop's Jotrnal, Vol. II., p. 99.)  Encouraged by this "loving
accord," another proposition was brought forward in Massachusetts
for all the English within the United Colonies to enter into a
civil amreeimeil for the maintenance of religion and our civil liberties." (Ibid, p. 160.)  More than a century elapsed before this
aspiration was fulfilled; but here was the germ of future union.
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, which
already existed in Canada and was extending along the lakes to
the MIississippi, they came together in Congress at Albany in 1754
to take measures for the common defence.  Delegates from seven
colonies were present, being froni all north of the Potomac.  Here
the genius of Benjamin Franklin prevailed.  A plan was presented
by this master mind, providing for what was called " a general goveriumenit," administered by a " President-General," where each
coloiny should have representatives in proportion to its conltributions, Massachusetts and Virginia having seven each, while New
York had only four; and the first meeting of the "general goverinmet " was to be at Phliladelphia.  Local jealousy and pretension were too strong at the time for such a Uniion, and it found
no greater favor in Englanid, for there Union was " dreaded as the
keystone of Independence."  In defending this plan, Franklin,
who had not then entered into the idea of Indepenldenclee, did not
hesitate to say, that he looked upon the colonies "1 as so many
counties gained to Great Britain," thus usilng an illustration,
which most forcibly suggested actual Unity.  But though  this
experiment failed, it revealed the longing for one cis-Atlantic
government, and showed how, under other auspices, it might be
accomplished.
Scarcely tenl years passed before this same yearning for a coinmlon life appeared again in the Colonial Congress at New York,
convened il 1765, on the recommendation of Massachusetts, to
arrest the tyranny of the Stamp Act, and assaults upon the coinmmonloi liberties. Nine Colonies were represented, and after deliberationii they 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
crv, worthy of perpetual memory, " Equality and the Power of
I 
14
the Whole without distinction of color." Such were the voices
that heralded our Nation.
An American Commonwealth.
The mother country persisted; and just ill the same proportion
the spirit of Union in the Colonies was aroused.  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;"
( TVells's Life of Samuel Adams, Vol. 11., pp. 90, 94;) not several
Commonwealtlhs; not thirteen, but One.  Here in one brilliant
flashl was revealed the image of National Unity, while the word
Commonwealth," denoted that common weal which all should
share.   The declared object of this burning patriot was  "to
answer the great purpose of preserving our liberties," meaning,
of course, the liberties of all.  Better words could not be choseni
to describe a republican government.  This was in 1773.  As
each Colony caught the echo it stirred with national life.  DOeleg,ates were appointed, and in 1774 a Congress called " Continental," coniltaining a representation from twelve Colonies, was
organized at Philadelphia.  The Congress 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 fortlh,
fit precursor of the Declaration of Independence, it grandly claims
that, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the British
constitution and  the several chlarters, all the inhabitants  are
entitled to life, liberty and property,"  and then anuounlces
that the foundation of English liberty and of all free governmnent is a right in thle people to participate in their legislative
council."  (Story's Commentaries  on thle Constitution, Vol. 1.,
~ 194, note.) 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-chlief of the army of the
United States and of all the forces raised or to be raised by themn
for the defence of American Liberty." Here were national acts,
which history cannot forget, and their object was niothling less
than American Liberty.  It was American Liberty which WTashington was commissioned to defend.  Under these inspirations
was our Nation born.  The time had now come. 
15
Declaration of Independence made a ANew Nation.
Independence was declared.  Here was an act which, from
beginning to end, in every particular and all its inspiratiois
was National, stampilng upon the whole people Unity iii 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, as a severance of the relations between
the " united colonies " and the mother country; and, secondly, as
a declaration of self-evident truths on which this severance was
justified, and the new Nationii was fotunded.  It is the " united
coloiies" that are declared to be 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 menii,
deriving their just powers from the  consent of the governed.
Ilere was that " American Commonwealth," the image of National
Unity, dedicated to Human  Rights which had enchanted  the
vision of the early patriot, as he sought new safeguards for Liberty.
Here was a new Nation, with new promises and covenants, such
as had never been made before.  The constituent authority from
which it proceeded was " the people." The rights which it promised
and covenanted were the equal rights of all; not the rights of
Einglishmen, but the rights of man.  It is on this account that
our D)eclaration has its great meaning in history; on this account
our Nation became at once a source of light to the world.  Well
might the sunI have stood still on that day to witness a kindred
luminary as it ascended into the sky.
Iii 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 rioght. Plainly they never were so
in fact. Therefore, there was no separate sovereignty either of
right or in fact.  Thie sovereignty anterior to Inldependence was
il 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 thie people which became its substitute. If authority were
needed for this irresistible conclusion, I might find it in the work
of the great commentator on the Constitution, Mr. Justice Story,
and in that powerful discourse of John Quincy Adams, entitled
Thle 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  Hamiltoii, who, 
16
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 the
same act."  (Federalist, Historical Notice, by J. C. Hamilton,
p. 59.)  Such was the great beginning of our national life.
