Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

discussion, in some mode which will unite the sentiments and counsels of all the States."

In compliance with this recommendation of "a general meeting of the States in a future convention," twelve States met at Philadelphia on the 14th of May, 1787, with instructions to join "in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union."* "The recommendation was received by the legislature of Virginia," says Mr. Madison, "which happened to be the first that acted on it, and the example of her compliance was made as conciliatory and impressive as possible." Thus it was Alexander Hamilton, as the master spirit of the Annapolis Convention, who first conceived the idea of a general convention to revise and amend the Federal Government, and it was James Madison, as the great ruling genius of the legislature of Virginia, who gave the first and most powerful impulse to that conception. The great mass of the people had very little to do with the movement.

"A resort to a general convention," says Mr. Madison, "to remodel the Confederacy, was not a new idea."‡ He then mentions five persons by whom this idea had been entertained; namely, Pelatiah Webster, Colonel Hamilton, R. H. Lee, James Madison, and Noah Webster. None of these, however, go beyond the idea of Hamilton, "to strengthen the Federal Constitution;" or of Madison, to supply its defects.§ But if this had been a popular move

*Madison Papers, p. 706. These are the words of the resolution of Virginia; the instructions of the other States were equivalent to these.

+Ibid, p. 703.

Madison Papers, 706.

The two Websters, Pelatiah and Noah, do show some originality. The one, in 1781, seeing that Congress had not sufficient authority "for the performance of their duties," (though he does not tell us what duties they had to perform, except to exercise the authority entrusted to them,) suggests the plan of a Continental Convention, for the express purpose, 66 'among other things, of enlarging the

ment, Mr. Madison could easily have found, during the period of three years, more than five candidates for the once hotly-contested honor of having conceived the first idea of a Convention to remodel the Confederacy or to amend the Federal Constitution.

The plain truth is, that it was Alexander Hamilton, and not the people who, grappling with the vast and complicated idea of a regular commercial system, saw the changes which such a system must introduce into the Federal Government. Hence it was Alexander Hamilton, and not the people, who became dissatisfied with the Confederation as it was, and sought to have its Constitution remodeled. "He was the first," as the historian of the Constitution has truly said, “to perceive and develop the idea of a real union of the people of the United States." †

It was not proposed then, as Mr. Webster alleges, and no one ever proposed, to set aside the Confederation in order to establish a government. The Confederation was itself a government. This contrast between the Confederation and a government, as things essentially different in kind, which pervades the whole of Mr. Webster's speech, and which is even interwoven with his " plain account of the establishment of the government" of the United States, is purely a hypothesis of his own. Hamilton and the Convention of Annapolis repeatedly speak, as we have seen, of “the Federal Constitution" and "the Federal Government." Madison and the legislature of Virginia use precisely the same language in reference to the same objects. Even Pelatiah Webster, in this respect, far less original than his great namesake, speaks of the "Constiduties of their Constitution." The other, in 1784, wished for a Government which should act, not on States, but directly on individuals. If this idea really originated with Noah Webster, then there are many who will think that his political pamphlet cancelled the obligations which his spelling book conferred on the country. Mr. Webster was also original in his orthography.

"History of the Constitution of the United States," by Curtis, vol. i, p. 413.

[ocr errors]

tution of the Federal Government. The Convention of '87, also call the old Confederation "the Federal Government.' ""*

But we must proceed to the next item of Mr. Webster's plain account. "This proposal,” says he, 66 was assented to, and an instrument was presented to the people of the several States for their consideration. They approved it, and agreed to adopt it, as a Constitution." True, as far as it goes. But when Mr. Webster asks, "Is not this the truth of the whole matter?" we are bound to answer that this is either not the truth of the whole matter, or it is not the whole truth of the matter. On the contrary, it omits precisely those great truths which shed the most light on the foundation of the government of the United States. One might well suppose, from the above statement, that the people of the several States had jointly approved the Constitution, and jointly ordained it as a Constitution. But however essential this view may be to the theory of Mr. Webster-and his theory is as baseless as the fabric of a vision without it-it has not the shadow of a foundation in the facts of history.

