some of which are quite as extravagant as any that exist here, though
possibly less apt to lead to as grave consequences.[28]

[Footnote 28: The discussion which grew out of the law to protect
American industry, affords a singular instance of the manner in which
clever men can persuade themselves and others into any notion, however
extravagant. The uncouth doctrine of nullification turned on the
construction that might be put on the intimacy of the relations created
by the Union, and on the nature of the sovereignties of the states.

Because the constitution commences with a declaration, that it is formed
and adopted by "we the people of the United States," overlooking, not
only all the facts of the case, but misconceiving the very meaning of
the words they quote, one party virtually contended, that the instrument
was formed by a consolidated nation. On this point their argument,
certainly sustained in part by unanswerable truth, mainly depends.

The word "people" has notoriously several significations. It means a
"population;" it means the "vulgar;" it means any particular portion of
a population, as, "rich people," "poor people," "mercantile people,"
etc. etc. In a political sense, it has always been understood to mean
that portion of the population of a country, which is possessed of
_political rights_. On this sense, then, it means a _constituency_ in a
representative government, and so it has always been understood in
England, and is understood to-day in France. When a question is referred
to the "people" at an election in England, it is not referred to a tithe
of the population, but to a particular portion of it. In South Carolina
and Louisiana, in the popular sense of Mr. Webster, there is no "people"
to refer to, a majority of the men of both states possessing no civil
rights, and scarcely having civil existence. Besides, "people," in its
broad signification, includes men, women, and children, and no one will
contend, that the two latter had anything to do with the formation of
our constitution. It follows, then, that the term has been used in a
limited sense, and we must look to incidental facts to discover its
meaning.

The convention was chosen, not by any common constituency, but by the
constituencies of the several states, which, at that time, embraced
every gradation between a democratical and an aristocratically polity.
Thirteen states existed in 1787, and yet the constitution was to go into
effect whe