than that it should furnish the means of corrupting Congress, and of increasing the power of the central government. In three other particulars these extracts are worthy of careful note. They show that the independence and sovereignty of the state still seemed a living fact to their author. He could scarcely conceive that a federal law "passed directly against the sense of a whole state could ever be executed in that state." They show also that though he disliked the general government exceedingly, he acquiesced in it as necessary, and aimed only to confine its action within such limits as to prevent it from encroaching upon the states. Finally, they show that if he and those who thought with him had a morbid fear of the general government, that Hamilton was not the only Federalist who had a morbid distrust and dislike of the governments of the states. Indeed, the spring of all the bitterness and intensity of party passion that soon set the American people beside itself, was this: Each party regarded as the paramount and supreme necessity what the other regarded with morbid distrust and fear. Experience has shown that neither the state nor the general governments, as their powers are determined by the constitution, are to be regarded with distrust and suspicion. But the Americans of 1790 had no experience to guide them. QUESTIONS. 1. How does one's environment influence his opinions? 3. What was the difference between Northern Democracy and Virginia Republicanism? 4. Why, in your opinion did Maclay find Adams' opinions on titles offensive? 5. Why do you think he objected to Washington's levees? 6. How did Jefferson explain Washington's ceremony? 7. Why did Maclay object to the treaty clauses of the Constitution? 8. Do you know any attempt made by the Republicans in Washington's second administration in harmony with this objection? 9. What was the Judiciary act and why did he object to it? 10. Why did he object to Washington's speeches and the answers made by the two houses of Congress? 11. What were the certificates of which he spoke and what was the extent of their depreciation? 12. Why was he in favor of instructing Senators? 13. What did he think of the new government? 14. What did he think of sending ministers to foreign countries? Of the extravagance of the government? Of the excise? Of war with Algiers? 15. What was his opinion of state sovereignty? CHAPTER VII. THE THE FEDERALIST FINANCIAL POLICY. Leading trait in acter. HE LOVE of justice, stability and order was theleading trait in the political character of Alexander Hamilton. It was this that led him to wish to subject the government of the states to the Federal government: The experience of the confederation, he thought, had proved that they could not be Hamilton's chartrusted to do justice, to promote stability, and to preserve order. In many of the states, during the period of the confederation, the owners of state debts had to lose from ten to seventeen shillings in the pound because the state government refused to enact laws which would insure justice to the holders of their securities. The same trait led him to desire an aristocratic republic. He thought none but property holders could be trusted to do justice to the rights of property. The objects of his financial policy were clearly stated in his first report upon the public credit, submitted to Congress in January, 1795, the report which Senator Maclay said would financial policy. damn his character as a Secretary forever. Object of his He says: "To justify and preserve the confidence of the most enlightened friends of good government; to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources both to agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against foreign attacks; to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy;-these are the great and invaluable ends to be secured by a proper and adequate provision at the present period for the support of the public credit." The clauses which I have italicized state the leading objects which he had in view. Men as fair as Madi son undoubtedly believed that he had another object more fundamental than any of them-the administration of the government from what the Convention intended it to be, to what he wished it to be. But I find no convincing evidence that this is so. Alarming as Hamilton's interpretation of the constitution seemed to Hamilton's in terpretation of Jefferson and Madison, the student of his the Consitution of the Supreme Court. and the decisions tory must remember that in almost every important particular his interpretation has been borne out by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. That Hamilton was intent upon vindicating for the general government every power conferred upon it by the constitution is certainly true, but no more than that can be safely asserted. The quotations made from him on a preceding page may indeed seem to contradict this. But what he thought desirable is not to be taken as evidence of what he actually attempted to do. * See page 70. Sumner truly says: "The contest with anarchy and repudiation was the great work which went to the making of the nation at the end of the last century, and Hamilton was one of the leading heroes in it." cial policy and anarchy. One of the means which he employed was the introduction of a policy which arrayed on the side of government and stability, and order, a large part Hamilton's finanof the wealth of the country. We know how the tendency to feeble was the sense of public honor at that time; we know that there was a strong paper money party in most of the states; that the states would neither provide for their own debts nor those of the Confederation; that many of them passed laws providing for the stay of legal proceedings for the collection of debts and for the suspension of taxes. We have seen a powerful rebellion break out in Massachusetts whose object was the enthronement of anarchy. The question which confronted the new government was, Could this disintegrating, repudiating, anarchistic spirit be successfully encountered? It had to answer that question successfully in order to live, and to help it to do it was the great object of Hamilton's financial policy. He felt that if he could array the wealth and the intelligence of the country upon the side of the government; if he could concentrate the interest and the energies of the influential classes upon a single object, focus them upon a single point, the victory would be sure. |