proposed by the individual States, but receiving its sanction and validity from the whole people. Mr. Spence has endeavoured to fritter away the meaning of this phrase, "We, the People," by some very strange arguments, a few of which we must notice.

"It has also been endeavoured," he says, "to impart a peculiar force to this epithet by the deduction that it proved the popular action, and so gave the sanction of its being a direct manifestation of the people's will. The defect of this argument is, that of being directly opposed to historical record. It is the fact, that after the Constitution was framed by delegates of the States, approved by the Congress appointed by the States, and referred to the legislatures of the States, it was finally ratified by a convention called in each State for the purpose."1

The words "referred to the legislatures of the States" do not, as we have just shown, give the exact truth. The Convention and the Congress had alike declared that the Constitution should go direct to the people; and if Mr. Spence

'The American Union, 224.

means to say that it rested in any way with the State legislatures to determine whether it might or might not be so submitted, we reply it is he who is "opposed to historical record." 1

He objects to the mode in which the people ratified the Constitution, viz., by conventions of representatives.

ment.

He says, "the decision, whether to ratify or not, was left absolutely to these conventions: they acted independently on their own judgTheir decision, therefore, was an act of the people, simply as a vote of the House of Commons may be called an act of the people, and in no other sense," 2 Certainly! We ask

no other admission. How the sovereign power chooses to act does not impugn the act itself. The people, politically speaking, means simply

1 "Whereas the Convention assembled in Philadelphia pursuant to the resolution of Congress, 21st Feb., 1787, did, on the 17th September in the same year, report to the United States in Congress assembled a constitution for the people of the United States, whereupon Congress ** did resolve unanimously, 'That the said report, with the resolu

tion and letter accompanying the the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.'"-Proceedings in Congress, 13th Sept. 1788. HICKEY'S "Constitution,” 190.

2 The American Union, 224.

its organized portion. No legislature can ever obtain the assent of all the people. Discontented minorities there must always be; and were the objection good, no civil government whatever could be said to have been founded on the consent of the governed.

It is, however, more important to notice Mr. Spence's next objection, since he commits, as we will show, a flagrant error in respect to the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

Speaking of Madison, he says, "It so happens that we have on record his interpretation of this very phrase. In the ratifying convention of the State of Virginia, Patrick Henry objected strongly to the words "We, the People," on the ground that the very construction might be given to them which is attempted at the present day. But Madison at once showed such construction to be erroneous. He replied in these words, The parties to it were to be the people, but not the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.' Not contented with giving the true meaning of the phrase, he

adduced an argument to prove it, by adding, 'If it were a purely consolidated Government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient to establish it. But it was to be binding on the people of a State only by their own separate consent. This argument seems to be conclusive, and as an interpreter of the meaning of the terms, none will attempt to compare the authority of Mr. Motley, or of Webster, with that of Madison." 1

But what if Madison, Motley, and Webster be, after all, agreed? Let us see how stand the facts. In the first place, Mr. Henry worded his objection in reference to the final result of ratification, and not to the act itself; Madison's reply refers to both, and, when given in full, shows Mr. Henry's idea to be perfectly correct.

Mr. Henry thus curiosity

put it,
it, "My political

leads me to ask who

authorized them to speak the language of 'We, the People,' instead of We, the States

6

* If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated

The American Union, 225. Our Italics.

National Government of the people of all the States." 1

"The

On another occasion he exclaimed, fate of America may depend on this question, have they said We, the States?' Have they made a proposal of compact between States? If they had, this would be a Confederation; it is, otherwise, most clearly a consolidated Government. The whole question turns, sir, on that poor little thing the expression, We, the People, instead of the States of America."" It was upon the first of these occasions that

WIRT'S Life of Pat. Henry, 284. Italics sic.

2 Idem, 286. Italics sic.

"It is also historically known that one of the objections taken by the opponents of the Constitution was 'that it is not a Confederation of the States, but a Government of individuals. It was, nevertheless, in the solemn instruments of ratification by the people of the several States assented to as a Constitution; and although many declarations of rights, many propositions of amendments, and many protestations of reserved powers, are to be found accompanying the ratification of

the various conventions, sufficiently evincive of the extreme caution and jealousy of those bodies and of the people at large, it is remarkable that there is nowhere to be found the slightest allusion to the instrument as a Confederation or compact of States in their sovereign capacity, and no reservation of any right on the part of any State to dissolve its connection or to abrogate its assent, or to suspend the operations of the Constitution as to itself."- STORY'S Abridgement, 120.