CHAPTER X.

NEW HAMPSHIRE FEDERALIZES HERSELF.

THE NINTH TO RATIFY-VOTE, 57 TO 46-DATE, JUNE 21, 1788,

THI

HIS state, being the ninth to ratify, made the complement required for the establishment of the constitution; for Article VII. declared that "the ratification of the conventions of nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the states so [i.e. by conventions] ratifying the same." Nine successive acts of ratification, then -- i. e. the acts of nine separate wills, each operating voluntarily, and with a perfect right to ratify or rejectwere to establish and complete the constitution. No single act, movement or exercise of will could, by any possibility, have done it; and the record throughout exhibits the action of nine independent wills, and no sign of a single and exclusive one. "The people" were organized as states, and the states were "the people." As bodies-politic, composed of people, they, and they alone, ratified. The idea of their unity of organization, will, and deed, as a nation, is entirely false. Article VII. shows that ratifications were to establish; that states were to ordain the ratifications; and, therefore, that the states were to "ordain and establish this constitution for the united

[i. e. associated] states of America."

New Hampshire's Assertion of her Statehood. She was a republic, — that is, a community with the absolute right of self-government; and there was no sign of any authority above her. The record shows that she acted solely of her own motion; and at that moment, the solemn covenant called the articles of confederation, bound all the states to the recognition of her sovereignty, for their declaration was, that "each state retains her sovereignty, freedom and independence." [Article II.] Necessarily she was exercising this sovereignty in making the new constitution. She acted as a commonwealth exclusively, and no power on earth constrained or influenced her. All the fathers asserted or took for granted, that the states were acting in this sovereign capacity. Moreover, the people of New Hampshire had, in 1784, by social compact, "formed themselves" to use their own words "into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or state,

by the name of the state of New Hampshire." [Const. N. H., Part II., Art. I.] This is the character by which she passed, by name, into the union [Fed. Const., Art. I., § 2], and her reiteration of it in 1792, several years after the constitution was established, proves that she considered herself sovereign in the union. And, indeed, this selfdescription stands to the present day, as does the following remarkable declaration : "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power which is not, and may not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the united states in congress assembled." [Const. N. H., Bill of Rights. Art. VII.] And, apparently for the sake of greater emphasis, she declares that her people have the right, whenever they deem it necessary to prevent the ends of government from being perverted, or to preserve public liberty, "to reform the old, or establish a new government;" and that "all magistrates and officers of government" are her people's "substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them." [Ibid., Arts. VIII-X.]

Here we have her self-assertion. No sovereign of Europe could be more autocratic, and her ratification was precisely in character. Let

us see.

"We, the people" of New Hampshire. Her convention was called to examine, and to ratify, or reject, the constitution proposed. It was most deliberate in action, adjourning at one time for several But for this adjournment, and the timely supervention of a general understanding in regard to conservative amendments, as well as the favorable action and influence of other states, the constitution would have been probably rejected. As it was, she ratified by a vote of 57 to 46, the substantial words of her ordinance being as follows: "In convention of the delegates of the people of the state of New Hampshire, June the 21st, 1788. The convention, having impartially discussed and fully considered the constitution for the united states of America, reported to congress by the convention, . . . and submitted to us by a resolution of the general court of said state, do, in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New Hampshire, assent to, and ratify the said constitution for the united states of America." [I. Ell. Deb. 325.]

The convention coupled with the ratification the following, which, with other proposed amendments, it declared to be indispensable "to quiet the apprehensions" of the people and "to guard against an undue administration of the federal government:" "That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised."

It is hard to discover any ground for doubt and fear. But all the promising appearances, all the prospective safeguards, and all the arguments and assurances of the constitutionists, could only "quiet the apprehensions" to a sufficient extent to give the meagre majority of 11 in a vote of 103. Suppose Mr. Webster, who was a native of New Hampshire, though adoptively of Massachusetts, had, in those days, appeared before her — even in the prime of his greatness-and "expounded" the constitution, as he did forty or fifty years later, to mean that a great and undivided nation were, in and by that coustitution, "distributing their powers between their general government and their several state governments," and that New Hampshire was only to hold and wield what the said nation "reserved" in the said constitution, to her, as the county, province, department, pashalic, satrapy, municipality, division or state of New Hampshire; suppose, I say, these absurd and unprincipled notions, which the Massachusetts school profess to have believed for the last thirty or forty years, had been stated by Webster to New Hampshire, as the meaning of the constitution, would she not with unanimity have spurned it from her borders, and disowned the son who insulted her by proposing such degradation. In truth, nobody dared to advocate such ideas in those. days. They appeared as charges to defeat the system, and they well nigh accomplished the purpose.1

Nine Parties "established" the Compact. - The seventh, last and characterizing article of the constitution provides that nine ratifications "shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying;" so that when Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, had ratified, it was understood by everybody that while, without nine, the ordinances were nugatory, with that number they were effective; the compact was "established," and the federation complete, even if no more states ratified.

