tion over the individual members and subjects of the states. No one ever hinted that these governments would or could have any original or inherent power, or sovereignty, i. e. "absolute supremacy" over states and people. And yet, as has been shown, the so-called statesmen and expounders of the day venture to assert that the government is “absolutely supreme," and holds the states in "allegiance.”

The Doctrine of the Perverters. For immediate and direct contrast, let us here note the leading dogmas of the Massachusetts school of so-called expounders. Claiming to cite the fathers in proof, they teach that oneness of will and action, and not a concurrence of wills, caused the constitution; that thereby the American people, though once states, have become a national unity — an undivided nation, the apparent subdivisions of which are provinces or counties — mere fractions and not constituents of the nation; that the constitution being "supreme law of the land," ," "the government " has "absolute supremacy," and a right to exact and enforce "the allegiance of the states" to it; and finally, that the commonwealths of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, et als. have no status or rights except such as are reserved and assigned to them in the constitution; or, in other words, that they are reduced to counties or provinces. These ideas are expressed in Lincoln's first inaugural; in the address of the Philadelphia Convention of 1866; in Professor Jameson's work, called "The Constitutional Convention," in the New York Times and New York World, and substantially in Webster's speech of 1833. It will be duly seen that all history, all the words of the fathers, all the records of the states, and all the archives of the country show that these statements are absolutely untrue! Such teaching assumes that we have no political beings called states; no "federal constitution;" no "united states;" no "union of states ;" and no "citizens of states," as the constitution itself teaches; but that the states are consolidated into one state, and "the government," having "absolute supremacy," is to control and protect not merely the people, but the states they compose, as subjects. In other words, we have an empire of which "the government" is a corporate sovereign. The action of "the government" has been precisely in accordance with these ideas. It has vindicated its "absolute supremacy" vi et armis, and coerced the states to yield their wills, and consider themselves in the future as aggregations of subjects, whose only rights are "reserved" in "the great charter"- the constitution; and who are privileged, as groups of voters," to express their wishes for the consideration of "the government." In truth, if the people "accept the situation" the states are no more! Have we not chains already imposed upon us, so that the coming tyrant has but to rivet them, in order to complete the subversion of our polity?

The Self-Consolidation of "the Government.". - While this fraudulent and treasonable destruction of states, and consolidation of their people into an undivided nation is going on, another radical and corresponding change is being wrought in the character and theory of "the government." Originally, a "senator" was a citizen and subject of a state, elected by her to execute her will; the "representatives" were such subjects, elected for such purpose by the people of the state; the senators and representatives were the delegation of a state to the congress of states; and they, with the executive and judicial officers (these also being elected or appointed by or for the states), constituted the general government. Thus we see that our states were a federation, and our general government purely a federal one. These separately elected, separately sworn, and separately responsible functionaries were sent by each state to act as individuals, with her authority for the good of all, i. e. to "provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare," and to be checks on all the other functionaries - the whole system being one of checks and balances, to prevent consolidation and tyranny. But these separately elected and vicarious creatures have effected the worst form of consolidation, for they now claim corporate capacity, independent existence, original right and authority, discretion outside of the constitution, regal prerogatives, and, in short, all the essentials of sovereignty. This self-formed corporate body has not merely an esprit de corps, but a oneness of will and purpose characteristic alike of a corporation, an oligarchy, or an autocrat; and the federal legislature, executive and judiciary, which were established as three absolutely independent institutions, to watch, and, if necessary, check one another, are now so unified as to act with one mind and will on a party platform: thus practically changing them into a vast and chronic conspiracy against the people's liberty, as any gang of men, acting with one mind in the hiding-places of the constitution and government, and constantly influenced by power and money, will gradually become. Is our polity to be revolutionized? Are we not in danger of revolution?

Cæsarism. - Under the forms of a republican federation, then, we have a consolidated empire, and a corporate despot, just as the Romans had " an absolute monarchy disguised in the form of a commonwealth." [Gibbon.] The parallelism will hereafter more fully appear.

