Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

legislature adopted a series of resolutions, drawn up by Madison, in which the respective limits of state and federal authority were defined. In case Congress violated the Constitution, Madison argued, it became the duty of the state governments to interpose; they could decide on both the fact and the extent of the infraction, and they could also determine the mode of redress. He said that the states, rather than the Supreme Court, were the proper judges of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress.

In some resolutions of the Kentucky legislature, Jefferson went even further. He declared that a law contrary to the Constitution was void and of no force, and that it could be nullified by state action. Just how this was to be done, he did not explain, but he seems to have had in mind the united action of a majority of states.

Although the authorship of these two sets of resolutions was not known at the time, they attracted widespread attention, as the platform of the party out of power. In the northern states, where the Federalists were in power, the legislatures expressed disapproval of this doctrine of states' rights. In the Democratic states, the Resolutions were generally approved.

This controversy was important, because for the first time after the establishment of the federal system, it gave rise to a discussion of the respective powers of state and national governments. The issue was neither closed nor settled in 1798, and on various occasions between then and 1861, it came up again and again, always with serious embarrassment to the party in power. So the doctrine of states' rights, which had been widely prevalent in 1788, continued to flourish, long after the establishment of the Constitution.

THE ELECTION OF 1800

It might perhaps be expected that with all this trouble with the Democrats on their hands, the Federalists might have strengthened themselves by avoiding factional differences within their own ranks. This, however, could not be done. The friction between the Hamilton and Adams groups became steadily worse, until it threatened to disrupt the party itself. Adams had tried to do something toward smoothing over the ill-feeling by keeping in his Cabinet two prominent Hamiltonians: Timothy Pickering in the State Department, and Oliver Wolcott in the Treasury. Neither was a big man, and both took orders from Hamilton while they were intriguing against

Adams. Under the circumstances, the President could hardly be blamed for dismissing them, and he did so.

Coming prominently to the surface as it did, shortly before a new election, this dispute within the party threatened to put an end to the Federalist hold on the presidential office. On the other hand, the Democrats had had no spoils to quarrel over, so they could look forward to the approaching campaign with a reasonable degree of confidence. The only weakness which might disturb them was more likely to come to the surface after a successful election, rather than during a campaign. From the beginning the Democrats had been a. party of protest, including a large number of strong individualists. Jefferson had succeeded in keeping up at least a show of cohesion... and his methods were of the sort calculated to get out the vote. The Federalists renominated Adams, with C. C. Pinckney for the vice-presidency, while the Democrats picked Jefferson and Aaron Burr. This new figure in national politics was a grandson of the great Jonathan Edwards, and the son of a Presbyterian president of Princeton. After serving with honor in the Revolution, he devoted himself to law, politics, and feminine society, with a record none too savory in any one of these fields. Personally he was a man of unusual charm of manner, and he was blessed with a store of cheerfulness that never deserted him. But he lacked robust convictions about anything, and he was as utterly devoid of any moral sense as of the finer feelings that distinguish a gentleman from a rascal. After his famous duel, he could refer to "Hamilton, whom I shot," as casually as though he had offered him a cigar.

But whatever his moral shortcomings, there is no denying Burr's cleverness at political intrigue. He was one of the early leaders of Tammany Hall, and he helped to fasten upon that institution a small portion of its vast ill-repute which it carried almost to the present day. And it was Burr who defeated John Adams in his campaign for a second term.

When the electoral votes were counted, they showed Jefferson and Burr with seventy-three votes apiece, with Adams running next with sixty-five. The Democrats won the presidency, but because no candidate had a majority the Federalist House of Representatives was confronted with the uncomfortable task of choosing between Jefferson and Burr. Because of their hatred of Jefferson, numbers of Federalist Congressmen were perfectly ready to put Burr in the

president's chair, but after thirty-five fruitless ballots enough Congressmen came sufficiently to their senses to elect Jefferson. Even then, his victory came because a number of Federalists refrained from voting, and his majority over Burr was only six, the final vote standing fifty-five to forty-nine.

