suppose, the Senator meant the United States. If such be his
meaning--if he intended to affirm that the sovereignty was in the
twenty-four States, in whatever light he may view them, our
opinions will not disagree; but according to my conception, the
whole sovereignty is in the several States, while the exercise of
sovereign power is divided--a part being exercised under compact,
through this general government, and the residue through the
separate State governments. But if the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Rives) means to assert that the twenty-four States form but
one community, with a single sovereign power as to the objects of
the Union, it will be but the revival of the old question, of
whether the Union is a union between States, as distinct
communities, or a mere aggregate of the American people, as a
mass of individuals; and in this light his opinions would lead
directly to consolidation....

Disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between power and
liberty; and I tell the gentlemen who are opposed to me, that, as
strong as may be the love of power on their side, the love of
liberty is still stronger on ours. History furnishes many
instances of similar struggles, where the love of liberty has
prevailed against power under every disadvantage, and among them
few more striking than that of our own Revolution; where, as
strong as was the parent country, and feeble as were the
Colonies, yet, under the impulse of liberty, and the blessing of
God, they gloriously triumphed in the contest. There are,
indeed, many striking analogies between that and the present
controversy. They both originated substantially in the same
cause--with this difference--in the present case, the power of
taxation is converted into that of regulating industry; in the