solute supremacy" of "the government" over the states and their people. This chapter will prove the following cognate assertions to be not merely mistaken opinions, but entire, though perhaps unintentional, untruths. They are to be found in Daniel Webster's great speech of 1833. He asserted that "contemporary history," the Federalist, "the debates in the conventions of states," and "the writings of friends and foes," all agreed that "a change had been made, from a confederacy of states, to a different system;" that the constitution was made by "the people of the united states in the aggregate ;" that therein they, the said people or nation, "distributed their powers between their general governments and their several state governments;" that this was their " supreme law," and that by it "state sovereignty was effectually controlled;" or, as the Philadelphia Convention more recently but as correctly worded it, "the government" has "absolute supremacy," and the states are bound "in allegiance" thereto! It is plain that these are assertions of fact. They are either true or false. I shall prove them herein to be entirely and absurdly untrue.

The Inquiry is one of Fact. - We are necessarily dealing with facts, or inferences therefrom, when we attempt to ascertain from the constitution and history, what the constitution and government under it are. When the states (or the people) acted, what, in point of fact, did they make? Was it a federation of states, or was it a single state, divided into counties or provinces? I shall duly prove herein the following facts: 1st. That the states existed, as separate and independent sovereign states, before the federal constitution. 2d. That they, as commonwealths, alone acted in establishing that constitution and the government under it. 3d. That the entire existence and powers of the said government are from and under them. 4th. That each and every federal functionary is a citizen and subject of a state, elected by, and acting for, such state. 5th. That our "united states," or "union of states," - as these phrases indicate, is a federation of sovereignties. Now, these are facts or falsehoods. I shall prove them to be facts beyond controversy, and show that the federal constitution, the history of its formation, and all the acts and records of the states concur in proving them. This chapter is devoted to showing that the fathers unqualifiedly asserted the union to be a federation of sovereign states; and that they considered the federal government to be alike the creation, the agency, and the subject of the states. The italics, etc., will be mainly the author's.

Testimony of the Writers of the Federalist. The statements of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Washington, and Franklin are of more weight than all other authorities, on questions involving the origin

and nature of the constitution; and they fully and precisely support all the above assertions of fact. The three first mentioned are the great triumvirate, who wrote the series of papers in 1788, afterwards collected in a volume, and called the Federalist. This

is universally considered to be the most authoritative of all commentaries on the federal constitution, as it was written by the very ablest of the framers, at the time that the states were in process of deciding upon it, and as it powerfully aided in overcoming the charges against, and the apprehensions concerning, the proposed system. I wish it particularly noted that all the extracts contradict Messrs. Dane, Story, and Webster- whose dogmas are above stated in the language of the last in the most positive manner; and they decisively refute the numerous Curtises, Mansfields, Jamesons, Parkers, Brownsons, Greeleys, Raymonds, and other "professors of constitutional law," politicians, so-called statesmen, and newspaper editors, who nowadays habitually reiterate the assertions of the aforesaid great men, and voluminously sophisticate to support the same.

66

Said ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in articles 9 and 85 of the Federalist : "If the new plan be adopted, the union will still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states or a CONFEDERACY." 'Every constitution for the united states must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent states are to be accommodated in their interests, or opinions of interest. . . . Hence the necessity of making such a system as will satisfy all the parties to the compact." He also said the states are "essential component parts of the union." [II. Ell. Deb. 304.] In an address dated February 18, 1789, to the people of New York, he said: "The people of this state are the SOVEREIGNS of it." The whole federal history, and the present constitution of New York, precisely quadrate with these principles.

JAMES MADISON, in Articles 39 and 40 of the Federalist, said: "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. In this relation, then, the new constitution will be a federal, and not a national, constitution." "The states are regarded as distinct and independent SOVEREIGNS . . . by the constitution proposed." His speeches in the Virginia convention set forth the same views. [See III. Ell. Deb. 381, especially.]

JOHN JAY argued in favor of the states "continuing united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes;" and opposed the idea of "forming three or four confederacies instead of one." He further said: "Some time must yet elapse before all the states will have decided on the present plan." This he characterized as a "union of states." I quote partly

from the Federalist, and partly from his "Address to the people of New York." [I. Ell. Deb. 496.] In the last he described the general government as the agents and overseers for the people, by whom they are to be appointed."

So we find Mr. Webster's citation of the Federalist to be without warrant, and his assertions to be decisively contradicted by that great authority.

The Statements of Washington and Franklin. GENERAL WASHINGTON has left on record numerous evidences that he precisely agreed with the statesmen heretofore quoted, as well as with Wilson and Dickinson, to be quoted presently. He always assented to the idea that a confederacy of sovereign states was being formed. And the proof is direct, positive and abundant, that he recognized the states as sovereign parties to, and sovereign actors under, the new system. In a letter to Lafayette, dated June 17, 1788, he said: "I mentioned the accession of Maryland to the proposed government. . . . The accession of one state more will complete the number (nine) needed to establish it."

To General Pinckney, June 28, 1788, he writes of the Virginia convention having adopted the constitution by 89 to 79; of the people of Alexandria rejoicing; of their enjoyment being heightened by the news that "New Hampshire had, on the 21st instant, acceded to the New CONFEDERACY by a majority of eleven voices ;" and of "pouring a libation to the prosperity of the ten states that had actually adopted the constitution.

