We have, so far, relied on the intrinsic evidence furnished by the contents of the Constitution. Let us now examine the extrinsic evidence preceding and attending its adoption.

From what has preceded, we think it can justly be concluded that the substitution of the new Constitution for the Articles of Confederation was not a revolution-a hiatus or syncope in the action of the body politic. On the contrary, it was done not only with the consent, but at the suggestion of the State Governments, and was a legal change of the organic law, made by the organized bodies politic of the States, in the ordinary mode of proceeding. The Articles of Confederation were a "perpetual Union" between certain States, and they were called, as under the present Union, The United States. Each State retained in that Union, as in the present, all sovereignty not expressly delegated to the United States. Many sovereign powers of the States were transferred from the State Governments to the Union, under the Confederation, and the new Constitution was only a further extension of the transfer to the hands of the new Government, "in order form a more perfect Union,"-not a Union ab initio, but a more perfect one.

By the thirteenth article of the Confederation, that Union is declared perpetual, and all alterations are forbidden unless agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State. The Convention of 1787 was not intended, as Dr. Cooper says, to be subversive, but emendatory. It was first suggested by a Convention held at Annapolis, for the reason that the articles of Confederation "needed amendments," and a Convention was proposed as the most eligible means of effecting these amendments, "because many might suppose that it was betraying on the part of Congress an ambitious wish to get power into its hands," a ground entirely of temporary policy and dexterous management. No one ever dreamt that Congress might not have recommended these amendments to the State Legislatures as well as a convention. On the contrary, many at the time objected to the Convention as extra-constitutional. Much doubt and difficulty arose, and suspicions expressed that it was intended as an indirect blow at the Confederation,

which of course were met with declarations to the contrary, and the simple idea avowed of amendment and not subversion-but most were lead off, "pleased with it as the harbinger of a better confederation." While it was desired to preserve the Union, many wished to give it the due energy it needed. "The Eastern members," says Madison, "were suspected of leaning towards some anti-republican establishment." Some radical amendment was thought necessary, as it might fall into a monarchy, to which many Eastern men inclined, or into two or more confederacies, (Madison's Papers.) Every State consenting to the Convention declared its object to be only amendment or greater perfection of the Union. And when some plan was agreed upon, it was to be referred back to the State Legislatures for approval or rejection. The Legislatures, then, might have rejected it. They did not do so, but yielded their assent by submitting it to the consideration of Conventions of their own calling. For a detailed account of these proceedings, we refer the reader to the November No. of the old Southern Review, of 1828, where the question as to the formation of the Federal Constitution is discussed, and the facts stated in greater detail, by the writer of the present article. He states the fact that he may not be supposed to be guilty of plagiarism in this.

By the resolutions adopted by the Legislature of New York, in February, 1787, it will be seen that "a firm National Government" was not then considered as inconsistent with a confederation. The Act of Assembly of South Carolina, 8th March, 1787, appointing delegates to the Convention, states the objects to be to discuss "all alterations, articles and provisions that might be thought necessary to render the Federal Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the Confederated States." These instructions and authorities were surely broad enough to cover every change that was made, and, therefore, they are entirely consistent with the intentions declared, of preserving the Federal character, and are not inconsistent with a more perfect Union, and with a National Government entirely adequate to their actual situation and future good government. So that the idea of a Confederation is by no means

precluded or negatived by the use of the word Union, or the words National Government, nor consolidation implied by the use of one or both.

The words used are very similar in all the States. In brief, the Convention was called by authority of the 13th article of the Confederation, and was, therefore, not extra-constitutional, as some thought at the time, but in pursuance of the provision expressly declared in that instrument, and was intended to amend and improve the Federal Union, and not to subvert it and establish a different form of government.

Gen. Hamilton himself says, whilst urging upon the States the adoption of the Constitution, in the 9th No. of the Federalist :"A distinction more subtle than accurate has been raised between a Confederacy and a consolidation of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are in the main arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. The definition of a confederate Republic seems simply to be an assemblage of societies,' or an association of two or more States into one State. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished, so long as it exists by a constitutional necessity for local purposes, though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the Union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of States, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an aboli

tion of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of the sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government."

A National Government does not necessarily imply a merging of the separate States, or the consolidation of the peoples of the different States, thus united into one people. The republics of Holland and Switzerland, though each had a national name and government, prove the contrary. They had a Union and National Government, yet their States were never merged. Wonderful is the perseverance of the people of New England in propagating their opinions and peculiar notions. We see it and feel it in everything. From the books of Story to the wit of Tom Thumb, from the pulpit to the pedlar's cart-they infuse into every source, and spread abroad into every stream, broad or narrow, their local ideas and feelings on religion, politics and morals. Into every spelling-book, reader, arithmetic or geography, they cover up and convey into the minds of all youth their narrow dogmas and Yankee exclusiveness. For instance Webster, in his Dictionary, who must change the spelling of the whole English language, to Yankeeize it, under the word UNION ingeniously inserts the Northern political idea of our national Union, and Southern youth swallow it. After giving such definitions as are usual in English Dictionaries, he says: "The combining or consolidation of two or more bodies. States united. Thus the United States are sometimes called The Union," for which he cites Alexander Hamilton, intending no doubt to give the idea that Union implies consolidation-whereas it only means connection in this and in most instances. We admit that the National and State Governments do, by the Union, constitute a sort of Synarchy, or joint sovereignty, acting harmoniously over the same territory, so long as each confines itself to its own limits, but when the general government forgets its duty, and assumes powers not delegated, the State governments may withdraw or resist, and it will be the duty of the citizen to adhere to his State,

and this must necessarily be the tacit understanding under which all political associations are contracted.

But it is said, the Constitution was ratified and established by Conventions and not by Legislatures of the States. If the premises we have already stated are true, the fact, admitted in its full extent would make no difference. The Convention was no more the people than the legislature. Both are only representative bodies, legally constituted. When the Constitution was received by Congress from the Convention, Congress was required by the articles of confederation to submit it to the legislatures of the States for approval, and the fact that the legislatures referred the matter to the consideration of conventions, at the request of Congress, cannot change the legal effect. The alterations of the confederation thus made, and the National Government thus established was ratified and established in accordance with the requirements of the articles, and with the approbation of the State legislatures; for the State legislatures could have refused the proposed constitution, and might have insisted on the continuance of the articles, which had been declared perpetual. If a power has been equivocally executed and a question arises as to its meaning-the just rule is to give it that construction which conforms to the duty of the trustee, for it should be supposed that he has acted in conformity with the powers vested in him. Here the power was to amend, and the amendments were to be authorised in a certain manner, and when there arises a question of performance, such construction will be put upon the manner of execution as nearest conforms to the power, and which is most consistent with the bona fide conduct of the trustee. The constitution, then, amended and made more perfect, is to be presumed was ratified and established as by the supreme law, at the time, was required; for the terms of the confederation, until legally changed, were obligatory alike upon the people and upon the government of the States. People might have committed treason against the confederation, and might have been punished for it. People were compelled to give full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of every other State than their own. People, when called into the general service owed obedience to the officers in such service. In