AMERICANS FIND THE NEED OF A SINGLE NATION
Living over the great days of our forefathers, we now approach the
greatest of all. It comes four years after the end of the Revolution.
Not satisfied with a mere union of their states, the whole American
people, in 1787, proposed to form the great nation of men, America.
On June 21, 1788, it is created by them. On March 4, 1789, its only
government, now also the government of the continued union of states,
begins to function.
Between May 29, 1787, and March 4, 1789, the whole American people did
their greatest work for individual liberty. That was their greatest
day. Most Americans of this generation know nothing about that period.
Still more is it to be regretted that our leaders in public life, even
our most renowned lawyers, do not understand what was achieved therein
for human freedom. It is of vital importance to the average American
that _he_ always know and understand and realize that achievement.
That he do so, it is not in the slightest degree essential that he be
learned in the law. It is only necessary that he know and understand a
few simple facts. The experience of five years since 1917 teaches one
lesson. It is that Americans, who have not the conviction that they are
great constitutional thinkers, far more quickly than those who have
that conviction, can grasp the full meaning of the greatest event in
American history.
The reason is plain. Back in the ages, there was a time when scientific
men “_knew_” that the earth was flat. Because _they_ “knew” it, the
rest of men assumed that it was so. And, because _they_ “knew” it,
it was most difficult to convince _them_ that their “knowledge” was
_false_ “knowledge.”
In a similar way, our statesmen and constitutional thinkers came to
the year 1917 with the “knowledge” that legislatures in America,
if enough of them combined, had exactly the omnipotence over the
individual freedom of the American which had been denied to the British
Parliament by the early Americans. Naturally, it is difficult for
_them_ to understand that their “knowledge” is _false_ “knowledge.”
For us who have no false knowledge to overcome, it is comparatively
simple to grasp what those other plain Americans of 1787 and 1788
meant to accomplish and did accomplish. Why should it not be simple
for us? With those other plain Americans, we have just been through
their strenuous years which immediately preceded their greatest days of
1787 and 1788. They were a simple people as are we average Americans
of this generation. From living with them through those earlier days,
we have come to know their dominant purpose. They sought to secure to
themselves and to their posterity the greatest measure of protected
enjoyment of human life, liberty and happiness against interference
from outside America and against usurpation of power by any governments
in America. Certainly, it ought not to be difficult for us to grasp
accurately and quickly what they meant to do and what they did do in
their last and greatest achievement in the quest of that protected
enjoyment of human freedom. But, with all our happy predisposition
accurately to understand the meaning of the facts in 1787 and 1788,
that understanding cannot come until we know the facts themselves.
Let us, therefore, live through those years with those other plain
Americans of whom we _are_ the posterity. Only then can we understand
their legacy of secured liberty to us _and keep it against usurpation
by those who do not understand_.
So long as the former subjects continued their Revolution, it was
only natural that Americans should not realize how inadequately a
mere federation of states would serve really to secure the protected
enjoyment of individual human freedom. But, as soon as that war had
ended, discerning men began quickly to realize that fact. Jealousies
between nations, jealousies in abeyance while those nations were
fighting a common war for independence, quickly had their marked
effect upon the relations of these nations to one another and upon the
respect which they showed to the commands of the government of the
federation of which all those nations were members. As a matter of
fact, those commands, because the governing powers of that government
were wholly _federal_, were tantamount to nothing but requisitions.
Those requisitions were honored largely by ignoring them. There was no
way of enforcing respect for them or compelling observance of them.
The plan of a purely _federal_ union of nations permitted no method
of enforcement save that of war upon whatever nation or nations might
refuse obedience to a requisition. Such a war would have been repugnant
to the mind of every patriotic American.
This was only one of the many defects coming from the fact that
Americans, in spirit one people or nation, had no political existence
as one nation and had no general _national_ government, with general
powers over all Americans, to command respect at home and abroad for
the individual freedom of the American.
There is neither time nor necessity for dwelling further upon the
fact, quickly brought home to the American people after the close of
their Revolution, that a purely _federal_ government of the states was
no adequate security for their own freedom. Let the words of one of
themselves, apologizing for the inadequacy of that government, attest
their quick recognition that it was inadequate. They are the words of
Jay in _The Federalist_ of 1787. This is what he said: “A strong sense
of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early
period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate
it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence;
nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of
their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility
and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries
and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and
well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered
at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on
experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it
was intended to answer.” (_Fed._, No. 2.)