Denationalizin, Experiment of Confederation.
A  beautiful meditative poet, whose words  are often  most
instructive, confesses that we may reach heights which we cannot
hold;
" And thle mnost difficult of tasks to keep
Heights which the soul is competent to gain."
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."  These were evidently drawn before the Declaration, and were in the handwriting of John Dickinson, then a delegate from Pennsylvania,
whom the eldest Adams calls "the bellwether of the aristocratic
flock," and who was the orator against the Declaration. It was
natural that an opponent of the Declaration should favor a system
which forgot the constituent sovereignty of the people, and made
haste to establish State Rights. 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 her 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 c; the style," being
a term which denotes sometimes title and sometimes copartnership, instead of unchangeable unity. Such an apostacy could not
succeed.
Even before this denationalizing framework was adopted 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, absorbing power
to itself 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 
secured. 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.
Efforts for NVationality.
There were two voices which in this darkness made tlhemselves
heard, both speaking for National Unity on the foundation of
tHuman Rights.  The singular accord between the two, not only in
sentiment, but also in language and in the date of utterance, attests
a concert of action.  One voice was that of Congress in al address
on the close of the war, bearing date 18thl April, 1783, where, after
calling for larger powers in order to maintain the public credit, 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 rig. htsfor w/hic/I sihe contended
wvecre the rigIhts of humiian nature."   (Hickey's  Constitution, p.
140.)  The other voice was that of Washington, in a general
order, also bearing date 18thl April, 1783, ailloliuicinlg the close of
the war, where, after declaring his "rapture," in the prospects
before the cou.ntry, 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
freedorm and emiipire; wvho have assisted in protecting1 the rights of
hiuitai  zautu} e."   (Sparks'  Wshini,ton,  Vol.  VlII., p. 568.)
This appeal was followed by a circular letter to' the governors,
dated at Headquarters, where, after saying that it was for the
United States to determine "whether they will be respectable and
prosperous or contemptible and miserab)le as a  Nation," Wasliiiigton proceeds to name  first among  the things essential to
National well-being,, if not even to Natioiinal existence, what he
calls " an indissoluble union of the States under one head; " and
he adds also that there must be a forgetfiluless of "local prejudices
and politics," and that "liberty" must be at the foundation of the
whole structure.  (]bid, p. 443.)  Soon afterwards appearing
before Congress to surrender the trust committed to him as commander-in-chief, he hlailed the United States as a "Nation," and
also as " our dearest country," thus embracing the whole in his
heart, as for seven years hlie had defended the whole by his
prudence and valor.  (Ibid, p. 504.)
An incident of a different character testified to 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
3
17 
18
of the Ohio, fertile and rich beyond  imagination, where  are
now prosperous States rejoicing in the Union.  All tllese cessions
were on the condition that the lands "should be disposed of for the
common benefit, and be settled and formed into distinct rejpublican St(ites."  Here was a National act withl  a promise of republican government, which was the forerunner of the guaranty of a
republican goverlinment in the Constitution of tlhe United States.
The best men, in their longing for National Unity, all colncurred in the necessity of immediate action to save the country.
Foremost in time, as in gelilus, was Alexander Halliltoli, who
was prompt to insist that Congress should have " complete sovereignty except as to that part of internal police which relates to the
righlt of property and life among iindividuals and to raising money
by internal taxes; " and still further, in words which harlmonized
with  the Declaration of Independence, that "the fabric of the
American empire should rest onl the solid basis of the consent of
the people." (istorical Notice prefixed to J. C. Hamiton's edition
of Federalist, pp. 22, 59.) In kindred spirit, Sclhuyler announced
" the necessity of a sitpreiite and coercive power in the government of these States."  (lbid, p. 24.)  Hamilton and Schuyler
were both of New York, which, with such representatives, naturally took the lead in solemn resolutions, which, after declaring'
that " tlhe situation of these States is in a peculiar imannier critical," and that " the present system exposes the common cause to
precarious issue," concluded with a call for a "general convention
specially authorized to revise and  amend  the Confederation."
Such was the movement which ended in the National Convention.
Other States followed, and Congress recommended it as " the best
means of obtaining a form of National Government."  Meanwhile,
Noah Webster, whom  you know so well as the author of the
popular dictionary, in an essay oIn the situation, published at the
time, proposed " a new system of government, which should act,
not on the States, but directly onI individuals, and vest in Congress
full power to carry its laws into effect." (Eliot's Debates, Vol.
V., p. 118.) Thus simply was the case stated; but this proposition
involved nothing less than a National governmeit with supreme
powers to which the States should be subordinate.
Jay, Madison and Washinb, ton anxious for Nationality.
