duly done; whereafter, to wit, on November 21, 1789 (the general government having been organized; Washington elected president by all the states that had joined the union-except New York, she not participating; and the desired amendments assured), North Carolina, by a vote of 193 to 75, ratified the constitution as follows: Resolved, that this convention, in behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhabitants of the state of North Carolina, do adopt, and ratify the said constitution and form of government. Done in convention this 21st day of November, 1789." [I. Ell. Deb. 244.]

Was this not acting like a "sovereign, free and independent state," as all the states solemnly agreed and guarantied she was?

Why did not Mr. Webster's great "We-the-people" nation—the great sovereign commonwealth, that " once upon a time" in his imagination so sovereignly distributed its powers between its "general" and its "local" governments, give North Carolina her share, and compel her to take it? Was it just and merciful to her people, to allow her to remain as long as she chose to be contumacious utterly destitute of power for their protection and welfare-for, be it known and understood, that "our states had their status in the union, and no other legal status!" and "neither more nor less power than that reserved to them by the constitution!" So said Mr. Lincoln rather emphasizing, though not misstating, the views of the great Massachusetts expounders, Dane, Story, and Webster.

Washington versus Webster. -Webster's chief dogma is, as we have seen, that the constitution is the union or association of an undivided nation, and that in it, this people distribute their powers between their general and state governments. The following shows Washington's idea :

On May 10, 1789, the governor and council of North Carolina addressed congratulations to him on his election to the presidency, saying, among other things: "Though this state be not yet a member of the union, under the new form of government, we look forward with pleasing hope to soon becoming such, and in the meantime consider ourselves bound in a common interest and affection with the other states, waiting only for such alterations as will remove the apprehensions of the good citizens of this state, for those liberties for which they have fought and suffered, in common with others." Signed by Samuel Johnston, governor, and James Iredell, president of the council.

...

Gen. Washington replied June 19, 1789. He considers "the letter but as indicative of the good dispositions of the citizens of your state towards their sister states, and of the probability of their speedily acceding to the new general government." He joins them in the

hope that the "union will be as perfect, and more safe than it has ever been," and concludes by imploring "Divine guidance in the councils which are shortly to be taken by their delegates, on a subject of the most momentous consequence. I mean the political relation

66

which is to subsist hereafter between the state of North Carolina and the states now in union, under the new general government." For this correspondence, see the American Museum for July, 1789. President Washington, Gov. Johnston, and Judge Iredell did not know of any "association of the people" of all the states uniting their power," "joining their highest interests," "blending in one indivisible mass all their hopes for the future," and exhibiting a “national will" "effectually controlling," "state sovereignty." [Webster's speeches of 1830 and 1833.] The eminent teachers of Massachusetts did not "keep a school " in those days, to teach that the union was not an association of states, i. e. "the united states ;" and these unsophisticated fathers thought the people had no social or political organization, and no capacity to act politically, except as states.

They took for granted, and acted upon, the principle Massachusetts had promulgated, a principle applicable alike to all the equal states. of America, viz., "That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state!”

CHAPTER XII.

RHODE ISLAND FEDERALIZES HERSELF.

THE THIRTEENTH TO RATIFY — REJECTION, MARCH, 1788-ADOPTION, MAY 29, 1790-VOTE, 34 TO 32.

HIS little state rejected the constitution, by a direct vote of her people, in March, 1788. The vote was 2,708 to 232, many citizens declining to vote. Two years afterwards, when the amendments, deemed necessary to secure state sovereignty were assured, she called a convention, which, after duly deliberating, ratified the constitution by a vote of 34 to 32, the following extract being the material part of her ordinance: "We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the constitution for the united states of America, . . . (a copy whereof precedes these presents), and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, . . . in the name and behalf of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said constitution. .. Done in convention at Newport, . . . the 29th day of May, A. D. 1790."

