Here I mention three illustrious characters, who at this time lent the weight of their great names to the national cause,--Jay, Madison, and Washington,--each in his way without a peer. I content myself with a few words from each. John Jay, writing to John Adams, at the time our minister in London, under date of 4th May, 1786, says: “One of the first wishes of my heart” is “to see the people of America become _One Nation in every respect_; for, as to the separate Legislatures, I would have them considered, with relation to the Confederacy, _in the same light in which counties stand_ to the State of which they are parts, viz., merely as districts to facilitate the purposes of domestic order and good government.”[34] Even in this strong view Jay was not alone. Franklin had already led in likening the colonies to “so many counties.”[35] Madison’s desires were differently expressed. After declaring against “an individual independence of the States,” on the one side, and “a consolidation of the States into one simple republic,” on the other side, he sought what he called a “middle ground,” which, if varying from that of Jay, was essentially national. He would have “_a due supremacy of the National authority_, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.”[36] Here is the definition of a Nation. Washington, in a letter to Jay, dated 1st August, 1786, stated the whole case with his accustomed authority. Insisting upon the importance of “a coercive power,” he pleads for national life: “I do not conceive we can exist long as _a Nation_ without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in _as energetic a manner as the authority of the State governments extends over the several States_.” He then adds: “To be fearful of investing Congress, constituted as that body is, with _ample authorities for National purposes_, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness.”[37] Such were the longings of patriots, all filled with a passion for country. But Washington went still further, when, on another occasion, he denounced State sovereignty as “bantling,” and even “monster.”[38] * * * * *