Part 14 (2/2)

[Sidenote: Rhode Island and North Carolina.]

What, meantime, was the situation of the two States, Rhode Island and North Carolina, which had not ratified the Const.i.tution, and which were, therefore, not ent.i.tled to take part in the elections? They had in 1781 entered into a const.i.tution which was to be amended only by unanimous consent; their consent was refused; legally they had a right to insist on the continuance of the old Congress. The new Const.i.tution was, strictly speaking, unconst.i.tutional; it had been ratified by a process unknown to law. The situation was felt to be delicate, and the States were for the time being left to themselves. North Carolina came into the Union by a ratification of Nov. 21, 1789. It was suggested that the trade of States which did not recognize Congress should be cut off, and Rhode Island yielded. May 19, 1790, her ratification completed the Union.

68. WAS THE CONSt.i.tUTION A COMPACT?

[Sidenote: The Const.i.tution irregular.]

The third attempt to form an organic union was now successfully carried out. The irregular authority of the Continental Congress had been replaced by the legal but inefficient Confederation; to this was now to succeed an organized government, complete in all its departments, and well endowed with powers. How had this Const.i.tution been adopted? What was the authority which had taken upon itself to diminish the powers of the States, and to disregard the clauses which required unanimous consent to amendments? Was the new Const.i.tution an agreement between eleven States, or was it an instrument of government for the whole people? Upon this question depends the whole discussion about the nature of the Union and the right of secession.

[Sidenote: Compact theory.]

The first theory is that the Const.i.tution was a compact made between sovereign States. Thus Hayne in 1830 declared that ”Before the Const.i.tution each state was an independent sovereignty, possessing all the rights and powers appertaining to independent nations.... After the Const.i.tution was formed, they remained equally sovereign and independent as to all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government.... The true nature of the Federal Const.i.tution, therefore, is ... a compact to which the States are parties.” The importance of the word ”compact” is that it means an agreement which loses its force when any one of the parties ceases to observe it; a compact is little more than a treaty.

Those who framed the Const.i.tution appeared to consider it no compact; for on May 30, 1787, Mr. Randolph moved that ”-no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual sovereignties, would be sufficient.” In fact, the reason for the violent opposition to the ratification of the Const.i.tution was that when once ratified, the States could not withdraw from it.

[Sidenote: Const.i.tution theory.]

Another view is presented by Webster in his reply to Hayne: ”It is, sir, the people's Const.i.tution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Const.i.tution shall be the supreme law.” It is plain that the Const.i.tution does not rest simply upon the consent of the majority of the nation. No popular vote was taken or thought of; each act of ratification set forth that it proceeded from a convention of the people of a State.

[Sidenote: Basis of the Const.i.tution.]

The real nature of the new Const.i.tution appears in the light of the previous history of the country. The Articles of Confederation had been a compact. One of the princ.i.p.al reasons why the Confederation was weak was that there was no way of compelling the States to perform their duties.

The new Const.i.tution was meant to be stronger and more permanent. The Const.i.tution was, then, not a compact, but an instrument of government similar in its origin to the const.i.tutions of the States. The difference was that, by general agreement, it was not to take effect until it was shown that in at least nine States the people were willing to live under it. Whatever the defects of the Confederation, however humiliating its weakness to our national pride, it had performed an indispensable service; it had educated the American people to the point where they were willing to accept a permanent federal union. As the ”Federalist” put it, ”A nation without a national government is an awful spectacle.”

CHAPTER VII.

ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT (1789-1793).

69. REFERENCES.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES.--W. E. Foster, _References to Presidential Administrations_, 1-5; _References to the Const.i.tution_, 18, 19; Justin Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History_, VII. 299-309, 323-329, 413-418, 446, 454, VIII. App.; P. L. Ford, _Bibliotheca Hamiltonia_; Channing and Hart, _Guide_, ---- 157-161.

HISTORICAL MAPS.--Nos. 1 and 3, this volume, and No. 1 in W. Wilson, _Division and Reunion_ (_Epoch Maps_, Nos. 6, 7, and 8); T. MacCoun, _Historical Geography_; Scribner, _Statistical Atlas_, Plate 13.

GENERAL ACCOUNTS.--J. B. McMaster, _People of the United States_, I.

525-604, II. 1-88; R. Hildreth, _United States_, IV. 25-410; J. Schouler, _United States_, I. 74-220; H. Von Holst, _Const.i.tutional History_, I. 64- 111; T. Pitkin, _Political and Civil History_, II. 317-355; Gen. Tucker, _United States_, I. 384-503; J. S. Landon, _Const.i.tutional History_, 97- 119; Bryant and Gay, _Popular History_, IV. 100-123.

SPECIAL HISTORIES.--George Gibbs, _Memoirs of the Administrations of Was.h.i.+ngton and Adams_, I. 28-88; J. C. Hamilton, _History of the Republic_, IV.; W. G. Sumner, _Alexander Hamilton_; H. C. Adams, _Taxation in the United States_ (1789-1816); W. G. Sumner, _Financier and Finances of the American Revolution_, II. chs. xvii.-x.x.xii.; J. T. Morse, _Life of Hamilton_, I. chs. vii.-xii.; M. P. Follet, _Speaker_; H. C.

Lodge, _Hamilton_, 88-152, and _Was.h.i.+ngton_, II. 1-128; J. T. Morse, _John Adams_, 241-264, and _Jefferson_, 96-145; S. H. Gay, _Madison_, 128-192.

CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS.--W. Maclay, _Journal_ (1789-1791) (a racy account of the Senate in the First Congress); Thomas Jefferson, _Anas_, in _Works_, ix. 87-185 (confessedly made up twenty-five years later); William Sullivan, _Familiar Letters on Public Characters_, 36-47 (written in reply to Jefferson); Joel Barlow, _Vision of Columbus_, 1787 (an epic poem); correspondence in works of Was.h.i.+ngton, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and John Jay; newspapers, especially the _Columbian Centinel_, _Gazette of the United States_, _National Gazette_.--Reprints in _American History told by Contemporaries_, III.

<script>