In farther illustration of this point,let us suppose that some one of the colonies had refused to unite in the Declaration of Independence,what relation would it then have held to the others?Not having disclaimed its allegiance to the British Crown,it would still have continued to be a British colony,subject to the authority of the parent country,in all respects as before.Could the other colonies have rightfully compelled it to unite with them in their revolutionary purposes,on the ground that it was part and parcel of the "one people,"known as the people of the colonies?No such right was ever claimed,or dreamed of,and it will scarcely be contended for now,in the face of the known history of the time.Such recusant colony would have stood precisely as did the Canadas,and every other part of the British empire.The colonies,which had declared war,would have considered its people as enemies,but would not have had a right to treat them as traitors,or as disobedient citizens resisting their authority.
To what purpose,then,were the people of the colonies "one people,"if,in a case so important to the common welfare,there was no right in all the people together,to coerce the members of their own community to the performance of a common duty?
It is thus apparent that the people of the colonies were not "one people,"
as to any purpose involving allegiance on the one hand,or protection on the other.What,then,I again ask,are the "many purposes"to which Judge Story alludes?It is certainly incumbent on him who asserts this identity,against the inferences most naturally deducible from the historical facts,to show at what time,by what process,and for what purposes,it was effected.
He claims too much consideration for his personal authority,when he requires his readers to reject the plain information of history,in favor of his bare assertion.The charters of the colonies prove no identity between them,but the reverse;and it has already been shown that this identity is not the necessary result of their common relation to the mother country.
By what other means they came to be "one,"in any intelligible and political sense,it remains for Judge Story to explain.
If these views of the subject be not convincing,Judge Story himself has furnished proof,in all needful abundance,of the incorrectness of his own conclusion.He tells us that,"though the colonies had a common origin,and owed a common allegiance,and the inhabitants of each were British subjects,they had no direct political connection with each other.
Each was independent of all the others;each,in a limited sense,was sovereign within its own territory.There was neither alliance nor confederacy between them.The assembly of one province could not make laws for another,nor confer privileges which were to be enjoyed or exercised in another,farther than they could be in any independent foreign States.They were known only as dependencies,and they followed the fate of the parent country,both in peace and war,without having assigned to them,in the intercourse or diplomacy of nations,any distinct or independent existence.They did not possess the power of forming any league or treaty among themselves,which would acquire an obligatory force,without the assent of the parent State.
And though their mutual wants and necessities often induced them to associate for common purposes of defense,these confederacies were of a casual and temporary nature,and were allowed as an indulgence,rather than as a right.
They made several efforts to procure the establishment of some general superintending government over them all;but their own difference of opinion,as well as the jealousy of the Crown,made these efforts abortive."
The English language affords no terms stronger than those which are here used to convey the idea of separateness,distinctness,and independence,among the colonies.No commentary could make the deion plainer,or more full and complete.The unity,contended for by Judge Story,nowhere appears,but is distinctly disaffirmed in every sentence.The colonies were not only distinct in their creation,and in the powers and faculties of their governments,but there was not even "an alliance or confederacy between them."They had "no general superintending government over them all,"and tried in vain to establish one.Each was "independent of all the others,"having its own legislature,and without power to confer either right or privilege beyond its own territory."Each,in a limited sense,was sovereign within its own territory";and to sum up all,in a single sentence,"they had no direct political connection with each other!"The condition of the colonies was,indeed,anomalous,if Judge Story's view of it be correct.They presented the singular spectacle of "one people,"or political corporation,the members of which had "no direct political connection with each other,"and who had not the power to form such connection,even "by league or treaty among themselves."
This brief review will,it is believed,be sufficient to convince the reader that Judge Story has greatly mistaken the real condition and relation of the colonies,in supposing that they formed "one people,"in any sense,or for any purpose whatever.He is entitled to credit,however,for the candor with which he has stated the historical facts.Apart from all other sources of information,his book affords to every reader abundant materials for the formation of his own opinion,and for enabling him to decide satisfactorily whether Judge Story's inferences from the facts,which he himself has stated,be warranted by them or not.
