Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

made, than such a construction as that. But does it not clearly set forth a solemn obligation on the part of her Confederates to maintain, sustain and secure, by their joint authority and means, to each State, such Republican Institutions as each State, for itself, in its own Sovereign will, may adopt?

My dear Sirs, what is a State? Did not the framers of this instrument understand the meaning of the words they used? Is it not a body-politic-a Community organized with all the functions and powers of Government within itself?

Vattel says: "Nations, or States, are bodies-politic. Societies of men, united together for the purpose of their mutual safety and advantage by the efforts of their combined strength. Such society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common, thus becoming a moral person, who possesses an understanding and a will peculiar to herself and is susceptible of obligations and rights."*

Were not the States for which this Constitution was framed, and by which it was adopted as a bond of Union, such bodies politic? Such "several Sovereign and independent States," as, according to the same author previously quoted, "may unite themselves together by perpetual Confederacy, without ceasing to be, each, a perfect State," and without any impairment, as he says, of "the Sovereignty of each ?"†

Were they not just such States as, Montesquieu says, may form "a Confederate Republic," in which case "the Confederacy may be dissolved, and the Confederates preserve their Sovereignty?" Were they not such States as, Cicero says, ought to possess within themselves princi

* Preliminaries to Treatise on the Laws of Nations, p. 49.
† Ante, p. 169.

ples of indestructibility? "A State," says he,* “should "be so constituted as to live forever! For a Commonwealth there is no natural dissolution, as there is for a man to whom death not only becomes necessary, but often desirable." When When "a State," however, "is put an end to, it is destroyed, extinguished," annihilated!

There is nothing, says this profound philosopher, in another place, "in which human virtue can more closely resemble the Divine Powers, than in establishing new States, or in preserving those already established!"

Were States ever more Providentially, yea, Divinely, established, than these had been? Under their whole superstructure, in their Declaration of Independence, lie the great truths, announced by political bodies for the first time in the history of the world, of the capacity and right of man to self-government. That all Governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that, "whenever any Government becomes destructive of the ends" for which it is established, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." This is asserted to be the inalienable right of all Peoples and all States! On these immutable principles, the Governments of these States had been established, separately, and severally. Were States ever established that so well deserved to live forever?

Was there ever a grander exhibition of this highest of all bare human virtues, according to Cicero, than was presented by the Patriot Fathers of 1787, in forming this Constitution? Was not their main, chief, and lead

* Cicero on the Commonwealth.

ing object throughout, and the object of the Union under it, to preserve, and to perpetuate, as far as possible by human agency, these separate and several States so established? Is not this apparent from the whole work? Is it not apparent from the face of the instrument, from its Alpha to its Omega? In other words, is not the Constitution, upon its face, as made, without looking into the subsequent amendments, Federal in its every feature, from beginning to end?

What say you?

PROF. NORTON. I will postpone what I have to say until you get through.

MR. STEPHENS. Well, then, the next step with me, after this examination of the Constitution itself, will be to look into the action of the several States upon it, and see whether they considered it as uniting and consolidating the whole people of the country, over which it was to extend, into one Nation, or whether they considered it, as Washington did, a consolidation of the Union of States, joined together by it, into one Great Confederated Republic.

COLLOQUY VI.

THE ACTION OF THE SEVERAL STATES ON THE CONSTITUTION-DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS-COMMENTS THEREON.

MR. STEPHENS. The next step, then, in our inquiry and investigation, will be to look into the action of the several States upon this Constitution, when it was submitted to their Legislatures, by the Congress, as requested by the Convention, and see how it was understood by them, and what construction was put upon it by its supporters and advocates. Whether it was considered by them as a surrender of the Sovereignty of the several States, or simply as a new Constitutional Compact, between the States, upon the same Federal basis, as the former Articles of their Union had been.

We will take them up in their order of ratification. In each case, looking first into the the action of the State, and, secondly, into the debates, where any have been preserved, as part of the res gesta, showing the understanding of the States, in their ratification, as appears from the record.

FIRST, DELAWARE.

The Legislature of the State of Delaware called a Convention of her people to consider the Constitution, and take action upon it, according to the request of Congress. In the Convention of this State, there seems to have been no division and no discussion. At least, none of the

debates in that body, if any were had, have been preserved. Here is the action of the Convention.

"We, the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution, proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States, in a General Convention, held at the City of Philadelphia, on the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given, for and in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm, the said Constitution.

"Done in Convention, at Dover, this seventh day of December, in the year aforesaid, and in the year of the Independence of the United States of America, the twelfth."*

In this very act of ratification, we see it styled, by the Sovereign people of Delaware, "The Federal Constitution." Indeed, no one can doubt, for a moment, from the Course of her Delegates, in the Philadelphia Convention, that the People of Delaware understood the Constitution, as they here style it, to be Federal in its character, and that the Sovereignty of the State was still retained.

SECOND, PENNSYLVANIA.

The next State in order was Pennsylvania. In this, as in the case of Delaware, let us look first into the action of the State and then into the debates, as far as we have them, to see what light they throw upon this action. First, then, the action of the Convention is in these words.

* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 319.

« ZurückWeiter »