Is it true,then,as Judge Story supposes,that "the colonies did not severally act for themselves,and proclaim their own independence?"It is true that they acted together;but is it not equally true that each acted for itself alone,without pretending to any right or authority to bind any other?Their declaration was simply their joint expression of their separate wills;each expressing its own will,and not that of any other;each bound by its own act,and not responsible for the act of any other.If the colonies had severally declare their independence through their own legislatures,and had afterwards agreed to unite their forces together to make a common cause of their contest,and to submit their common interests to the management of a common council chosen by themselves,wherein would their situation have been different?And is it true that this Declaration of Independence "was not an act done by the State governments then organized,nor by persons chosen by them?"that "it was emphatically the act of the whole people of the united colonies,by the instrumentality of their representatives chosen for that,among other purposes?"What representatives were those that were chosen by "the people of the united colonies?"When and how were they chosen?Those who declared the colonies independent,were chosen more than a year before that event;they were chosen by the colonies separately,and,as has already been shown,through the instrumentality of their own "governments then organized";they were chosen,not for the "purpose"of declaring the colonies independent,but of protecting them against oppression,and bringing about a reconciliation with the parent country,upon fair terms,if possible.(Jefferson's Notes,1st ed.,128,129.)If there were any other representatives than those concerned in the Declaration of Independence,if that act was performed by representatives chosen by the whole people of the colonies,for that or any other purpose,if any such representatives could possibly have been chosen by the colonies as then organized,no historical record,that has yet met my view,contains one syllable of the matter.
The author seems to attach but little importance to the fact,that several of the colonies had established separate governments for themselves,prior to the Declaration of Independence.He regards this as of little consequence;
because he thinks that the colonies so acted only in pursuance of the recommendation of Congress,and would not have "presumed"to do it,"without consulting Congress upon the subject";and because the governments so established were,for the most part,designed to be temporary,and to continue only during the contest with England.Such recommendation was given in express terms,to New Hampshire and South Carolina,in November,1775,and to Virginia in December of that year;and on the 10th May,1776,"it was resolved to recommend to the respective,assemblies and conventions of the united colonies where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs had been established,to adopt such a government as should,in the opinion of the representatives of the people,best conduce to the happiness and safety of their Constituents in particular,and of America in general."The preamble to this resolution was not adopted till,the 15th May.(1Elliott's Debates,80,83.)It is evident from the language here employed,that Congress had no power over the colonies as to this matter,and no right to influence or control them in the exercise of the important function of forming their own governments.It recommended only;and contemplating the colonies as separate and distinct,referred it to the assembly or convention of each,to establish any form of government which might be acceptable to its own people.Of what consequence was it whether the colonies noted upon the recommendation and advice of others,or merely upon their own will and counsels?With whatever motive the act was performed,it was one of supreme and sovereign power,and such as could not have been performed except by a sovereign people.And whether the government so established was intended to last forever,or only for a limited time,did not affect its character as an act of sovereign power.In point of fact,then,the colonies which established such governments did,by that very act,assert their sovereignty and independence.They had no power under their charters,to change their governments.They could do so only by setting their charters aside,and acting upon their inherent,sovereign right:and this was revolution.In effect,therefore,many of the colonies had declared their independence prior to the 4th July,1776;they had commenced the revolution,and were considered by England as in a state of rebellion.Of Virginia this is emphatically true.Her declaration of rights was made on the 12th of June,1776;and her Constitution was adopted on the 28th of the same month.This Constitution continued until 1829.Her subsequent declaration of independence,on the 4th of July,in common with the other colonies,was but a more public,though not a more solemn affirmation of what she had previously done;a pledge to the whole world,that what she had resolved on in her separate character,she would unite with the other colonies in performing.She could not declare herself free and independent more distinctly,in that form,than she had already done,by asserting her sovereign and irresponsible power,in throwing off her former government,and establishing a new one for herself.11