To Governor Johnston, of North Carolina, June 19, 1789, he writes. of "the political relation which is to subsist hereafter between the state of North Carolina and the states now in union."

To Madison, Aug. 3, 1788, he writes of the time when "the states begin to act under the new form;" and to General Lincoln, Oct. 26, 1788, that whoever shall be found to "enjoy the confidence of the states so far as to be elected Vice-President" will be acceptable to him should he be President.

It is well also to note here his endorsement of the expressions of James Wilson and John Dickinson, given below.

These and numerous other expressions, not incompatible with his wish for a strong and efficient federal government, and a lasting union, settle beyond doubt Washington's view that the states acceded to the federal system as parties to a compact, and were to act as sovereigns "under the new form." It will be shown in a subsequent chapter, by abundance of proof, that state sovereignty in the union was an essential part of Washington's political creed.

DR. FRANKLIN considered the constitution to be a compact between

sovereign states; and he proposed, in the convention of 1787, the second branch of the federal congress, wherein "each state should have equal suffrage," to secure "the SOVEREIGNTIES of the individual states" and "their authority over their own citizens." [V. Ell. Deb. 266.]

The Testimony of the Five next in Rank. - John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, Tench Coxe, and Samuel Adams, may be regarded as the five next in rank - if not equal- - to those quoted, in efficiency and influence, and fully their peers in patriotism, ability, and zeal, in striving for "a more perfect union," and "a more efficient government."

JOHN DICKINSON, who was at one time president of Delaware, and at another of Pennsylvania, was a leading statesman and political writer of that period, and a most influential member of the federal convention. In one of his remarkable letters, he characterizes the new political system as "a confederacy of republics," "in which the SOVEREIGNTY of each state is represented with equal suffrage in one legislative body, the people of each state . . . in another, and the sovereignties and people . . . conjointly represented in a president." [II. Writings of Dickinson, 107.]

The views of Dickinson were those of Washington, as appears from a letter of the latter to John Vaughan, dated April 27, 1788.

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, afterward minister to France, and United States senator from New York, the accomplished statesman to whom, in the federal convention, in which he was a delegate from Pennsylvania, was entrusted the rewriting of the constitution, who, having changed these words, "We, the people of the states," etc., as adopted by the convention, to "We, the people of the united states," must be supposed to know their meaning, declared, years afterward, that "the constitution was a compact, not between individuals, but between political societies, .. each enjoying SOVEREIGN power, and, of course, equal rights." [III. Life of G. Morris, p. 193.1

JAMES WILSON, of Pennsylvania, a member of both the federal and state conventions, a strenuous advocate for a strong government, and afterward one of the ablest of the federal supreme judges, called the general government "a federal body of our own creation," using "our" to designate the people of Pennsylvania, whom he was addressing, and whose ratification he was advocating; he stated the object of the convention of 1787, to be to induce the states "to confederate anew on better principles" [V. Ell. Deb. 158]; and he said, in an address early in October, 1787, which was published generally in the papers of that day, "Let it be remembered that the business of the federal convention was not local, but general; not limited to the views

and establishments of a single state, but coextensive with the continent, and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent SOVEREIGNTIES." [II. Am. Museum, 379; Mass. Centinel, Oct. 24, 1787.] This very address was emphatically approved by General Washington in a letter to David Stuart, dated October 17, 1787. TENCH COXE, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading statesmen, and most lucid political writers of that period, said that though the federal constitution was to be adopted by the people, "yet it was to be done in their capacities as citizens of the several members of our confederacy. . . . Had the federal convention meant to exclude the idea of union, that is, of several and separate SOVEREIGNTIES joining in a CONFEDERACY, they would have said, 'We, the people of America,' for union necessarily involves the idea of competent states, which complete consolidation excludes. But the severalty of the states is frequently recognized in the most distinct manner, in the course of the constitution." [III. Am. Museum, 160, 244.]

64

SAMUEL ADAMS, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, than whom none was more patriotic and zealous, or more active, influential, and able in establishing the federal polity, declared, in the convention of Massachusetts, that the amendment proposed by her (and afterwards adopted by the states), that "all powers not expressly delegated by the constitution were reserved to the several states," was consonant with the second article of the present confederation, that each state retains its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and independence, and every power . . not expressly delegated to the united states." [II. Ell. Deb. p. 131.] And he wrote to Elbridge Gerry, in congress, that this amendment, which he urged the adoption of, would be "a line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal powers vested in Congress, and the distinct SOVEREIGNTY of the several states, upon which the private and personal rights of the citizens depend." [III. Life of Samuel Adams, Letter to R. H. Lee, July 4, 1789; also letter to Elbridge Gerry.]

Another Decade of Witnesses. The mass of evidence is already overwhelming, but for the purpose of grouping, for general use, the principal contemporaneous statements of what our system of government is, and likewise of showing how studious the expositors of the Massachusetts school must have been, to avoid citing and fairly presenting the real authorities on this momentous subject, I will add the testimony of ten more of

"The few, the immortal names That were not born to die."

ROGER SHERMAN, one of the committee to draw up the Declaration of Independence, and a signer of the same, a member of the federal