The military-trained and military-souled war-secretary of the aforesaid corporate despot, Gen. Schofield, said in 1868: "In the Old World, it is said that the army is the safety of the empire; with equal truth we may say that the army is the safety of the republic." And Gen. W. T. Sherman said, in June, 1878, to the cadets of West Point: "Hayes

has the requisite nerve and determination. He knows his right, and dares to maintain it; and, what is more, the army, sworn to defend the constituted authorities, would see to it that he was sustained in the effort. The graduates of West Point are bound by their oaths to protect the government in fact, of which President Hayes is unquestionably the head." Explained by the events and revolutionary teachings and tendencies of the last fifteen years, all this means that what any army-backed despot or despotism chooses to style the republic, is to be preserved by the army, even against the people that compose such republic. It means that the "government" has the right to enforce its "absolute supremacy," vi et armis, in and against the will of a state, and that "so far state sovereignty," to use the words of Webster, "is to be effectually controlled." All this has the full and clear ring of Cæsarism, and it is consonant with Seward's phrase, "If they don't keep the peace, we must keep it for them." Both are symphonious with the "little bell," and seem to harmonize with a certain noted phrase of the imperative mood, "Let us have peace." Nay, more, it means that a Grant may become "a personified force-bill " as Wendell Phillips called him — in our once free country, and, at will, declare unhappy Louisianians or New-Yorkers to be banditti, and leave them to the tender mercies of some future Sheridan, or other bold dragoon.1

Will our Peace be of Contentment or Force? - A military man can be satisfied with the "order" that "reigns in Warsaw :" but it was hoped that when President Grant came to realize that he was a civilian, instead of a soldier; that he must act by the written discretion of his sovereigns, instead of his own; that his duty was to execute ready-made civil laws for all the people, instead of enforcing peace with the bayonet in a discontented section; that our government is republican and not despotic; and, above all, that the President's judgment and conscience are under oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution," and not under a mere partisan pledge to observe an electioneering platform, he would have given to his ejaculation a hortative or precatory, instead of an imperative sense; and that his peace signified the disestablishment of the army, and the restoration of the absolute autonomy of the states, so that they, as the fathers intended, should govern themselves - locally by their home agencies, and federally by their federal one. Grant's constitutional oath like that of every officer of "the government" required

1 In December, 1874, Gen. Sheridan went to Louisiana from a distant region, at once assumed command, and telegraphed to President Grant to declare the people, or part of them, banditti, and turn them over to him (S.) to deal with as such. The grounds of such intervention were mainly false, but approval of his view of things, and his conduct, was at once telegraphed back.

him to treat the states as sovereigns, and to consider armies and the commanders thereof, as not only subjects of the states, but raised and supported by their means, and moved solely by their authority. Nay, more, he was bound by his oath to see that such army was employed for defence, and not for attack of states; and that no federal soldier ever crossed a state boundary except by her command, permission, or call.

A president should but see and know and remember that the states are equal bodies. No power can be above them, because the constitution is their law, and the government is provided for in, and controlled by, the constitution. That instrument says, "each state shall appoint" presidential electors. For the said states, these electors chose General Grant. He was, then, the electee, servant, and agent of the said states, sworn "to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." Hence, to keep his oath, he should have regarded and obeyed the states as his sovereigns, and dealt with Louisiana just as with Massachusetts and New York.

A

CHAPTER III.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.

BOUT forty years after the federal constitution went into effect, the perverters of the instrument began to teach, as the true meaning of it, the identical assertions made originally by its enemies to prevent its adoption. These charges were, that the constitution purported to be made by the whole people; that it consolidated all the states into one; and that, so far as its provisions went, "so far state sovereignty was effectually controlled" by "the government." Such was the fear among the people of the several states that these charges were true, that it was with the utmost difficulty that the friends of the system saved it from defeat. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, Dickinson, Coxe, Sherman, Ellsworth, Adams, Ames, Parsons, Patterson, Livingston, Pendleton, Marshall, and many others now immortal, met and triumphantly refuted them, asserting and proving the absolute sovereignty of the states, and the vicarious, delegative, and subordinate character of the federal government. Even then the system barely escaped defeat in the larger states, Massachusetts adopting it by a majority of 19 in a convention of 355 members; New Hampshire by a majority of 11 in 103 members; New York by a majority of 3 in 57; and Virginia by a majority of 10 in 168; while North Carolina and Rhode Island rejected it by overwhelming majorities, though they subsequently joined the union. Indeed, Hildreth, the Massachusetts historian, thinks a majority of all the people of the states were opposed to the constitution.

Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, one of the original enemies of the federal system, seems to be entitled to the honor of originating this fallacious exposition of the same. He was the Gamaliel of Story and Webster, and they were his faithful disciples. The three may be considered as the founders of the Massachusetts school, which has given ideas and arguments to what was first a faction, then an enterprising minority, and, finally, a victorious party, engaged in overthrowing constitutional liberty. The interpretations, commentaries, platforms, obiter dicta, etc., of this school, have finally given existence to a sham