has no other meaning than that these societies of people "divested themselves of nothing," but intended, under the new system, to continue the function of governing themselves. Function, I say, for society naturally and functionally governs itself, - doing, under its Maker, what it was made for, just as man feels, thinks, acts, walks, talks, eats, digests, etc., in governing and preserving himself according to his being.

Yes, common sense shows that a republican people must “divest themselves of nothing," if they preserve liberty and self-government; and that the powers they, with other societies, put in government must be "the mere result of a compact;" and must be powers delegated or entrusted to an agency.

I can wind up this chapter with nothing more apposite, instructive, and conclusive, than an extract from his "Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," by Noah Webster, — an expounder whom the American people should better know. The italics are his: "The states, in their separate capacity, cannot provide for the common defence; nay, in case of a civil war, a state cannot secure its own existence. The only question, therefore, is whether it is necessary to unite, and provide for our common defence and general welfare." If yes, continues he, there is need of " constituting a power over the whole united states, adequate to these general purposes."

"The states, by granting such power, do not throw it out of their own hands, they only throw each its proportion into a common stock, they merely combine the powers of the several states into one point, where they must be collected, before they can be exerted. But the powers are still in their own hands, and cannot be alienated, till they create a body independent of themselves, with a force at its command, superior to the whole yeomanry of the country!" [See New Haven Gazette, Nov. 29, 1787.]

CHAPTER VII.

MISSTATING HISTORY AND RECORDS.

INTERPRETATION No. 11.- MISSTATING THE VIEWS AND ACTS OF THE CONVENTION.

UST as they tear the "We-the-people " shred from the preamble, and

JUST

show by it that the constitution is not a union of states, but is an association of the people thereof to form a nation, of which the states are mere provincial parts, these expounders pick out of the record of the convention of 1787, and of the speeches and writings of the fathers, little passages, which, torn from the contexts, support their theory. In this chapter I shall confine myself principally to exposing the misstatements or mistakes made in reference to the action and plan of the "convention of states" of 1787. I will begin by reiterating briefly

The Reasons for making a New Federation. The first "federal government of these states" consisted of a mere congress, vested with nearly the same legislative powers as the present one. But, as it had no coercive authority to enforce its enactments, compliance was virtually at the option of the states. Of course such a governmental contrivance was weak and inefficient; and, when peace supervened, and "union or subjugation" ceased to be the momentous alternative, each state began to exercise her free will as to commerce, currency, debt, contributions for defence, etc., and other matters of common interest. The tendency of things was towards disunion and weakness, if not civil or internecine strife. Hence, the wise and patriotic fathers counselled their states, and finally induced them to "form a more perfect union," and "a more efficient federal government," giving to this the legislative powers of the first, with a few additional ones, as well as commensurate executive and judicial authority,-thus making for federal matters the complete government that each state enjoyed, and giving to it the same authority and means of enforcing its powers on individual citizens that the state governments possessed; so that the said agencies, state and federal, became a great "political machine," owned and worked by the states, through their elected agents,-these

being their own citizens and subjects. [See Part II., Ch. I.] The said states were themselves to compose whatever nation there was to be, and it was they alone that authorized legal coercion of their citizens by their federal agency; but they most positively and carefully withheld jurisdiction and coercive power over themselves.

The history and records of the country contain no word of testimony against the above; but the perverters have, by industrious culling, gathered "line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," until they have produced a sort of "mosaic dispensation" of centralism, from which arises that monster, the corporate despot of Washington!

a

The Misstatement to be refuted. Not long after the opening of the convention, to wit, on May 30, 1787, it was resolved that “ national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary." [I. Ell. Deb. 151.] Daniel Webster quotes this, and asserts that "it completely negatives all idea of league, compact, and confederation. Terms could not be chosen," continues he, "more fit to express an intention to establish a national government, and to banish forever all notion of a compact between sovereign states." [Speech of 1833.] And Judge Story comments in the same style. He quotes the above resolution, and says: "It plainly shows that it was a national government, and not a compact, which they were about to establish." He further remarks that "the inefficiency of the old confederation forced the states to surrender the league then existing, and to establish a national constitution." [I. Story, Com. 237.]

The two leading- if not the only-ideas Story and Webster aim at in this quotation are involved in "national" and "supreme." They use the above resolution to prove, 1st. That a consolidated nation was formed; 2d. That the government of it is a sovereignty. Taught by them, Lincoln said the states are mere counties, with no rights but those reserved to them by the nation in the constitution. The dogma of the " absolute supremacy" of "the government," and the allegiance of the states thereto, promulgated by the Philadelphia convention of 1866, sprung from the same source. All these heresies are comprehended in Webster's assertion that, so far as the constitution goes, "so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled."

