and their posterity.  It is true, that, in the organization of the government, the existence of the States is recognized, and the original name of “United States” is preserved; but the sovereignty of the States is absorbed in that more perfect union which was then established.  There is but one sovereignty recognized, and this is the sovereignty of the United States.  To the several States is left that special local control which is essential to the convenience and business of life, while to the United States, as a Plural Unit, is allotted that commanding sovereignty which embraces and holds the whole country within its perpetual and irreversible jurisdiction.

This obvious character of the Constitution did not pass unobserved at the time of its adoption.  Indeed the Constitution was most strenuously opposed on the ground that the States were absorbed in the Nation.  Patrick Henry protested against consolidated power.  In the debates of the Virginia Convention he exclaimed:—­

“And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention.  I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. 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; but, Sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, ’We, the people’? Who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We, the people,’ instead of ’We, the States’?"[14]

And again, at another stage of the debate, the same patriotic opponent of the Constitution declared succinctly:—­

“The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing, the expression, ‘We, the people,’ instead of the States of America."[15]

In the same convention another patriotic opponent of the Constitution, George Mason, following Patrick Henry, said:—­

“Whether the Constitution is good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a National Government, and no longer a Confederation."[16]

But against all this opposition, and in the face of this exposure, the Constitution was adopted, in the name of the people of the United States.  Much, indeed, was left to the States; but it was no longer in their name that the government was organized, while the miserable pretension of State “sovereignty” was discarded.  Even in the discussions of the Federal Convention Mr. Madison spoke thus plainly:—­

“Some contend that States are sovereign, when, in fact, they are only political societies.  The States never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty.  These were always vested in Congress.”

Grave words, especially when we consider the position of their author.  They were substantially echoed by Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, afterwards Vice-President, who said:—­