that one of the colonies, about the time that they had resolved to
unite for the purpose of achieving their independence, addressed the
colonial congress to know in what condition they would be in the
interval between their separation from the government of Great Britain
and the establishment of the government for the colonies. The answer
of the colonial congress was exactly that which might have been
expected--exactly that which state rights democracy would answer
to-day, to such an inquiry--that they must take care of their domestic
polity, that the congress "had nothing to do with it." [Applause.] If
such sentiment continued--if it governed in every state--if
representatives were chosen upon it--then your halls of legislation
would not be disturbed about the question of the domestic concerns of
the different states. The peace of the country would not be hazarded
by the arraignment of the family relations of people over whom the
government has no control. In harmony working together, in
co-intelligence for the conservation of the interests of the country,
in protection to the states and the development of the great ends for
which the government was established, what effects might not be
produced? As our government increased in expansion, it would increase
in its beneficent influence upon the people; we should increase in
fraternity; and it would be no longer a wonder to see a man coming
from a southern state to address a Democratic audience in Boston.
[Applause, cries of "good, good."]

But I have referred to the fact that, at an early period,
Massachusetts stood pre-eminently forward among those who asserted
community independence. And this reminds me of an incident, in
illustration, which occurred when President Washington visited Boston,
and John Hancock was Governor. The latter is reported to have declined
to call upon the President, because he contended that every man who