Before entering on the consideration of this important question, it is proper to remark, that, on its decision, the character of the government, as well as the Constitution, depends. The former must, necessarily, partake of the character of the latter, as it is but its agent, created by it, to carry its powers into effect. Accordingly, then, as the Constitution is federal or national, so must the government be; and I shall, therefore, use them indiscriminately in discussing the subject.

stituted the convention which framed the reduced to a single question; whether the
Constitution, were appointed by the sev- act of ratification, of itself, or the Con-
eral States, each on its own authority; stitution, by some one, or all of its provi-
that they voted in the convention by sions, did, or did not, divest the several
States; and that their votes were counted States of their character of separate, inde-
by States, are recorded and unquestion- pendent, and sovereign communities, and
able facts. So, also, the facts that the merge them all in one great community
Constitution, when framed, was submitted or nation, called the American people.
to the people of the several States for
their respective ratification; that it was
ratified by them, each for itself; and that
it was binding on each, only in conse-
quence of its being so ratified by it. Until
then, it was but the plan of a Constitution,
without any binding force. It was the
act of ratification which established it as
a Constitution between the States ratify-
ing it; and only between them, on the
condition that not less than nine of the
then thirteen States should concur in the
ratification—as is expressly provided by
its seventh and last article. It is in the
following words: “The ratification of the
conventions of nine States shall be suffi-
cient for the establishment of this Con-
stitution between the States so ratifying
the same." If additional proof be needed
to show that it was only binding between
the States that ratified it, it may be found
in the fact that two States-North Caro-
lina and Rhode Island-refused, at first,
to ratify; and were, in consequence, re-
garded in the interval as foreign States,
without obligation, on their parts, to re-
spect it, or, on the part of their citi-
zens, to obey it. Thus far, there can be
no difference of opinion. The facts are too
recent and too well established, and the
provision of the Constitution too explicit,
to admit of doubt.

That the States, then, retained, after the ratification of the Constitution, the distinct, independent, and sovereign character in which they formed and ratified it, is certain; unless they divested themselves of it by the act of ratification, or by some provision of the Constitution. If they have not, the Constitution must be federal, and not national: for it would have, in that case, every attribute necessary to constitute it federal, and not one to make it national. On the other hand, if they have divested themselves, then it would necessarily lose its federal character, and become national. Whether, then, the government is federal or national, is

Of all the questions which can arise under our system of government, this is by far the most important. It involves many others of great magnitude; and among them, that of the allegiance of the citizen; or, in other words, the question to whom allegiance and obedience are ultimately due. What is the true relation between the two governments-that of the United States, and those of the several States? and what is the relation between the individuals respectively composing them? For it is clear, if the States still retain their sovereignty as separate and independent communities, the allegiance and obedience of the citizens of each would be due to their respective States; and that the government of the United States and those of the several States would stand as equals and co-ordinates in their respective spheres; and, instead of being united socially, their citizens would be politically connected through their respective States. On the contrary, if they have, by ratifying the Constitution, divested themselves of their individuality and sovereignty, and merged themselves into one great community or nation, it is equally clear that the sovereignty would reside in the whole-or what is called the American people; and that allegiance and obedience would be due to them. Nor is it less so, that the government of the several States would, in such case, stand to that of the United States, in the relation of inferior and subordinate, to superior and

They who maintain that the ratification of the Constitution effected so mighty a change, are bound to establish it by the most demonstrative proof. The presumption is strongly opposed to it. It has already been shown that the authority of the convention which formed the Constitution is clearly against it; and that the history of its ratification, instead of supplying evidence in its favor, furnishes strong testimony in opposition to it. To these, others may be added; and, among them, the presumption drawn from the history of these States, in all the stages of their existence down to the time of the ratification of the Constitution. In all, they formed separate, and, as it respects each other, independent communities, and were ever remarkable for the tenacity with which they adhered to their rights as such. It constituted, during the whole period, one of the most striking traits in their character, as a very brief sketch will show.

paramount; and that the individuals of the declaration was taken by delegations, the several States, thus fused, as it were, each counting one. The declaration was into one general mass, would be united announced to be unanimous, not because socially, and not politically. So great every delegate voted for it, but because a change of condition would have in- the majority of each delegation did; volved a thorough and radical revolution, showing clearly that the body itself, both socially and politically-a revolution regarded it as the united act of the much more radical, indeed, than that several colonies, and not the act of the which followed the Declaration of Inde- whole as one community. To leave pendence. no doubt on a point so important, and in reference to which the several colonies were so tenacious, the declaration was made in the name and by the authority of the people of the colonies, represented in Congress; and that was followed by declaring them to be "free and independent States." The act was, in fact, but a formal and solemn annunciation to the world that the colonies had ceased to be dependent communities, and had become free and independent States, without involv ing any other change in their relations with each other than those necessarily incident to a separation from the parent country. So far were they from supposing, or intending that it should have the effect of merging their existence, as separate communities, into one nation, that they had appointed a committee-which was actually sitting, while the declaration was under discussion-to prepare a plan of a confederacy of the States, preparatory to entering into their new condition. In fulfilment of their appointment, this committee prepared the draft of the articles of confederation and perpetual union, which afterwards was adopted by the governments of the several States. That it instituted a mere confederacy and union of the States had already been shown. That, in forming and assenting to it, the States were exceedingly jealous and watchful in delegating power, even to a confederacy; that they granted the powers delegated most reluctantly and sparingly; that several of them long stood out, under all the pressure of the Revolutionary War, before they acceded to it; and that, during the interval which elapsed between its adoption and that of the present Constitution, they evinced, under the most urgent necessity, the same reluctance and jealousy, in delegating power-are facts which cannot be