Here I mention three illustrious characters, who  at this time
lenlt the weight. of their great niames to the national cause,-Jay,
Madison and Washingtoni,-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 Miinister in LondIon, 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 separate legislattires, I would have them considered with 
relation to tlhe confederacy in thle same ligbht in whicAl covnties
stand to the States of whichl they are parts, viz., merely as districts
to facilitate the purposes of domestic order and good government."
(L!fe of Jty, Vol. I., 249.)  Even in this strong view Jay was not
alone.  Firanklin had already led in likening the colonies to " so
many counties."  AIadison's desires were differently expressed.
After declaring against "the individual independence of the States"
on the one side, and "the consolidation of the States into one simple
republic" on thlle other side, hle sought what hle called " a middle
ground," whichl, if it varied from that of Jay, was essentially
national.  He would  have  " ca due supreimacy of the National
atithoriitg and leave in force the local authorities so far as they
cai be subordiliately useful."   (Eliot's Debates, Vol. V., p. 107.)
Here is the definition of a Nation.  Washlington stated the wliole
case withl his accustomed  authority in  a letter to  Jay, dated
1st August, 1786.  After insistilg upon tlhe importance of a
"coercive power," hle then pleads for national life, saying: " I
do not conceive we can exist loing as a IVatiot without hlaving
locdged somewhere a power whlichl will pervade tl-he whole Union
in as enei-rctic a imanner as the atttloriity of thle State governiiients
e.xtends over thle several States."  And hle then adds' To  be
fearifuil of ivesting Congress, constituted as that body is, withl
ample autthority foi Natiotal purpos.es, appears to me the very
climax.of popular absurdity and madness."   (Spa)ks' Wrishingtoii, Vol. IX., p. 187.)  Suchiel were the longing,s of patriots, all
filled with a passion for country.  But WaslingitoIn wenit still flirtlier, vlwhen on another occasion he denoinced State SovereigIlty
as " that boantling " and even  " that monster."   (Jiay's Life,
Vol. I. p. 258.)
Thle -National Conivention,.
The Convention, often called Federal, better called National,
assemtl)ed at Philadelphia in May, 1787.  It was a memorable
body, whose deliberations have miade ani 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 ini Massaclhusetts, ald Jay in New York; but
Wasling'ton, Franklin, Hamilton,  Madison, Gouveneur Morris,
George MAasonl, Wilsoni, Ellswortlh and Shlerman appeared aimong
its lmembers.  Washington by their unanimous voice became President; and according to the rules of the Convention, on adjoturnmieit, every imember stood in his place until the President had
passed. Hiere is a glimp se of tlat august body whilch art may yet
picture.  Who would not be glad to look upon Franklin, Hamilton
ald  MAadisoin, standing iin their places while Washington passed.
19 
'C)0
a National," not " Federal," in the Convention.
On the first day after the adoption of the rules, Edmund Randolphl  of Virginia opened the great business.  He began  by
announcing among other things that a "Federal government"
could not produce order or suppress rebellion; that a "Federal
government" could not defend itself against encroachments from
the States, and insisting that the remedy must be found ill " the
replublican principle," concluded with  a series of propositions
contemplating a " National government," with what he called a
National" legislature in two branches, a " National" executive,
and a " National" judiciary, the whole crowned by the guarantee
of a republican government in each State. This series of propositionIs 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
VNationat 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.  The resolution in this form was adopted after
ample debate.  At a later stage, in seeming deference to mistaken
senlsibilities, the word " Natioiial " was dropped, and the term " a
government of the United States " was inserted in its stead; but
the latter term equally denoted National Unity, although it did
not use the word. 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
for Unity found constant utterance. I have already mentioned
Mladison, and Hamilton, who wished a National government; but
there were others not less decided.   Gouveneuti Morris beganii
early by  explaining  the  difference  between "Federal"  and
" National."  Thile former implied " a mere compact, resting onl
the good faith of the parties;" the latter "had a complete and
compulsive operation." (Eliot's Debates, Vol. V, p. 133.) Constantly this impassioned statesman protested against State Rights,
insisting that the States were " niotl-hing more than colonial corporations;" (Ibid, p. 286;) and exclaiming oni one occasion, that
" we cannot annihilate them, but we may take out the teeth of
the serpents."  (]bid, p. 277.)  Wilson was a different character,
gentle by nature, but informed by studies in jurisprudence and
by the education which hie had brought from his Scottish home.
He was for a National government, and did not think it iincon 
21
sistent with " the lesser jurisdiction of States," which hle would
preserve; he would not " extinguish these planets, but keep them
in their proper orbits for subordinate purposes." (ibid, p. 169.)
