CHAPTER X1.

The Constitution of 1787 a Compact between the States. The views of Hamilton, Madison, Morris, and other Framers of the Constitution.

THIS subject has already been anticipated, but by no means exhausted. Considering the unparalleled boldness of Northern assertion, it is necessary to lay bare a few more of its hidden mysteries. "Indeed," says Mr. Webster, "if we look into all contemporary history; to the numbers of The Federalist; to the debates in the Convention; to the publication of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had been made from a confederacy of States to a different system; they all agree, that the Convention had formed a Constitution for a national government. With this result some were satisfied, and some were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing had been done. In none of the various productions and publications, did any one intimate that the new Constitution was but another compact between States in their sovereign capacity. I do not find such an opinion advanced in a single instance.”*

Now this is certainly as bold and sweeping an assertion as could well be made in human language. It is certainly as full, round, and complete an untruth as was ever uttered. It will, upon examination, be found that, to use the mildest possible terms, it is fitly characterized by the two words-high-sounding and hollow. It would, perhaps, be difficult for any man, except Mr. Webster and his successor in the Senate of the United States, to produce a *Speech in Senate, Feb. 16, 1833.

bold and sweeping an assertion, which, like the above, is at every point diametrically opposed to the truth. I shall proceed to prove, and to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt, this heavy accusation against "the great expounder," by extracts from the records and publications to which he so solemnly, and yet so unscrupulously, appeals.

I shall begin with the Convention that formed the Constitution itself. It will not be necessary to reproduce the language of Gouverneur Morris, one of the most celebrated men of that Convention, and one of the warmest advocates of a strong national government. We have already seen, *that he pronounced the Constitution "a compact between the United States, each enjoying sovereign power." Indeed, in the Convention of 1787, he expressly declared, that the object was to form a "compact with other States;" and he afterwards declared, that "the thing had been done." Again, James Madison himself, "the father of the Constitution," and the most laborious member of the Convention of 1787, called it, as we have seen, "a pact" between the States in that Convention; † and from that day to the end of his life, Mr. Madison continued to pronounce the new Constitution "a compact to which the States are the parties." In the Virginia ratifying Convention of 1788, in "the numbers of the Federalist," in the Virginia Resolutions of '98 and '99, in the Virginia Report of 1800, in his celebrated letter to Mr. Everett of 1830; in one and all of these well-known public documents, as well as in others from his pen, this illustrious architect of the Constitution most emphatically pronounced it "a compact to which the States are the parties." In the Virginia Resolutions, a political formula which the American people, of all parties and all sections, had sworn by for more than thirty years, Mr. Madison wrote for the legislature of his State: "This Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that * Chapter v.

it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties." How completely, then, was the very existence of Mr. Madison, and of all the great transactions in which he had borne so conspicuous a part, ignored by Mr. Webster in the bold and astounding assertion, that neither friend nor foe had ever considered the new Constitution as a "compact between the States." The venerable old man must, indeed, have felt, as he read the speech of Mr. Webster, that he was fast sinking into oblivion, and that all the great transactions of his life were fast being forgotten amid the blaze of new ideas.

the

Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Webster, called forth by very speech in question, Mr. Madison once more raised his voice in favor of the one invariable doctrine of his life. "It is fortunate," says he, "in the letter referred to, "when disputed theories can be decided by undisputed facts; and here the undisputed fact is, "that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, “who were parties to it." Again, in the same letter, he says: "The Constitution of the United States, being established by a competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States, who were parties to it." Most fortunate is it, indeed, when disputed theories may be tested by undisputed facts; but how infinitely unfortunate is it, when new and disputed theories begin to pass for everything, and indisputable facts for nothing! Nay, when those who cling to hitherto undisputed facts are accounted traitors, and visited with a merciless and a measureless vengeance, by those who, having nothing better than disputed theories to stand on, are nevertheless backed by the possession of brute force sufficient to crush their opponents, and silence the voice of truth!

All agree, says Mr. Webster, "The Federalist," "the debates in the Conventions," "the publications of friends and foes"-all agree, "that a change had been made from a

confederacy of States to a different system." Now, there is James Wilson, inferior only to Madison and Hamilton in the influence he exerted in favor of the new Constitution, who declares, that the only object aimed at by the Convention of '87, was to enable the States "to confederate anew on better principles;" and if no more could be effected, he would agree to "a partial union of the States, with a door left open for the accession of the rest." Accordingly, it was finally agreed by the Convention, that nine States might form the new Union, with a door left open for the accession of the other four. In fact, eleven States confederated on the new principles; and it was more than a year before the remaining two States acceded to the compact of the Constitution, and became members of the Union.

Even Alexander Hamilton, in that great authority, The Federalist, to which Mr. Webster so confidently appeals, is directly and flatly opposed to the bold and unscrupulous assertion of "the great expounder." If the new Constitution should be adopted, says he, the Union would "still be, in fact and in theory, an association of States, or a confederacy."* Again, in the eightieth number of the work, Hamilton calls the new Union "the CONFEDERACY;" putting the word in capital letters, in order that it may not be overlooked by the most superficial reader. If necessary, it might be shown by various other extracts, that Alexander Hamilton, while insisting on the adoption of the new Constitution in The Federalist, speaks of the new Union as a confederacy of States. How, then, could Mr. Webster avouch The Federalist to support the assertion, that "a change had been made from a confederacy to a different system"? Was this in his character of "the great expounder," or of the great deceiver?

This appeal to the Federalist appears, if possible, still more wonderful, when viewed in connexion with other * Federalist, No. ix.

numbers of the same work. Indeed, it was objected to the new Constitution by its enemies, that "it would make a change from a confederacy to a different system;" and this very objection is met and repelled in the pages of the Federalist. "Will it be said," demands the Federalist, "that the fundamental principles of the confederation were not within the purview of the Convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, what are these principles? Do they require, that in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed."* Now here the position of Mr. Webster, that the new Union was not a confederacy of States, that it was not made by the States " as distinct and independent sovereigns," but was ordained by "the people of the United States in the aggregate" as one nation; is directly and emphatically negatived by the very authority to which he appeals in support of his monstrous heresy.

Nor is this all. In the preceding number of the Federalist, it is said, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." Thus, according to the Federalist, the Constitution was ratified by "each State, as a sovereign body, independent of all others." No such thing, says Mr. Webster, it was not ratified by the States at all, it was ordained by a power superior to the States, by the sovereign will of the whole people of the United States; and yet he boldly and unblushingly appeals to the Federalist in support of his assertion! Why did he not quote the Federalist? Nay, why did he not read the Federalist, before he ventured on such a position?

Mr. Webster has, indeed, quoted one expression from the Federalist. "The fabric of American empire," says Hamilton, in the twenty-second number of the Federalist, *No. XL.