Shall Cromwell Have a Statue ? 11
heresy; but, none the less, it was a heresy indisputably then preached, and to which many, not in Virginia only but in New England also, pinned their political faith. Even the Devil is proverbially entitled to his due.
So far, however, as the abstract question is of consequence, as the utterances of Professor Smith and Mr. Lodge conclusively show, the secessionists of 1861 stand in history's court by no means without a case. In that case, moreover, they implicitly believed. From gene- ration to generation they had grown up indoctrinated with the gospel, or heresy, of State sovereignty, and it was as much part of their moral and intellectual being as was clanship of the Scotch high- union, and a firm confederation." The following month he wrote in the same spirit to Tench Tilghman (/., Vol. X, p. 238): " In a word the Constitution of Congress must be competent to the general purposes of Government, and of such a nature as to bind us together. Otherwise we shall be like of sand, and as easily broken."
Finally, in the circular letter addressed to the governor of all the States on disbanding the army, June 8, 1783 (/., Vol. X, p. 257): "There are four things which, I humbly conceive, are essential to the well-being, a way, even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power. First, on indissoluble union of the States under one federal head." In language even stronger he, July 8, 1783 only a month later wrote to Dr. William Gordon, the historian (/., Vol. X, p. 276): " We are known by no other character among other nations than as the United States. Massachu- setts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of, by Foreign Powers, than the county of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Gloucester county in Virginia is by Massachusetts (reputable as they are), and yet these counties with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the laws of the States in which they are, as an individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound." With the passage of time, Washington's feelings on this subject seem to have grown stronger, and, on March 10, 1787, he wrote to John Jay: " A thirst for power, and the bantling I had liked to have said Monster sovereignty, which have taken such fast hold of the States," etc. (William Jay, Life of John Jay > Vol. I, p. 259). A year earlier, August i, 1786, he had written to Jay: "Experi- ence has taught us that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power, which will provide the whole Union in as ener- getic a manner as the authority on the State governments extends over the several States." (Ford. Writings of Washington, Vol. XI, p. 53.) This, it will be observed, was within a few days less than seven months only before the passage by the Confederation Congress of the resolution of February 21, 1787, calling for the Convention, which, during the ensuing summer, framed the present Constitution.
