a common allegiance, and the inhabitants of each were British subjects, they had no direct political connexion with each other. Each was independent of all the others; each, in a limited sense was sovereign within its own territory. There was neither alliance nor confederacy between them. The assembly of one province could not make laws for another, nor confer privileges which were to be enjoyed or exercised in another, farther than they could be in any independent foreign state. As colonies they were also excluded from all connexion with foreign states. They were known only as dependencies, and they followed the fate of the parent country, both in peace and war, without having assigned to them, in the intercourse or diplomacy of nations, any distinct or independent existence. They did not possess the power of forming any league or treaty among themselves, which would acquire an obligatory force, without the assent of the parent state. And though their mutual wants and necessities often induced them to associate for common purposes of defence, these confederacies were of a casual and temporary nature, and were allowed as an indulgence, rather than as a right. They made several efforts to procure the establishment of some general superintending government over them all; but their own differences of opinion, as well as the jealousy of the crown, made these efforts abortive.',

6

"The English language affords no terms stronger than those which are here used to convey the idea of separateness, distinctness and independence, among the colonies. No commentary could make the description plainer, or more full and complete. The unity, contended for by the author, no where appears, but it is distinctly disaffirmed in every sentence. The colonies were not only distinct in their creation, and in the powers and faculties of their governments, but there was not even an alliance or confederacy between them.' They had no general superintending government over them all,' and tried in vain to establish one. Each was independent of all the others,' having its own legislature, and without power to confer either right or privilege beyond its own territory. Each, in a limited sense, was sovereign within its own territory;' and to sum up all, in a single sentence, 'they had no direct political connexion with each other!' The condition

of the colonies was, indeed, anomalous, if our author's view of it be correct. They presented the singular spectacle of one people,' or political corporation, the members of which had no direct political connexion with each other,' and who had not the power to form such connexion, even by league or treaty among themselves.'

"This brief review will, it is believed, be sufficient to convince the reader, that our author has greatly mistaken the real condition and relation of the colonies, in supposing that they formed one people,' in any sense, or for any purpose whatever. He is entitled to credit, however, for the candour with which he has stated the historical facts. Apart from all other sources of information, his book affords to every reader abundant materials for the formation of his own opinion, and for enabling him to decide satisfactorily whether the author's inferences from the facts, which he himself has stated, be warranted by them, or not."

LECTURE II.

So much, young gentlemen, for the oneness of the colonies as such. We will now proceed to another singular position of the learned commentator on the constitution, in furtherance of his favourite theory of the oneness of the American people. After having attempted to sustain his views of the anti-revolutionary state of the colonies, he proceeds to consider their condition during the throes of the revolution, and contends that neither anterior to the declaration of independence, nor subsequent to that event, were the former colonies "sovereign and independent states in the sense in which the term sovereign is applied to states." As the positions of judge Story are very frequently ingeniously insinuated, rather than distinctly announced, and as I am unwilling to misstate his opinions, or do injustice to his arguments, I shall insert the whole of passage in a note.(a)

this

(a) § 200. No redress of grievances having followed upon the many appeals made to the king, and to parliament, by and in behalf of the colonies, either conjointly or separately, it became obvious to them, that a closer union and co-operation were necessary to vindicate their rights and protect their liberties. If a resort to arms should be indispensable, it was impossible to hope for success, but in united efforts. If peaceable redress was to be sought, it was as clear, that the voice of the colonies must be heard, and their power felt in a national organization. In 1774 Massachusetts recommended the assembling of a continental congress to deliberate upon the state of public affairs; and according to her recommendation, delegates were appointed by the colonies for a congress, to be held in Philadelphia in the autumn of the same year. In some of the legislatures of the colonies, which were then in session, delegates were appointed by the popular, or representative branch; and in other cases they were appointed by conventions of the people in the colonies.* The congress of delegates (calling themselves in their more formal acts "the delegates appointed by the good people of these colonies," assembled on the 4th of September 1774 ;† and having chosen officers, they adopted certain fundamental rules for their proceedings.

* 1 Journ. of Cong. 2, 3, &c. 27, 45; 9 Dane's Abridg. App. § 5, p. 16, § 10, p. 21. † All the states were represented, except Georgia.

In the commencement of this sketch of the state of the colonies during the revolution, we are told (§ 200) that a congress was recommended by Massachusetts in 1774;

§ 201. Thus was organized under the auspices, and with the consent of the people, acting directly in their primary, sovereign capacity, and without the intervention of the functionaries, to whom the ordinary powers of government were delegated in the colonies, the first general or national government, which has been very aptly called "the revolutionary government," since in its origin and progress it was wholly conducted upon revolutionary principles. The congress, thus assembled, exercised de facto and de jure a sovereign authority; not as the delegated agents of the governments de facto of the colonies, but in virtue of original powers derived from the people. The revolutionary government, thus formed, terminated only, when it was regularly superceded by the confederated government under the articles finally ratified, as we shall hereafter see, in 1781.t

§ 202. The first and most important of their acts was a declaration, that in determining questions in this congress, each colony or province should have one vote; and this became the established course during the revolution. They proposed a general congress to be held at the same place in May, in the next year. They appointed committees to take into consideration their rights and grievances. They passed resolutions, that "after the 1st of December 1774, there shall be no importation into British America from Great Britain or Ireland of any goods, &c, or from any other place, of any such goods, as shall have been exported from Great Britain or Ireland;" that "after the 10th of September 1775, the exportation of all merchandize, &c. to Great Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America are redressed before that time." They adopted a declaraof rights, not differing in substance from that of the congress of 1765, and affirming, that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England and the benefit of such English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have by experience respectively found to be applicable to their local and other circumstances. They also, in behalf of themselves and their constituents, adopted and signed certain articles of association, containing an agreement of non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption, in order to carry into effect the preceding resolves; and also an agreement to discontinue the slave-trade. They also adopted addresses to the people of England, to the neighbouring British colonies, and to the king, explaining their grievances, and requesting aid and redress.

§ 203. In May 1775, a second congress of delegates met from all the states. These delegates were chosen, as the preceding had

* 9 Dane's Abridg. App. P. 1, §5, p. 16, § 13, p. 23.

Sergeant on Const. Introd. 7, 8, (2d ed.)

1 Jour. of Cong. 21.

See ante, note, p. 179.

Georgia did not send delegates until the 15th of July, 1775, who did not take their seats until the 13th of September.