In order to constitute "one people,"in a political sense,of the inhabitants of different countries,some thing more is necessary than that they should owe a common allegiance to a common sovereign.Neither is it sufficient that,in some particulars,they are bound alike,by laws which that sovereign,may prescribe;nor does the question depend on geographical relations.
The inhabitants of different islands may be one people,and those of contiguous countries may be,as we know they in fact are,different nations.By the term "people,"as here used,we do not mean merely a number of persons.
We mean by it a political corporation,the members of which owe a common allegiance to a common sovereignty,and do not owe any allegiance which is not common;who are bound by no laws except such as that sovereignty may prescribe;who owe to one another reciprocal obligations;who possess common political interests;who are liable to common political duties;
and who can exert no sovereign power except in the name of the whole.Anything short of this,would be an imperfect definition of that political corporation which we call a "people."
Tested by this definition,the people of the American colonies were,in no conceivable sense,"one people."They owed,indeed,allegiance to the British King,as the head of each colonial government,and as forming a part thereof;but this allegiance was exclusive,in each colony,to its own government,and,consequently,to the King as the head thereof,and was not a common allegiance of the people of all the colonies,to a common head.2These colonial governments were clothed with the sovereign power of ****** laws,and of enforcing obedience to them,from their own people.The people of one colony owed no allegiance to the government of any other colony,and were not bound by its laws.
The colonies had no common legislature,no common treasury,no common military power,no common judicatory.The people of one colony were not liable to pay taxes to any other colony,nor to bear arms in its defence;they had no right to vote in its elections;no influence nor control in its municipal government;no interest in its municipal institutions.There was no prescribed form by which the colonies could act together,for any purpose whatever;
they were not known as "one people"in any one function of government.
Although they were all,alike,dependencies of the British Crown,yet,even in the action of the parent country,in regard to them,they were recognized as separate and distinct.They were established at different times,and each under an authority from the Crown,which applied to itself alone.They were not even alike in their organization.Some were provincial,some proprietary,and some charter governments.Each derived its form of government from the particular instrument establishing it,or from assumptions of power acquiesced in by the Crown,without any connection with,or relation to,any other.They stood upon the same footing,in every respect,with other British colonies,with nothing to distinguish their relation either to the parent country or to one another.The charter of any one of them might have been destroyed,without in any manner affecting the rest.In point of fact,the charters of nearly all of them were altered,from time to time,and the whole character of their government changed.These changes were made in each colony for itself alone,sometimes by its own action,sometimes by the power and authority of the Crown;but never by the joint agency of any other colony,and never with reference to the wishes or demands of any other colony.Thus they were separate and distinct in their creation;
separate and distinct in the changes and modifications of their governments,which were made from time to time;separate and distinct in political functions,in political rights,and in political duties.
The provincial government of Virginia was the first established.The people of Virginia owed allegiance to the British King,as the head of their own local government.The authority of that government was confined within certain geographical limits,known as Virginia,and all who lived within those limits were "one people."When the colony of Plymouth was subsequently settled,were the people of that colony "one"with the people of Virginia?When,long afterwards,the proprietary government of Pennsylvania was established,were the followers of William Penn "one"with the people of Plymouth and Virginia?If so,to which government was their allegiance due?Virginia had a government of her own,and Massachusetts a government of her own.The people of Pennsylvania could not be equally bound by the laws of all three governments,because those laws might happen to conflict;
they could not owe the duties of citizenship to all of them alike,because they might stand in hostile relations to one another.Either,then,the government of Virginia,which originally extended over the whole territory,continued to be supreme therein,(subject only to its dependence on the British Crown),or else its supremacy was yielded to the new government.
Every one knows that this last was the case;that within the territory of the new government the authority of that government alone prevailed.
How then could the people of this new government of Pennsylvania be said to be "one"with the people of Virginia,when they were not citizens of Virginia,owed her no allegiance and no duty,and when their allegiance to another government might place them in the relation of enemies of Virginia?3
