and it could not be legitimately derived from any other source.If therefore,they had exercised such a power,it would have been a plain act of usurpation and violence,Besides,if we may judge from the apportionment of representation as proposed in the convention,a majority of the people of all the States were to be found in the four States of Massachusetts,New York,Pennsylvania and Virginia;so that,upon this idea,the people of less than one-third of all the States could change the Articles of Confederation,although those articles expressly provided that they should not be changed without the consent of all the States!There was then no power superior to the power of the States;and,consequently,there was no power which could alter or abolish the government which they had established.If the Constitution has superceded the Articles of Confederation,it is because the parties to those articles have agreed that it should be so.If they have not so agreed,there is no such Constitution,and the Articles of Confederation are still the only political tie among the States.We need not,however,look beyond the attestation of the Constitution itself,for full evidence upon this point.It professes to have been "done by the unanimous consent of the States present,&c.,"and not in the name or by the authority of "the people of the United States."
But it is not the mere framing of a constitution which gives it authority as such.It becomes obligatory only by its adoption and ratification;and surely that act,I speak of free and voluntary government,makes it the constitution of those only who do adopt it.Let us ascertain,then,from the authentic history of the times,by whom our own Constitution was adopted and ratified.
The resolution of Congress already quoted,contemplates a convention "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation,"
and reporting suitable "alterations and provisions therein."The proceedings of the convention were to be reported to Congress and the several legislatures,and were to become obligatory,only when "agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States."This is precisely the course of proceeding prescribed in the Articles of Confederation.Accordingly,the new Constitution was submitted to Congress;was by them approved and agreed to,and was afterwards,in pursuance of the recommendation,of the convention,laid before conventions of the several States,and by them ratified and adopted.In this proceeding,each State acted for itself,without reference to any other State.They ratified at different periods;some of them unconditionally,and others with provisos and propositions for amendment.This was certainly State action,in as distinct a form as can well be imagined.Indeed,it may well be doubted whether any other form of ratification,than by the States themselves,would have been valid.At all events,none other was contemplated,since the Constitution itself provides,that it shall become obligatory,"when ratified by nine States,"between the States ratifying the same."The people of the United States,"as an aggregate mass,are no where appealed to,for authority and sanction to that instrument.Even it they could have made it their Constitution,by adopting it,they could not,being as they were separate and distinct political communities,have united themselves into one mass for that purpose,without previously overthrowing their own municipal governments;and,even then,the new Constitution would have been obligatory only on those who agreed to and adopted it,and not on the rest.
The distinction between the people of the several States and the people of the United States,as it is to be understood in reference to the present subject,is perfectly plain.I have already explained the terms "a people,"
when used in a political sense.The distinction of which I speak may be illustrated,by a single example.If the Constitution had been made by "the people of the united states,"a certain portion of those people would have had authority to adopt it in the absence of all express provision to the contrary,we may concede that a majority would,prima facie,have had that right.Did that majority,in fact,adopt it?Was it ever ascertained whether a majority of the whole people were in favor of it or not?Was there any provision,either of law or constitution,by which it was possible to ascertain that fact?It is perfectly well known that there was no such provision;that no such majority was ever ascertained,or even contemplated.
Let us suppose that the people of the States of Massachusetts,New York,Pennsylvania and Virginia,containing,as we have seen they probably did,a majority of the whole people,had been unanimous against the Constitution,and that a bare majority of the people,in each of the other nine States acting in their separate character as States,had adopted and ratified.
There can be no doubt,that it would have become the Constitution of the United States;and that,too,by the suffrages of a decided minority,probably not exceeding one-fourth of the aggregate people of all the States.This single example shows,conclusively that the people of the United States,as contradistinguished from the people of the several States,had nothing to do,and could not have an thing to do with the matter.
This brief history of the formation and adoption of the Constitution,which is familiar to the mind of every one who has attended to the subject at all,ought,as it seems to me,to be perfectly satisfactory and conclusive,and should silence for ever all those arguments,in favor of consolidation,which,are founded on the preamble to that instrument.I do not perceive with what propriety it can be said,that the "people of the United States"
