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 substantia