He was too much of a jurist to admit "that when  the colonies
became illdependent of Great Britain, thley became independent of
each other," and he insisted that they became indepenident,' not
individually, but unitedly."  (Ibid, p. 231.)  Elbridge Gerry, of
Massachusetts, was as strong onl this point as Gouvenieur Morris,
ilisisting that " we never were independent States, were  not so
now, and never could be, even onl the principles of the Confederation."  (Ibid, p  259.)  Rufus King, also of Massachusetts,
touched a higher key when hle wished that "every maln in America should be secured in all his rights," and that these should
not be " sacrificed by the phantom of State Sovereignty."  (lbid,
p. 267.)  Good words, worthy of him, who already in the Continiental Congress had moved  tlhe prohibition of slavery in the
National territories.  And Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina,
said in other words of far-reaching National  significance that,
"every freeman has a right to tlte same protection and security,"
aid then again that, " Equality is the leading feature of the
United States."  (Ibid, pp. 233, 235.)   Under  such influences
the Constitution was adopted by the COnvention.
The Nactional Constitution.
It is needless to dwell on  its features, all so well-known
but there are certain points which must  not be disregarded
now.  There is especially the beginning.  Next after the opening
words of the Declaration of Independence, the opening words
of the Constitutionl 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 anl assurance of popular righlts and an epitome of National
duties:-" We, the people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect Ilnion, 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 thle United States of
America."  Thus, by the people of the United States was the
Conlstituttion ordained and established; not by the states, nor even
by the people of the several states, but by the people of the United
Stcates in their aggreg,ate individuality.  Nor is it a league, alliance, agreemeniit, compact, or confederation, but it is a constitutionI, whlichl  in itself denotes an indivisible  unity under one
supreme law, permanent in character; and this constitution, thuls
ordained and established, has for its declared purposes  nothing
less than liberty, justice, domestic  tranquillity, the  common 
22
defence, the general welfare, and a more perfect union, all of
which are essentially National, and to be maintained by the
National arm. The work thus begun was completed by three
further  provisions: first,  that lofty requirement,  that  "the
United States shall guaranty to every state in the Union a republican form  of government," thus  subjecting the states to the
presiding juidgment of the Nation, which is left to determine the
definition of a republican government; secondly, the practical
investiture of Congress with the authority "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested
by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or inl
any department thereof," thus assuring thle maintenance of the
National government, and the execuLtion of its powers througl  a
faithfil Congress chosen by the people; and thlirdly, the imperial
declaration, that "this Constitution, and the laws of the United
States in pursuance thereof, and all treaties under the authority of
the Usnited States, shall be the snp7reie lawv of the land, any thing in
the Constitutiion or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstandin,-," thus forever fixing the supremacy of the National government
on a pinnacle above all local constitutions and laws.  And thus
did our country again assume the character and obligations of a
Nation   Its first awakening was in the Declaration of Indepeiidlence; its second wNas in the National Constitution.
Cotsolidation of our Union.
Oil its adoption the Constitutioil was transmitted to Congress with
a letter from Washington, whlere, among other things, it is said that
" in all our deliberations we kept steadily in view that which appears
to us the greatest interest of every true American —tle Consolidation of our  Union-iu which is involved our prosperity, safety,
perlhaps our national existence."   (Hickey's Constitution, p. 188.)
It is enough that this letter is signed George Washington; but it
is not to be considered merely as the expression of his individual
sentiments.  It was unanimously adopted by the Convention, on
the report of the committee that made the finardraft of the Coistitution itself, so that it must be considered as belongiing to this
great trainsactiol.  By its light the Constitution must be read.
If any body is disposed to set up the ldenationalizing pretensions
of State Rights  under the Constitutioni, let him b)ear in mind this
explicit declaration, that throughout all the deliberations of the
Convention, the one object kept steadily in view was the Consolidatioat of oitr Unzion.  Such is the unaniimous testimony of the
Convention, authllenticated by George \Vasliington.
The Constitution was next discussed in the States.   It was
vindicated as creating a National governmelnt, and it was opposed
also oin this very ground.  Thus from opposite quarters comes
C oncuriiing testimony.  InI Connecticut, Mr.  Johnson, who 
23
had been chairman of thle committee that reported the final
draft, said in reply to the inquiries of his constituents, "that
the Convention had gone upon entirely new ground; that they
had formed One new  Nation out of individual States."  (WVebstei's WVorks, Vol. III, p. 479.)  George Mason of Va., proclaimed
at home that " the Confederation of States was entirely changed
into one consolidated government;" and he repeated  that it
was " a National government, and no longer a Confederation."
(Eliot's Debcates, Vol. III., p. 29.) Patrick Henry, in his vigorous
opposition to the adoption of the Constitution, testified to the
completeness with which the work of consolidation had been
accomplished.  Inquiring by what authority the Convention had
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 are not the agents of
the compact, it must be one great consolidated government of the
people of all the States." (lbid, p. 22.) Then again onl another
occasion the same fervid orator declared with infinite point: " The
question tutrns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, We,
the people, instead of the States."  (Ibid, p. 44.)  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 State Rights must shrink into
nothingness.  Originally " one people" durilng colonial days, we
have been unalterably fixed in this condition by two National acts:
first the Declaration of Independence, and then again the National
Constitutioni. Thus has that original Unity in which we were
born been doubly assured.
