Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Federalist, established, not by "the people of the United States in the aggregate," or as one nation, but by each of the States acting for itself alone. "The Constitution is to be founded," says the Federalist,* "on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose." This, too, is the language "addressed to the people, while they yet had the Constitution under consideration." Why, then, is not this language seized upon, and held up as proof positive, that the Cónstitution rested on the assent, "not of any State, or the people of any State," but on that of "the people of America"? The reason is plain. Though these words, taken by themselves, would have answered Mr. Webster's purpose better than his extract from the Federalist; yet are they immediately followed, in the same sentence, by an explanation, which shows their meaning when used in the Federalist. "The Constitution is to be founded," says that highest of all authorities "on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, it is added, "this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals comprising one entire nation, but as composing the district and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State-the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national, but a federal act."+ Not so, says Mr. Webster, the Constitution was established not by a federal, but by a national act; not by any State, or the people of any State, but by the whole people of the United States as one sovereign body; and yet he appeals to the Federalist in support of his doctrine!

"That it will be a federal, and not a national act," continues the Federalist, "as these terms are understood by objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many inde* No. XXXIX. + Ibid.

pendent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States, as evidences of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." Could language be more perfectly explicit? Yet, directly in the face of all this, or else in profound ignorance of all this, Mr. Webster appeals to the authority of the Federalist in favor of the very position which, as we have seen, it so pointedly condemns. Nay, in spite of the clear, explicit, and unanswerable words of the Federalist, Mr. Webster appeals to that work to show, as a fact then "perfectly well understood," that the powers of the new government were to be conferred, or its Constitution established, not by the States, nor by the people of the States, considered as sovereign bodies, and each acting for itself, but by the whole people of the United States as one sovereign body or nation! To show, in one word, that the Union was formed, not by an accession of the States, but by the one. people of the United States acting as a unit! "The great expounder" does not follow, he flatly contradicts,

the very work he appeals to as the highest of authorities; and that, too, in regard to the greatest of all the political questions that have agitated the people of America!

There were those, it is true, who regarded the new Constitution as the fundamental, or organic law, of one great consolidated government. But these were its enemies. They represented it as such because they wished it to be rejected, and because they knew no other objection would render it so obnoxious to the people of the States. It is well known, indeed, that the greatest difficulty in the way of the new Union was the jealousy of the central power, which the several States had long entertained. This jealousy was so great in the States of New York and of Virginia, that when their Conventions met to ratify or to reject the Constitution, it is well understood, and admitted, that they were both opposed to the new grant of powers. The State-Rights men in both Conventions, who, at first, were in favor of rejecting the Constitution, were in a majority, as is well known, and fully conceded. It was only by the herculean labors of Alexander Hamilton, that the Convention of New York were, at least, induced to ratify it by a majority of three votes. In like manner, the labors, the management, and the eloquence of Mr. Madison, succeeded, finally, after a long and desperate struggle, in carrying it in the Convention of Virginia by the small majority of ten votes. The result was long doubtful in both Conventions.

Patrick Henry, in the ratifying Convention of Virginia, put forth all his powers to cause the new Constitution to be rejected. His appeals to the jealousy of the States with respect to the power of the Central Government were tremendous. He dwelt, particularly, on the words of the preamble, "We, the people of the United States," to show that his most fatal objection to the new Constitution was well founded; and he added, "States are the characteristic and soul of a confederacy. If the States be not the agents

of this compact, it must be one great consolidated government of the people of the United States." He insisted that it would be so. But Patrick Henry, it should be remembered, was not a member of the Convention of 1787, and he was an enemy of the new Constitution. His mind was fertile and overflowing with objections. If he had known the history of the words, "We, the people of the United States," as it appears in the debates of the Convention, which had not then been published, he would have seen, that "We, the people," really meant "We, the States; or We, the Convention, acting in the name and by the authority of the sovereign people of the several States. Or, if he had compared the words in question with the seventh Article of the Constitution, he would have seen, that the new Constitution was to be established by the States, and was to be binding only "between the States so ratifying the same." But as the enemy, and not the advocate, of the new Constitution, he labored to enforce his objection to it, rather than to consider and weigh its words, or explain its real meaning to the Convention.

His objection would, no doubt, have proved fatal to the new Constitution, but for the presence and the power of James Madison: who met the great objection of Patrick Henry, and silenced much of the apprehension which his eloquence had created. He was known to have been the most diligent and active member of the Convention that formed the Constitution; and was supposed, therefore, to understand its real import better than any man in the ratifying Convention of Virginia. His position, and his means of imformation, certainly gave him a great advantage over his eloquent rival, Patrick Henry. In his reply to Mr. Henry, he explained the words "We, the people,” precisely as he had before explained them in the The Federalist. He said: "The parties to it were the people, but not the people as composing one great society, but the *See chap. x.

people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Again: "If it were a consolidated government," said he, "the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient to establish it. But it was to be binding on the people of a State only by their own separate consent." This argument, founded on a well-known fact, was absolutely unanswerable.

Yet Mr. Justice Story has, two, or three times, quoted the words of Patrick Henry in the Virginia Convention, as if they were a most valuable authority, without a single solitary word in relation to the unanswerable reply of Mr. Madison! On this point he is profoundly silent! That is to say, he construes the Constitution, not as it was understood by its framers and its friends, but as it was misrepresented by its enemies, in order to cause its rejection! He holds up the words of the one, as a great authority, and he does not let the reader of his most learned Commentaries know the language of the other in reply! Was that honest?

Nor is this all. He construes the preamble to the Constitution, so as to make it eontradict itself. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union." A Union of whatA Union of what-of individuals, or of States? Does not every man under the sun know, this means a Union of States, and not of individuals? Or why speak of the United States at all? Or why, in the same preamble, say "this Constitution for the United States of America?"

I object to the Massachusetts interpretation of the first clause of the preamble to the Constitution. 1. Because it falsifies the facts of history respecting the mode of its ratification, which was by the several States in Convention assembled, each acting for itself alone, "as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and to be bound only by its own voluntary act," and not by the people of America as one nation. 2. Because it makes these words, "We, the people," contradict the seventh Article of the Consti

« ZurückWeiter »