strong analogies with French constitutions. The Federal Constitution, the only one which I wish to consider here, has a mixed character. It resembles French constitutions in two points: first, it is based upon an avowed act of national sovereignty; secondly, all the federal powers receive their existence and investiture from this act. Nevertheless, on looking closer we see that this manifestation of a supposed national will was, at the outset, only formal and apparent. The name indeed of the American people appears in the Articles of the Constitution, but the people is introduced not to dictate to its statesmen but to receive from their wisdom, an existence which was destined for a long period[1] to remain fictitious and to be called in question. Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, were rather the apologists of a common nationality than its representatives. They were also, and above all, the agents of several sovereign States. A good number of these States were more than a century old, some were famous, each and all incorporated the interests of different bodies accustomed to act together, and each State was separated from the other by a powerful and distinct esprit de corps. I must insist on this important fact. In the United States it is the American people which was the artificial element, and, so to speak, created from above. Here it is not the nation which made the Constitution, but the Constitution which created the nation. Effective sovereignty was exercised by the several States which were then the only living force. In
- ↑ [Compare in confirmation of this view Bryce, American Commonwealth, i., p. 16, 1st eel. (D).]
