To whom, in fine, _could_ the States have surrendered their sovereignty? Not to the mass of the people inhabiting the territory possessed by all the States, for there was no such community in existence, and they took no measures for the organization of such a community. If they had intended to do so, the very style, "United States," would have been a palpable misnomer, nor would treason have been defined as levying war against _them_. Could it have been transferred to the Government of the Union? Clearly not, in accordance with the ideas and principles of those who made the Declaration of Independence, adopted the Articles of Confederation, and established the Constitution of the United States; for in each and all of these the corner-stone is the inherent and inalienable sovereignty of the people. To have transferred sovereignty from the people to a Government would have been to have fought the battles of the Revolution in vain--not for the freedom and independence of the States, but for a mere change of masters. Such a thought or purpose could not have been in the heads or hearts of those who molded the Union, and could have found lodgment only when the ebbing tide of patriotism and fraternity had swept away the landmarks which they erected who sought by the compact of union to secure and perpetuate the liberties then possessed. The men who had won at great cost the independence of their respective States were deeply impressed with the value of union, but they could never have consented, like "the base Judean," to fling away the priceless pearl of State sovereignty for any possible alliance. [Footnote 74: "Rebellion Record," vol. i, Documents, p. 213.] [Footnote 75: "Federalist," No. xliv.] [Footnote 76: "Federalist," No. xxvii.] [Footnote 77: "Congressional Debates," vol. ix, Part I, p. 565.] [Footnote 78: Ibid., p. 566.] [Footnote 79: Sir Francis Palgrave, quoted by Mr. Calhoun, "Congressional Debates," vol. ix, Part I, p. 541.] CHAPTER X. A Recapitulation.--Remarkable Propositions of Mr. Gouverneur Morris in the Convention of 1787, and their Fate.--Further Testimony.--Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Marshall, etc.--Later Theories.--Mr. Webster: his Views at Various Periods.--Speech at Capon Springs.--State Rights not a Sectional Theory. Looking back for a moment at the ground over which we have gone, I think it may be fairly asserted that the following propositions have been clearly and fully established: 1. That the States of which the American Union was formed, from the moment when they emerged from their colonial or provincial condition, became severally sovereign, free, and independent States--not one State, or nation. 2. That the union formed under the Articles of Confederation was a compact between the States, in which these attributes of "sovereignty, freedom, and independence," were expressly asserted and guaranteed.