The following from the "Massachusetts Centinel" of June 25, 1788, shows the impressions and ideas of that day, viz., that "the states" (to use Hamilton's phrase, heretofore quoted) are the " essential component parts of the union," the pillars upon which the federal superstructure solely rests; that the constitution was established" and complete when the ninth state ratified; that it was established "between the states," as political bodies of people; and that these were necessarily "the people of the united states:

"We felicitate our readers on the accession to the confederation of 1 It should, perhaps, be noted here that in March, 1788, the New Hampshire convention stood 54 to 50 in favor of rejecting the constitution; and that only adjournment for three months, with the growing confidence that the new safeguards of freedom proposed by Massachusetts, South Carolina, and others, would prevail, saved it. See extract from Va. Gazette, Appendix A., No. 2.

the state of New Hampshire, not only because it completes the number of states necessary for the establishment of the constitution, but because it is a frontier, a neighboring, and, to us, really a sister state. It is now one of the noble pillars of the great national dome."

We find New Hampshire, then, to be the ninth absolute sovereign; and the federation of states, or the "republic of republics," to be completely established by the ratifications of the nine states, which are named and provided for in the constitution, as distinct political bodies, and as parties to, and actors under it.

The Putting of the Agency at work. After the states had thus established the constitution as their frame of general government, and "supreme law," their general agency, congress, proceeded to put the great machine in operation. The following quotations will bring vividly to us the ideas of that day.

It should be premised that the federal convention always recognized the political bodies called states, as the sole potential actors in the framing and establishing of the constitution, and considered themselves as the citizens, subjects, representatives, agents and servants of the said states, with only advisory powers. The idea of the fathers. unquestionably was, that the new government was not to operate on the political bodies that were making it, but on their citizens, by their authority-the new arrangement being the self-government of the states, on matters common to them; that is to say, the government, by themselves, of their citizens, through the instrumentality of a general governmental agency. It should also be mentioned that the federal convention, in their letter reporting their plan to congress, unamimously said the new system was "the federal government of these states," and that it was the "delegating" of an extensive trust." The following is from the record of the convention.

66

"In convention, Monday, Sept. 17, 1787. Present: The states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton, from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. . . . Resolved, That it is the opinion of this convention that as soon as the conventions of nine states shall have ratified this constitution, the united states, in congress assembled, should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states which shall have ratified the same; and a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for the president; and the time and place for commencing proceedings under the constitution. That after such publication, the electors should be appointed, and the senators and representatives elected; that the electors should meet on the day fixed for the election of the president, and should transmit their votes, certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the constitution

required, to the secretary of the united states in congress assembled; that the senators and representatives should convene at the time and place assigned; that the senate should appoint a president of the senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening and counting the votes for the president; and that after he shall be chosen, the congress, together with the president, should, without delay, proceed to execute this constitution. By unanimous order of the convention. George Washington, President." [1. Ell. Deb. 16.]

The reader will please note, en passant, that here, and in the constitution, are positive proof that the convention unanimously asserted that the states, as bodies, were to ratify and establish the constitution [see the preamble and Article VII.] ; that the states, through electors, were to appoint the president [Art. II. § 1]; that the states were to elect the senators and representatives [Article I., §§ 2, 3]; and that this "congress" of the delegations of the states, "together with the president," were to execute this constitution" of the said states. Here is a decisive proof of the untruth of the Massachusetts school in saying that "the people," as a nation and not as states, established and put in effect the constitution.

66

The Action of Congress. — Now let us see what action the congress of the states took when the ninth state had ratified. I copy, from the Worcester [Massachusetts] Spy of July 17, 1788, its report from the journal of congress, my purpose being alike to reproduce the sacred record, and the impression made upon the people of that day:

"In congress, July 2, 1788. The state of New Hampshire having ratified the constitution, . . . and transmitted to congress the ratification, . . . the president reminded congress that this was the ninth ratification transmitted and laid before them; whereupon. . . ordered, that the ratifications . . . be referred to a committee, to examine the same, and report an act for putting the said constitution into operation, in pursuance of the resolutions of the late federal convention." [See also the Journal of Congress, and I. Ell. Deb. 332.]

The said committee on the 14th of July, 1788, reported an act for putting the constitution into operation, which was debated till the 13th of September, when congress-two more states having meanwhile ratified-resolved that, as "the constitution . . . has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same; and such ratifications, duly authenticated, have been received by congress, and are filed in the office of the secretary, . . . the first Wednesday in January next be the day for appointing electors in the several states, which, before the said day, shall have ratified the said constitution; that the first Wednesday in February next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respec