governors on the 25th of September, 1804. Thirteen of the sixteen States ratified the amendment. The dissenting States were Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Dela

ware.

The Republican victory in 1800 was, beyond a doubt, the triumph of a political school whose principles had been, both before and since the adoption of the Constitution, those of a large majority of the people. If there were nothing else to support this view it would be fully sustained by the facts that the opposition was so active and strong, even as against Washington, that it very nearly defeated Adams's first election, and that as soon as it attained power it held the reins of government, with scarcely a contest and without a single defeat for the contest of 1824 was between candidates professing the same principles for forty years. That Mr. Jefferson's policy and administration were very distasteful to those who had been intellectual, and not merely accidental, sup. porters of Washington and Adams is certainly true. But it was evident, after Jefferson had taken his seat, that he was upheld by a strong popular majority; and his party in Congress had no difficulty in carrying every measure upon which it resolved. The Federalists had no lack of reasons for opposing the President. His removals from office for political reasons; his hostility to the navy; the savage assault upon the independence of the judiciary, which he certainly did not discourage; his attempts to restrain within most narrow bounds the authority of the gen eral government; his purchase of Louisiana, which was denounced as grossly unconstitutional and in violation of his own principles of "limited powers" and "strict construction"; the foreign policy of the President, which the Federalists deemed as unwisely lenient toward France as it was hostile to England, - these and other questions of

public policy marked the differences between Mr. Jefferson and the Federalists. But the people were with the President.

The first regular caucus of members of Congress for the nomination of presidential candidates was held on the 25th of February, 1804. The report of it is very brief. The call was addressed to the Republican members of the two Houses. They met and unanimously nominated Mr. Jefferson for re-election; and, "by a very large majority," George Clinton of New York was nominated for VicePresident. Indeed, it was to nominate a Vice-President that the meeting was called. No one was in favor of the re-election of Burr. The Republicans particularly were opposed to him on account of his willingness to defeat the real desire of his party in 1801. There seems to have been no objection to the caucus at this time, and the candidates were cordially accepted. The Federalists agreed - it is not known where or by whom the agreement was made to support Charles C. Pinckney for President and Rufus King for Vice-President.

Seventeen States took part in the election, Ohio having been admitted to the Union Nov. 29, 1802. A new apportionment, too, had been made, based upon the census of 1800, considerably enlarging the number of electoral votes. In most of the States there was no contest, and in Massachusetts alone was the battle fierce; and, strange to say, that State chose the Republican electors by a majority of nearly 3,700 votes out of the for that timeenormous number of more than 55,000 votes cast. The Republican party swept the country.

The proceedings in connection with the electoral count were noticeable for one incident only. The Vice-President said, addressing the two Houses assembled in joint

* The vote was: Jefferson, 29,310; Pinckney, 25,777.

meeting: "You will now proceed, gentlemen, to count the votes, as the Constitution and laws direct." This was different from the practice of Mr. Adams, who counted himself. The electoral votes are shown by the following table:

There were some irregularities in the certificates of the electors, and attention was called to them; but no objection was made to any votes, and the result was declared in accordance with the above list.

VII.

JAMES MADISON.

THE events of Mr. Jefferson's second term were almost entirely occurrences in our foreign relations. We had difficulties with Spain, with Great Britain, and with France. The President, to be sure, had his quarrel with the court which tried and did not convict Burr, but that was a mere incident. As the term drew toward its close, the relations with Great Britain became more unfriendly, and the accusation of undue partiality for France on the part of the administration was more loudly and persistently preferred. The administration party in Congress were clamorous at one time for a declaration of war against Spain. In 1807 Jefferson declined even to lay before the Senate a treaty with Great Britain, negotiated by the two envoys James Monroe and William Pinkney, of Maryland-appointed by himself. The cavalier treatment of Mr. Monroe at this time by Mr. Jefferson, and by Mr. Madison, his Secretary of State, probably had something to do with the opposition, at one time threatening, but eventually ineffectual, to Mr. Madison, on the part of Mr. Monroe's friends. John Randolph at this time created great alarm in the administration ranks by his strong dissent from Jefferson's foreign policy, in which he was backed by some other Republican members of Congress. The Federalists had, of course, no difficulty in finding reasons for opposing him; but the last which he gave them was the greatest, the embargo, which was laid in December, 1807, and continued through the whole

time of the presidential canvass. This measure was extremely unpopular in the Northern commercial States, which suffered most by it; and not even the attack upon the "Chesapeake," the avowed cause of the embargo, justified in the eyes of the Federalists a law which hurt England to some extent, but America more.

There was much preliminary intriguing for the support of the Republican party for the presidency. There was a strong movement in Virginia-representing, however, only a minority of the people in favor of Mr. Monroe. On Jan. 21, 1808, there were two caucuses of members of the Virginia legislature, one of which recommended Mr. Madison, and the other, much the smaller gathering, nominated Mr. Monroe. This was almost simultaneous with the holding of the second congressional caucus for making nominations. On the 19th of January, Senator Stephen R. Bradley of Vermont issued a notice, "in pursuance of the powers vested in me, as president of the late Convention of the Republican members of both Houses of Congress," that is, of the caucus of 1804, summoning them to meet in the Senate Chamber, at 6 o'clock, on the 23d of the month.

It is possible that the form in which this notice was cast had something to do with the opposition which was immediately developed to the caucus system, and which eventually overthrew it. At all events it was then that the reasons afterward urged by the opponents of the caucus were first presented. Mr. Gray, a member from Virginia, published an answer to Mr. Bradley's summons, couched in the very vehement style of the political literature of that day: "I take the earliest moment to declare my abhorrence of the usurpation of power declared to be vested in you of your mandatory style, and the object contemplated. . . . I cannot consent, either in an in