tensive study (more extensive than intensive) of the world's classics in political theory and practice.1 This transition from a philosophy based on the “rights of man" to one emphasizing the historical method within little more than one decade is certainly impressive; yet it was paralleled by the change of attitude seen in Edmund Burke during the same time. Adams's change of opinion was by no means so radical, however, as that of Burke, although it followed the same direction.

The chief points of interest in Adams's theory may be included under three heads; first, his distrust of unlimited democracy; second, his defence of aristocracy; third, his system of checks and balances. An analysis of these three leading doctrines will be presented here.

The great wave of democratic sentiment which had swept over the country during the latter part of the eighteenth century, the triumph of this movement in the Revolution, Adams's own participation in the struggle, had been by no means sufficient to keep awake in him the sentiments of an enthusiastic democrat. Such feelings had been excited, but they soon gave way to other and more characteristic tendencies of the man. Adams was not wholly anti-democratic, but he certainly did not share in that unqualified approval of democratic government which was so common, in theory at least, among his con

1 See Defence, Chaps. I-IX.

temporaries. His comparative study of republican states had inspired in him a profound distrust for an unqualified democracy, which manifested itself throughout his later life. Some of his criticisms on the general theory of democratic government may be considered here. In the first place, Adams strongly objected to the common assertion that the people are incapable of tyrannical and oppressive conduct. "We may appeal," said he, "to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally and without one exception usurped over the rights of the minority.'

The people, moreover, are not only prone to tyranny; they are jealous, exacting, and suspicious to the last degree. They not only demand outward submission to their commands, but cannot endure even a mental dissent from their will. They "will not bear a contemptuous look or disrespectful word; nay, if the style of your homage, flattery, and adoration is not as hyperbolical as the popular enthusiasm dictates, it is construed into disaffection"; and as a result the popular suspicion is aroused and their fury breaks out "into every kind of insult, obloquy, and outrage." Again, the people are no less given to luxury than 2 Ibid. VI, 89.

1 Defence, VI, 10.

are kings and nobles, although the latter are usually charged with the greatest extravagances. A free people, says Adams, is most addicted of all to the vices of luxury.1 The simple democracy is, of all governments, most exposed to tumults and disorder, and such disturbances are most likely to be fatal in this kind of a state.2 In short, it seems that no stable government can be built upon the foundation of an unlimited democracy. "All projects of government, formed upon a supposition of continual vigilance, sagacity, virtue, and firmness of the people, when possessed of the exercise of supreme power, are cheats and delusions." 3

There is, says Adams, no such thing as an abstract love of equality. There can be no love of democracy as an abstract conception, but only in so far as it stands for a certain advancement of individual interest and advantage. Democracy is not desired for itself, but for what it brings with it, or for what it makes possible in the form of personal welfare. Or as Adams elsewhere says, "Mankind in general had rather be rich under a simple monarchy than poor under a democracy." 4 In brief, Adams maintains that there never was and never can be a pure democracy. In reality, "democracy signifies nothing more nor less than a nation of people, without any government at all and before any constitution is instituted." 5

1 Defence, VI, 95.

2 Ibid. 151.

8 Ibid. 166.

5 Ibid. 211.

4 Ibid. 97.

It is, nevertheless, unfair to reckon Adams among the opponents of free government. The attacks which he made were directed chiefly against immediate or unlimited democracy, and he was far from being hostile to popular government, properly checked and restrained. The common charges against him to this effect were founded upon a misapprehension of his true position. Although his assaults on democracy pure and simple were vigorously sustained, no language could be clearer than that in which he asserts the doctrine of popular sovereignty. "The suprema potestas," he declares, “the supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable power is placed by God and nature in the people, and they can never divest themselves of it."1 All government depends upon and represents the people. No government can exist longer than the people will to support it; they are the fountain of political power, and may vest authority 、 wherever they choose. Adams held to the theory of popular sovereignty as the basis of government; upon this point he was never uncertain, but he did not favor democratic government of the type which the French thinkers desired. All free , government, he thought, ought to contain certain • limitations upon the direct action of the people, in

1 Works, 469. Cf. VI, 113, to the effect that there can be no constitutional liberty, "where the people have not an independent equal share with the other two orders of the state, and an absolute control over all laws and grants of money."

order to render excesses on their part difficult, if not impossible.

"2

The charge that Adams was opposed to democratic institutions received support from the bitterness of his invective against unlimited democracy, and his not unfriendly attitude toward monarchy. For example, he said on one occasion that "a hereditary first magistrate at once would perhaps be preferable to elections by legislative representatives.' "1 Yet this was not the final opinion of Adams, for he said later of kings that he would "shut them up like the man in the mask, feed them well, and give them as much finery as they please, until they could be converted to right reason and common sense.' But because of his criticism of certain phases of popular government, Adams was made the object of the bitterest denunciation, particularly by Jefferson and his associates. The object of his criticism, however, was not popular government as such, but certain evils arising from the direct and unrestrained rule of the people. It is quite likely that if obliged to choose between this type of popular government, and monarchy, he would have accepted the latter without much hesitation. This was particularly true in the days when the Constitution was being formed. After the Constitution was adopted and the gov-. ernment established, he accepted the government