
1860s, Fourth of July Address to Congress (1861)
Message regarding the unification of Germany http://millercenter.org/president/grant/speeches/message-regarding-unification-of-germany (7 February 1871)
1870s
1860s, Fourth of July Address to Congress (1861)
On the Irrepressible Conflict (1858)
Context: The Union is a confederation of States. But in another aspect the United States constitute only one nation. Increase of population, which is filling the States out to their very borders, together with a new and extended network of railroads and other avenues, and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing the States into a higher and more perfect social unity or consolidation. Thus, these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results.
Shall I tell you what this collision means? They who think that it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation.
As quoted in Che Guevara Speaks: Selected Speeches and Writings (1968), by George Lavan, p. 17
1920s, Freedom and its Obligations (1924)
1860s, Fourth of July Address to Congress (1861)
Address By Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma President Of India On The Occasion Of The 50th Anniversary Of The First Sitting Of The Constituent Assembly
17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316, 411-412
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Context: In America, the powers of sovereignty are divided between the Government of the Union and those of the States. They are each sovereign with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other. We cannot comprehend that train of reasoning, which would maintain that the extent of power granted by the people is to be ascertained not by the nature and terms of the grant, but by its date. Some State Constitutions were formed before, some since, that of the United States. We cannot believe that their relation to each other is in any degree dependent upon this circumstance. Their respective powers must, we think, be precisely the same as if they had been formed at the same time. Had they been formed at the same time, and had the people conferred on the General Government the power contained in the Constitution, and on the States the whole residuum of power, would it have been asserted that the Government of the Union was not sovereign, with respect to those objects which were intrusted to it, in relation to which its laws were declared to be supreme? If this could not have been asserted, we cannot well comprehend the process of reasoning which maintains that a power appertaining to sovereignty cannot be connected with that vast portion of it which is granted to the General Government, so far as it is calculated to subserve the legitimate objects of that Government.
Texas v. White http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/constitution-check-can-texas-get-constitutional-permission-to-leave-the-union/
The Flag of our Union, reported in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919).