so of the old confederation.  Each citizen owed his allegiance to his own state and each state had its obligations to the confederation.  Under our constitutional system in every part of the territory of every state there are two sovereigns, and every citizen owes allegiance to both sovereigns—­to his state and to his nation.  In regard to some matters, which may generally be described as local, the state is supreme.  In regard to other matters, which may generally be described as national, the nation is supreme.  It is plain that to maintain the line between these two sovereignties operating in the same territory and upon the same citizens is a matter of no little difficulty and delicacy.  Nothing has involved more constant discussion in our political history than questions of conflict between these two powers, and we fought the great Civil War to determine the question whether in case of conflict the allegiance to the state or the allegiance to the nation was of superior obligation.  We should observe that the Civil War arose because the constitution did not draw a clear line between the national and state powers regarding slavery.  It is of very great importance that both of these authorities, state and national, shall be preserved together and that the limitations which keep each within its proper province shall be maintained.  If the power of the states were to override the power of the nation we should ultimately cease to have a nation and become only a body of really separate, although confederated, state sovereignties continually forced apart by diverse interests and ultimately quarreling with each other and separating altogether.  On the other hand, if the power of the nation were to override that of the states and usurp their functions we should have this vast country, with its great population, inhabiting widely separated regions, differing in climate, in production, in industrial and social interests and ideas, governed in all its local affairs by one all-powerful, central government at Washington, imposing upon the home life and behavior of each community the opinions and ideas of propriety of distant majorities.  Not only would this be intolerable and alien to the idea of free self-government, but it would be beyond the power of a central government to do directly.  Decentralization would be made necessary by the mass of government business to be transacted, and so our separate localities would come to be governed by delegated authority—­by proconsuls authorized from Washington to execute the will of the great majority of the whole people.  No one can doubt that this also would lead by its different route to the separation of our Union.  Preservation of our dual system of government, carefully restrained in each of its parts by the limitations of the constitution, has made possible our growth in local self-government and national power in the past, and, so far as we can see, it is essential to the continuance of that government in the future.