" If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A State, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest State, like a dishonest merchant, willfully refuses to discharge it: The latter is amenable to a Court of Justice: Upon general principles of right, shall the former when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted, proteus-like, to assume a new appearance, and to insult him and justice, by declaring I am a Sovereign State? Surely not. . . ." --Justice James Wilson, Opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, February 19, 1793

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 453–57 (1793).

Funny how they don't teach this case in Law School ?

Also interesting how they try to frame the decision solely as a states rights issue if they challenged?

https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/no-topic/chisholmvgeorgia1793/