of the debate,
attacked it vehemently. He said, speaking of the system of government
set forth in the proposed Constitution:

"That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear;
and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very
striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen [its
authors]; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they
to say, _We, the people_? My political curiosity, exclusive of
my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask,
Who authorized them to speak the language of '_We, the people_,'
instead of _We, the States_? States are the characteristics and
the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of
this compact, it must be one great consolidated national
government of the people of all the States."[38]

Again, on the next day, with reference to the same subject, he said:
"When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation
was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on
this. Have they said, We, the States? Have they made a proposal of a
compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: it
is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns,
sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, 'We, the people,'
instead of the States of America."[39]

The same difficulty arose in other minds and in other conventions.

The scruples of Mr. Adams were removed by the explanations of others,
and by the assurance of the adoption of the amendments thought
necessary--especially of that declaratory safeguard afterward embodied
in the tenth amendment--to be referred to hereafter.

Mr. Henry's objection was thus answered by Mr. Madison:

"Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The people--but _not
the people as composing one great body_; but the people as
composing _thirteen sovereignties_: were it, as the gentleman
[Mr. Henry] asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a
majority of the people would be sufficient for its
establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the
remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even
if they unanimously reprobated it: were it such a government as
is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this
State, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it;
but, sir, no State is bound by it, as it