necessity, it appears to me, with the same People who delegated whatever powers the General Government has ever been intrusted with; that is, the People of the several States; not the whole People of the United States as one mass, as can be most conclusively demonstrated.

In addition to this, I remark that this clause of th Constitution contains no grant or delegation of power in itself. It only declares what would have been the effect of the previously delegated powers without it. All Treaties or Covenants between Sovereigns are the supreme law over their subjects, or citizens, so long as they last. Indeed, so far from containing any new or substantive power, upon its very face this clause shows that it was intended as a limitation of powers. So far from showing that absolute Sovereignty was thereby vested in the General Government, such Sovereignty as is entitled to the allegiance of anybody, it shows conclusively that even obedience is due to such laws, treaties, etc., only, as may be made in pursuance of the Constitution. This, by itself, shows the Government to be one of limited powers -and so far from allegiance being due to it in any sense, that even obedience is due only to a limited extent.

This was the opinion of Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the extremest of the Nationals of his day, and who never failed to claim all acknowledged, as well as some doubtful, or questionable powers, which tended to strengthen the Federal Government. While the Constitution was before the several States, for their consideration before its adoption, he unequivocally declared, on several occasions, that this clause conveyed no grant of power, and was entitled to no such construction as that which would claim under it the allegiance of the citizens of the several States. subject at that time.

Let us see what he wrote on the
In a note to the 27th number of

the Federalist, wherein he had alluded to this clause, he says "the sophistry," as he called it, which had been employed to give it the construction you would put upon it, would," in its proper place, be fully detected." And then, in the 31st number of the Federalist (Dawson's Edition), page 206, he thus detects and exposes this sophistry: "But," says he, "it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference is to be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not supreme? It is evident that they would amount to nothing. A law, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those, to whom it is prescribed, are bound to observe. If individuals enter a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its Con stitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed."

And further in the same paper-" But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger societies, which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered. only declares a truth which flows immediately and neces sarily from the institution of a Federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to the laws made pursuant to the Constitution, which I mentioned merely as an

instance of caution in the Convention, since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."

This shows conclusively that Mr. Hamilton, one of the extremest of the Nationals in his day-he who did wish a National government instituted instead of a Federal one, but who gave a cordial support to the Federal plan when the National one was abandoned, as we shall hereafter see-did not claim any delegation or grant of power from this clause of the Constitution, but expressly states that it was intended as a limitation, as its words fairly import, of other powers which had been delegated, and that this limitation had been inserted out of abundant caution on the part of the Convention. He maintained the same position in the State Convention of New York. This is quite enough I think to show in this place, by way of premise, that the allegiance of the citizens of the several States was never intended to be transferred to the United States, or to the Government of the United States, by this clause of the Constitution. And from what has been said, without going into a history of this clause, or explaining how it came to be introduced, which would strengthen the views given, it very clearly appears, as well as from the language of the clause itself, that the Government of the United States is not, by virtue of it, supreme or Sovereign in the sense in which you use that term; and so far from being entitled thereby to claim the ultimate or any sort of allegiance of the citizens of the several States, it is not entitled even to claim their obedience to its laws except within the strict limit of its specifically-delegated powers. Thus far, it appears clearly, that a thorough inquiry into and a full investigation of the nature of the Government of the United States, as well as the charac

ter and extent of its delegated powers, are essential to a correct understanding of the subject presented in the question propounded. Without this, there can be no correct knowledge or sound judgment as to the nature and character of the war, whether an Insurrection, a Rebellion, a Civil war, or a war of Aggression for unjust power and Dominion on one side-while one purely in defence of ancient and well-established Sovereign Rights on the other. Without this there can be no correct judgment as to whether I acted properly or improperly in the course I took, or as to the conduct or rectitude of any of the various actors therein, on one side or the other. To this inquiry we will therefore now proceed.

You

PROFESSOR NORTON. Without wishing to interrupt you, allow me a word at this point. What you have read from Mr. Hamilton's article in the Federalist was new to me. I was not aware that he took any such view of that subject. I was always of opinion that Mr. Hamilton claimed absolute Sovereignty for the United States, and I supposed it was with him, as with most others who do, mainly under this clause of the Constitution. In this it seems that I was wrong. stated that the history of this clause of the Constitution, or the facts connected with its introduction, would strengthen the view you take of it, and in which it appears you are sustained by Mr. Hamilton. I should like, before you proceed further, to know the facts and circumstances attending its introduction, to which you refer, if it will not too much interfere with the line of your remarks.

MR. STEPHENS. Not at all. But allow me first to set you right with regard to Mr. Hamilton's position as to the absolute Sovereignty of the United States over the several States. You are quite mistaken in supposing

that he ever held that doctrine. He advocated the Constitution as Federal in its character, as we shall see. In this 27th number of the Federalist he speaks of "the laws of the Confederacy." He styles the Government a "Confederacy."

But, without digressing further on that point now, I will proceed to reply to your question. The history of this clause of the Constitution is this. It is well known, or, at least, it may be here stated, as it will be established without question, that, in the Convention that formed the Constitution, there was a party who were strongly in favor of doing away with the Federal system that existed before that time, and substituting, in its stead, a General National Government over the whole people of all the States, as one body politic. This party wished to do away entirely with the Sovereignty of the several States. Their object was to give the Central National Government Paramount authority over the Sovereignty of the States. With this view, a proposition was brought forward, to give the National Government power "to negative all laws, passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the National Legislature, the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union." This proposition, if it had been adopted, would have greatly favored the object of the Nationals, but it was rejected by a decided vote. Here is the journal of the Convention.* Only three States voted for it, while seven voted against it. It was then immediately afterwards that Luther Martin, of Maryland, the strongest States-Rights man, perhaps, in the Convention-one who would, under no circumstances, consent to any infringement upon the ultimate Sovereignty of the States, or

* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 207.