words have no more value than the Fifth Article of the Constitution, which says twice that the ratifying parties are the States and such slight significance as the preamble might otherwise have, disappears upon tracing its history.

The preamble appeared first in the report of the Committee of Detail; but it then read "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island [and so on through the list] do ordain," etc. Plainly, this did not mean a consolidated nation. It meant thirteen peoples, each acting directly, not through legislatures. The Convention accepted this wording without debate.

Almost at the close of the Convention, the Committee on Style changed the words to their present form. No explanation was ever made by a member of the Convention for the change, but it explains itself. The Convention had now decided to put the new government into operation between the first nine States ratifying. It was impossible to name these in advance, and it would be highly improper to name any which might not come in; so all names were dropped out. No change of meaning was designed. The new form, like the first, was accepted without debate.

Outside the Convention, however, this was at first not understood; and States-rights men feared that the wording did mean a consolidated people, -until Madison assured them that it did not. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, "I stumble at the threshold." And in the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry exclaimed, "What right had they to say, 'We, the people'. . . instead of 'We, the States'? If the States be not the parties to this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States."

Madison answered: "Who are the parties? The people;1

1 The writer once heard a Federal judge, in a public address, quote this far, and stop here, to prove that Madison taught the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated nation. Horace Greeley's Great American Conflict (I, 81) contains a similar misrepresentation of the record. After quoting Henry's objections, with specific page reference to the records of the Virginia con

§ 362]

"WE THE PEOPLE"

311

but not the people as composing one great body: the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Otherwise, he adds in proof, a majority would bind all the States; "but, sir, no State is bound, as it is, without its own consent." And he went on to explain that the words mean only that in each State the people were to act in the most solemn way, not merely through the usual legislative channel.

Madison amplified this last thought in the Federalist (No. 39): Ratification "is to be given by the people, not as individuals, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the Supreme authority in each State, - the authority of the people themselves [not merely from the subordinate authority of the State legislature] . . . 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."

This answer of Madison was final at the time. But thirty years later, the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated people was revived by Chief Justice Marshall. It was soon given added emphasis by the massive and patriotic oratory of Daniel Webster, and the idea took its place in the mind of the North as an essential article in the creed of patriotism. The plain historical fact, however, is that the thirteen States, looking upon themselves as thirteen distinct sovereignties, and feeling absolutely free either to accept or reject the Constitution, did decide to accept it, and, by so doing, made possible the future development of one nation. Says William McDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, 109, 110):

"Webster's doctrine of the people' was a glorious fiction. It has entered into the warp and woof of our constitutional creed; but it was fiction, nevertheless. If anything is clear in the history of the United

vention, Greeley continues, without page reference of course, "These cavilers were answered frankly and firmly, It is the work of the people of the United States, as distinguished from the States in their primary and sovereign capacity, and why should not the fact be truly stated." Of course, this is "newspaper history." That was the way Greeley thought Henry ought to have been answered. The answer actually given was the precise opposite.

States, it is that the Constitution was established by the States, acting through conventions authorized by the legislatures thereof, and not by the people of the United States, in any such sense as Webster had in mind. No theory could have a slighter foundation."

FOR FURTHER READING.

-The story of the struggle for a new constitution should be read if possible either in Fiske's Critical Period or in McLaughlin's Confederation and Constitution (chs. iii-vi and ix-xv).

EXERCISE. The constitution in the Appendix should be read in class and talked over at this stage. Reread §§ 324, 330-332, on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, and find in the Constitution the clauses that remedy each of those weaknesses.

The clever use of the word federal by the Nationalists has made much trouble for students. The proper name for our government and for its branches, down to the Civil War, is "Federal," not "National,”. Federal government, Federal judiciary, and so on. But to guard against still more confusing errors, it seems necessary at times, even for the early period, to use the term National, as in § 345.

PART VI

FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER XXXII

GROWTH OF THE CONSTITUTION

363. SEPTEMBER 13, 1788, the dying Continental Congress pro vided for elections under the new Constitution. Nine States were present when that vote was taken. A week later, the attendance had sunk to six States. Thereafter, to keep up a shadow of government, a few delegates met day by day, had their names recorded in the journal, and then adjourned to some favorite tavern. Congress expired for want of a quorum seven months before the new government was organized.

364. The elections that made Washington President were very different from elections in a presidential campaign now. In six States out of the ten1 that took part-the legislatures chose the presidential electors. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia chose them by popular vote, in districts. Massachusetts used a quaint union of these two methods.2 In no State did the people elect directly, on one general ticket, as is almost always done to-day.

365. Two legislatures gave forceful illustrations of the bitterness of party spirit and of disregard of the people's will by "delegated" government. In elections by legislatures, custom

1 Account for the other three States-with the help of the section below. 2 The people in each Congressional district nominated three electors, from whom the legislature chose one-with two more at large to make up the proper number.

favored a joint ballot (the two Houses voting as one body); and this method was used without question in five States which chose electors by legislatures. But in New Hampshire, the upper House was Federalist, while the more numerous and more representative lower House was Antifederalist. The Senate insisted upon election by concurrent vote-as ordinary

GEORGE WASHINGTON. From a portrait by Peale, now in the Pennsylvania Academy, Philadelphia. Washington was president of the Federal Convention and exercised great influence in that body, though he made no formal speech in its

sessions.

bills are passed - so that

it might have a veto on the other House. The wrangle lasted for weeks. At the last moment, the larger House surrendered, and chose electors acceptable to the smaller one.

In New York, the situation was similar; but there the Antifederalist House refused to yield its right. So that State lost its vote.

366. There had been no formal nominations. Washington received the 69 votes cast for President. For Vice President there was no such agreement. Some of the Antifederalists hoped to elect George

Clinton of New York, Hamilton's chief adversary there; but the plan fell to pieces when New York failed to take part in the election. Eleven names were voted for by the 69 electors. John Adams was elected, but by only 34 votes, 367. The Continental Congress had named the first Wednesday in March for the inauguration of the new government at

one less than half.1

1 Such a vote would not elect to-day. Why did it then?