The plain and unquestionable fact is, that each State adopted or rejected the Constitution for itself, and for itself alone. No twelve States could by their united action lay the bonds of the new Constitution on the thirteenth State. This was universally conceded. The little State of Rhode Island stood aloof; and though her conduct was reprobated, no one denied her right. Neither all the other States combined, nor all the people of America, had the shadow of an authority to constrain her action, or to control her own free ehoice. No power on earth could touch the priceless pearl of her sovereignty in the affair. No one presumed to question her right to decide for herself. This right was then as clear as the sun, and all eyes recognized it. And this was true, not only in relation to Rhode Island, but *Madison Papers, pp. 730-35, etc.

[ocr errors]

A1 Sale Ite nilemey. For in the act of tact Sa vas herreetly tree and independent, Treig te Tak and re.roilable by any power upon earth. ach wach is far too recent and too well e denied by any one, goes to the very no overnment of the United States, and shows that is Jousitution rested on a federal, and not on It shows that it was a union of States, ། ། ། 4 、- དན བདརིཥ་ཟི ne several act of each State, and not the union », «d ne múviduals in America, acting as one political

[ocr errors]

Amis was known to Mr. Webster. No man with the. east ventical information or reading could have remained geram of it. But still he glossed it over, or kept it in tear distant background, as unsuited to his hypothesis and to the logic of the Northern power, that the Constituron was ordained by "the people of the United States in the aggregate,” and not by the people of the United States

the segregate. And yet, after he has given his onesaled, superficial, and unfair statement, he calls it “a plain account," and asks, “Now, sir, is not this the truth of the whole matter? And is not all that we have heard of a compact between Sovereign States the mere effect of a theoretical and artificial mode of reasoning upon the subfeet?-a mode of reasoning which disregards plain facts for the sake of hypothesis?" Comment is unnecessary.

Mr. Webster's "plain account" is, in fact, a gross falsification of history. If possible, however, it is surpassed by Mr. Motley. This most unscrupulous writer asserts: The Constitution was not drawn up by the States, it was not promulgated in the name of the States, it was not ratified by the States."* Now each and every one of these assertions is diametrically opposed to the truth. Strike out the little syllable "not" from every clause of the above sentence, and it will then express the exact truth. For, *Rebellion Record, vol. 1, p. 211.

in the first place, as the record shows, it is a plain and incontrovertible fact, that the Consttitution was drawn up or framed by the States.

It was drawn up or framed, as every one knows, by the Convention of 1787; in which the States, and the States alone, were represented. Every iota of the Constitution. was decided upon, and found a place in that written instrument, by a vote of the States; each State having one vote; the little State of Delaware, for example, having an equal vote with New York, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. No fact should be more perfectly notorious, or well-known, than this; for it stands out everywhere on the very face of the proceedings of the Convention, which framed the Constitution. Thus, for example, "On the question for a single Executive; it was agreed to,-Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-7; New York, Delaware, Maryland, no3."* In like manner, every other item of the Constitution was decided upon, and the whole instrument formed, by a vote of the States; acting as separate, independent, and equal bodies. How, in the face of such a fact, could Mr. Motley so boldly assert, that the Constitution was not drawn up, or framed, by the States? By whom, then, was it framed? Was it framed by "the people of the United States in the aggregate;" acting as one nation? Nothing is farther from the truth. There is not even the shadow of a foundation for any such assertion or insinuation. Will it be said, that the Constitution was drawn up, not by the States, but by those who proposed its various articles? If so, such a subterfuge would be nothing to the purpose, and very far from deserving a moment's notice.

The second assertion of Mr. Motley, that the Constitution "was not promulgated in the name of the States," is equally unfortunate. For, as every one knows, it was *The Madison Papers, p. 783.

« ZurückWeiter »