Both of the above ideas of Story and Webster are utterly baseless; and the use of the said resolution to prove them is wrongful. The resolution was adopted without much notice, and with no debate, and was referred to the committee of the whole, with other propositions, as matters for future consideration, [V. Ell. Deb. 134,] and in the three and a half months of subsequent deliberation, the direct contrary of

what the perverters predicate of this resolution was contended for, and finally prevailed, as I will now proceed to show historically. [The reading of Appendix C, with this chapter, is important.]

Two or three plans for a federal constitution were before the committee of the whole convention. Edmund Randolph's plan opened as follows:

"1. Resolved, That the articles of confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely: common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare." On May 30th, at the suggestion of G. Morris, Randolph moved the postponement of this, and the consideration of the three following: "1st. That a union of states, merely federal, will not accomplish the objects proposed. . . . 2d. That no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the states, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient. 3d. That a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary." Several members at once expressed the doubt "whether the act of Congress recommending the convention, or the commissions of the deputies to it, would authorize a discussion of a system founded on different principles from the federal constitution?" [V. Ell. Deb. 133.] Whereupon, the first two of the above resolutions were dropped, and not heard of afterwards; and the third became the first of nineteen resolutions, which the convention adopted for consideration [Ibid. 189], and in which the prospective constitution is repeatedly styled — the "articles of union." [Ibid. 190.]

- Before going furcommissions of the Massachusetts, in

How the States instructed their Deputies. ther, it is well to note the instructions in the deputies, and "the act of congress" referred to. commissioning hers, said, "the sole and express purpose" was to make such "alterations and provisions," as will "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and preservation of the union." [I. Ell. Deb. 126.] "To revise the federal constitution," was the phase of several; and "to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union," was the language of others. [See I. Ell. Deb. 126-139, for the language of all.] And the act of the congress of the states upon the subject, expresses the same idea, in nearly the same words. [Ibid. 119-20.] I will observe, en passant, that these extracts enable us to appreciate another of the errors that so abound in some of Mr. Webster's efforts, viz. that the instrument of 1778 was called "articles or confederation," while the one of 1788 "called itself a constitution,” i. e. a government proper," and that therefore the two systems were essentially different. Without insisting that "there is nothing in a name,"

:

I merely state the fact, that both states and fathers habitually called each instrument "the federal constitution," and "the constitution of the federal government." In reference to the instructions, the presumption is, that the deputies obeyed them. We shall see that they did so. [See Appendix C, No. 1.]

It appears, then, that the states instructed their deputies to amend the confederation; that the convention tacitly conceded that "the commissions of the deputies," and "the act of congress," only warranted the making of a federal system; and that it formally declined to say that "a union of states merely federal" made by a treaty among the states as sovereignties, would not accomplish the object in view. And we shall see that, so far from attempting the nationalization of the states, the constant aim of the fathers was to induce them to federalize themselves, and remain intact as sovereigns; and that in the course of the deliberations, every "national" word and idea was gradually eliminated from the system. But before going further, it must be shown that Story and Webster gain their whole basis by misquotation!

The Expounders' Style of Quoting. The very resolutions, the first of which they quote as the basis of their theory, prove the entire falsity of it. To show this, let us put the first, and the last two in juxtaposition, and refer to the others: "1. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, executive, and judiciary. . . . 18. Resolved, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within the states, ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of union. 19. Resolved, that the amendments which shall be offered to the confederation, by the convention, ought, at a proper time or times, after the approbation of congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives," etc. [I. Ell. Deb. 181-2; V. Ibid. 189-90.] Here we see that not only was the convention instructed, as heretofore shown, to amend the articles of confederation, but that such "national government" as the convention aimed at, was to be provided for, in "articles of union" of states; and that the DESIDERATUM WAS TO BE ATTAINED BY MAKING AMENDMENTS CONFEDERATION." Now these expounders, suppressing all the others, put the first resolution before the people, to make them believe that the convention "completely negatived all idea of . . . confederation." Is not this garbling the sacred records? In like spirit, they point to the Randolph, or Virginia plan, that these resolutions are a part of, as national, and to the Patterson, or New Jersey plan, as federal, and represent that the former prevailed, when, in reality, a pure league, federation,

19 66

TO THE