Other Tokens of Nationality.
There are other tokens of Nationality, which, 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.
National Flag.
(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 he be in a foreign land, the flag is companionshlip
and country itself, with all its endearments.  Who, as hlie sees it,
call 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
0 
24
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 onl a field of bllue 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, which was 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 Waslhington inl these words: " The day which gave being to the new
army, we hoisted the Union flag, in compliment to the United
Colonies."  (Schuyler Hamilton on American Flag, p. 55.)  The
National forces and the National Flag began together.  Shortly
afterwards, a fleet of five sail left Philadelplhia amidst the acclamations of the pe6ple, according to thie language of the timle, "under
the display of a Uuionfiag, with thirteen stripes."  (]-bid, p. 65.)
This was probably the same flag, not yet matured into its present
form. In its cornler, where are now the stars, were the crosses of
St. George and St. Andrew, red and white, originally representiing
England and Scotland, and when  conjoined, after the union of
those two countries, known as the Union. To these were added
the 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 here in subordination to the National
Unity, represented by the two crosses. But this form did not continlue long. Congress, by a resolution adopted 14th June, 1777, and
made public 3d September, 1777, determined "that the Flag of the
United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that
the Union be thirteen stars, white on a blue field, representing a
new  constellation."  Here  the crosses of St. George  and  St.
Andrew gave place to white stars on a blue field; the familiar
symbol of British Union gave place to another symbol of Union,
peculiar to ourselves; and this completed our 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 onl the
fourth of July next succeeding such admission."  Thus in every
respect, and at eachl 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 its value.  As far back as 1754, Franklin, while attempting to bring about a union of the colonies, pictured them in a 
25
wood cutt under the device of an elongated snake cut into thirteen
parts with the initials of a colony on each part, and uinder the
disjointed whole the admonitory motto, " Join or die,"-tl-thus
indicating the paramount necessity of union.  Afterwards in the
heats of the revolutionary discussion, this representation 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. This flag was yellow, and it became the early
standard of the revolutionary navy, being hoisted for the first time
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 to pieces."  Thus the snake at one time pictured the
necessity of union and at another time its indissoluble bond.  But
these symbols were all in harmony with the National Flag, which
from its first appearance, il all its forms, pictured the common
cause.
National Motto.
(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 withi
foreign powers.   The second is a national convenience, if not
necessity, which takes 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, a Latin phrase, which
signifies, From many One. Its history attests its significance.
On the 4th 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 the
identical committee that had already reported the Declaration of
Independence itself. Their report on the seal was made 10th
August, 1776; and here we first meet the National Motto, which
is in such entire harmony with the Declaration by which we were
made "one people."  Questions of detail intervened, and no colnclusion was reached until 13th 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 Unurnm.
Familiar as these 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
4
0 
26
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."
National Name.
(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 Uniited 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 denationaiizing pretensionl, and be a
talisman for the heart to cherish and for the tongue to utter-as
when Nelson gave his great watch-word at Tiafalgar," ~England
expects every man to do his duty." Occasionally it has beenii
proposed to call the country Columbia, and thus restore to the
great discoverer at least a part of the honor which was taken from
him when the continent was misnamed America.  Allegliania has
also been proposed, but this word is too obviously a mere invention,
besides its unwelcome  suggestion of alligator.  Another propositionI has been Vinland, being the name  originally given by the
Northmen, four centuries before Christopher Columbus.  Professor Lieber, on otne occasion, called the nation Freeland, a name
to which it will be soon 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, that they would have been the
most powerful in the world, if they had been united, but this was
impossible from the want of a common name.
Forgetting that the actual name implies Unity, and when we
consider its place iii the preamble of the Constitutioln, that it
implies Nationality also, the partisans of State  Rights argue
from it against even the idea of country; and here I have a
curious and authentic illustration. In reply to an inquirer, who
wished a single name, Mr. Calhloun 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 wellloved 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, and
Plato tells us that " a creator of names is the rarest of human
creatures."  RPeflecting on these things we may appreciate somethling of thle difficulty ill the way of a new name at thle formiation of the National Colstituttiol.  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 a
different character which was much employed.   Congress was
called " continental; the army " continental; " the money " contiinental," -a term certainly of unity as well as vastness.  But
there was still another National designation, accepted at home and
abroad.  OuLr country was called " America," and we were called
"Americans."  Hlere was  a natural, iiunsoughlt and instinctive
name - a growthl  and not even a creation -  implyin g National
unity and predominance, if not exclusive power, onl thle continent.
