§ 362]

THE NINE MONTHS' CAMPAIGN

309

from the Federalists that they would join in getting certain desired amendments as soon as the new government should be in operation.

The New Hampshire convention changed its mind, and ratified on June 15, 1788 (making the ninth State); but the absolutely essential accession of Virginia did not take place Eighth Federal PILLAR reared

From the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 12, 1788.1

until June 25,- just in time for the news to reach the North for the Fourth of July celebrations.2 New York's ratification came later.

[The rest of this chapter is to be talked over by the class with

books open.]

362. Excursus: "We the People.". -Who ratified the Constitution? The several States, as States ? Or one consolidated people?

The second view rests wholly on the opening words of the preamble: "We, the people of the United States. . . do ordain and establish this constitution." Merely as language, these

1 The Chronicle guessed wrong as to the order of the approaching ratification. See text.

2 At Albany, on the Fourth, the news caused the wildest excitement. The Federalists celebrated by firing ten guns for the new government. The Antis retorted with thirteen guns for the Confederation, which, they claimed, was still the constitutional government. Afterwards, they made a bonfire of a copy of the new Constitution and of the handbills announcing Virginia's ratification. In the ashes, the rallied Federalists planted a lofty pole with another copy of the Constitution nailed to the top, and in the riot that followed, knives were used and some blood was shed. In Pennsylvania more serious riots took place, if less picturesque, - with participation by militia and cannon.

words have no more value than the Fifth Article of the Constitution, which says twice that the ratifying parties are the States and such slight significance as the preamble might otherwise have, disappears upon tracing its history.

The preamble appeared first in the report of the Committee of Detail; but it then read "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island [and so on through the list] do ordain," etc. Plainly, this did not mean a consolidated nation. It meant thirteen peoples, each acting directly, not through legislatures. The Convention accepted this wording without debate.

Almost at the close of the Convention, the Committee on Style changed the words to their present form. No explanation was ever made by a member of the Convention for the change, but it explains itself. The Convention had now decided to put the new government into operation between the first nine States ratifying. It was impossible to name these in advance, and it would be highly improper to name any which might not come in; so all names were dropped out. No change of meaning was designed. The new form, like the first, was accepted without debate.

Outside the Convention, however, this was at first not understood; and States-rights men feared that the wording did mean a consolidated people, — until Madison assured them that it did not. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, "I stumble at the threshold." And in the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry exclaimed, "What right had they to say, 'We, the people'. . . instead of We, the States'? If the States be not the parties to this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States."

6

Madison answered: "Who are the parties? The people;1

1 The writer once heard a Federal judge, in a public address, quote this far, and stop here, to prove that Madison taught the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated nation. Horace Greeley's Great American Conflict (I, 81) contains a similar misrepresentation of the record. After quoting Henry's objections, with specific page reference to the records of the Virginia con

§ 362]

"WE THE PEOPLE"

311

but not the people as composing one great body: the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Otherwise, he adds in proof, a majority would bind all the States; "but, sir, no State is bound, as it is, without its own consent." And he went on to explain that the words mean only that in each State the people were to act in the most solemn way, not merely through the usual legislative channel.

Madison amplified this last thought in the Federalist (No. 39): Ratification "is to be given by the people, not as individuals, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the Supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves [not merely from the subordinate authority of the State legislature] . . . 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."

This answer of Madison was final at the time. But thirty years later, the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated people was revived by Chief Justice Marshall. It was soon given added emphasis by the massive and patriotic oratory of Daniel Webster, and the idea took its place in the mind of the North as an essential article in the creed of patriotism. The plain historical fact, however, is that the thirteen States, looking upon themselves as thirteen distinct sovereignties, and feeling absolutely free either to accept or reject the Constitution, did decide to accept it, and, by so doing, made possible the future development of one nation. Says William McDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, 109, 110):

"Webster's doctrine of the people' was a glorious fiction. It has entered into the warp and woof of our constitutional creed; but it was fiction, nevertheless. If anything is clear in the history of the United

vention, Greeley continues, without page reference of course, - "These cavilers were answered frankly and firmly, It is the work of the people of the United States, as distinguished from the States in their primary and sovereign capacity, and why should not the fact be truly stated." Of course, this is "newspaper history." That was the way Greeley thought Henry ought to have been answered. The answer actually given was the precise opposite.

States, it is that the Constitution was established by the States, acting through conventions authorized by the legislatures thereof, and not by the people of the United States, in any such sense as Webster had in mind. No theory could have a slighter foundation."

FOR FURTHER READING. - The story of the struggle for a new constitution should be read if possible either in Fiske's Critical Period or in McLaughlin's Confederation and Constitution (chs. iii-vi and ix-xv).

EXERCISE. The constitution in the Appendix should be read in class and talked over at this stage. Reread §§ 324, 330-332, on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and find in the Constitution the clauses that remedy each of those weaknesses.

66

The clever use of the word federal by the Nationalists has made much trouble for students. The proper name for our government and for its branches, down to the Civil War, is "Federal," not National," Federal government, Federal judiciary, and so on. But to guard against still more confusing errors, it seems necessary at times, even for the early period, to use the term National, as in § 345.

PART VI

FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER XXXII

GROWTH OF THE CONSTITUTION

363. SEPTEMBER 13, 1788, the dying Continental Congress pro vided for elections under the new Constitution. Nine States were present when that vote was taken. A week later, the attendance had sunk to six States. Thereafter, to keep up a shadow of government, a few delegates met day by day, had their names recorded in the journal, and then adjourned to some favorite tavern. Congress expired for want of a quorum seven months before the new government was organized.

364. The elections that made Washington President were very different from elections in a presidential campaign now. In six States out of the ten1 that took part― the legislatures chose the presidential electors. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia chose them by popular vote, in districts. Massachusetts used a quaint union of these two methods.2 In no State did the people elect directly, on one general ticket, as is almost always done to-day.

365. Two legislatures gave forceful illustrations of the bitterness of party spirit and of disregard of the people's will by delegated" government. In elections by legislatures, custom

66

1 Account for the other three States-with the help of the section below. 2 The people in each Congressional district nominated three electors, from whom the legislature chose one- - with two more at large to make up the proper number,