Each person was allotted a certain amount of land. He had his home lot, his arable plot and his pasture land. The waste land and the woodland were usually held in common. Their government approached the charter form. If any person desired to settle in this community he was required to secure permission of the community. In case of differences, which were frequent, new settlements were made. The settlement of Hartford was directed by Hooker, who gave to his people a written constitution, which proves to be the first of its kind in history. Davenport settled New Haven because of some religious disagreement between him and the authorities in Massachusetts Bay. The founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams resulted from similar reasons. These disagreements multiplied the number of settlements which soon spread over much of what is now New England. This fact, taken in connection with the presence of warlike tribes of Indians, explains the early efforts to confederate the different communities.

Form in the North. For the sake of mutual protection the near-by congregations adopted a plan of union. Several of these religious communities or units united to form the township. This township became the unit of the county, which was the political division immediately above the township. The county was the unit of the State or colony which was made up of the various counties. Thus the principle of local selfgovernment was recognized in the county. As before stated, the church community was subordinate in a degree to the township, the township to the county, the county to the State and the State to the nation. Such tutelage developed the principle of State subordination in matters pertaining to the whole.

Form in the South. These conditions did not obtain in the Southern section. The character of the settlements and the purpose of the settlers preclude the church congregations and the township. The smallest unit was the county, which was

no larger in area than the county in the North. The character of the soil which produced tobacco, rice and cotton favored the large plantation. The character of the climate favored slave labor. These two facts- the plantation and the presence of the slave - separated the governed from the governing and developed a form of aristocracy. The plantation became a law unto itself and was the chief object of political fealty. The necessity for the New England type of political organization did not appear in the rice and cotton sections. There was not the impulse for united action. Each State was sovereign in character and administration. Under these conditions the doctrine of State Sovereignty normally developed. The need of a strong central government did not appear, and if it had appeared the prevailing conditions did not suggest the character needed. Here then we have a rational basis for the growth of the two theories of politics.

Washington's influence. Perhaps the greatest single performance of Washington, as the first President, was his inauguration of the two theories of government, when he called to his assistance their respective heads, Hamilton and Jefferson. By the aid of these two men he was able to establish the new republic upon the two pillars: namely, a strong central government with the prerogative extending to all matters of general concern and with sufficient coercive power to insure effective administration of the laws; and a full retention of local self-government in all matters pertaining to the locality, thus insuring the protection of the autonomy of the State and the liberty of the individual. There is now little doubt that the theory of Jefferson, unrestrained, would have given too much liberty to the State and too little power to the nation, and with equal fairness it may be said that the theory of Hamilton, unrestrained, would have given too much power to the nation and not enough liberty to the State. The credit is really due to Washington, who, whether conscious of the act or not, combined these two theories, and in so doing solved

the greatest problem in the history of government: namely, the reconciliation of the two seemingly contradictory elements, authority and liberty, by guaranteeing energy in the nation and at the same time reserving freedom in the local government of the several States.

CHAPTER II

THE NATIONAL AND FEDERAL THEORIES

General vs. State government. Frequent collisions would be inevitable in a government composed of thirteen colonies, sovereign in some matters, subordinate in others, with undefined relations in many others. The first instance of such collision was in the case of Rhode Island, when that State declined to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and by 1789 had declined for the sixth time to call a convention to act upon the ratification of the Constitution. And not until the general government acting under the authority of the Constitution proceeded to treat Rhode Island as a foreign government was the State induced to reconsider its former position. It ratified the Constitution by the close vote of thirty-four to thirty-two. The same Convention sent this significant memorial to Congress:

The people of this State from its first settlement have been accustomed and strongly attached to a democratical form of government. They have read in the Constitution an approach toward that form of government from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so much hazard of expense of life and treasure. Can it seem strange then that, with these impressions, they should wait and see the proposed system organized and in operation, . . before they would adopt it as a constitution of government for themselves and their posterity.

Opposition voiced by Patrick Henry. The greatest contests were in New York and Virginia. In the latter State the opposition was led by Patrick Henry who clamored to know