Page images
PDF
EPUB

sovereigns-thirteen united commonwealths-thirteen united re

publics.

Preliminary Remarks on Federalization. — I will now proceed to show how each state as a body-politic gave to the federal compact its only validity within her borders; how the thirteen states devised and created the federal system as a mode and agency for exercising their self-government in their general affairs, and considered the constitution of it as an addition to their respective fundamental laws; how the powers delegated were trusts to be exercised by their elected subjects, who collectively form the federal government; and how the said compact, and the government under it, were to be, and remain in necessary subordination to the associated states.1

All this will be shown by a full and careful exhibition of the acts of the states themselves, and the contemporaneous explanations of the fathers, who represented and acted for them. We shall see that the great design of the states was (as Joel Barlow expressed it), to "federalize" themselves, and to avoid consolidation; to make a federal and to avoid a consolidated government; in other words, to remain in the necessary condition of allied sovereigns, governing themselves-jointly by a federal government, and severally by state governments.

It will be seen that each of all the thirteen states, of her own motion, in her own time, by her own law, and in the plenitude of her own sovereign will, held a convention, and therein carefully deliberated and finally decided as a state, independently of the authority of the other states of the so-called nation, and of all the world, to "assent to and ratify" the federal constitution, i. e. to become a party thereto, and to give the said constitution, and the government it provided for, existence and jurisdiction within her borders. Inferentially, Article VII. of the compact, conclusively proves all this, for it declares that "the ratification" of nine states shall suffice for "the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same; but this is not enough, for I wish to show the perversions to be not only baseless, but sins against light and knowledge.

1 The first edition of this work was published in England in the summer of 1865, and largely circulated in America; and the second was issued in New York, early in 1866. So far as the author knows, it was then the only work extant, putting the federal constitution, in a given state, on its actual and only legal basis, as the offspring of the will of that state, expressed by ratification, through a convention.

Mr. A. H. Stephens' valuable and instructive work entitled "The War Between The States," Vol. I. published in 1868, apparently adopts the same view, and gives mainly the same evidence and arguments. But it must be said, with due deference, that Mr. Stephens falls into the cardinal error of supposing sovereignty to be divisible into powers, and susceptible of delegation and reservation; and moreover utters the glaring fallacy that sovereignty can be subject to the powers it delegates, "so long as the delegated power is unresumed." These errors will be duly noticed.

In giving the history of each state's action in ratifying the federal compact, I shall quote her ordaining words, which are of infinite importance, as the only expression of sovereign legislative will, that ever made the constitution "the supreme law," or indeed, any law at all, in any state. It will be found that the false charges which well-night defeated the system, are identical with the fallacious expositions of "the Massachusetts school" in later times. It will also be seen that though Dane, Story, Webster, and Curtis now assert that a nation was formed, the states reduced to subjection, and the government made sovereign, all the fathers are on record to the contrary, in the most direct and positive manner.

With the name of each commonwealth will be given the order and date of her ratification, as well as her vote in convention. Let us first take the case of Massachusetts. The italics in the extracts are mainly my own; where otherwise it will be noted.

[ocr errors]

TH

CHAPTER II.

MASSACHUSETTS FEDERALIZES HERSELF.

THE SIXTH TO RATIFY-VOTE 187 TO 168-DATE FEB. 7, 1788.

HOUGH Massachusetts was the sixth to ratify, her pre-eminence in making, as well as the efficiency of her "school" in afterwards destroying, the constitution, and the richness of her record in material for the purpose in hand, make it advisable to present her case first. It will be seen that her record decisively refutes the many volumes of pretended constitutional exposition, emanating from her sons and her press; and that all her history is opposed to the theory of the "Massachusetts school," viz., that "the people of the united states," are a nation, i. e. one sovereign people, represented by a national government, which is possessed of "absolute supremacy" so far as its vested powers go, and is the exclusive judge of the extent of said authority. In those days, she was the stickler, par excellence, for state sovereignty; took the lead in demanding amendments to secure it, and had a boasted influence to that end, on the subsequently ratifying states; and she, as will be seen, was the very proposer of the celebrated Tenth Amendment, which, as Samuel Adams explained in the convention with the assent of all - meant that "each state retains her sovereignty," as well as "all powers not delegated." [II. Ell. Deb. 131.]

