Nothing more can be granted to Jefferson's defenders than that he was sincere when he declared that he would resort to "extreme measures" only with great reluctance. The same may be said of the other leaders of the anti-Federalists, almost without exception. But it is a falsification of the truth of history to pretend that they were now thinking exclusively of the establishment of "principles." Washington was of opinion that the peace of Virginia and of the Union was, "hastening" towards "a dreadful crisis." So deeply was he penetrated by this conviction that he wrote a long letter to Patrick Henry imploring him to appear as a candidate for the legislature, in order to stem. the current which was threatening ruin, by the whole weight of his experience and popularity. The anti-Federalists, and their successors, the Republicans and the Democrats, have always asserted that he was ensnared by Hamilton and his associates, and terrified by phantoms conjured up only by their fancy and their inordinate desire to rule. This excuse is a poor compliment to pay; for although Washington was now on the brink of the grave, his perception was clear enough not to allow that to be argued away which was transpiring under his eyes. It was a fact that Virginia had not only dug the mine which she intended at some indefinite future time to use, but she also took thought for the morrow, and with busy hands carried the powder to it, even although she did not yet light the fuse.

Hamilton says in his very full letter to colonel Dayton, speaker of the house of representatives, on the situation. of the Union generally, and especially on the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions: "The late attempt of Virginia and Kentucky to unite the state legislatures in a direct resist

but to make them so, to resist their execution with.in their respective borders by physical force, and to secede from the Union rather than submit to them, if attempted to be carried into execution by force."

I Wash., Works, XI.. p. 391.

2 Ibid, XI., p. 387, etc.

VIRGINIA PREPARES TO USE FORCE.

157 ance to certain laws of the Union, can be considered in no other light than as an attempt to change the government. It is stated, in addition, that the opposition party in Virginia, the headquarters of the faction, have followed up the hostile declarations which are to be found in the resolutions of their general assembly, by an actual preparation of the means of supporting them by force; that they have taken means to put their militia on a more efficient footing; are preparing considerable arsenals and magazines, and (which is an unequivocal proof of how much they are. in earnest) have gone so far as to lay new taxes on their citizens." He attaches full faith to these reports, and again, in January, 1800, declares it his conviction that the leaders in Virginia were ready to possess themselves of the government by force. Randall, Jefferson's biographer, passes over these charges in silence, although he publishes the letter to Dayton and discusses it minutely. It must remain undecided whether this silence is to be regarded as a confession, or whether it means that the person of the complainant makes all refutation superfluous. The reader must be satisfied with the declaration that from Hamilton's "programme" for the session of congress he will discover whether it was Jefferson or his opponents who attempted to misstate them [party aims] to posterity."

66

When the state-rights party had long been in sure possession of power, a distinguished member of it from Virginia took care to let "posterity" know whether Ham

'Ham., Works, VI., p. 384.

"The spirit of faction is abated nowhere. In Virginia it is more violent than ever. It seems demonstrated that the leaders there, who possess completely all the powers of the local government, are resolved to possess those of the national by the most dangerous combinations; and if they cannot effect this, to resort to the employment of physical force. The want of disposition in the people to second them will be the only preventive. It is believed that it will be an effectual one." Ham., Works, Vl., p. 416.

ilton's charges were calumnies and phantoms of his brain, which, according to the anti-Federalists, always burned with the fever of monarchy. It was a well-known fact that at the time that Washington saw a "dreadful crisis hastening," a large establishment for the manufacture of arms was set up in Richmond, in which, however, work was not commenced until some years later. John Randolph thought it due to the reputation of his state to remove every doubt as to the object of the erection of this establishment. He declared in 1817 in the house of representatives: "There was no longer any cause for concealing the fact that the great armory at Richmond was built to enable the state of Virginia to resist by force the encroachments of the then administration upon her indisputable rights, upon the plainest and clearest provisions of the constitution-in case they should persevere in their outrageous proceedings.”

It is not possible to say whether, or to what extent, these preparations were directly incited by Jefferson and Madison. The suspicion resting on Jefferson is obviously the greater, as Madison was from first to last more cautious in his steps. Nor can any definite answer be given to the question how far Madison recommended more moderate measures, or how far a different interpretation of the constitution lay at the foundation of these recommendations. Every move of his was made with anxious deliberation, and his native cautiousness, which sometimes degenerated into weakness and indecision, contributed beyond doubt to cause him to advise a milder and more tentative procedure. Besides, it may be that the internal struggle between his state and national patriotism, in both of which he was equally honest, hindered him from explaining to himself the "interpose." Perhaps he desired to leave open to

Reminiscences of J. A. Hamilton, p. 39, according to the National In

telligencer.

CHARACTER OF JEFFERSON.

159

himself as well as to the legislatures of the other states all possible ways of coming to a substantial agreement. It may be, too, that he entertained some real doubt whether the letter and spirit of the constitution quite justified the last conclusion in the Kentucky resolutions of 1799, drawn from the correct principles-correct in his opinion—which were the common basis of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Whatever estimate of the relative weight of these two motives may be made, the rôle played by Madison in the constitutional conflict which culminated in 1798 and 1799 throws much light on the real character of the constitution itself and on the history of the development of the national spirit during the last decade. Much weight is not to be attached to the fact that Jefferson read the con stitution in such a way, that the union of the states was in principle, perhaps a looser, and certainly not a firmer, one, than it had been under the articles of confederation. It was not a difficult matter for Jefferson to act in opposition to his own theories; and it was still easier for him to reconcile himself to a contradiction between his words and his deeds. Ambition was the sovereign trait in his character. He was always ready to sacrifice much of his favorite theories to his feverish thirst for power and distinction, the more especially as his eminently practical instinct caused him

'Article 13 of the articles of confederation says: "Every state shall abide by the determination of the United States in congress assembled, on all questions which, by this confederation, are submitted to them." The opponents of the doctrine of nullification have interpreted this provision to mean that the laws of congress are absolutely binding on the states. In the constitution there are provisions which establish the supremacy of the laws of congress in a still more undoubted manner. If, spite of this, the doctrine of nullification could possibly and logically be deduced from it, it must have been much easier to deduce it from the articles of confederation, for several of the most important links in the proof are here expressly mentioned, whereas, in the latter, they can only be inferred from other provisions or words. Hence the indirect proof in opposition to the theory of nullification, from the 13th article of confederation, has no value.

often to doubt the tenableness of his ideal systems. Moreover, as he, partly from interest and partly because misled by his idealistic reveries, concealed his ambition under the mask of the greatest simplicity, stoical indifference, and even of disinclination to accept any political honor or dignity, so, too, his conscience was not precisely what would be called tender in the weighing and measuring of words, whether his own or those of others. Such a character could scarcely always resist the temptation to make ink and paper say what in his opinion they ought to say. His mode of thought, which was a mixture of about equal parts of dialectical acuteness and of the fanaticism of superficiality, as shortsighted as it was daring, made this a matter of no difficulty. Hence it is that not the slightest weight should be attached a priori to his interpretation of the constitution. The direct contrary of this is true of Madison. His was not a character so thoroughly and harmoniously constituted and developed as Washington's. He, too, concealed the depth of his ambition under a plain and modest exterior. When it or his over-sensitiveness was wounded, he, too, could be unjust to his opponents. The violence with which the party struggle was conducted by degrees carried him, also, so far away that he played a more covert game than can be entirely justified by the excuse of political necessity. And when it was a question of opposing a measure in too great conflict with his own party programme, he could descend to the letter, and to petty quibbling, if he could not give his attack the necessary energy from the higher standpoint of the statesman. Spite of this, however, there was nothing of the demagogue about him. is a purely constituted character, spite of the fact that his moral principles did not so unconditionally govern him as to leave his judgment entirely uninfluenced by his desires. It cannot be charged that he ever consciously approached the constitution with the intention of discovering in it a word which he might make to serve his purposes by di

He