Our

of the races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects upon the white race. See our present condition. The country is engaged in war. white men are cutting each other's throats, none knowing how far their frenzy may extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other.

"Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have had an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you who, even if they could better their condition, are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those who, being slaves, could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington, or elsewhere in the United States, the remainder of your lives, perhaps more comfortably than you could in any foreign country. Hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a

foreign country. This (I speak in no unkind sense) is an extremely selfish view of the case. But you ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves. . . . For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort, for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people."

Instead of assisting ex-slaves to sail for Africa, and thus deplete the growing population, the politicians invented the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which breed discord instead of harmony. To this moment these people are the prey of the knaves of both political parties.

Are there ambiguities and inelegances in the Constitution?

Yes. Generally the Constitution is a model of pure Saxon English. The following, no doubt, have their origin in "selection," which is illustrated in the beginning of this volume. For example, Article I., section 2: "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers." Section 3: "The Vice-President of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided." "The Senate shall choose their other officers." "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that

purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation." Section 5: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." "Each House may determine the rule of its proceedings, punish its members," etc. "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy." Article I., section 7, authorizes the President to return a bill passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, "with his objections, to that House in which it originated; who shall enter the objections at large on their journal."

We have in the foregoing a precedent for the pluralization of the House and Senate, and, by implication, the Supreme Court.

How was the Constitution ratified?

Thirty-nine delegates of the whole number (fifty-nine) signed it. The names of George Wythe, Edmund Randolph, Luther Martin, Oliver Ellsworth, and other distinguished deputies of the twenty discontents are not on the roll. Randolph, Grayson, and George Mason, all of Virginia, were present, but did not sign. Article VII. provided that: "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the

establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

Why "between"?

Because each State was sovereign, and treaties must be made between sovereigns. States, not men, framed the Constitution. "Done in convention with the unanimous consent of the States present," are the final emphatic words of the original instrument. Remember States, not men, were "present" as contracting parties.

Were other plans proposed?

Yes. Gouverneur Morris moved to refer the proposed Constitution to a general convention chosen by the people. It did not have a second. Hamilton moved to submit the instrument to Congress, and, if that body agreed to it, then it was to be laid before the States in convention. Rejected. It was then agreed that Congress should send it to the legislatures of the several States, to be by them submitted to a convention in each State for ratification, the delegates whereof should be chosen by the people thereof. Pennsylvania was first to call a convention for ratification, but second to ratify. Delaware was the first to ratify, December 7, 1787, and without proposing an amendment. "We, the people

of Delaware State," began the ratification. Massachusetts declared it to be a new Constitution, a solemn compact between the States. New Hampshire, the ninth State, ratified June 21, 1788. But eleven States, March 4, 1789, when the new Congress convened, had ratified.

Where were the twelfth and thirteenth States?

Out among the independent countries of the world. Rhode Island was never represented in the convention. North Carolina was represented, but declined to ratify, and did not do so for more than eight months. Rhode Island ratified May 29, 1790.

What did Massachusetts do?

John Hancock and James Madison determined the fate of the Constitution in Massachusetts. Madison wrote to Washington: "We must take off some of the opposition by amendments. I do not mean such as are to be made conditions of ratification, but recommendations only. Upon this plan we may probably get a majority of twelve or fifteen, if not more." This device succeeded. Hancock presented amendments, and his adherents voted for the Constitution with this explanation of that gentleman: “I give my assent to the Constitution in full confidence that