formally accepted, are but infrequently employed in the course of argument. The truth is that popular interest in these doctrines, so widely proclaimed during the period of Revolution, had suffered a pronounced decline. The enthusiasm of the first resistance, the spirit of which was so eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence, had died down. The country had passed through the trying years of the war and the critical period, had come close up to the edge of anarchy, and was now ready for the establishment of government and law at any

cost.

Nowhere is the change in the dominant sentiment of the people more deeply marked, nowhere more clearly expressed, than in the Federalist, which may fairly be taken as representative of the class or classes of people whose support secured the adoption of the Constitution. Comparison of the writings of 1763-1776, and their bold and sweeping generalizations about the rights of man, with the conservative utterances of the Federalist, reveals an unmistakable change of feeling and opinion. The contrast is strongly marked. The Revolutionary period emphasized the rights of man, the Federalist the necessity of government; the Revolutionary period demanded government of a more democratic character, the Federalist asked for a government of a less democratic nature. Annual elections, the feeble executive, the omnipotent legis

lature, the absolute division of governmental powers, with other planks in the ultra-democratic platform, were discredited by the leaders of the new school. In fact, the democratic philosophy of the eighteenth century was a perfect expression for the men and times of 1776; for it was essentially a philosophy of revolution. With the needs of 1787-1789, however, it did not harmonize and could not easily be made to agree. The Declaration of Independence represented the political theory of the American people when it had "become necessary to dissolve the political bands which had connected them with another." The Federalist represented the time when it had become necessary "to form a more perfect union." Its authors did not reject, but largely ignored, the rights of man. There was full recognition of the sovereignty of the people, but an impressive warning, reënforced by cogent examples from recent American history, was sounded against excessive democracy.

In addition to this there were substantial contributions made toward the solution of new problems in political science. The federal state was discussed with remarkable acumen, the theory of the separation of governmental powers was restated, the possibility of extending republican government over a large area asserted and argued, the doctrine of government under a constitution developed and applied. In all this the authors of the Federalist were not in advance of the political facts of the

time. The old theory was outgrown; they were formulating political theories adapted to the new state of things.

The Federalist, however, was not the only expression of the reactionary tendency in the theory of this time. Much more suggestive in this respect was the doctrine advanced by the great leader of the Federalist party - John Adams.1 During the earlier part of his life, Adams had been one of the most outspoken and enthusiastic advocates of the radical movement. In these days he thought that government is "a plain, simple, intelligible thing, founded in nature and reason, quite comprehensible by common sense." He indorsed the maxim that "where annual elections end, there slavery begins"; favored stripping the governor of the "badges of slavery called prerogatives"; and was vigorous in his declaration of the rights of man.2

In little more than a decade, however, there was evident a pronounced change in the general character of Adams's theory.3 Influenced by the turn that events were taking in America and by the

1 See his life by C. F. Adams; also the essay by Mellen Chamberlain. See also "The Politics of John Adams," by Anson D. Morse, in the American Historical Review, January, 1899, and the Works of Adams in ten volumes, edited by C. F. Adams.

2 "Thoughts on Government," 1776, Works, Vol. IV.

3 Some symptoms of a reaction appeared as early as 1776. See Adams's Works, IX, 410, 435, 451.

fear that certain principles of the French philosophy might obtain the ascendency here, Adams was led to formulate a system of political theory widely different from that which he held in earlier days. In the first period Adams was the bold champion of the Revolution, in the second period he was equally fearless in his advocacy of strong government and of aristocratic principles.

The theory of Adams during this second period is contained in the two once famous, but now almost forgotten works, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787– 1788) and the Discourses on Davila (1790). The Defence was written in view of recent occurrences in Massachusetts, and also as a reply to an attack on the American system made by Turgot in a letter to the famous English theorist, Dr. Price (1778).1 One of the principal points to which Turgot took exception was the policy in the state constitutions of dividing the powers of government and instituting a system of checks and balances, instead of concentrating all governmental powers in a single sovereign body. Adams's reply was a defence of the American system of balanced government against the French theory of centralized and un

1 Printed with Dr. Price's Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, and the Means of making it a Benefit to the World. An extract from Turgot's letter is given in Adams's Works, IV, 278–281. Considerable attention was also given in the Defence to refutation of a radical English work by Marchamont Nedham, The Excellency of a Free State (1656), reprinted 1767.

divided power. The first part of this book was published in time to find its way into the hands of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and doubtless exerted an influence there. The work, although hastily put together, was effective, and was widely read. That the author of so conservative a treatise could be elected Vice-President of the United States shortly after, shows that its principles were not unfavorably received.

The Discourses on Davila1 was written in reply to the Four Letters of a Citizen of New Haven by Condorcet.2 These two works, the Defence and the Discourses, though now generally neglected, contain the substance of Adams's ideas, and are invaluable for an understanding of the aristocratic theory of his time.

Adams's treatment of political theory evidences a wide acquaintance with political history and with the results reached by the greatest political thinkers. He discusses in the course of his work, the history of democratic governments in Greece, Sparta, Carthage, Rome, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Provinces. In the field of political theory he was familiar with the writings of Plato, Machiavelli, Harrington, Montesquieu, Sidney, Milton, and Hume. His conclusions were based upon an ex

1 Davila, Dell' Istoria delle Guerre civile di Francia.

2 Quatre Lettres d'un bourgeois de New Haven à un citoyen de Virginie, sur l'inutilité de partager le pouvoir législatif entre plusieurs corps, 1788.