Rebellion Record: Introduction., Volume 1.
Frank Moore, Ed.

---

[13] of Independence, that they are called only by the collective designation of the United States of America; that the manifesto is issued “in the name and by the authority of the good people” of the Colonies, and that they are characterized in the first sentence as “One People.”

Let it not be thought that these are the latitudinarian doctrines of modern times, or of a section of the country predisposed to a loose construction of laws and Constitutions. Listen, I pray you, to the noble words of. a Southern revolutionary patriot and statesman:--

“ The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several States were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed the Declaration of Independence. The several States are not even mentioned by name in any part of it, as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our Freedom and Independence arose from our Union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us then consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each State is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, and may bring on us the most serious distresses.” ¹ These are the solemn and prophetic words of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; the patriot, the soldier, the statesman the trusted friend of Washington, repeatedly called by him to the highest offices of the Government; the one name that stands highest and brightest, on the list of the great men of South Carolina.²

---

The articles of Confederation.

Not only was the Declaration of Independence made in the name of the one People of the United States, but the war by which it was sustained was carried on by their authority. A very grave historical error, in this respect, is often committed by the politicians of the Secession School. Mr. Davis, in his message of the 29th of April, having called the old Confederation “a close alliance,” says: “under this contract of alliance the war of the revolution was successfully waged, and resulted in the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783, by the terms of which the several States were each by name recognized to be independent.” I have already given the reason for this enumeration, but the main fact alleged in the passage is entirely without foundation. The Articles of Confederation were first signed by the delegates from eight of the States, on the 9th of July, 1778, more than three years after the commencement of the war, long after the capitulation of Burgoyne, the alliance with France, and the reception of a French Minister. The ratification of the other States was given at intervals the following years, the last not till 1781, seven months only before the virtual close of the war, by the surrender of Cornwallis. Then, and not till then, was “the Contract of Alliance” consummated. Most true it is, as Mr. Davis bids us remark, that, by these Articles of Confederation the States retained “each its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” It is not less true, that their selfish struggle to exercise and enforce their assumed rights as separate sovereignties was the source of the greatest difficulties and dangers of the Revolution, and risked its success; not less true, that most of the great powers of a sovereign State were nominally conferred even by these