[106] of the Philadelphia Convention had not been published. That body had sat with closed doors, and among its rules had been the following:
That no copy be taken of any entry on the journal during the sitting of the House, without the leave of the House. That members only be permitted to inspect the journal. That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published or communicated, without leave.1We can understand, by reference to these rules, how Madison should have felt precluded from making allusion to anything that had occurred during the proceedings of the convention. But the secrecy then covering those proceedings has long since been removed. The manuscript journal, which was entrusted to the keeping of General Washington, president of the convention, was deposited by him, nine years afterward, among the archives of the State Department. It has since been published, and we can trace for ourselves the origin, and ascertain the exact significance, of that expression, “We, the people,” on which Patrick Henry thought the fate of America might depend, and which has been so grossly perverted in later years from its true intent. The original language of the preamble, reported to the convention by a committee of five appointed to prepare the Constitution, as we find it in the proceedings of August 6, 1787, was as follows:
We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish, the following Constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity.There can be no question here what was meant: it was “the people of the States,” designated by name, that were to “ordain, declare, and establish” the compact of union for themselves and their posterity. There is no ambiguity nor uncertainty in the language, nor was there any difference in the convention as to the use of it. The preamble, as perfected, was submitted to vote on the next day, and, as the journal informs us, “it passed unanimously in the affirmative.” There was no subsequent change of opinion on the subject. The reason for the modification afterward made in the language is obvious. It was found that unanimous ratification of all the states could not be expected, and it was determined, as we have already seen, that the consent of nine states should suffice for the establishment of the new compact “between the States so ratifying the same.” Any nine would be
