s of sovereignty. The right
to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise judicial and
legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States,
then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The
allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to
the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and
owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws
made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last
position has not been, and can not be, denied. How, then, can that State
be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to
laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those
laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What
shows conclusively that the States can not be said to have reserved an
undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish
treason--not treason against a separate power, but treason against the
United States. Treason is an offense against _sovereignty_, and
sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved
rights of the States are not less sacred because they have for their
common interest made the general government the depository of these
powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for
another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal
government we had no separate character; our opposition to its
oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the
Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more
perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we
consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation.
Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised
for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all
changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined
powers, created national governments--how is it that the most perfect of
these several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league
that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact
is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not
employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It
would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is
labored to prove it a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and