Rhode Island, then, with the absolute right to adopt or reject, ratified, and made the thirteenth of the sovereigns that constituted the federation, and the federal government.

Washington's View of the Act. - In June, 1790, to the legislature of Rhode Island, Washington wrote, acknowledging their congratulations on his "election to the chief magistracy of our confederate republic," and expressing his "pleasure at the completion of our union by the accession of your state." [X. R. I. Colonial Records, 410.] To Gov. Fenner, of Rhode Island, he wrote, June 17, 1790, congratulating him on the ratification of that state, and on the attainment of the union of "all those states which were originally confederated." "Our bond of union," continued he, "is now complete, and we are once more as one family." He meant family of states, and not of persons.

Finis coronat Opus. - Rhode Island then crowned the work of union, as she now crowns the argument of federalization.

Even

Mr. George T. Curtis, at present the leading expounder of the Massachusetts school, admits that Rhode Island was then in a condition of "absolute sovereignty." [II. Hist. Const. 599.] Just as she existed, she took her place in the federal system, without any change being provided for, or hinted at. Indeed, she was named as a pre-existent and unchanged political entity. That name Rhode Island — could have had but one meaning, as to people, organism, or political right.

Nay, more, she crowned the testimony of the states on the question of their intended absolute sovereignty in the union, in a way not generally noted and appreciated as it should be. Massachusetts, in her convention, had insisted that after the states should adopt, and carry into effect, the new constitution, they should amend it, declaring that "All powers not expressly delegated by the constitution, are reserved to the several states." [II. Ell. Deb. 177.] Samuel Adams, in said convention, had stated nem. dis., that this was a “summary of a bill of rights," and that it meant that "each state retains its sovereignty," etc., "and every power," etc., "not expressly delegated to the united states." He wrote to E. Gerry and R. H. Lee, in congress in 1789, that the amendment was desired, so that the people might always "see a line drawn, as clearly as may be, between the federal powers vested in congress, and the distinct sovereignty of the several states." [III. Life of Samuel Adams.]

Moreover, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina had joined Massachusetts in demanding the amendment; and it had become universally understood that such amendment would be made, to make assurance doubly sure against consolidation of the states, which Ames, Parsons, Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, Pendleton, and others had assured the people was impossible under the constitution, as it stood without amendment. Again, North Carolina had rejected, because of the want of such provision, but had subsequently ratified, because she felt confident it would be made.

It was then that Rhode Island crowned the evidence against the intent of consolidation, as follows: "And the convention do, in the name and behalf of the people of the state, . . . enjoin it upon their senators and representatives. . . elected to represent this state in congress, to . . . use all reasonable means to obtain a ratification of the following amendments . . . :

"1. The united states shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the united [I. Ell. Deb. 336.]

states

Thus we see the status that Rhode Island, in common with her sisters, intended and expected to have in the union., And history shows that the commonwealths, and leading public men, all held the idea that sovereign republics were constituting a federal government, or, in other words, an agency, through which to exercise their powers for their common defence and general welfare. [See again, Part I., Ch. VII.]

The Republic of Republics. We have now patiently gone through the historical records of all the original states, and ascertained from the testimony of their leading men, who were the advocates of the new system, and from the acts of the states themselves, that the constitution was formed and vitalized by thirteen independent and concurrent wills, each with no superior on earth; that each and every convention was authorized and elected solely by the state it acted for, to deliberate on the proposed system, and express that state's will in ratifying or rejecting it; and that, therefore, no great nationality or national will ever did, or could possibly, exert itself in the premises; but that the thirteen states did associate themselves by federal compact, "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;" and did thereby "form a more perfect union" of states, as well "as a more efficient federal government.”

The association formed was necessarily a confederacy, for its constituents were states, which remained intact after its establishment. [Art I., § 2, c. 3.] It was properly called the "federal system," or "confederated republic," by Washington and his compeers; and it completely answered to the "republic of republics" of Montesquieu.