Adams, were not of this type. They were monarchists, as Washington was, and knew nothing and cared less about republics. But it was an unfortunate juncture for the conservative spirit in America. We do not need to be told now that it was not the fault of George III. and his ministers that the colonies revolted. If the king and Lord North of that day had been as wise and prudent as King Edward VII. and Mr. Chamberlain in our own time, human nature would have had its way. The colonist was baffled in his desire for power, he was cut off from England by slow sailing ships, he had lost touch with the old land, and the sentiment of loyalty languished. There were no fast ocean steamers, no electric telegraphs, no cheap international postal system, there was not even any popular press or popular literature to foster understanding between the old land and the new. But, above all, human nature in America wanted change, it wanted excitement, it wanted war. People who cannot understand this kind of doctrine, may be helped to it by a contemplation of the quickened sense of community in Australia and Canada since their participation in the hostilities in Africa-of increased contentment with political relationship, more self-reliance, a wider outlook, more local spirit.

The question for a long time before the people of the former colonies was whether they would be a united State or a set of separate commonwealths. They long tried to be both; but the issue has now been settled politically and economically by the unity and cohesion of the people, by their new responsibilities and possessions, by their international relations, by their commercial

prosperity, by the astounding growth of the federal power.1

Look at the embryo republic; it was divided into the nation makers and the nation doubters, between the advocates of consolidation and the advocates of State sovereignty. It was urged that a strong central government endangered both the rights of the States and the liberties of the individual citizen. Massachusetts and New York, in particular, were jealous of national power which might belittle their own pretensions. Indeed, it is the opinion of historians that had the decision been left to the people voting at a plebiscite, the principle of consolidating the States into a nation would have been defeated. Probably the real impelling power which carried the federal constitution was the dread of foreign powers, i.e. Spain and England. France, which had lately held territories to the north of them in Canada, and to the south and west of the Mississippi, was no longer feared.3

1 "The confederation ought to be settled before the declaration of Independence," said Dickinson "of Pennsylvania in 1776."

"Foreigners will think it most regular; the weaker States will not be in so much danger of having disadvantageous terms imposed upon them by the stronger. . . . Upon the whole when things shall be thus deliberately rendered firm at home and favourable abroad, then let America, 'At tollens humeris fomomet fata nepotum,' bearing up her glory to the destiny of her descendants, advance with majestic steps to assume her station among the sovereigns of the world."

2 "Instead of feeling as a nation, a State is our country. We look with indifference, often with hatred, fear, and aversion to the other States."Fisher Ames, 1782.

3 The fear of foreign interference, the sense of weakness both on sea and on land against the military monarchies of Europe, was constantly before the mind of American statesmen, and made them anxious to secure at all hazards a national government capable of raising an army and navy, and of speaking with authority on behalf of the new Republic.-Bryce, "American Commonwealth."

Washington having boldly given it as his opinion that the ill-made league of States was "no better than anarchy," a convention therefore met in 1787, and after five months' labour and much diversity of opinion, natural amongst a people so heterogeneous, produced a Constitution which 39 out of the 55 delegates signed.'

Well, the Constitution was presented, and, in spite of much opposition, endorsed by the people of the States. But there was yet no strong nation born: it was more a federal pact, a league of neighbour commonwealths. There was nothing, for instance, in the Constitution to prevent any State withdrawing from the Union. A bloody war was to establish solidarity.

At the outset of the Republic's career we see the two forces; the forces which are at play in every government amongst every people in the world, even amongst the Chinese. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and an aristocrat by choice, represented the desire for nationhood, for power; the monarchical tendency; Thomas Jefferson, a great thinker and a greater demagogue, stood for decentralization, State sovereignty and futility.2

How clearly it is seen now that to the Jeffersonian doctrine was immediately due the secession of South

1 "By adopting this Constitution," urged the delegate from Pennsylvania, "we shall become a nation; we are not now one. We shall form a national character: we are now too dependent on others."

2 "To balance," declared Hume, "a large State or society, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great a difficulty that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able by the mere dint of reason and reflection to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; experience must guide their labour; time must bring it to perfection, and the feeling of inconvenience must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into, in their first trials and experiments."-Essays, "The Rise of Arts and Sciences."

Carolina and its sister States in 1860, which plunged the country into civil strife. What more interesting feature of the history of the American Republic than this internal struggle of the forces making for nationality and solidarity against opposing tendencies?

The two movements are for ever warring, the impetus in either direction being furnished by events.1 After Washington's death the band between the States becomes loosened; the novelty of the federal pact has gone; Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia have but little in common. The States have no literature; there are no national politics; there is no national purpose. What happened in 1860 would have happened a decade sooner if the principles of Jefferson and disintegration had not been suddenly checked by the war of 1812. There was only one rallying point for all the States, and that was hatred of England, "a good robust family hatred." The cry of war brought the States together again: the federal power was exalted for a time, and the States were duly depressed.

On the heels of this war, which produced pride in the Army and Navy, followed boastfulness and Stateconsciousness. Again the aggregation of States yearned

1 Mr. Bryce reminds us that a large part of the history of Europe consists of a struggle, often involving the use of force, to make the peoples give up their local prejudices and privileges for the sake of national requirements.

2 "Sir, I confess it," said Josiah Quincy in Congress in 1811, "the first public love of my heart is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. There is my fireside; there are the tombs of my ancestors."-Putnam's "American Orations," i. p. 168. A majority of the people, we are told by Mr. Cabot Lodge, at the outset "turned longingly back towards the days of a shattered confederacy and sovereign states, and looked with morbid suspicion on everything, no matter what, which tended to lend strength or dignity to the Central Government."

for nationhood and international prestige. They were tired of standing aloof and inert; and the Monroe doctrine, of which our British statesman, Canning, made them a free gift, they seized upon with pleased alacrity. Again were the national tendencies in the growth of a central power checked in 1828 by Jackson; but they broke out anew in 1848 with the war with Mexico. This war was, however, in the interests of the South; and the southern planters, having tasted of the sweets of power, were not long in wishing it for themselves.

For by this time the artificial ties which kept the sections of America together had grown irksome. At the outbreak of the Civil War there was really little in common between the people of the northern and southern States; or between East and West. But the federal bond and federal power, which had grown weak, was strengthened in the majority of States by the war. Now we shall see how it has been strengthened to such a pitch in all the States that the term State really suggests little except a geographical boundary. To speak of America, as Mr. Bryce does somewhere, as a union of partially sovereign States is to cite an historical, but not an actual, fact.' We might as well speak of United Cantons of Switzerland, or the United Counties of England, or the United Departments of France, as of the United States of America, otherwise than in a purely official and nominal sense (see Appendix A).

2

1 Mr. Bryce makes clear elsewhere, however, that the "political importance of the States is no longer what it was.' "The truth is that the State has shrivelled up."-" American Commonwealth," vol. ii. p. 189.

2 All this was prophesied in the Convention.

"The destruction of the