Lincoln, in his debate with Douglas in 1858, used the term "Confederacy," in speaking of the Union, but when Confederacy was applied to the seceding States in the South, the term was generally abandoned by the North, and with its abandonment the old idea of the word was surrendered also. Lincoln, in his Gettysburg address, speaks of "a new Nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." From this time on it was often asserted that we had become a Nation with a big N. This is interesting when we contrast this sentiment with that of the Constitutional Convention; for in the first draft of the Constitution the word "national" was struck out twenty-six times and the words "Government of the United States" substituted. But the new word had taken a deep hold upon the people, and its frequent use by public speakers and the current literature of the period gave it permanence in our political vocabulary. With the appropriation of this term came the tendency of the party in power to extend the powers of our governmental agencies, especially that of the executive power. Hence, we will find much in the platforms of the Democratic party declaring opposition to centralization. It was but a step for the Republican party to go from the Reconstruction acts to a policy of increased centralization; it was but logical for the Democratic

I

'See Thorpe's Constitutional History of the United States, vol. iii., p. 518.

party, in antagonizing the reconstruction policy of the party in power, to oppose, when the time came, the growth of centralization.

The premise for this growth in nationality was carefully laid by the Federal judiciary in the early days of our national existence. As early as February, 1794, Justice Patterson, in rendering an opinion of the Supreme Court,' said:

"As to war and peace and their necessary incidents, Congress, by the unanimous voice of the people, exercised exclusive jurisdiction, and stood like Jove, amidst the deities of old, paramount and supreme. The truth is, that the states individually were not known nor recognized as sovereign by foreign nations, nor are they now; the states collectively, under Congress, as the connecting point, or head, were acknowledged by foreign powers, as sovereign, particularly in that acceptation of the term, which is applicable to all great national concerns, and in the exercise of which other sovereigns would be more immediately interested; such for instance, as the rights of war and peace, of making treaties, and sending and receiving ambassadors.'

John Marshall, "the right arm of nationality," throughout his brilliant judicial career took this larger view of our national existence. His decision in Cohens v. Virginia' which was rendered in 1821, is typical of many that he delivered bearing on the theory of our nationality. Touching this point, he says:

1 See Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dallas, 507.

26 Wheaton, 264.

"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all common regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the Government, which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests, in all these respects is the Government of the Union. It is their Government, and in that character they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes her Government is complete; to all these objects it is competent."

I

The extent to which the national authority may go was discussed by Marshall in the famous case of United States v. Peters. He contended that this power extended to the complete annulment of any State enactment which was decided to be in conflict with the Constitution. His words were significant, yet simple:

"If the legislatures of the several States may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws, by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all and the people of Pennsylvania as well as the citizens of every other state must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of 13 Dallas, p. 121.

the Union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves."

I

One year later, in 1810, Marshall reënforced this decision with that of Fletcher v. Peck. Here again the dignity and authority of the nation were unmistakably declared:

"But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American Union; and that Union has a Constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass.

These are typical of the opinions of Marshall on the theory of nationality. There are too many of his decisions that bear upon this point to quote or refer to them all. During the thirty-four years that Marshall was upon the Supreme Bench he delivered the opinion in five hundred and nineteen cases. Sixty-two of these cases involved questions of constitutional law; of this number, Marshall himself wrote thirty-six. During the period that he sat upon the Supreme Bench, there was more unanimity of opinion and fewer "majority decrees" than has ever existed since his day. "Very rarely was there given a dissenting opinion, and only once was the Chief Justice compelled to give 16 Cranch, p. 87.

a dissenting opinion from that of the majority of the Court. It is nearer correct to say that in all except one case the majority of the Court joined the great Chief Justice in his opinion." This fact is important when we consider his influence and legal learning, which inspired the people generally with confidence in his decisions, in connection with his views of the nature of our Federal Union. He saw with great discernment the two opposing views of the followers of Hamilton and Jefferson, for he said:

"The whole country was divided between two great political parties; the one of which contemplated America as a nation and labored incessantly to invest the Federal head with powers competent to the preservation of the Union, and the other, attached to the state governments, viewed all the powers of Congress with jealousy and assented reluctantly to measures which would enable the head to act in any respect independently of the members."

It is clear from this quotation to which party he gave his sympathy, and he did more than give his sympathy, he gave his theory the dignity of law by writing his opinions consistent with his views.

The opinions, quotations from which are taken above, are typical of the judicial mind on the subject of nationality before the Civil War. It is interesting to observe the caution the courts used in referring to the supreme power of the National Government. Even Marshall speaks of the Federal