It was not used occasioially or casually, but constantly; not
merely in newspapers, but in official documents.   Not an address
of Congress;'not a military order; not a speech, wllich does not
contain this term, at once so expansive and so nifying.  At the
openling of thle lirst Continental Congress, Patrick Henry, in another
mood from that of a later day, announced the National Uliity under
this very name.  After declaring the boundaries of the several
colonies effaced, and the distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New  Einglanders as no lmore, lhe
exclaimed ill words of comprehensive patriotism, " I am  not  i
Virginian, but an Amiiertcan."  Congress took utip tl-he strain and
commissioned Washington as commnander-in-chief of the armies
for the defence of American libertv; " and Washington himself,
in his first general order at Cambridge, on assuminiig his great
command, announced that the armies were "-for the defence of the
liberties of America;" and in a letter to Congress just before the
battle of Trenton hle declared that hle had labored'; to discourage all
kinds of local attachments and distinctions of country, denom,inatiion, the zwhole by the greater name of Anerirca." Then at the close
of the war, in its inmmortal address, fit supplement to thie Declaration of Ildependence, Congress said:  Let it be remembered that
it has ever beenl the pride and boast of America that the rights for
which she contended were the rights of IlHuman Nature."  And
Washington again, in his letter to Congress communicating the
National  Constitution, says iii other words, which, likle those of
Cog,ress, cannot be too often quoted, that " th consolidation of the
Uttiot is the greatest interest of everyi true Amierican." Afterwards
in his Farewell Address, which from beginningi to end is one persuasive appeal forNationality, after enijoiningiupon hisfellow-citizens
that "  ittitty qf overnment which constitutes tlhemn one people,"
1}e gives to tlhem a National Name, and this was his legacy  " Tle
Jilame A'm}lerican, which belonSggs to you in yoir I5Sttional capacitiy,
27 
28
must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any
appellation derived from local discriminations."  Thus did Washington put aside all those baneful pretensions under which the
country has sufered so much, 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
as 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 God that hlie has given names to the stars, " calling
them by the greatness of his might? "  (TIsaial, chlap. xl., 26.)
Is it not said also that God will make him who overcometli a pillar
in the temple and give to him "a  new name?"   (Revelation,
chap iii., 12.)  So as our stars multiply, and the Nation overcometh its adversaries, persuading all to its dbelared 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.
Geog-raphical Unitl1.
(4.) To these " unities" derived from history and tlie 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 A-lmighlty
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  commingled  into  one."
Tilere 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; but these
are ours.  Here are navigable rivers, numerous and famous,
being so many highlways 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 liglitling as its messenger, so
that the interrogatory of Job is answered, " Caust thoi send
lightnings that they may go? "  The country is one open expanse
from the frozen Arctic to the warm waters of the Gu-lf, and from
the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, and there science already
supplies the means of overcoming this barrier, which  iii 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 
29
an iron band.  But these depend upon opportunities which nature
supplies, so that nature herself is one of the guardians of our
Nationality.
He has studied history poorly, and human nature no better,
who imagines that this broad compacted country can be parcelled
iniito 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 upoil 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 Miississippi.  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 liomogeneous people.  Apparent differences harmonize.  Even climate,
which passes through all gradations from the North to the South,
is so tempered, as to present an easy uniformity from the Atlantic
to the Rocky M,ountains.  Unmeasured supplies of all kinds, mineral and agricultural, are at hand; the richlest 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.  But
the structure of our country is more auspicious.  Our plains are
vaster and our rivers are 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.
Stzimary.
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 governmenlts, they were all under one sovereib,nty, 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 aspirations for " An American Commonwealth;" how they
were at last organized in a Congiress called from its comprehensive
character " Continiiental; " how, in the exercise of powers derived 
30
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, and embraced all the states as the other sovereignty had embraced all the colonies; how, according to Franklin,
the States were locked together, s" so as never to be separated, but
by breaking to pieces;" how in an evil hour the Confederation
was formed in deference to the denationalizing pretensions of the
States; how the longings for national life continued, and found
utterance in Congress, in Washiigton and in patriot compeers;
how Jay wished that the States should be like " counties; " how
Washington denounced State Sovereignty as " that bantling" and
" that monster;" how at last a National Convention assembled,
with Washingtoni as President, where it was voted  that  " a
National Goverlmenrt must 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
governmenlt, and with its assertion of supremacy over State Constitutions and laws; how the 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.tl-he geographical position and configuration of the country has supplied the means of National Unity,
and written her everlasting guaranty.  And thus do I now bind
thre whole together into one conclusion, sayilng to all, we are a
Nation.
