form to the Constitution as understood by the Convention that produced and recommended it, and particularly by the State Conventions that adopted it." As to the original cause of the divergence, Madison was probably right, at least, to some extent-but to understand the extent of it, especially to understand the bitterness with which the two men came to regard each other, to understand why Hamilton in the latter part of 1791 came to believe "that Mr. Madison, co-operating with Mr. Jefferson, is at the head of a faction decidedly hostile to me and my administration; and actuated by views, in my judgment, subversive of the principles of good government, and dangerous to the union, peace and happiness of the country,"* Madison's explanation is insufficient. Perhaps some light may be thrown on this subject by a study of the diary of a forgotten senator from Pennsylvania, written the first two years of Washington's first administration.

QUESTIONS.

1. State the various elements of which the Federalist party was composed.

2. Were the southern planters as solidly Federalists as the property owners of the country in general?

3. What light does the Virginia Convention throw on this question?

4. Do you see any explanation of the fact that the admirers of the British Constitution were universally Federalists?

5. Why is it important to remember that they were?

6. What was the judiciary act of 1789, and in what did its importance consist?

* Hamilton's letter to Carrington in 1792.

7. What did Hamilton think of democracy?

8. What kind of a Constitution did he propose in the Convention?

9. How did he think the Constitution might be changed, practically, without amendment?

10. Has it, in fact, been so changed?

11. What officer in the American government exercises most influence on the course of legislation?

12. Is it the Constitution, or usage and precedent that gives him that power?

13. How did Madison explain his divergence from Hamilton?

14. If you think Madison was truthful—as everyone doeswould you accept his statement on this point as entirely conclusive? Give your reasons for your answer.

15. What two periods in the history of the Federalist party have so far been spoken of?

CHAPTER VI.

A FORGOTTEN DEMOCRAT.

'O UNDERSTAND how men like Madison, who had

To

been conspicuous for their Federalism when to be a Federalist meant to believe in the adoption of the constitution, came to co-operate in the organiza

The influence

upon Madison.

of environment tion of a party opposed to Federalism, when to be a Federalist meant to be in favor of Hamilton's financial policy, we must try to understand their environment. For Madison would never have opposed the measures of Hamilton so systematically and persistently as he did after 1791, had it not been for the nature of the influences brought to bear upon him. The men with whom he walked and talked, who wrote letters to him and to whom he wrote in reply, who visited him and whom he visited, the men above all upon whose approval he was obliged to depend for promotion, gave a certain set to his mind, a certain direction to his attention. They predisposed him to see all the difficulties on one side of the various questions that arose in their full force, and to minify those on the other. They put him on the alert for every attempt to enlarge the scope of the powers conferred upon the general government by construction; for every attempt to "administration" the government from what it was intended to be to a government

with larger powers. To understand, therefore, the nature of the influences exerted upon him, it is desirable to understand these men-to realize as clearly as we can, their attitude towards political questions-what they hoped and what they feared from the government.

Why important to understand

ronments?

This is the more worth while because, in the first place, the influences they exerted upon Madison were exerted also upon a man of greater force-Thomas Jefferson, a man whose temperament and cast of mind would probably have decided him to Madison's envioppose the measures of Hamilton independently of such influences, although it is quite impossible to imagine him the leader of a forlorn hope. In the second place, when we understand these influences, we shall see the material that was already for organization into an anti-Hamiltonian party. To this end, I propose to cite numerous quotations from the diary of William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania from 1789 to 1791. This diary was written with no thought of publication. Every line of it contains intrinsic evidence of being the expression of the author's sincere opinions. These opinions do indeed represent only one of the two phases then dominant in the political thinking of Virginia; her antagonism to a strong central government, her jealousy of every assumption of federal power. The peculiar opinions known as Virginia Republicanism, opinions with which we shall hereafter become acquainted, found no expression in Maclay's diary. But

Democracy and

licanism.

these opinions, as we shall see, chiefly diverged from the Democracy of which Senator Maclay was Virginia Repub- SO vigorous an exponent, so long as it was not in power, in matters of foreign policy. So far as domestic affairs were concerned, the Democracy of Maclay and the Republicanism of Virginia were in substantial agreement as long as they were an opposition party merely. When the one party of which they were the component elements got possession of the gov ernment, the question had then to be settled, as we shall see, as to which of the two was to determine its policy; whether the government was to be administered in harmony with the ideas of Democracy, or whether it should follow the path marked out by Virginia Republicanism.

One further preliminary remark is necessary: I shall cite quotations from his diary, ranging over the entire two years of his senatorial service. I shall therefore, depart from a chronological order, stating his opinions on matters which we have not yet reached in the course of our story in order that the nature of the influences that were hostile to the policy of the new government may be presented in a single view.

April 25, 1789, he records Vice President John Adams as saying, "Gentlemen, I do not Adams on titles. know whether the framers of the constitution had in view the two kings of

Vice President

Sparta or the two consuls of Rome when they framed one to have all the power while he held it, the other to do nothing."