Volume I Part 8 (1/2)

The terms in which this action was expressed by the several States and the declarations with which it was accompanied by some of them are worthy of attention.

Delaware was the first to act. Her Convention met on December 3, 1787, and ratified the Const.i.tution on the 7th. The readiness of this least in population, and next to the least in territorial extent, of all the States, to accept that instrument, is a very significant fact when we remember the jealous care with which she had guarded against any infringement of her sovereign Statehood. Delaware alone had given special instructions to her deputies in the Convention not to consent to any sacrifice of the principle of equal representation in Congress. The promptness and unanimity of her people in adopting the new Const.i.tution prove very clearly, not only that they were satisfied with the preservation of that principle in the Federal Senate, but that they did not understand the Const.i.tution, in any of its features, as compromising the ”sovereignty, freedom, and independence” which she had so especially cherished. [pg 105] The ratification of their Convention is expressed in these words:

”We, the deputies of the people of the Delaware State, in convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Const.i.tution proposed and agreed upon by the deputies of the United States at a General Convention held at the city of Philadelphia on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, have approved of, a.s.sented to, and ratified and confirmed, and by these presents do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our const.i.tuents, fully, freely, and entirely, approve of, a.s.sent to, ratify, and confirm the said Const.i.tution.

”Done in convention at Dover, December 7, 1787.”

This, and twelve other like acts, gave to the Const.i.tution ”all the life and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or a.s.sociated States.”

Pennsylvania acted next (December 12, 1787), the ratification not being finally accomplished without strong opposition, on grounds which will be referred to hereafter. In announcing its decision, the Convention of this State began as follows:

”In the name of the people of Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men that we, the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in General Convention a.s.sembled,” etc., etc., concluding with these words: ”By these presents, do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, a.s.sent to and ratify the foregoing Const.i.tution for the United States of America.”

In New Jersey the ratification, which took place on the 18th of December, was unanimous. This is no less significant and instructive than the unanimity of Delaware, from the fact that the New Jersey delegation, in the Convention that framed the Const.i.tution, had taken the lead in behalf of the federal, or State-rights, idea, in opposition to that of nationalism, or consolidation. William Patterson, a distinguished citizen (afterward Governor) of New Jersey, had introduced into that Convention what was known as ”the Jersey plan,” embodying these [pg 106] State-rights principles, as distinguished from the various ”national” plans presented. In defending them, he had said, after calling for the reading of the credentials of delegates:

”Can we, on this ground, form a national Government? I fancy not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings?

”We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes?”

Again, on a subsequent day, after stating that he was not there to pursue his own sentiments of government, but of those who had sent him, he had asked:

”Can we, as representatives of independent States, annihilate the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this Convention taken on every question under the idea of independency?”

The fact that this State, which, through her representatives, had taken so conspicuous a part in the maintenance of the principle of State sovereignty, ratified the Const.i.tution with such readiness and unanimity, is conclusive proof that, in her opinion, that principle was not compromised thereby. The conclusion of her ordinance of ratification is in these words:

”Now be it known that we, the delegates of the State of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Const.i.tution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the people of the said State of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same, and every part thereof.

”Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1787.”

Georgia next, and also unanimously, on January 2, 1788, declared, through ”the delegates of the State of Georgia, in convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the [act of the] Legislature aforesaid ... in virtue of the powers and authority given [pg 107] us [them] by the people of the said State, for that purpose,” that they did ”fully and entirely a.s.sent to, ratify, and adopt the said Const.i.tution.”

Connecticut (on the 9th of January) declares her a.s.sent with equal distinctness of a.s.sertion as to the source of the authority: ”In the name of the people of the State of Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said State, in General Convention a.s.sembled, pursuant to an act of the Legislature in October last ... do a.s.sent to, ratify, and adopt the Const.i.tution reported by the Convention of delegates in Philadelphia.”

In Ma.s.sachusetts there was a sharp contest. The people of that State were then-as for a long time afterward-exceedingly tenacious of their State independence and sovereignty. The proposed Const.i.tution was subjected to a close, critical, and rigorous examination with reference to its bearing upon this very point. The Convention was a large one, and some of its leading members were very distrustful of the instrument under their consideration. It was ultimately adopted by a very close vote (187 to 168), and then only as accompanied by certain proposed amendments, the object of which was to guard more expressly against any sacrifice or compromise of State sovereignty, and under an a.s.surance, given by the advocates of the Const.i.tution, of the certainty that those amendments would be adopted. The most strenuously urged of these was that ultimately adopted (in substance) as the tenth amendment to the Const.i.tution, which was intended to take the place of the second Article of Confederation, as an emphatic a.s.sertion of the continued freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the States. This will be considered more particularly hereafter.

In terms substantially identical with those employed by the other States, Ma.s.sachusetts thus announced her ratification:

”In convention of the delegates of the people of the Commonwealth of Ma.s.sachusetts, 1788. The Convention having impartially discussed and fully considered the Const.i.tution for the United States of America, reported [etc.] ... do, in the name and in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Ma.s.sachusetts, a.s.sent to and ratify the said Const.i.tution for the United States of America.”

[pg 108]

This was accomplished on February 7, 1788.

Maryland followed on the 28th of April, and South Carolina on the 23d of May, in equivalent expressions, the ratification of the former being made by ”the delegates of the people of Maryland,” speaking, as they declared, for ourselves, and in the name and on the behalf of the people of this State; that of the latter, ”in convention of the people of the State of South Carolina, by their representatives, ... in the name and behalf of the people of this State.”

But South Carolina, like Ma.s.sachusetts, demanded certain amendments, and for greater a.s.surance accompanied her ordinance of ratification with the following distinct a.s.sertion of the principle afterward embodied in the tenth amendment:

”This Convention doth also declare that no section or paragraph of the said Const.i.tution warrants a construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.”

”The delegates of the people of the State of New Hamps.h.i.+re,” in convention, on the 21st of June, ”in the name and behalf of the people of the State of New Hamps.h.i.+re,” declared their approval and adoption of the Const.i.tution. In this State, also, the opposition was formidable (the final vote being 57 to 46), and, as in South Carolina, it was ”explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Const.i.tution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.”