CHAPTER II.

THE UNION OF THE STATES-ITS OBJECTS, CONDITIONS AND

LIMITATIONS.

Having defined the terms which will constantly recur in our discussion, the object in view demands as a next step a clear understanding of the relations of the States to each other after they had entered into a Union, the extent and the limitations of the powers they conferred on any department or officer of the Government which they established, and of the duties or mutual obligations they severally imposed on themselves.

Obviously the opinions and purposes of individuals, which change as knowledge expands and experience enlarges, deserve no place in the solution of such a problem as this; our only trustworthy guide is the action of each Colony in its own legislative assembly, or through its Representatives in the Continental Congress, and, after it became a State, through its delegates in the Congress of the Confederation, in the Constitutional Convention, and in its own Convention called to consider the new Constitution.

No argument is needed to prove that, if the people of any State were induced to adopt the Constitution by misrepresentations of the functions of the Government to be established and the scope of its powers, a fraud was practiced on them; nor was there any fraud. The objects of the framers of the Constitution, and the sateguards against usurpation were honestly and truthfully presented to the people of the several States by the ablest statesmen in all of them, each article, section and clause of the instrument being explained according to the obvious meaning of the words and the accepted canons of interpretation. And, for greater security to

the States and their respective peoples, since experience had taught mankind that governing bodies are prone to exercise powers not belonging to them, a widespread demand led to such amendments as were thought to remove all danger.'

The Convention which met in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, composed of delegates from all the States except New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maryland (though delegates from all of these except Rhode Island appeared in a month or two), and closed its labors on the 17th of September following, after nearly four months of anxious and sometimes almost hopeless efforts to compromise the conflicting interests of States and groups of States, and agree upon a plan which would probably be ratified by the States, transmitted to the Congress of the Confederation the draft of a Constitution to be submitted to Conventions to be called in the several States by their Legislatures at the request of the Congress.

There were 13 States in the Confederation, but as there were apprehensions that some of them might refuse to abandon the Confederation and adopt the new

1 Mr. Greeley, in his efforts to find excuses for the conduct of his political associates, asserts that powers were granted of which the people were kept in ignorance. In his American Conflict, Volume II, page 232, he says: "The Constitution was framed in General Convention, and carried in the several State Conventions, by the aid of adroit and politic evasions and reserves on the part of its framers and champions. * * * Hence the reticence, if not ambiguity, of the text with regard to what has recently been termed coercion, or the right of the Federal Government to subdue by arms the forcible resistance of a State, or of several States, to its legiti mate authority. So with regard to slavery as well," etc.

From which view of the Constitution, if it were correct, two de ductions seem unavoidable:

1. The Revolutionary war was a mistake; and

2. The ratification of the Constitution, secured by fraud, is not. binding on any State.

scheme of government, the seventh article provided that if nine States should adopt it, it should be a "Constitution between the States so ratifying the same," the other four States to be left to take care of themselves as they could.1

At the ensuing sessions of the Legislatures, all of them except that of Rhode Island called Conventions to consider the ratification of the new Constitution. Delaware ratified it on the 7th of the following December, and New Hampshire on the 21st of June, 1788. These were the first and the last of the necessary nine, but five days after the latter date Virginia and New York acceded to the new Union." Thereupon steps were taken

'The reader should note that "between" is used here for the obvi ous reason that the Constitution was to be of the nature of a compact between (betwain or by two) two parties, namely, each State as one and its co-States as the other. And the consolidationist may select either horn of the dilemma: If it was intended to establish a new Union, here is recognized the right of nine States to withdraw from the old one; if it was intended simply to amend the old Union, the right of four States to withdraw from it is recognized.

"There was formidable and in some instances violent opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. In the Massachusetts Convention, composed of 355 members, after a three weeks debate, it was carried by 19 majority. But in Pennsylvania the proceedings were even more interesting, as we gather from the protest of the opponents of the Constitution, as given on page 29, Volume I, second series, Hildreth's History: "The resolution introduced in the Assembly of Pennsylvania for holding that Convention (to consider the new Constitution) had allowed a period of only 10 days within which to elect the members of it; and the minority in the Assembly had been able to find no other means of preventing this precipitation, except by absenting themselves, and so depriving the House of a quorum. But the majority were not to be so thwarted; and some of these absentees * had been seized by a mob, forcibly dragged

*

to the House, and there held in their seats, while the quorum so formed gave a formal sanction to the resolution. It was further alleged (by the protest) that of 70,000 legal voters, only 13,000 had actually voted for members of the Ratifying Convention; and that the majority who voted for ratification had been elected by only 6,800 votes."

2

to hold the elections required by the new order of things, and to inaugurate the Government.

North Carolina's Convention refused to carry the State into the Union, and she and Rhode Island remained out of the Union until sixteen and twenty-two months, respectively, after the ratifications of the necessary nine, their objections having been in the meantime removed by such amendments to the Constitution as were thought to be effective barriers to usurpation.'

In the public mind and in the State Conventions there were many objections to the proposed Constitution founded on the total darkness which had enveloped the proceedings of the Convention which framed it.

Some of the erroneous interpretations which the publication of the "secret proceedings" disposed of, have at different times been palmed off on the people as authoritative expositious. For example, Patrick Henry stoutly opposed the ratification by Virginia, and demanded to know why it said "We, the people" instead of "We, the States." "If," he continued, "the States be not the agents of this Compact, it must be one great, consolidated, National Government of all the States." But the "secret proceedings," afterwards published, showed that the final draft of the Constitution, submitted to the Convention August 6 by the Committee

་

'North Carolina's objections to the Constitution may be seen in the following resolution passed on the 1st of August, 1788, after that instrument had been defeated by a vote of 184 to 84:

"Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing from encroachments the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before Congress and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid on the part of the State of North Carolina."-Elliot's Debates, I, 331.

of Five, began with "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island," etc.. naming all the thirteen States; and that the names of the States were stricken out for the reason that it was not known whether all the States would ratify it, or how many more States would ultimately be admitted into the Union. But this "We, the people" does duty to-day in bolstering up our "great consolidated, National Government."

* * *

Mr. Greeley quotes Henry with much satisfaction; but, like Josh Billings's lazy man hunting for a job of work, he read Elliott's Debates "with a great deal of caution." If he had turned to page 94 of Volume III— from which volume, pages 22 and 24, he had quoted Henry's words--he would have found this answer from Madison: "I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged Who are parties to it? The people-but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unarimously reprobated it," etc.

But this is anticipating.

The importance of the subject requires that the reader shall have as a preface to the main discussion a brief history of the relations of the States to each other previous to the formation of the "more perfect Union."

Exposed to dangers from Indians and other enemies, the British Colonies in North America very early recognized the duty as well as the necessity of defending each other; and (omitting two unimportant confederacies) apprehending in 1754 that the war between England