on a firm basis,
entirely over and above that of the States, that back in these
articles of confederation we find the term "privileges and
immunities," that vexed phrase in the present discussion. In the
fourth article, the inhabitants of each State were declared to be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens of the
several States, etc. These articles, unlike the declaration, were
made dependent upon ratification by the Legislatures of the
several States, which was not fully accomplished till 1781.

For awhile all went merry as a marriage bell. Power had been
further centralized, and the Nation felt secure. But there had
been left a little loophole, which was destined to create State
claims in defiance of the general government. Congress soon found
that under the articles of confederation the limitation of States
was more theoretical than practical. It found that though, in a
general way, the United States possessed national powers, as over
boundaries, peace and war, the issue of money, the establishment
of post-offices, etc., yet in the very necessary matter of
revenue, and the regulation of trade and commerce, it was
powerless against the States. The old form of the confederation
was found insufficient to secure the full independence of the
United States as a Nation, and in the very year that the articles
were fully adopted, and before the last State had given its
adherence (1781), a member of Congress from New Jersey moved a
recommendation to the States to invest Congress with additional
means of paying the public debt and prosecuting the war of the
Revolution, by laying duties on imports and prize goods.

This proposition at once roused opposition, and it is well to
remember that it did not first come from a Southern State. "State
rights" is not a peculiar Southern doctrine. South Carolina was
not the original nullifying State. It was Rhode Island, which
then, as to-day, set at defiance national authority, and asserted
her right to control her own internal affairs. The New England
States, which claim to lead the Union in all that is grand and
good, must be made to bear the shame of the evils into which
they have also led. Even John C. Calhoun learned his first State
rights lessons in Connecticut and Massachusetts of the