During their colonial condition, they formed distinct communities, each with its separate charter and government, and in no way connected with each other, except as dependent members of a common empire. Their first union amongst themselves was, in resistance to the encroachments of the parent country on their chartered rights,-when they adopted the title of," the United Colonies." Under that name they acted, until they declared their independence; always, in their joint councils, voting and acting as separate and distinct communities;-and not in the aggregate, as composing one community or nation. They acted in the same character in declaring independence; by which act they passed from their dependent, colonial condition, into that of free and sovereign States. The declaration was made by delegates appointed by the several colonies, each for itself, and disputed. on its own authority. The vote making

To this may be added another circum

stance of no little weight, drawn from al form of expression used for the former

66

pacity. It was performed by delegates appointed expressly for the purpose. Each appointed its own delegates; and the delegates of each acted in the name of, and for the State appointing them. Their act consisted in assenting to," or, what is the same thing, “adopting and ratifying " the Constitution.

66

the preliminary steps taken for the rati- is: "We, the delegates of the State" fication of the Constitution. The plan was (naming the State), do, in behalf of laid, by the convention, before the Con- the people of the State, assent to, and ratigress of the confederacy, for its consider fy the said Constitution." All use ratiation and action, as has been stated. It fy," and all, except North Carolina, use was the sole organ and representative of "assent to." The delegates of that State these States in their confederated charac- use adopt" instead of "assent to," a ter. By submitting it, the convention rec- variance merely in the form of expression, ognized and acknowledged its authority without, in any degree, affecting the meanover it, as the organ of distinct, indepen- ing. Ratification was, then, the act of dent, and sovereign States. It had the the several States in their separate caright to dispose of it as it pleased; and, if it had thought proper, it might have defeated the plan by simply omitting to act on it. But it thought proper to act, and to adopt the course recommended by the convention, which was, to submit it "to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, for their assent and adoption." All this was in strict accord with the federal character of the Constitution, but wholly repugnant to the idea of its being national. It received the assent of the States in all the possible modes in which it could be obtained: first, in their confederated character, through its only appropriate organ, the Congress; next, in their individual character, as separate States, through their respective State governments, to which the Congress referred it; and finally, in their high character of independent and sovereign communities, through a convention of the people, called in each State, by the authority of its government. The States acting in these various capacities might, at every stage, have defeated it or not, at their option, by giving or withholding their consent.

With this weight of presumptive evidence, to use no stronger expression, in favor of its federal, in contradistinction to its national character, I shall next proceed to show that the ratification of the Constitution, instead of furnishing proof against, contains additional and conclusive evidence in its favor.

We are not left to conjecture as to what was meant by the ratification of the Constitution, or its effects. The expressions used by the conventions of the States, in ratifying it, and those used by the Constitution in connection with it, afford ample means of ascertaining with accuracy, both its meaning and effect. The usu

By turning to the seventh article of the Constitution, and to the preamble, it will be found what was the effect of ratifying. The article expressly provides that, "the ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution, between the States so ratifying the same." The preamble of the Constitution is in the following words: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The effect, then, of its ratification was, to ordain and establish the Constitution, and thereby to make, what was before but a plan, "The Constitution of the United States of America." All this is clear.

It remains now to show by whom it was ordained and established; for whom it was ordained and established; for what it was ordained and established; and over whom it was ordained and established. These will be considered in the order in which they stand.

Nothing more is necessary, in order to show by whom it was ordained and established, than to ascertain who are meant by "We, the people of the United States "; for, by their authority, it was done. this there can be but one answer: it meant

To

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." To effect these objects, they ordained and established, to use their own language, "the Constitution for the United States of America," clearly meaning by "for" that it was intended to be their Constitution; and that the objects of ordaining and establishing it were to perfect their union, to establish justice among them; to insure their domestic tranquillity, to provide for their common defence and general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to them and their posterity. Taken all together, it follows, from what has been stated, that the Constitution was ordained and established by the several States, as distinct, sovereign communities; and that it was ordained and established by them for themselves-for their common welfare and safety, as distinct and sovereign communities.

the people who ratified the instrument; mon defence, promote the general welfare, for it was the act of ratification which ordained and established it. Who they were, admits of no doubt. The process preparatory to ratification, and the acts by which it was done, prove, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that it was ratified by the several States, through conventions of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof; and acting, each in the name and by the authority of its State: and, as all the States ratified it, “We, the people of the United States," mean We, the people of the several States of the Union. The inference is irresistible. And when it is considered that the States of the Union were then members of the confederacy, and that, by the express provision of one of its articles, "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence," the proof is demonstrative, that "We, the people of the United States of America," mean the people of the several States of the Union, acting as free, independent, and sovereign States. This strikingly confirms what has been already stated-to wit, that the convention which formed the Constitution meant the same thing by the terms "United States" and "federal," when applied to the Constitution or government; and that the former, when used politically, always mean these States united as independent and sovereign communities.