Nor is this all.  Side by side with the growth of National
Unity was a constant dedication to Iluman Riglts, 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 Chlarta, the earlier cries of Otis, the assertion, by the
first Continental Congress, of the right of the people " to participate in the legislative council," the commission of Washington as
Commanlder-in-chlief " in defence of American Liberty," and the
first general order of Washlington ol 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 "1 the rights of Humanl Nature," and the farewell general order of Washingtoni, bearing the same date, where
the contest is characterized in the same way, so that Human 
31
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.
Powers essential to the Nation.
As a Nation, with a place in the family of Nations, we have the
powers of a nation, with corresponding responsibilities. Whether
we reg,ard these powers as naturally inhering in the Nation, or as
conferred upon it by those two title-deeds, the D)eclaration of Indepepdeiice and the Nationial Constitutioii, the conclusionii 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 righlts,
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 Natioil, especially at its birth, being
baptismal vows which cannot be disowned.  These three powers
are essentially NVational.  They belong to our Nation by tihe very
law of its being and the terms of its creation.   They cannot be
niieglected 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.  Any failure
here is apostacy and bankruptcy combined.
It is vaili to say that these requirements are not expressly set
down  in the National  Constitutionl.   By  a law which existed
before this title-deed of our Nation, they belong to the essential
conditions of national life. But if not positively nominated in
the Constitution, they are there in substance; and this is enough.
Every word, from " We  the people," to the sig,nature,." George
Washingtonl," is instinct with niational life, and there is not a single
expression taking from the National Government any of its inherent
powers.  From this " nothing" in the Constitution there can come
nothing adverse to these powers. But there has always been in
the Constitution 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 Nationii may
exercise all these powers, and provide especially for the protection
of the citizenii in all the righits of citizenship? There are also
recent amendments of the Constitution 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 
32
sacred instrument we were declared to be " one people," with
Liberty and Equality for all, and then, fixing forever tihe 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 a part of the Nation, and is that part most worthy of immortality.  By it the Constitution must be interpreted, or rather the
two together are our Constitution-as Alagna 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.
Adverse Pretension of State Rights.
Against this conclusion there has been from the beginning one
perpetual pretension in the name of State Rights.  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,  which  were  never
"sovereign" while  colonies, and which  became 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 co-exist in the same place, as according
to the early dramatist,
" Two kings in England cannot reign at once,"
the  States insisted  upon  sovereignl  powers  justly belonging
to the Nation.  Long  ago the Duel began.  The partisans of
State Rights, 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 which has constantly shown itself, has broken
out on three principal occasions.  The first was in the effort of
nullification, which occurred in 1833, where, under the lead of
iAr. Calhloun, 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 thunder-bolt 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, hav 
33
ing expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly
with  other  States a single NlCation, cannot  after that  period
possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break
a league, but destroys the Unity of a Nation."  The pretension
next showed itself in the Rebellion.  And now that the Rebellion
hlas been crushed, it re-appears in still another form, by insisting
that eachl 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
truthls of the D)eclaration of Independence.  Here again do State
Rights, in their anarchical egotism, interfere withl-l the Nanonal
U~nity.
AThe ANTatioal,-p'.'enacy consisltenit tilhl  Local SeJf Governie     i nt.
Local self-government, whether in the town, county or state, is
of incalculable advantage, supplying the opportunities of political
education, anId 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 " towIn-meetings"
the nurseries of the Republic, and have delighted in local exemlptioni from central supervisorshlip.  DI)eTocqueville, who journeyed
here, has recorded his authoritative praise, and Laboulaye, who
has visitedl us only in his remarkable  studies, unites withl  De
Tooucville. Lgainst that exacting centralization, absorbiing everythiilg to itself. of which  Paris  is the  example, I oppose  the
Americanr systerm of self goverlnmelnt, whici leaves   the people to
themselves, subject oenly to the paramount conditions of national
life.  But these conditions cannot T)e sacrificed.  No local claim
of self-goovernment can for a moment  interfere with the stuplremiayv of the,Nation, ii the maintenance of Human Rights.
Alecordinlg to thle wisdom  of Plutarch, we  must  sliui  those
,,estileut persons who w-ould "carry trifles to thle hi,hest mac,istrate," and, i  the same  spirit   we must reject I:hlat l:ecstilent
stipervisorshli wlicili asserts   reulatig power over local a-'iairs
and thus becomes a giant iiitermeddler.  Let these be decided at
!home Iin tle states, cGu:lties and towns to whichl  they belong.
Such is thle geiuts of our institutions.  This is the precious principle of self-governmcnent which is at once educator  and ageIcv.
In the forimer c haracter, it is an omnipresent  schoolmaster; iII
the latter, it is a suit of "1 cihaii-armor," whichi, friom its flexibility,
is adapted to the body of the Nation, so that all the limbs are free.
Each locality has its own way in all matt ers peculiar  to itself.
But the righlts of all must be placed under the protection of all
nor can there be ally difference in different parts of the counltry.
Here the rule must be uniforim, and it must be sustained by the
central power  radiating to every part of the various empire.
