nation and the infamy of the age! He never contemplated a union of force, — a union to be preserved by coercion of the component states, and not a line he ever wrote (even in the farewell address) is consistent with such an idea. The italics will be mainly mine.

In the beginning of the address, he prays "that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete.

-

"The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union, to your collective and individual happiness."

He is addressing "the people of these states," and "the government" -the "unity" of which, he says, is so dear to them - is the government which they made, acting as states, and which necessarily remains subject to the wills that gave it existence. This is an argument to the people of states, who, in imparting or withdrawing power, must act according to the law of their political being, as states. We have heretofore seen his repeated assertions that the union is a federacy."

"con

"While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find, in the united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those

overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty; in this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one, ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

"These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhihit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bands."

Of course "the continuance of the union" was "the primary object of patriotic desire," as long as it was the instrument of "the people of these states," in preserving their safety and happiness, and as long as its government was the servitor of said people. But the above shows that it was undoubtedly Washington's view, that if a full and fair experiment proved that this "common government" could not "embrace so large a sphere" without defeating, instead of promoting, the object of government, i.e. "the happiness of the people of these states," it might, by its makers, be brought to an end, having no iron strength and eternal existence of its own, but only existing at the will of its sovereign creators.

"To the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all time have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, and in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect

"INSITY

ALFORNIA

WASHINGTON'S POLITICAL FAITH (CONTINUED). 237

for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty."

66

In this quotation we have further positive proof that Washington did not consider that there was "a change from a confederation to another system;" for, in the passage underscored, he regards the constitution as another compact, and the new system as a union of states, as the constitution calls it, a more perfect union" of the states, as the preamble expresses it. "This government" is the offspring of our "own choice." Whose choice? Whose will is referred to? Of course "the people of these states.' They were only organized and capable of acting as states. They did act absolutely as states. Of course, then, Washington could but say, as he did in his letter heretofore quoted, of October 17, 1787, that the constitution was a compact or treaty ;" and as he did in his letter, also heretofore quoted, of June 28, 1788, that the system proposed was "a new confederacy," that is to say, a new league of states, a "more perfect union." Who will now deny that Washington considered "the united states of America" a federation of sovereignties?

His political principles were those of Wilson, Dickinson, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and other leading federalists, who most elaborately explained the new federal system to the people. This is well known by all who understand the subject; but to prevent cavil and evasion, I will show his special adoption of their theory of the absolute sovereignty of the states in the union.

Washington to David Stuart, October 17, 1787: "Dear Sir, - As the enclosed Advertiser contains a speech of Mr. Wilson, as able, candid, and honest a member as was in the convention, which will place the most of Colonel Mason's objections in their true light, I send it to you. The republication of it, if you can get it done, will be serviceable at this juncture."

The leading and most striking parts of this speech were as follows: In showing that a bill of rights was not needed in the federal constitution, because not being given, the said rights were reserved already, he said: "It would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act which has brought that body into existence."

Further along, he said, in explaining the reason why the federal convention did not deal with subjects already provided for in the state constitutions: "Let it be remembered, then, that the business of the federal convention was not local, but general; not limited to the views and establishments of a single state, but co-extensive with

the continent, and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sovereignties." [Pennsylvania Herald, Oct. 10, 1787.]

Another Pennsylvania statesman, Tench Coxe, said at the same time, on the same matter, that such subjects "could not be mentioned in a contract among sovereign states."

The above were unquestionably the views of Washington and strange as it may seem to those who have been taught by Story and Webster, the fathers took them for granted, and acted upon them; and the federal constitution is entirely based upon the principles of them; and in those days neither friend nor foe ever called them in question.

Washington to John Vaughan, April 27, 1788: "The writer of the pieces signed Fabius, whoever he is, appears to be master of the subject; . . . an extensive republication of them would be of utility, in removing false impressions."

Fabius was John Dickinson, who had been President of both Pennsylvania and Delaware. He was a member of the federal convention, and was recognized as one of the leading statesmen of that period. What were the views, evincing "mastery of the subject;" worthy of "extensive republication," as well as calculated to "remove false impressions?" The following extracts from II. "Political Writings of John Dickinson," will show. The italics are in the original.

Speaking of the danger to liberty, in the new system, he says, writing early in 1788: "the power of the people, pervading the whole system, by frequent elections, together with the strong confederation of the states, forms an adequate security against every danger that has been apprehended." "The objectors agree that the confederation of the states will be strong, according to the system proposed," etc.

"They [the House of Representatives], and the Senate, will actually be, not only legislative, but also diplomatic bodies, perpetually engaged in the arduous task of reconciling in their determinations, the interests of several sovereign states."

Speaking of the danger of usurpation by the federal government, he says, "the trustees or servants of the several states will not dare, if they retain their senses, to violate the independent sovereignty of their respective states, THAT JUSTLY DARLING OBJECT of American affection, to which they are responsible. But a bad administration may take place; what is then to be done? The answer is instantly found: Let the fasces be lowered before the supreme sovereignty of the people. It is their duty to watch, and their right to take care that the constitution be preserved; or in the Roman phrase, on perilous occasions, to provide that the republic receive no damage."

"It is said such territory has never been governed by a confederacy of republics; granted; but where was there ever a confederacy of republics in such territory, united, as these states are to be, by the proposed constitution?" etc.

"America is, and will be, divided into several sovereign states, each possessing every power proper for governing, within its own limits, for its own purposes, and also for acting as a member of the union."

I have quoted copiously, as John Dickinson's writings are not accessible to many, and as they show Washington's views very clearly and forcibly.

Let us now show his approval of the Federalist, and then quote its expressions :

Washington to David Stuart, November 30, 1787:

After stating that "some writers wish to see this union divided into several confederacies," and deprecating the idea, he writes as follows:

"As an antidote to these opinions, and, in order to investigate the ground of objections to the constitution which is submitted, the Federalist, under the signature of Publius, is written. . . . They [the articles] are written by able men, and before they are finished, will, or I am mistaken, place matters in a true point of light. Although I am acquainted with the writers, I am not at liberty to mention names; nor would I have it known that they [these papers] are sent by me to you for promulgation."

He was in the confidence of the writers; he and they were ardent federalists; and they concurred with him in political philosophy. He often specially sanctioned what they wrote; aided in the "promulgation" of their writings; and in his subsequent administration of the new governmental agency, he was in close alliance and sympathy with them, personally and politically.

What then did Jay, Hamilton, and Madison write, in expression of their own and Washington's views, concerning the proposed general polity?

The very first article of the Federalist indicated the object to be, the continuance of the union of states, under a new federal government; or, as the constitution expresses it, "to form a more perfect union." And, in that, and the two or three articles immediately following, the question is discussed whether there should be an association of states or not, and if yea, whether "three or four confederacies would be better than one." This is Jay's expression, and he elsewhere called the polity a "union of states" and a "confederacy."

In concluding the great discussion, Hamilton states, in 85 of the Federalist, that, by the compact proposed, "thirteen independent