Capitolo 8
the constitutional question, involving as it not only did the
contradictory theories of a severe or liberal construction of the
supreme law of the land but the nationality also,--the right of a Supreme State
to withdraw from the union created in 1787, and it developed through two
generations.
These can be calls problems political and concrete, as opposite to of base
truths generally accepted and theories individually entertained. The
theories were constitutional, social, economic. Constitutionally, them
turned on the obligations of citizen. Any there was such what then
as a citizen of the United States of and alone. The citizen of the
United States was so simply because of his/her citizen of a Sovereign
State,--if Massachusetts or Virginia or South Carolina; and, of
course, a tool founded on a separated sovereignty admitted of
very different interpretation almost. It is a scriptural aphorism
what any man can serve two owners; for or him that will hate and
you love the other, otherwise he will contain to that and he/she will despise the other.
It is in the fulness of time it literally with us so needed. The
economic and approved theories of the period were to a great extension
corollaries of the different fundamental, and material proposal and
social conditions. Over all this, and still coming under the head of
individual theories, were the doctrine enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in
the Declaration of Independence,--the doctrine that all the men have been created
equal,--wanting to say, it clearly equalizes in front of the law. But the theorist and
humanitarian of the north, accepting down the staid fundamental principle
in the Declaration, it gave far to him a question wider than you/he/she had been
intended by his/her authors,--one width of question it would not be born.
Such science as him it had to be of scriptural origin, he interpreted the
word "equal" as meaning equal in the possibilities of them
attributes,--physical, moral, intellectual; and in to do so, him of
course ignored the first principles of ethnology. It was, I now understand,
a rather school wild-dagli eyes of the philosophy that of what me I was a