Jefferson and Washington. While open rupture was not at once reached, it amounted to that when the President urged suppression of the "Self-created Societies." Jefferson was certain he saw in this recommendation the strong hand of oppression, the enemy of the freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of assembly. It was a question whether his admiration for, and his confidence in, his chief were sufficient to prevent an open rupture. The strained relations were not relieved by the signing of Jay's treaty which was interpreted by Jefferson as a defeat for the Democratic elements of France.

Progress of partizan feeling. By the close of the second administration, party spirit was well defined, between adherents of liberty on the one side and authority on the other. While these two terms were never discussed as distinct issues, their contention served as the rational basis for party dispute upon whatever issue came up for discussion. If there was opposition to the assumption of the State debt, it arose from the fear that the rights of the State were in jeopardy. If there was opposition to the establishment of a National Bank, it emanated from a like fear that it would become an engine of despotic power in the hands of government officials. If there was a French party in the country, it had its rise in sympathy for liberty's contention with its enemy in a foreign country. If a contention arose over the suppression of the Democratic societies, their defenders took a position not for the admiration of the leaders, but in the interest of free speech and the right of assembly. If the keenest resentment was awakened by the enactment of the restrictive measures, such as the Alien and Sedition Laws, it arose not because such measures were wholly unwarranted, but because free speech and personal liberty were apt to suffer from them.

Jefferson in power against Jefferson out of power. The student of the Jefferson theory, as represented in Jefferson's administration from 1801 to 1809, faces a conflict between

theory and practise. The course of his administration tended away from liberty to authority; away from the Federal to the national theory of government. Much he did was forced upon him by the logic of events. He wisely permitted it to determine his course, although it cost him the open charge of inconsistency. While his theory suffered sorely at his own hands, there is no evidence that he ever changed his mind upon the cardinal doctrines of government. He still believed that the best government made the least show of authority. In referring to his intention to appoint his political friends to office, he said, “We do not mean to leave arms in the hands of our active enemies, yet I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be." Yet when events which he could not easily control argued that he should use the power, he did so with the alertness of a dictator.

Was this an abandonment of his theory? At the very time he was enlarging the powers of the general government, he was warning the people of its dangers. "What has destroyed the liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?" he inquired. "The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body," was his answer. He further declared, "It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected." He had implicit faith in the wisdom of the many. He believed there was safety in the counsel of the multitude. In his first inaugural address he said, "Absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority is the vital principle of the republic, from which there is no appeal except through force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism." That the people might be frequently heard he favored short terms of office, and was ever an opponent of life tenure even in the Judiciary. He believed it to be a breeder of grave evils to the people. He expressed grave fears that the want of a limit to the number of times a

President might succeed himself, might favor the life tenure in that office. He recommended an amendment to the Constitution providing for but one term of seven years.

State University of Virginia. It is not difficult to cite cases which ignore these political opinions. They are numerous in his writings and doings. Yet his entire career was a commentary upon the value of freedom to a people. His proudest title was "father of the State University of Virginia." Its planting and its early growth were due to his efforts. He selected for its motto, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Speaking of the value of an education he said, " I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thus the passion of freedom or liberty is supreme in his motive in the service for an educational system for his State.

Intelligibility of his theory. It is only when his estimate of the value to a people of liberty in government is understood that Jefferson's theory is intelligible. That will enable his countrymen to understand his instructions to his family relative to his epitaph. In it can be read the liberty which comes from the government which is built upon the Declaration of Independence; which recognizes that religious liberty secured by the statutes of Virginia; and that liberty, the greatest of all, which is assured by a wise system of education. Whatever else may be said of Jefferson, he must be recognized as the champion of the rights of the people as against the privileges of the few. To this issue he addressed himself. He disliked titles with a conviction that approached hatred. He expressed the hope that all terms of discrimination would disappear from us. His effort in the abolition of entailed estates and primogeniture made him the special target for abuse at the hands of the aristocracy. However, his loss of that support was compensated by the gain of the vastly larger element which had come into their rights by virtue of his activity. In like manner, while he lost the support

of the Church he won that of the dissenter, which was considerable.

His own classification of the race. On the other hand, he asserted that "Men are divided into two parties by their constitutions, those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of a higher class, and second those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe although not the most wise depository of the public interest." It was to the latter class that he desired to belong, and his career shows that his desires were satisfied. His life was spent on behalf of the people in whom he had implicit faith. He believed he had rendered his best service to them when he had secured to them the fullest enjoyment of the blessings of liberty. If Jefferson was one of the greatest party leaders, and many think him the greatest in our history, that leadership was due to the value he placed upon liberty, and to his efforts expended to secure its blessings to. the people, without regard to rank or distinction.

CHAPTER IV

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF POWER

IN GOVERNMENT

The leadership of Hamilton. In a Republic, leadership of the masses is not synonymous with statesmanship. Political following is not essentially a result of superior talents. Not infrequently the reverse is true; however, in the latter case the leadership is spasmodic. Popularity partakes of the qualities of the heart, rather than of the head. It is stimulated by the unselfish service for man. Herein lies the ground where partizan leadership may dangerously approach demagogy. Alexander Hamilton was by nature disqualified for that sort of leadership common in republics which arouses the enthusiasm of the masses. His were the arts of argumentation rather than of emotion. His persuasiveness was that of the logician, not of the rhetorician. His statement was as colorless as the conclusions of the syllogism. His language was as free of ambiguity as his mind was of sophistry. There was no circumlocution in his methods. He went straight to the heart of the issue with the rapidity of the lightning's flash, and the cleavage was not less decisive. His logic neither consulted the interest of colleague, nor spared the feeling of opponent. Such talents are occasion for the keenest attachments on the one hand, and the intensest hatreds on the other. His intimate friends were not satisfied with the utmost praise, as his enemies were not with the fullest censure. His attributes were such as appealed to the aristocratic, rather than to the democratic,