had been white to him was now black; that which had been black was as the driven snow."*

This is an unjust and inaccurate statement of the

The party he left was advocating the adoption of the constitution when he was a member of it. When he began to oppose it, it was advocating such an interpretation of the constitution as would enlarge the powers of the general government to an extent dangerous, in his opinion, to the liberties of the country. A man could surely believe in the adoption of the constitution, and at the same time believe that Hamilton's interpretation of it was incorrect.

Nor is it more true to say that there was no change in the party that Madison joined. The party that Madison "joined" had no existence until it was organized by himself and Jefferson. It was the single aim of the Antifederalists to prevent the adoption of the constitution. But not a line in the private correspondence of the leaders of the Republican party, to say nothing of their speeches, is in evidence to show that they had any aim but to preserve the general government in "all its constitutional vigor" and to "support the state governments in all their rights."+

The Federalists called their opponents Antifederalists, and Federalist historians have done the same thing. But we know nothing of Madison that justifies us in believing that he would not have exerted himself as vigorously to *Life of Madison, American Statesman Series, page 191. † Jefferson's first inaugural address.

cumstances.

preserve the constitution in 1792 as he did to have it adopted in 1787. There was indeed a change in him, but it was a change growing out of, and dependent upon, cirIn 1787, he had a vivid sense of the dangers of anarchy. It was natural, therefore, that he should concentrate his thoughts on means of preventing it. In 1792, he had a vivid sense of the dangers of an undue centralization of power. It was equally natural that he should concentrate his thoughts on means of preventing it. As his fear of anarchy grew out of his experience of the Confederation, so likewise his fear of undue centralization grew out of his knowledge of Hamilton and his opinion. of the tendency of his financial system.

Some Antifed

Republicans.

to

It is indeed true that those who had been Antifederalists generally became members of the new Republican party. Those who had been eralists became Antifederalists for pecuniary reasons, because they wished to have paper money, or avoid the payment of debts, instinctively opposed Hamilton's financial policy. The vital nerve of that policy was the principle that the nation must fulfil its contracts in order that justice might be done and its credit preserved. But this class of Antifederalists consisted of men whose sympathy with the debtor classes made them disregard the importance of the public credit.

Those Antifederalists, also, who opposed the constitution because they believed it would prove dangerous to the liberties of the country, naturally joined the

Republican party. A man whose devotion to liberty made him prefer the powerless Confederation to the new constitution would naturally prefer the constitution as Jefferson understood it, to the constitution as Hamilton understood it.

But others became Federal

ists.

But while many Federalists became Republicans, many Antifederalists became Federalists. The Federalists, in 1789, as we have seen, consisted of two elements; a national element, who felt that they were Americans, first of all and who wished their country to have such a government as would enable her to take her place among the nations of the world; and a commercial element, who wished to have a government strong enough to make and execute laws which would enable them to do business profitably. Hamilton's financial policy made a strong appeal to this element. The men with money enough to speculate in government certificates, to buy state securities and bank stock, had the the greatest pecuniary interest in Hamilton's policy, and they constituted the commercial class. This explains why it was that many who were Autifederalists before the adoption of the constitution afterwards became Federalists. They belonged to what we may call the commercial wing of the Federalists. They cared little or nothing about the nation as such. But when they found that a strong central government could pass laws which would enable them to make money, they were in favor of it. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New

Hampshire and New York were strongholds of Antifederalism. But when they found what a good thing the government was from a business point of view they became Federalists.

Were the Anti

sectional party?

We are now in a position to understand an important fact in American history. From the very organization of the Republican party, the federalists a two great political parties were chiefly sectional. The Antifederalists were not a sectional party. Of the six states in which it was strongest, four, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New York were in the north, and two, Virginia and North Carolina, were in the south. But the Republican party was a southern party, and the Federalist party, after the adoption of the constitution, was a northern party. Topsy's remark, "sich good times and me not in 'em," suggests the explanation. Hamilton's financial policy made good times for the commercial Federalists who were chiefly in the North, but the planters of the South had no such direct and immediate pecuniary interest in it, and, therefore, they opposed it.

and southern aristocrats.

This throws light on another important fact. The Republican minorities in the northern states Union of northand the Republican majorities in the south-ern Democrats ern states were composed of widely different classes. The lawyers, the clergy, almost all of the wealth and culture and intellect of the North were in the Federalist party. But in the South precisely the reverse was

true. The small Democratic farmers of the North and the aristocratic planters of the South combined against the Federalists under the leadership of Hamilton. Now, this union of northern Democrats and southern aristocrats was not the result of common ideas as to the proper object and scope and methods of government. The one tie that united them was pecuniary interest. Both classes were in debt, neither class derived more than an indirect benefit from Hamilton's financial policy, while each felt the pressure of a system that insisted with such emphasis on the payment of debts. "A common reluctance to pay, a common dread of taxation, a common envy of the more fortunate moneyed class, whose position had been so palpably improved by the funding of the public debt-though little more so, in reality, than the position of everybody else-made both farmers and planters" join in clamors against Hamilton's system.*

While such considerations enable us to understand

Federalist opinion of the Republicans.

the general grouping of political parties at the close of Washington's first administration, there is one fact that they do not entirely account for, and that is the passion with which the party warfare was waged. Each party looked upon the other as deadly enemies to the best interests of humanity; each felt that upon the success of its principles depended the welfare of the race. The Republicans, in the opinion of the Federalists, were only Antifederalists with a more

*Hildreth, IV., p. 350.