99 66 her ordinance, hitched to "the constitution," a tandem of four, as follows: 66 approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said constitution." Besides these, the states and the fathers used, for the purpose of expressing the same act, "join," "unite," "accept," "accede to," "affirm,' sanction," "agree to," "adopt," etc. Of these, the word "ratify" was used in all the ordinances, probably because it was the technical word usually employed by sovereigns to express their sanction of treaties, alliances, leagues, federations, and other compacts. And it seems to be the word best fitted to signify a commonwealth's adoption of a federal pact, while it does not even hint at the assent or approval of mere voting persons. The theory of the expounders really is, that our people, in provinces, counties, or departments, adopted the "national constitution," just as the French elected the President for life, the Emperor, and, more recently, the plebiscite concerning a responsible ministry. They seem, however, to perceive but dimly that their theory implies a like despotic authority here, which permits the expression, and provides for the ascertainment of the popular will or rather wish. Any fair arguer would have known that all the above expressions conveyed the same idea, so far as they referred to the giving of existence and authority to the new system. It was plainly impossible for one who knew the facts, not to see that the states, in convention, made a proposal to each state; each assented to and ratified it; thereby it became the "federal constitution," and they became "the united states." But Mr. Webster was only able to attack the aforesaid resolution by sophistry; so he "criticised" the above words, seeming not to know that by "accede" Mr. Calhoun precisely meant ratify, while by "compact" he precisely meant constitution; and that the character and legal effect of the instrument depended, not upon what Mr. Calhoun or anybody else called it, or, indeed, what it called itself, but upon what it actually was. He ignored Constitutional History, or he would not have characterized the above words as "unconstitutional language," for the fathers and the states habitually used compact as meaning constitution, and accede as ratify, as will now be shown. [Italics mine.] HAMILTON wrote to Madison, June 8, 1788: "God grant that Virginia may accede." He wrote to Chipman, of Vermont, July 22, 1788: "The accession of Vermont to the confederacy is of great importance." And in a subsequent letter he speaks of Vermont's "accession to the union," and her becoming a member of the confederacy. In Article 85 of the Federalist, he characterizes the association of states as a confederacy; calls the constitution a compact; and says that "thirteen independent states" are "the parties to the compact." In the ratifying convention of New York, he says the new system is a confederacy of states!" [II. Ell. Deb. 353.] MADISON, in the Virginia ratifying convention, characterized the new plan as "a government of a federal nature, consisting of many coequal sovereignties." This is his key-note, and many passages containing the words "compact" and "accession" could be produced. One will suffice: "Suppose," said he, "eight states should ratify, and Virginia should propose certain alterations as the previous condition of her accession." [III. Ell. Deb. 618.] JOHN JAY wrote to Washington in June, 1788: "The accession of New Hampshire does good, and that of Virginia would do more." we see that all "the writers of the Federalist," not only recognized the states, instead of the nation, as the actors in establishing the constitution, but they, like Calhoun, "abandoned the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary." WASHINGTON, in a letter to David Stuart, of Oct. 17, 1787, spoke of the new constitution as a "compact or treaty," and said that among the states, "there must be reciprocity or no union." To Bushrod Washington, he writes, Nov. 10, 1787: "Is it best for the states to unite?. If the union of the whole is a desirable object, the component parts must yield a little, in order to accomplish it." He then asks what the opponents in Virginia would do, "if nine other states should accede to the constitution." Writing to Madison, Dec. 7, 1787, he speaks of " the states acceding to the federal government," etc. To the same, January 10, 1788, he says: "Nine states will have acceded to it." To Gen. Knox, June 17, 1788, he speaks of "the accession of South Carolina," and hopes "that the states which may be disposed to make a secession, will think often and seriously on the consequences." To Marquis de Lafayette, June 17, 1788, he speaks of "the accession of Maryland to the proposed government," and says, "the accession of one state more, will complete the number needed to establish it." To Gen. Pinckney he wrote on June 28, 1788, that "New Hampshire had, on the 21st instant, acceded to the new confederacy, by a majority [in her convention] of eleven voices." To John Jay, July 18, 1788, he speaks of "the accession of ten states;" and July 20, 1788, to Sir Edward Newenham, of the states "having formed a confederated government." Writing to Gouverneur Morris, in 1789, he hopes "the non-acceding states will very soon become members of the union." And on July 1, 1790, he writes to Count de Segur: "The union of states is now complete under the new government, by the late accession of Rhode Island to the constitution." [All these extracts are to be found in Vol. IX., Writings of Washington.] The following extract from a letter from Washington to the Earl of Buchan, dated April 22, 1793, - first published in the London Autographic Mirror, in 1865,- shows his federal idea or conception at that date to be unchanged: "I send you the plan of a new city about the centre of the union of these states." FRANKLIN could be quoted extensively to the same effect. A single quotation will suffice. He wrote on Nov. 5, 1789: "Our new constitution is now established with eleven states, and the accession of a twelfth is soon expected." Governor Randolph, Judge Parsons, Chancellor Livingston, Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and many others, could be quoted to the same effect. A single expression of the first named, in the Virginia convention, will suffice: "Were I convinced that the accession of eight states did not render our accession also necessary to preserve the union, I would not accede to it, till it should be previously amended." [III. Ell. Deb. 67.] Neither Disputant knew the Facts of the Case. Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun seem to have been about equally well-informed in constitutional history. In the rejoinder of the former to the latter, in 1833, he said: "The gentleman also attempts to find an authority for his use of the word 'accede.'" He then went on to admit that Gen. Washington used it, as did his biographer. But, said he, it was in regard to North Carolina's ratification; as the old union was broken up, and the new one already formed, "there was propriety, perhaps, in calling her adoption an accession." The above extracts indicate the effective reply Mr. C. could have made. Besides beating his Titanic adversary in argument, and convincing the learned, he might have crushed him with mountains, and convinced the world! Mr. Webster's arguments were made mainly of assertions of fact, all of. which could, then and there, have been proved to be unfounded! In fine, all the fathers preferred the "new vocabulary," and were quite ignorant of the alleged fact, that there was "no language in the whole constitution applicable to a confederation of states." Mr. Webster's Views late in Life. - As Mr. Webster was an American politician, like most of the class, he could act the pendulum. Having done ample justice to his consolidation swing, I will show his federal oscillations. [The italics are my own.] He wrote to Col. William Hickey, Dec. 11, 1850, that "the constitution is the bond, and the only bond of the union of these states. It is all that gives us a national character." ["The Constitution," p. xxii.] This expresses precisely the idea of Calhoun, and is the exact opposite of Mr. Webster's assertion in 1833, that the constitution is the union of the people, and not a union of states! He wrote to Mark Cooper, of Georgia, in 1851: "The states are united, confederated, not 'chaos-like, together crushed and bruised."" "The states are united, confederated." All the fathers, and the constitution, speak of "the union of states" "the united states." These expressions, with their habitual use of federal (and its cognates from the same root, fœdus) make it impossible that they should have intended anything else by the constitution, than a league "between the states ratifying the same." This was unquestionably Webster's meaning. "The states are united, CONFEDERATED." In 1851, to the young men of Albany, he said: constitutional compact nevertheless still binding ; when called upon to fulfil a compact, the question is, will you fulfil it? I, for one am ready." Again he speaks of "the compact of the constitution." being a "fair" one. 66 ... here is the At Capon Springs, Va., in June, 1851, he said the following: "How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter in a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest. . . . If the Northern states refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect" one "part of the constitution, . . . and congress provides no remedy, the South would be no longer bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side, and still bind the other side." So we see that Mr. Webster himself put the "new vocabulary" in requisition, even using the phrase "constitutional compact," which he so chided Mr. Calhoun about. Attempts to explain. In the above extract from his speech at Capon Springs, by the phrase "different parties," Mr. Webster must have meant "states," and by "certain purposes," he could but mean the reasons for which they federated, the "parties" and "purposes which the constitution in fact exhibits. It is quite presumable, too, that when he used "compact," he meant one of "the compacts which," Hamilton said [in Fed. 85], were "to embrace thirteen distinct states in a common bond of amity and union." Nay, more, the presumption from this very extract is, that he agreed with Hamilton's assertion in the same article that "thirteen independent states are the parties to the compact." Mr. Curtis, like Mr. Webster, has attempted to explain the phrase "constitutional compact" consistently with the theory of 1830-3. He was, said Mr. Curtis, "speaking of a particular clause in the con stitution as founded in a compact between different classes of the states," etc. The fallacy of this hardly needs exposure. 1st, the " "parties" of the constitution are "states," and not "classes of states," or "sections," or "the North and South." 2d, there is no history of such "parties" as the latter having existed, negotiated, deliberated upon, much less established, "compacts." 3d, it is descending to the ridiculous to suppose that such "parties" agreed upon representation, taxes, coinage, regulating commerce, etc., and that the nation then proceeded to make an imperial or supreme law," embodying such agreements, and binding such "classes of states" and "sections" indissolubly to observe them. 4th, the phrase, "the Northern States," in the above extract, destroys Mr. C.'s assumption. 5th, it is a mere solecism to say the constitution is founded in compact, while it is not itself a compact. It is both a compact and a constitution of federal government. Mr. Webster's Real Views. These are most likely to be found, not in editions of his works, or in biographies prepared by interested persons, but in the studied and elaborate memorial to congress on the Missouri question, which he and others were elected by the inhabitants of Boston to prepare, and which they reported on Dec. 15, 1819. [See Appendix F.] Mr. Webster was then in his prime. He had been elected to congress from New Hampshire six years before, had distinguished himself, had doubtless thoroughly studied our polity and its history; and he seems to have been the chairman of the committee. They present the memorial in the following manner :— ... "The committee appointed by a vote of the meeting, . . . submit the following: "BOSTON, Dec. 15, 1819." DANIEL WEBster, In this memorial, Mr. Webster calls the united states "the American confederacy!" and the following are some of the most remarkable passages. The constitution provides that "new states may be admitted into the union.' The only parties to the constitution, contemolated by it originally, were the thirteen confederated states." Objecting to an extension of "inequality of representation, which already exists in regard to the original states," he proceeds to say: "As between the original states, the representation rests on compact and plighted faith, and your memorialists have no wish that that |