This is accord(ing to the divine Cosmos, whii(h in all its spaces
r, 
31
is pervaded by one universal law; it is the rule of Almighlty
beneficence, which, while leaving human being(rs to the activities
of daily life and the consciousness of free will, subjects all to
the same  commanding  principles.  Such  centralization is thle
highest civilization, for it approaches thle nearest to the Hleavenly
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  Caesar the things that
are Cesar's.  Already by central power Slavery has been abolished.
Already by central power all have been assured in the Equality
of civil righlts.
-____    _  " Twvo  truthls are told
As hlappy prologues to the swelling act
Of the imperial thieme."
It remains now that by central power all should be assured ill
the Equality of political rights.  This does not involve nlecessarily what is sometimes called the " regulation " of the suffrage by
the National Government, althoulgh this would be best.  It simply
requires the abolition of any discrimination amonlg citizens, iiicousistent with Equal Rights.  If not by act of Congress, let it lbe by
a new amendment of the Constitution; but it must be at once.
Until this is done, we leave undone what otught to be done, and, in
our pitiable failure to perform a National duty, jutstify the saying,
that " there is no health in us."  The preposterous pretension, that
color, whether of the hlair or of tle skin, or that  anly'other
unchangeable circumstance of natural condition may be made the
qualification " of a voter, cannot be tolerated.  It is shlocking
to the moral sense and degrading to the understanding.
As in the Nation there can be but one Sovereignty, so there cani
be but one citizenship.  The unity of Sovereignty finds its couniterpart and complement in the unIity 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
,govere{-,ont, One Citizenshiip, One People.
Conclusion.
I conclude as I began.  The late Rebellion against the N'ation
was in the name of State Rights; therefore State Rights in tlheir
denationalizing pretensions must be overthrown.  It proceeded
from hostility to the sacred principles of the Declaratio:i of Independence; therefore, these sacred principles must be vindicated
in spirit and in letter, so that hereafter they shall be a supreme
law, co-equal with the Constitution, in whose illumination the
Constitutioni must  be read,  and  they  shall supply the final
definition of a Republic for our guidance at home and for an
example to ma,nkind. 
35
In this great change we  follow nature and obey her mandate. By an irresistible law, water everywhere seeks its level
and finds it; and so, by a law as irresistible, manl seeks the level
of every other man in rights, and will find it.  Humall 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 timue in harmony  with the Declaration of Independence.
Here I borrow a word firom Locke, who, in his Essay on the Human
Understanding says thlat, in dealing with propositions, we must
always find onl what they " bottom."  Now, in dealing with the
Rebellion, we find that though in the name of State Rights, it
' bottomed" on opposition to the law of nlature and all open denial
of the self-evident truths declared by our Fathers, especially of
that central truth of all, which Abraham Lincoln, at Gettysburg,
in the  most touching speech  of all history thus announces:
" Fourscore  and seven years ago our fathers brought forth onl
this continent a New Nation, conceived in Libertv, and dedicated
to the propositionii that all mei are created equal."  Slavery was
"bottomed" on the direct opposite; and so was the Rebellion,
firom beginning to end.  Therefore you must encountcr this denial.
You  do not extinguishl Slavery;  you do not trample out the
Rebellion, until the vital truth declared by our Fathers is establishled and nature in her law is obeyed.  To  complete the good
work this must be done.   Liberty  has been 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 now 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 tihe sermon on Mlars Hill?  WVhat battle ever did so much as
the Declaration of Independence?  But sermon and Declaration
re one, and it is your glorious part to assure the National Unity
n this adamantine base.
All hail to the Republic, redeemed and regenerated, one and
idivisible.   Nullification  and  secession are already like  the
extincet monsters of a former geological period-to be seen only
in the museum  of history.  With their extinction must disappear that captious, litigious and disturbing spirit engendered by
State Rigolts. 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 nationial life with a corresponding glow.  Thie soul will dilate with the assured Unity of
the Republic, and all will feel the glory of its citizenship. Since 
36
that of Rome nothing has been 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, so long the guide of the mariner and the
reftiuge 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 to perform their appropriate functions. Interlaced, interlocked and harmonized, they will be congenial parts of
the mighty whole, while Liberty and Equality will be the recognized birthright of all, and no local pretension can 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 the
maintenance of Human Righlts, and the two together will be 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 jutrisdictionl required
for the protection of all.  The  reconciliation-God bless  the
word!-tlthus 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 nlew strength to
resist the shock of tempest or time, while it overarchles the continient with its genlerous shade.  S.ucll  at least is the aspiration in
which all may unite.
'Firii like the oak, iiay our blest Nation rise,
No less distingluished for its strength than size;
The unequal branches emnulous unite
To shield and grace the trunk's mnajestic height;
Through long succeeding years and centuries live,
.5o vigor losing fro?  tim aid tf;, give."  -