The United States cannot own a foot of soil in any of the States without first obtaining their consent, nor has the Washington Government ever had power to grant to foreigners the right of holding real estate-in short, the 'sovereignty' has always resided in the individual States. Yet the Federal machine-the creature-has assumed to be greater than its principals, as is frequently the case in private life, and for this reason it has ceased to work for the benefit of those who made it.

The words, 'We, the people,' and more 'perfect' union used in the preamble to the Constitution, have been productive of mischief, in consequence of their not having been properly understood by the masses, who have been led astray by designing politicians taking advantage of these expressions without explaining their true intent and meaning. History settles all difficulties on this point. On August 6, 1787, the committee appointed for that purpose reported the first draft of a Constitution. The preamble was in these words:-'We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity.' On the next day this preamble was unanimously adopted. The draft of the Constitution was discussed, and various alterations made until September 8, 1787, when the following resolution was passed:-'It was moved and seconded to appoint a committee of five, to revise the style of and arrange the articles agreed to by the House; which passed in the affirmative.' This committee had no power to change the meaning of any clause

which had been adopted, but were authorised merely to 'revise the style' and arrange the matter in proper order. On the 12th of the same month, they made their report. The preamble read: 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.' On the next day (September 13) 'it was moved and seconded to proceed to comparing of the report from the committee of revision, with the articles that were agreed to by the House, and to them referred for arrangement, which passed in the affirmative, and the same was read by paragraphs, compared, and in some places corrected and amended.' The only change which was made in the preamble was striking out the word 'to before the words establish justice,' and no other change was made in any of the articles except such as would make the 'report of the committee of revision correspond with the article agreed to by the House.' There is a perfectly conclusive reason for the change of phraseology in the preamble, from the States by name, to the more general expression' the United States,' and this, too, without supposing that the alteration was meant to convey a different idea as to the relation of the parties to the Constitution. The revised draft contained a proviso that the Constitution should go into operation when adopted and ratified by nine States. It was, of course, uncertain whether more than nine States would adopt it or not, and, if they should not, it would be altogether improper to name them as parties to the instrument. As to one of them, Rhode Island, not being represented in the

6

Convention, it would have been improper to insert her as a party. Hence it became necessary to adopt a form of expression which would apply to those who should ratify the Constitution, and not to those who might refuse to do so. And it simply means, We, the people of those States who have united for that purpose, do ordain,' &c. This construction corresponds with other historical facts, and reconciles the language employed with the circumstances of the case. The word 'people' was both plural and singular at that period; indeed, it was so used up to the year 1847, when the expression 'peoples' was suggested by Kossuth, who, employing the idiom of his native language, when speaking in English, said that the Austrians and Hungarians were two peoples.

The Government, under the Articles of Confederation, having only been in existence six years at the time of the framing of the Constitution, it would have been an absurdity to repeat the word 'perpetual' in the latter document, and a term expressing less absolute permanence was inserted-a 'more perfect' union. Now, this language is more qualified in its character. The Government was only to be 'perfect' as long as it lasted. The work of human hands can never be so 'perfect' as to be perpetual;' perpetual' motion has not yet been dis

covered.

6

Mr. Calhoun, in his work On the Constitution and Government of the United States,' thus wrote:

From all that has been stated, the inference follows, irresistibly, that the Government is a Federal, in contradistinction to a national government-a government formed by the States, ordained and established by the States, and for the Stateswithout any participation or agency whatever on the part of the people regarded in the aggregate as forming a nation; that

it is throughout, in whole, and in every part, simply and purely Federal-the Federal Government of these States' as is accurately and concisely expressed by General Washington, the organ of the Convention, in his letter laying it before the old Congress-words carefully selected, and with a full and accurate knowledge of their import. There is, indeed, no such community, politically speaking, as the people of the United States, regarded in the light thereof, and as constituting one people or nation. There never has been any such, in any stage of their existence; and, of course, they neither could, nor ever can, exercise any agency, or have any participation, in the formation of our system of government. In all its parts-including the Federal as well as the separate States governments, it emanated from the same source- the people of the several States. The whole, taken together, form a Federal community-a community composed of States united by a political compact, and not a nation composed of individuals united by what is called a social compact.

I shall next proceed to show that it is Federal, in contradistinction to a confederacy.

It differs and agrees, but in opposite respects, with a national government and a confederacy. It differs from the former inasmuch as it has for its basis a confederacy, and not a nation, and agrees with it in being a government; while it agrees with the latter to the extent of having a confederacy for its basis, and differs from it inasmuch as the powers delegated to it are carried into execution by a government, and not by a mere congress of delegates, as is the case in a confederacy. To be more full and explicit, a Federal government, though based on a confederacy, is, to the extent of the powers delegated, as much a government as a national government itself. It possesses, to this extent, all the authorities possessed by the latter, and as fully and perfectly. The case is different with a confederacy; for, although it is sometimes called a government, its congress, or council, or the body representing it, by whatever name it may be called, is much more nearly allied to an assembly of diplomatists, convened to deliberate and determine how a league or treaty between their several sovereigns, for certain defined purposes, shall be carried into execution; leaving to the parties

themselves to furnish their quota of means, and to cooperate in carrying out what may have been determined on. Such was the character of the congress of our confederacy; and such, substantially, was that of similar bodies in all confederated communities which preceded our present government. Our system is the first that ever substituted a government in lieu of such bodies. This, in fact, constitutes its peculiar characteristic. It is new, peculiar, and unprecedented.

In the opinion of many sound lawyers, each one of the Northern States has now a right under the existing treaties to despatch ministers to Europe. The bond of union between them-the Constitution-has been broken by the Lincoln Administration, and they are only held together by the power of a large military force. Mr. Madison, in his inaugural address, declared the duties of the Federal Government to be: to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well as in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States, and to the people, as equally incorporated with, and essential to, the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the rights of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; in behalf of private and personal rights, and the freedom of the press,' &c. &c.

The Lincoln Government is without doubt as revolutionary as that of its neighbours in the South-west-the Mexican States. Indeed, there is a striking similarity between them. The difficulties that have existed in the latter country for the last forty years, have been in a large measure owing to the interference by the central authorities with the rights of the individual States, and the constant effort to form a consolidated power. Now