The Americans of 1787, who “so well understood” the important distinction, made their knowledge a noticeable thing in the language of their Statute of ’76 and of their Constitution. With their knowledge of the important distinction, they permitted the respective states, through the respective legislatures thereof, to constitute the government of states, to make the _federal_ Articles of 1781. With their knowledge of the important distinction and in deference to their own clear Statute of ’76, these intelligent Americans refused to permit the states or the legislatures of the states to establish the government of men, to make the _national_ Article--the First Article--which is the constitution of government power to interfere with individual human freedom. Moreover, by their knowledge of the important distinction and of the Statute, they knew _that_ Constitution, that enumerated grant of national power over themselves, to be “unalterable by government.” And that we and _all_ later Americans might also know it, _they_, the American people or “conventions” of that day, insisted that the Tenth Amendment expressly declare that they, those “conventions” of the American people, reserved to themselves and their posterity, the “conventions” of any later day, exclusive ability to alter that constitution of _national_ power, the First Article. And, for the same purpose, _they_, the “conventions,” mentioned themselves, the particular reservee of the exclusive ability to alter that grant of national power, in one particular earlier part of the Articles they made, the part we know as the Fifth Article. Naturally, the two men, who worded that Article at Philadelphia and who paid its later makers the deserved tribute to their knowledge of the important distinction, mentioned those makers, “conventions,” in that Fifth Article as future makers of all grants of _national_ power and mentioned the legislatures, in the Fifth Article, as competent future makers of Articles that do not constitute new _national_ government.