representatives; 7th, the state legislatures against the Senate; 8th, the electors against the people. Here are certainly ample guaranties against hasty action on the part of any organ of the federal government, and it is apparent that Adams so considered them.1

When Adams entered into active political life under the new federal Constitution, he no longer gave expression to sentiments which could so easily be interpreted as unrepublican in character. It is likely that he considered the new government as embodying in many of its features the principles he had laid down. The new Constitution was certainly more in harmony with Adams's ideas than with those of the French theorists whom he combated. In his inaugural address of 1797 Adams declared that no change in the existing 、government was intended. He commented on the

essentially popular basis of the government with evident satisfaction and pride. He declared his 1 preference for free republican government, and his firm attachment to the United States Constitution. In terms that suggest the inaugural of four years later, he discoursed fluently on his regard for virtuous men of all parties, and his love for equal laws, for justice, and for humanity.2 It would, therefore, be unfair to maintain that after the Constitution was once put in force, Adams demanded a monarchy and hereditary aristocracy.

1 Works, VI, 467 (1814).

2 IX, 105 ££

He even denied that any such idea could, by fair construction, be deduced from his writings, and asserted that "they were all written to support and strengthen the Constitution of the United States." 1 He continued to defend with unabated vigor, however, the doctrine of the inequality of men, and the necessity of elaborate checks and balances. To Jefferson he wrote (1815): "The fundamental principle of my political creed is, that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor."2 This was, in fact, the fundamental proposition in Adams's political philosophy, and explains his frequently undemocratic phrases. He feared the unlimited power of the people as well as the unlimited power of either nobility or king; and was steadfastly opposed to any system, popular or otherwise, which was not so constructed as to limit and restrain the governing powers. In America he considered that the despotism imminent was that of the people, hence his criticisms were directed mainly against them.

Such was the character of the reactionary theory prevalent during the early years of the republic. With some modifications this doctrine continued to manifest its existence during the first quarter

1 X, 54. Cf. VI, 463, stating that they were written in defence of the Massachusetts constitution. 2 X, 174.

of a century of the newly established Union. It found expression in the demand for a strong central government, in a pronounced dislike for the French Revolution, particularly in its later phases, in a certain liking for form and ceremony. It would be wide of the mark to say that the Federalists accepted all of the theory of Adams as stated in the works just analyzed. This he did not do himself in his later years. But the spirit of this work - the distrust of democracy and the tenderness for the "well-born was characteristic of them.1

1 Cf. Publicola, a series of letters by John Quincy Adams in reply to Paine's Rights of Man, 1791.

A careful exposition of early American principles is preserved in the lectures given by James Wilson before the Law School in Philadelphia, 1790–92. See Wilson, Works, edited by J. D. Andrews, 2 vols., 1896.

He regarded even a private "Why not," said he, "if it

Wilson laid great stress on the theory that law and political obligation do not come from a superior, but are created by the voluntary agreement of individuals, "the consent of those whose obedience the law requires " (I, 88). contract as really constituting a law. had all its essential properties ?" He denied that there was any contract between king and people or between governor and governed, maintaining that the agreement is one between the individual and the whole society.

CHAPTER IV

THE JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY

No sooner was the new Constitution put into actual operation than there began a decided movement away from strong government and toward individual and states rights. It seemed almost as if the people were alarmed at what they had done, and were anxious to neutralize its effect. In addition to this perhaps natural reaction after the violent agitation in favor of a strong government, there was the powerful stimulus given to democracy by the French Revolution, especially in its earlier years. This great event aroused the democratic spirit throughout Europe, and was not without its effect on America.1 Nor should it be forgotten that just at this time Jefferson returned to his native land, ready to organize and give form to the scattered democratic tendencies. Under these auspices the new movement rapidly gained strength, and in little more than a decade was able to triumph over the Adams-Hamilton party.

The most marked characteristic of this movement was the antipathy shown toward everything

1 On this subject see the interesting study by Charles D. Hazen, Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution (1897).

suggestive of monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, or strongly centralized government. Objection was made, for example, to any exceptional formality in addressing the President, to stamping his likeness on the coinage, to any elaborate ceremony at the seat of government. Opposition was made to the size of the standing army, to the establishment of the United States Bank, to the assumption of the state debts. Particularly was there denunciation of the administration because of its refusal to take up the defence of republican France against monarchic England. To favor Britain or even to remain neutral in the contest, it was said, was really equivalent to upholding the British form of government against the free institutions of the Revolution.

The theory of this movement is represented in such works as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, which was used as an answer to the writings of Adams; in Tucker's Commentaries on Blackstone1 (1803); in Taylor's Inquiry2 (1814); and the various writings of Joel Barlow. But by far the most

1 H. St. George Tucker, Commentaries on Blackstone.

2 John Taylor, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States. A considerable part of this discursive work is taken up by a criticism of Adams's theory of aristocracy. By the same author, Construction Construed and the Constitution Vindicated (1820); Tyranny Unmasked (1822); New Views of the Constitution (1823).

* Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe (1792); Joel Barlow to his Fellow Citizens in the United States of America (1801); and various other letters. See Life and Letters of Joel Barlow, by Charles Burr Todd.