And, indeed, the Northern States of the Union—­especially those of New England—­refer all their liberties to the old charters which they held from the mother country.  They rebelled, as they themselves would seem to say, and set themselves up as a separate people, not because the mother country had refused to them by law sufficient liberty and sufficient self-control, but because the mother country infringed the liberties and powers of self-control which she herself had given.  The mother country, so these States declare, had acted the part of Sir Edmund Andross—­had endeavored to take away their charters.  So they also put out the lights, and took themselves to an oak-tree of their own—­which is still standing, though winds from the infernal regions are now battering its branches.  Long may it stand!

Whether the mother country did or did not infringe the charters she had given, I will not here inquire.  As to the nature of those alleged infringements, are they not written down to the number of twenty-seven in the Declaration of Independence?  They mostly begin with He.  “He” has done this, and “He” has done that.  The “He” is poor George III., whose twenty-seven mortal sins against his Transatlantic colonies are thus recapitulated.  It would avail nothing to argue now whether those deeds were sins or virtues, nor would it have availed then.  The child had grown up and was strong, and chose to go alone into the world.  The young bird was fledged, and flew away.  Poor George III. with his cackling was certainly not efficacious in restraining such a flight.  But it is gratifying to see how this new people, when they had it in their power to change all their laws, to throw themselves upon any Utopian theory that the folly of a wild philanthropy could devise, to discard as abominable every vestige of English rule and English power,—­it is gratifying to see that, when they could have done all this, they did not do so, but preferred to cling to things English.  Their old colonial limits were still to be the borders of their States.  Their old charters were still to be regarded as the sources from whence their State powers had come.  The old laws were to remain in force.  The precedents of the English courts were to be held as legal precedents in the courts of the new nation, and are now so held.  It was still to be England, but England without a king making his last struggle for political power.  This was the idea of the people and this was their feeling; and that idea has been carried out and that feeling has remained.

In the constitution of the State of New York nothing is said about the religion of the people.  It was regarded as a subject with which the constitution had no concern whatever.  But as soon as we come among the stricter people of New England, we find that the constitution-makers have not been able absolutely to ignore the subject.  In Connecticut it is enjoined that, as it is the duty of all men to worship