[ocr errors]

[ocr errors]

The Substance of the Objections. The opposition charged that the phrase in the preamble, we the people of the united states . . . do ordain and establish this constitution," coupled with the powers given in the instrument, transmuted the pre-existent states to a nation, the said states becoming fractional parts, i. e. provinces or counties ; that, as the constitution was to be "the supreme law of the land,” the government was to be a supreme power; and that, as this government was to have the unlimited right of taxation, and the control of the militia for all national purposes, and was itself to be the judge of the extent of its powers, it followed that so far as the constitution went, "so far" (to borrow the subsequent phrase from Webster) "state sovereignty was effectually controlled." It was quite natural that the people should be doubtful and apprehensive, and that much

honest as well as wrongful opposition should be made, for the federal convention had deliberated in secret, and the new system had transpired suddenly, while its seeming form was unwarranted. The question was whether the sovereignty of the states and the subordination of the government, were preserved in the new system; and the great fears were, that the instrument consolidated the states into a nation; or established a government that could control them, and do away with their statehood and sovereignty.

[ocr errors]

...

Everybody opposed to Consolidation. Washington, under "the unanimous order of the convention," reported the new project to congress in a letter, dated September 17, 1787, which contains the following little phrase: "in all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view . . . the consolidation of our union." Literally this phrase does not speak of the states; but it is the union of them that is to be consolidated, that is to say, increased in utility, efficiency, and strength, made more solid and strong, and more likely to endure. And, as will now be shown from her debates, this precisely accords with what her statesmen said, in her ratifying convention, in defence of the proposed system. One quotation will suffice to present the charge as made in the convention. Hon. Mr. Dench thought "the words, we, the people,' in the first clause ordaining the constitution," and the eighth section of the first article, "would produce a consolidation of the states, and the moment it begins, a dissolution of the state governments commences." [II. Ell. Deb. 98, 99.] GENERAL BROOKS immediately replied that the idea that this constitution would produce "consolidation" of the states, or "dissolution" of their governments, was "ill-founded · - or, rather, a loose idea. In the first place, the congress under this constitution cannot be organized without repeated acts of the legislatures of the several states; and, therefore, if the creating power is dissolved, the body to be created cannot exist. In the second place, it is impossible that the general government can exist, unless the governments of the several states are forever existing; as the qualifications of the electors of the federal representatives are to be the same as those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. The powers to be given to congress amount only to a consolidation of the strength of the union." [II. Ell. Deb. 99.] This is the same idea that was expressed by the president of the Virginia convention, as the object of union, viz., "to bind in one ligament the strength of thirteen states." And all the fathers constantly kept it in view, that the states were combining their strength for defence, as well as joining for convenience, economy, and efficiency in the general government of their citizens.

COLONEL VARNUM said the purpose of the constitution " was only a consolidation of strength;" and that the states were not to be consolidated by it, and, moreover, that the congress provided for had no right to affect them. "It is," said he, "the interest of the whole to confederate against a foreign enemy." [II. Ell. Deb. 78.]

HON. JAMES BOWDOIN not only denied that there was danger of consolidation in the system, but he spoke of it as "a confederacy, which would give security and permanency to the several states; that is to say, preserve them. [II. Ell. Deb. 129.] JUDGE SUMNER argued that there was no danger that "the delegation of these great powers would destroy the state legislatures, . . . for the general government depended on them for its very existence." [Ibid. 64.] HoN. MR. SEDGWICK said that "if he thought this constitution consolidated the union of the states, he should be the last man to vote for it." [II. Ell. Deb. 77. See also Massachusetts Centinel, Feb. 2, 1788.]

In the small volume of "debates" of the ratifying convention, published by the state early in the present century, at page 316 is to be found the following account and extracts. MR. SHURTLEFF, referring to General Washington's letter above mentioned, objected that "the convention said they aimed at a consolidation of the union." MR. PARSONS, afterwards the Chief Justice of Massachusetts, said there was 66 a distinction between a consolidation of the states, and a consolidation of the union." MR. JONES said that "the word 'consolidation' had different ideas." "Different metals melted into one mass," he said, illustrated one, and "several twigs tied into one bundle," the other.

HON. MR. DANA, afterwards Chief Justice of Massachusetts, said, in the same debate, that "if this government was a consolidation, instead of a confederation, he should think the number [of representatives] too small. But, as it is federal, and we have our own governments to support, the expense [of a larger number] would be too great." [Memoirs of Chief Justice Parsons, p. 93.] GEORGE CABOT, writing to Judge Parsons, February 28, 1788, said that one of the great fears of the people was, that the constitution makes "such a consolidation of the states as will dissolve their governments," but that the equal suffrage in the senate "is security that no measures will ever pass tending in the smallest degree to consolidation." [See Memoirs of Judge Parsons; see also Amory's Life of Governor Sullivan, p. 534.]

FISHER AMES, the great Massachusetts statesman and orator, said: "No argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an effect which all good men deprecate. The state governments are

« PreviousContinue »