of the United States of America; that the
manifesto is issued ''in the name and by the
authority of the good people " of the colonies,
and that they are characterized in the first
sentence as "one people."
There was at first a compact between the
States. There was then no power in the cen-
tral government to make a requisition upon
those States which would have been complied
with. Each one of those States had the others
at its mercy. Each might have refused to
unite in a common effort to resist invasion or
repel an enemy. It was discovered that it
was necessary to create a more perfect and
perpetual Union; and the Convention of
1787 was called, and a Constitution was pre-
pared to supersede in many important partic-
ulars the articles of confederation, which had
failed to answer the purposes which their
founders had proposed and expected they
would answer. That Constitution framed by
the Convention was submitted to the people,
and without a single exception the thirteen
colonies, as a people, ratified and established it.
Not only that, but there went out of that
Convention which framed the Constitution, a
letter unanimously passed, and sent out as a
part and parcel of the Constitution, as an ar-
gument to the people, that they might under-
stand exactly the principles incorporated in the
Constitution, as an inducement for them to
vote for and ratify it. Mr. Grundy said in
the Senate of the United States, in debate:
" That it was not intended by the framers
of the Federal Constitution that the States
should retain their entire sovereignty, is
manifest from the language of the letter,
which was adopted unanimously by the Con-
vention, and transmitted with the Constitu-
tion to the old Congress—the language is,
' It is obviously impracticable in the Federal
government of these States to secure all rights
of independent sovereignty to each, and yet
provide for the interest and safety of all.
Individuals entering into society must give
up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.'
From this it appears that the Convention well
knew that the instrument they bad formed
deprived the States of a portion of their sov-
ereignty. and argument is employed to recon-
cile the States to the surrender.
"In the same letter there is the following :
''In all deliberations on this subject, we kept
steadily in our view that which appears to
us the greatest interest of every true Amer-
ican—the consolidation of our Union, in
which is involved our prosperity, felicity,
safety, perhaps our national existence.' "
It was determined that there should be a
union of these States for the benefit of the
whole States; that each State in its sovereign
capacity, so far as it was concerned, should
give up to the General Government for the
general good, a part of that sovereignty
which it otherwise would have possessed.
The gentleman has quoted Patrick Henry, one |
of the most inveterate, as he was one of the
ablest opponents to the adoption of the Con-
stitution; who looked upon this bug-bear of
consolidation as insurmountable, before the
ratification of the Constitution, and boldly
asked, in the language read by my friend
from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas, ) the other
day:
" I have the highest veneration for these
gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand,
what right had they to say We, the people?
My political curiosity, exclusive of my anx-
ious solicitude for the public welfare, leads
me to ask, who authorized them to speak the
language of We, the people, instead of We,
the State? States are the characteristics and
the soul of a confederation. If the States be
not the agents of this compact, it must be
one great consolidated National Government
of the people of all the States."
In reply, Gov. Randolph says :
" The gentleman then proceeds, and in-
quires why we (the Convention of which he
was a leading member) assumed the lan-
guage of ' We, the people? ' I ask, why not ?
The government is for the people; and the
misfortune was that the people had no agen-
cy in the government before * * * * *
What harm is there in consulting the people
on the construction of a government by
which they are to bebound? Is it unfair?
Is it unjust? If the government is to be
binding upon the people, are not the people
the proper persons to examine its merits or
defects ?''
Mr. Pendleton says:
"But an objection is made to the form;
the expression, 'We, the people" is thought
improper. Permit me to ask the gentleman
who made this objection, who but the people
can delegate powers? Who but the people
have a right to form government? The ex-
pression is a common one, and a favorite one
with me. The representatives of the people
by their authority, is a mode inessential. If
the objection be that the Union ought to be
one, not of the people but of the State gov-
ernments, then I think the choice of the
former very happy and proper. What have
the State governments to do with it? Were
they to determine, the people would not, in
that case, be the judges on what terms it was
adopted."
Mr. Webster, that grandest mind that ever
glittered in the galaxy of American states-
manship, has left on record his opinion of
the reasons why the articles of confederation
were superseded by the Constitution :
"It appears to me, Mr. President, that the
plainest account of the establishment of this
government presents the most just and philo-
sophical view of its foundation. The people
of the several States had their separate State
governments, and between the States there
also existed a confederation. With this con-
dition of things the people were not satisfied, |