This election of Jefferson in 1800 is sometimes referred to as a "revolution," but there was no such general overturn as that expression would imply. Adams lost the presidency because of the situation in New York. In 1796 he received all the electoral votes of that state. Had he received only half of them in 1800, he would have won the election. As it was, he got none, and the New York votes elected the Democrats. How were they secured?

In 1800 the presidential electors in New York, and in all the other states but five, were chosen by the state legislatures. In that particular year, the New York Assembly was so evenly divided that the balance of power lay in the hands of the thirteen members from New York City. Burr had so manipulated New York politics that the thirteen were all of his own party. Made Democratic by this narrow margin, the Assembly chose twelve Democratic electors, and they all voted for Jefferson.

The Democrats also secured control of Congress, as they had done sometimes before, but with Jefferson in the executive office they now had a chance to show what they could do in constructive reforms.

1

CHAPTER XXV

THE JEFFERSONIAN REFORMS

If any weight could be given to the notions of those New England Federalists who had tried their best to elect Burr instead of Jefferson, the new President was the incarnation of everything they despised. He was a Virginian and a Democrat, as well as an atheist, and an unscrupulous politician into the bargain. If not an anarchistalthough they would not have used the term-he certainly had talked and written loosely concerning the sacredness of law and property. "That government is best," he proclaimed, "which governs least.” Worse yet, after Shays's Rebellion had shocked the New England conservatives into an absolute horror of extra-legal proceedings, Jefferson, perhaps somewhat thoughtlessly, had expressed distinct approval of it. "God forbid! we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion... What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And this man was the president-elect! Why not choose Daniel Shays himself, and be honest?

JEFFERSON THE MAN

But this Federalist caricature was considerably more awe-inspiring than the man himself. There was nothing formidable in his personal appearance, except perhaps his six and a quarter feet of stature. And even his height was balanced by his loose-jointed build and his slouching manner. It would have required no little imagination to see any trace of cruelty or indifference to the well-being of mankind in his sunny, red, freckled face. The ordinary observer saw in him, not a monster, but simply a large, rawboned farmer, careless in manner, careless in dress, but withal very human and genial.

Perhaps geniality was the trait that most impressed itself on casual acquaintances. He could talk with enthusiasm and a fair degree of intelligence on nearly every subject known to man. His dinners were

celebrated for their conversation-and their wine, "the best I ever drank," one admirer wrote. The little circle of followers who had seen him day in and day out at his boarding house in Philadelphia had never found him dangerous. They thoroughly liked him.

It is far simpler to describe the new President's appearance and demeanor than to analyze his character. If there is any truth in the statement sometimes made that the average American is noted for the wide gulf between his theories and his practices, Jefferson was typical of his nation. He has been accused of inconsistencies without number, but inconsistency is hardly the word. His difficulty was that he lived in two worlds, one of theory, the other of fact. As a theorist he was a doctrinaire, a spinner of fancies not always related to the problems of life. As a practical politician he had no superior, and probably no equal in uncanny genius for organizing a crowd of stubborn followers, and in ability for making them work with him.

Evidence of this divergence between Jefferson the philosopher and Jefferson the statesman appears all through his life. He could help to incite the Virginians to revolution, and he could write the Declaration of Independence, but with all of his youth and physical vigor he would not enlist in the revolutionary army. It was that display of politician's caution which exasperated John Marshall. Again the divergence appears in his strictures upon the Quebec Act, and his own Act for the government of Louisiana; in his holy horror of an army and navy, and in his arbitrary enforcement of his own embargo; in general, in his silly talk about the benefits of frequent revolutions, and in his autocratic administration of the federal government.

THE JEFFERSONIAN PROGRAM

Because men went "insane in pairs" over Jefferson, as they did over Roosevelt and Wilson later on, his inaugural was eagerly awaited. For those who were expecting a discharge of fire and brimstone against the Federalists, and a violent diatribe against government, the actual speech was a curious surprise. Its keynote was moderation and goodwill, with little in it to criticize, and nothing to provoke controversy, unless perhaps it was the assertion that "we are all Federalists, all Democrats." No one could deny that his plans for coöperation and harmony were in eminently good taste.

As for policies, the new President promised two things above all, economy and reform. Simplify the government, eliminate needless

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »