Restricted Electorate in the Early Democracy

mechanism-as in its method of choosing the President, by electors chosen by the States; in that of choosing Senators, and of apportioning Representatives by States. "The equal vote in each State," wrote Hamilton in The Federalist,* "is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty"; and with the understanding that the residuary sovereignty of the States was unimpaired, the Constitution was ratified by a narrow majority.

Popular sentiment in the rural districts and along the frontier was strong against the plan; in the small towns it was divided; in the commercial centres it was favorable. With only one hundred and fifty thousand voters out of a population of three millions and a half, the country presented the anomalous spectacle of a democracy in which the disqualified were in the majority, and formed the tumultuous mass along the edge of the electorate, with feelings hostile to restrictions on individual liberty, or to any form of government, especially a new one, that was likely to multiply taxes. The right to vote was exclusively in control of the States. During the twelve years since the Declaration of Independence there had been a slight extension of the franchise here and there, chiefly by act of Assembly. Whatever reforms

*No. lxii. See also Mason's remarks in the convention. Elliot, Vol. v., p. 415.

were desired in social or commercial conditions, long habit pointed to the Assemblies as the source of the authority, and as the paramount democracy that could grant them. What, it was asked, is the new government but the agent of the States? Scarcely was it inaugurated before the old struggle broke out along new lines. The hated executive of colonial times was now become the United States government-new, untried, its powers undefined. The Assemblies which opposed it of old were now the States-ancient as the Virginia House of Burgesses, experienced, organized, their powers unlimited by constitutions or laws. This all meant a political opportunity, and it was quickly improved.

During the winter of 1797, Jefferson, then completing his first year in the Vice-Presidency, was lodging at Francis's Hotel, long famed as the Indian Queen, on Fourth Street, Philadelphia. Hither, after the inaugural ceremonies in the State House, Washington and a throng of people had accompanied Adams and Jefferson. Standing on the steps of this hotel, and struggling in vain to control his feelings, Washington bade farewell to the people he had served so long and so faithfully. The hotel was the headquarters of politicians, and was much affected by Jefferson's friends. Many chapters of the political history of the country for the next half-century were here planned. The substance of many conversations is recorded in a letter by Jefferson of the 12th of February, 1798, to John Wise, a Presidential Elector from Virginia

Jefferson and the Tory Party

in 1793. In a letter to Jefferson, fifteen days before, Wise complained that, as he had lately learned, Jefferson had spoken of him "as of Tory politics," and he inquired "as to the fact and the idea to be conveyed." Jefferson, "with frankness," wrote a full reply, which may be accepted as one of the earliest authoritative descriptions of political parties under the Constitution. "It is now understood," so runs this letter,* " that two political sects have arisen within the United States- the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which more needs support; the other, that, like the analogous branch in the English government, it is already too strong for the republican parts of the Constitution; and therefore, in equivocal cases, they incline to the legislative powers: the former of these are called Federalists, sometimes Aristocrats or Monocrats, and sometimes Tories, after the corresponding sect in the English government of exactly the same definition: the latter are styled Republicans, Whigs, Jacobins, Anarchists, Disorganizers, etc.; these terms are in familiar use with most persons, and which of those of the first class I used on the occasion alluded to I do not particularly remember; they are all well understood to persons who are for strengthening the executive rather than the legislative branches of our government; but probably I used the last of these terms, and for these reasons: both parties claim to be Federalists and Republicans, and I believe, in

* Manuscript letter.

truth, as to the great mass of them, these appellations designate neither exclusively, and all others are slanders, except those of Whig and Tory, which alone characterize the distinguishing principles of the two sects as I have before explained them, as they have been known and named in England for more than a century, and as they are growing into daily use here." This reads as if party principles were already well understood, and party organization well under way. But Jefferson was looking into the future. Party material was abundant. It needed shaping into coherence and efficiency. All was not raw material, because Jefferson had been at work upon it since the day he entered Washington's cabinet, eight years before. Every important act of Washington's administration, Jefferson believed, consolidated authority in the federal government, or, as he expressed it in his letter, strengthened the executive at the expense of the legislative-that is, the nation at the expense of the States. For the nation stood the Federalists -the Tories; for the States the RepublicansDisorganizers, or, as they soon came to be called, Democrats. It was the national party against the State party. With their contests the administration of the new Constitution began. The instrument was now to be interpreted. When Jefferson wrote this letter the new government was entering its second decade. At its inception public opinion had not rallied enthusiastically about it, and Washington had found difficulty in inducing proper men to accept office. Had he refused the

Expanding the Principle of English Liberty

Presidency, the national government might have failed for lack of men.

It is difficult for us to-day to understand how feebly the sense of national responsibility and obligation rested on the people of the country at the close of the eighteenth century. Independence had not been won, so thought the masses, in order to establish a costly, a powerful, a complex national government, but to secure to every person in the country his ancient and undoubted rights and liberties. Not satisfied with liberty, a few designing men, as Lansing had expressed it in the convention, and as many others had repeated it in the ratifying conventions, had devised a consolidated government, dangerous alike to the States and to individuals. Were not the bills of rights and the State constitutions enough? Certainly they were older and of greater authority than this Constitution lately made in Philadelphia. Englishmen had long enjoyed the right of trial by jury, the right of petition, the right of habeas corpus, and the right of exemption from unusual fines and cruel punishments. America had added to the list the right of freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press, exemption from unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right of representation.

Any legislation, or any exercise of authority by the national government that could be construed as violating one of these rights, would at once precipitate an opposition which, if well managed, could be organized as a political party. The pop