weaken the Union, by adding to the power of the states.” But consolidation (says the gentleman) was the very object for which the Union was formed; and, in support of that opinion, he read a passage from the address of the president of the convention to Congress, which he assumes to be authority on his side of the question. But, sir, the gentleman is mistaken. The object of the framers of the constitution, as disclosed in that address, was not the consolidation of the government, but “the consolidation of the Union.” It was not to draw power from the states, in order to transfer it to a great national government, but, in the language of the constitution itself, “to form a more perfect Union;”—and by what means? By “establishing justice, promoting domestic tranquillity, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” This is the true reading of the constitution. But, according to the gentleman’s reading, the object of the constitution was, to consolidate the government, and the means would seem to be, the promotion of injustice, causing domestic discord, and depriving the states and the people “of the blessings of liberty” forever.
The gentleman boasts of belonging to the party of National Republicans. National Republicans! A new name, sir, for a very old thing. The National Republicans of the present day were the Federalists of ’98, who became Federal Republicans during the war of 1812, and were manufactured into National Republicans somewhere about the year 1825.
As a party, (by whatever name distinguished,) they have always been animated by the same principles, and have kept steadily in view a common object, the consolidation of the government. Sir, the party to which I am proud of having belonged, from the very commencement of my political life to the present day, were the Democrats of ’98, (Anarchists, Anti-Federalists, Revolutionists, I think they were sometimes called.) They assumed the name of Democratic Republicans in 1822, and have retained their name and principles up to the present hour. True to their political faith, they have always, as a party, been in favor of limitations of power; they have insisted that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved, and have been constantly struggling, as they now are, to preserve the rights of the states, and to prevent them from being drawn into the vortex, and swallowed up by one great consolidated government.
Sir, any one acquainted with the history of parties in this country will recognize in the points now in dispute between the senator from Massachusetts and myself the very grounds which have, from the beginning, divided the two great parties in this country, and which (call these parties by what names you will, and amalgamate them as you may) will divide them forever. The true distinction between those parties is laid down in a celebrated manifesto, issued by the convention of the Federalists of Massachusetts, assembled in Boston, in February, 1824, on the occasion of organizing a party opposition to the reëlection of Governor Eustis. The gentleman will recognize this as “the canonical book of political scripture;” and it instructs us that, when the American colonies redeemed themselves from British bondage, and became so many independent nations, they proposed to form a National Union, (not a Federal Union, sir, but a National Union.) Those who were in favor of a union of the states in this form became known by the name of Federalists; those who wanted no union of the states, or disliked the proposed
