of the Union as if it existed only by consent, and, as it seems to lie implied, by the assent of the legislatures of the states. On the contrary, the Union was not founded in voluntary choice, nor does it exist by voluntary consent.
A union was proposed to the colonies by Franklin and others, in 1754; bnt such was their aversion to an abridgment of their own importance, respectively, that it was rejected even under the pressure of a disastrous invasion by France.
A union of choice was proposed to the colonies in 1775; but so strong was their opposition, that they went through the war of independence without having established more than a mere council of consultation.
But with independence came enlarged interests of agriculture — absolutely new interests of manufactures — interests of commerce, of fisheries, of navigation, of common domain, of common debts, of common revenues and taxation, of the administration of justice, of public defense, of public honor; in short, interests of common nationality and sovereignty — interests which at last compelled the adoption of a more perfect union — a national government.
The genius, talents, and learning of Hamilton, Jay, and of Madison, surpassing, perhaps, the intellectual power ever exerted before for the establishment of a government, combined with the serene but mighty influence of Washington, we're only sufficient to secure the reluctant adoption of the constitution that is now the object of all our affections and of the hopes of mankind. No wonder that the conflicts in which that constitution was born, and the almost desponding solemnity of Washington, in his farewell address, impressed his countrymen and mankind with a profound distrust of its perpetuity 1 No wonder that while the murmurs of that day are yet ringing in our ears, we cherish that distrust, with pious reverence, as a national and patriotic sentiment.
I have heard somewhat here, and almost for the first time in my life, of divided allegiance — of allegiance to the south and to the Union. Sir, if sympathies with state emulation and pride of achievement could be allowed to raise up another sovereign to divide the allegiance of a citizen of the United States, I might recognize the claims of the state to which, by birth and gratitude, I belong — to the state of Hamilton and Jay, of Schuyler, of the Clintons, and of Fulton — the state which, with less than two hundred miles of natural navigation connected with the ocean, has, by her own enterprise, secured to herself thfe commerce of the continent, and is steadily advancing to the command of the commerce of the world. But for all this I know only one country and one sovereign — the United States of America and the American people. And such as my allegiance is, is the loyality of every other citizen of the United States. As I speak, he will speak when his time arrives. He knows no other country and no other sovereign. He has life, liberty, property, and precious affections, and hopes for himself and for his posterity, treasured up in the ark of the Union. He knows as well and feels as strongly as I do, that this government is his own government; that he is a part of it; that it was established for him, and that it is maintained by him; that it is the only truly wise, just, free, and equal government that has ever existed; that no other government could be so wise, just, free and equal; and that it is safer and more beneficent than nnv which time or chancre could brimr into its place.
