ernment had been violated; no hierarchy which had been degraded
and oppressed. There was but one order, that of the people, by whom
everything was gained by the change. I mention it also as a circumstance
of peculiar felicity that the great body of the people had been born
and educated under these equal and original institutions. Their habits,
their principles, and their prejudices were therefore all on the side
of the Revolution and of free republican government.

Had distinct orders existed, our fortune might and probably would have
been different. It would scarcely have been possible to have united so
completely the whole force of the country against a common enemy. A
contest would probably have arisen in the outset between the orders for
the control. Had the aristocracy prevailed, the people would have been
heartless. Had the people prevailed, the nobility would probably have
left the country, or, remaining behind, internal divisions would have
taken place in every State and a civil war broken out more destructive
even than the foreign, which might have defeated the whole movement.
Ancient and modern history is replete with examples proceeding from
conflicts between distinct orders, of revolutions attempted which proved
abortive, of republics which have terminated in despotism. It is owing
to the simplicity of the elements of which our system is composed that
the attraction of all the parts has been to a common center, that every
change has tended to cement the union, and, in short, that we have been
blessed with such glorious and happy success.

And that the power wrested from the British Crown passed to the people
of each colony the whole history of our political movement from the
emigration of our ancestors to the present day clearly demonstrates.
What produced the Revolution? The violation of our rights. What rights?
Our chartered rights. To whom were the charters granted, to the people
of each colony or to the people of all the colonies as a single
community? We know that no such community as the aggregate existed,
and of course that no such rights could be violated. It may be added
that the nature of the powers which were given to the delegates by
each colony and the manner in which they were executed show that the
sovereignty was in the people of each and not in the aggregate. They
respectively presented credentials such as are usual between ministers
of separate powers, which were examined and approved befor