“To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body
is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me
the very climax of popular absurdity and madness.”[184]
The Constitution was duly transmitted by Congress to the several
Legislatures, by which it was submitted to Conventions of delegates
“chosen in each State by the people thereof,” who ratified the same.
Afterwards, Congress, by resolution, dated September 13, 1788, setting
forth that the Convention had reported “a Constitution _for the people
of the United States_,” which had been duly ratified, proceeded to
authorize the necessary elections under the new government.
The Constitution, it will be seen, was framed to remove difficulties
arising from State Rights. So paramount was this purpose, that,
according to the letter of Washington, it was kept steadily in view
in all the deliberations of the Convention, which did not hesitate
to declare _the consolidation of our Union_ essential to prosperity,
felicity, safety, and perhaps national existence.
The unity of the Government was expressed in the term “Constitution,”
instead of “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the
States,” and in the idea of “a more perfect union,” instead of “a
firm league of friendship.” It was also announced emphatically in the
Preamble:--
“_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.”
Not “we, the States,” but “we, the people of the United States.” Such
is the beginning and origin of our Constitution. Here is no compact or
league between States, involving the recognition of State Rights, but a
government ordained and established by the people of the United States
for themselves and their posterity. This government is not established
_by the States_, nor is it established _for the States_; but it is
established _by the people_, for themselves and their posterity. It is
true, that, in the organization of the government, the existence of
the States is recognized, and the original name of “United States” is
preserved; but the sovereignty of the States is absorbed in that more
perfect union which was then established. There is but one sovereignty
recognized, and this is the sovereignty of the United States. To the
several States is left that specific local control which is essential
to the convenience and business of life, while to the United States,
as Plural Unit, is allotted that commanding sovereignty which embraces
and holds the whole country within its perpetual and irreversible
jurisdiction.
This obvious character of the Constitution did not pass unobserved at
the time of its adoption. Indeed, the Constitution was most strenuously
opposed on the ground that the States were absorbed in the Nation. In
the debates of the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry protested against
consolidated power.
“And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters
who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure
they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great
consolidated Government, instead of a Confederation. _That
this is a consolidated Government is demonstrable clear_; and
the danger of such a Government is to my mind very striking.
I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, Sir,
give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, ‘_We, the
people_’?… Who authorized them to speak the language of ‘_We,
the people_,’ instead of ‘_We, the States_’?”[185]
And again, at another stage of the debate, the same patriotic opponent
of the Constitution declared succinctly,--
“The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the
expression, ‘We, _the people_,’ instead of _the States_, of
America.”[186]
In the same Convention, another patriotic opponent of the Constitution,
George Mason, following Patrick Henry, said:--
“Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause
clearly discovers that it is a National Government, and no
longer a Confederation.”[187]
But against all this opposition, and in face of this exposure, the
Constitution was adopted, in the name of the people of the United
States. Much, indeed, was left to the States; but it was no longer
in their name that the government was organized, while the miserable
pretension of State “sovereignty” was discarded. Even in the
discussions of the National Convention Mr. Madison spoke thus plainly:--
“Some contend that States are _sovereign_, when, in fact, they
are only political societies. The States never possessed the
essential rights of sovereignty. These were always vested in
Congress.”[188]
Grave words, especially when we consider the position of their author.
They were substantially echoed by Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts,
afterwards Vice-President, who said:--
“It appears to me that the States never were independent. They
had only corporate rights.”[189]