66

It remains to be shown over whom it was ordained and established. That it was not over the several States is settled by the seventh article beyond controversy. It declares that the ratification by nine States shall be sufficient to establish the Constitution between the States so ratifying. "Between " necessarily excludes over-as that which is between States cannot be over them. Reason itself, if the Constitution had been Having shown by whom it was ordain- silent, would have led, with equal certained, there will be no difficulty in deter- ty, to the same conclusion. For it was mining for whom it was ordained. The the several States, or, what is the same preamble is explicit—it was ordained and thing, their people, in their sovereign caestablished for "The United States of pacity, who ordained and established the America," adding " America," in comformi- Constitution. But the authority which ty to the style of the then confederacy, and ordains and establishes is higher than the Declaration of Independence. Assum- that which is ordained and established; ing, then, that the "United States" bears and, of course, the latter must be suborthe same meaning in the conclusion of the dinate to the former, and cannot, therepreamble as it does in its commencement fore, be over it. "Between" always means (and no reason can be assigned why it more than over, and implies in this case should not), it follows, necessarily, that that the authority which ordained and esthe Constitution was ordained and estab- tablished the Constitution was the joint lished for the people of the several States, and united authority of the States ratifyby whom it was ordained and established. ing it; and that, among the effects of their Nor will there be any difficulty in show- ratification, it became a contract between ing for what it was ordained and es- them; and, as a compact, binding on tablished. The preamble enumerates the them; but only as such. In that sense objects. They are" to form a more the term "between" is appropriately apperfect union, to establish justice, insure plied. In no other can it be. It was, domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- doubtless, used in that sense in this in

stance; but the question still remains, explanation perfectly satisfactory may be given, why the expression, as it now stands, was used by the framers of the Constitution, and why it should not receive the meaning attempted to be placed upon it. It is conceded that, if the enumeration of the States after the word, "people," had been made, the expression would have been freed from all ambiguity, and the inference and argument founded on the failure to do so left without pretext or support. The omission is certainly striking, but it can be readily explained. It was made intentionally, and solely from the necessity of the case. The first draft

over whom was it ordained and established? After what has been stated, the answer may be readily given. It was over the government which it created, and all its functionaries in their official character, and the individuals composing and inhabiting the several States, as far as they might come within the sphere of the powers delegated to the United States. I have now shown, conclusively, by arguments drawn from the act of ratification, and the Constitution itself, that the several States of the Union, acting in their confederated character, ordained and established the Constitution; that of the Constitution contained an enumerthey ordained and established it for themselves, in the same character; that they ordained and established it for their welfare and safety, in the like character; that they established it as a compact between them, and not as a Constitution over them; and that, as a compact, they are parties to it, in the same character. I have thus established, conclusively, that these States, in ratifying the Constitution, did not lose the confederated character which they possessed when they ratified it, as well as in all the preceding stages of their existence; but, on the contrary, still retained it to the full.

66

ation of the States, by name, after the word "people"; but it became impossible to retain it after the adoption of the seventh and last article, which provided, that the ratification by nine States should be sufficient to establish the Constitution as between them; and for the plain reason, that it was impossible to determine whether all the States would ratify; or, if any failed, which, and how many of the number; or, if nine should ratify, how to designate them. No alternative was thus left but to omit the enumeration, and to insert the United States of America " in its place. And yet, an omission, so readily and so satisfactorily explained, has been seized on, as furnishing strong proof that the government was ordained and established by the American people, in the aggregate, and is therefore national.

Those who oppose this conclusion, and maintain the national character of the government, rely, in support of their views, mainly on the expressions, "We, the people of the United States," used in the first part of the preamble; and "do or- But the omission, of itself, would have dain and establish this Constitution for caused no difficulty, had there not been the United States of America," used in connected with it a twofold ambiguity in its conclusion. Taken together, they in- the expression as it now stands. The term sist, in the first place, that we, the peo-"United States," which always means, ple," mean the people in their individual in Constitutional language, the several character, as forming a single community; States in their confederated character, and that the United States of America" means also, as has been shown, when apdesignates them in their aggregate charac- plied geographically, the country occupied ter as the American people. In maintain- and possessed by them. While the term, ing this construction, they rely on the omission to enumerate the States by name, after the word people" (so as to make it read, "We, the people of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c.," as was done in the articles of the confederation, and, also, in signing the Declaration of Independence); and, instead of this, the simple use of the general term "United States."

However plausible this may appear, an

people," has, in the English language, no plural, and is necessarily used in the singular number, even when applied to many communities or States confederated in a common union, as is the case with the United States. Availing themselves of this double ambiguity, and the omission to enumerate the States by name, the advocates of the national theory of the government, assuming that we, the people, meant in