Volume II Part 6 (2/2)

Collection of taxes, foreign and interstate trade, were, admittedly, such ends. The National power to ”_regulate_” these is ”_sovereign_”; and therefore ”to employ all the means which will relate to their regulation to the best and greatest advantage” is permissible.

”This _general principle_ is _inherent_ in the very _definition_ of government,” declared he, ”and _essential_ to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature _sovereign_ and included by _force_ of the _term_, a right to employ all the _means_ requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the _ends_ of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Const.i.tution or not immoral, or not contrary to the _essential_ ends of political society....

”The powers of the Federal Government, as to _its objects_ are sovereign”; the National Const.i.tution, National laws, and treaties are expressly declared to be ”the supreme law of the land.” And he added, sarcastically: ”The power which can create _the supreme law of the land_ in _any case_ is doubtless _sovereign_ as to such case.” But, said Hamilton, ”it is unquestionably incident to _sovereign power_ to erect corporations, and consequently to _that_ of the United States, in _relation_ to the _objects_ intrusted to the management of the government.”

And, finally: ”The powers contained in a const.i.tution of government ...

ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good....

The means by which natural exigencies are to be provided for, national inconveniences obviated, national prosperity promoted are of such infinite variety, extent, and complexity, that there must of necessity be great lat.i.tude of discretion in the selection and application of those means.”[190]

So were stated the opposing principles of liberal and narrow interpretation of the Const.i.tution, about which were gathering those political parties that, says Marshall, ”in their long and dubious conflict ... have shaken the United States to their centre.”[191] The latter of these parties, under the name ”Republican,” was then being shaped into a compact organization. Its strength was increasing. The object of Republican attack was the National Government; that of Republican praise and affection was the sovereignty of the States.

”The hatred of the Jacobites towards the house of Hanover was never more deadly than that ... borne by many of the partisans of State power towards the government of the United States,” testifies Ames.[192] In the Republican view the basis of the two parties was faith as against disbelief in the ability of the people to govern themselves; the former favored the moneyed interests, the latter appealed to the ma.s.ses.[193]

Such was the popular doctrine preached by the opponents of the National Government; but all economic objections centered in a common a.s.sault on Nationalism.

Thus a clear dividing line was drawn separating the people into two great political divisions; and political parties, in the present-day sense of definite organizations upon fundamental and popularly recognized principles, began to emerge. Henceforth the terms ”Federalist” and ”Republican” mean opposing party groups, the one standing for the National and the other for the provincial idea. The various issues that arose were referred to the one or the other of these hostile conceptions of government.

In this rise of political parties the philosophy of the Const.i.tution was negatived; for our fundamental law, unlike those of other modern democracies, was built on the non-party theory and did not contemplate party government. Its architects did not foresee parties. Indeed, for several years after the Const.i.tution was adopted, the term ”party” was used as an expression of reproach. The correspondence of the period teems with ill.u.s.trations of this important fact.

For a considerable time most of the leading men of the period looked with dread upon the growing idea of political parties; and the favorite rebuke to opponents was to accuse them of being a ”party” or a ”faction,” those designations being used interchangeably. The ”Farewell Address” is a solemn warning against political parties[194] almost as much as against foreign alliances.

FOOTNOTES:

[95] Marshall, ii, 150-51. ”The agitation had been too great to be suddenly calmed; and for the active opponents of the system [Const.i.tution] to become suddenly its friends, or even indifferent to its fate, would have been a victory of reason over pa.s.sion.” (_Ib._; and see Beard: _Econ. O. J. D._, 85, 101, 102-07.)

[96] ”The effort was made to fill the legislature with the declared enemies of the government, and thus to commit it, in its infancy, to the custody of its foes.” (Marshall, ii, 151.)

[97] Madison to Hamilton, June 27, 1788; Hamilton MSS., Lib. Cong.

Madison adds this cryptic sentence: ”This hint may not be unworthy of your attention.”

[98] Madison to Was.h.i.+ngton, June 27, 1788; _Writings_: Hunt, v, 234.

Madison here refers to the project of calling a new Federal Convention for the purpose of amending the Const.i.tution or making a new one.

Randolph was still more apprehensive. ”Something is surely meditated against the new Const.i.tution more animated, forcible, and violent than a simple application for calling a Convention.” (Randolph to Madison, Oct.

23, 1788; Conway, 118.)

[99] When Jefferson left Virginia for France, his political fortunes were broken. (Eckenrode: _R. V._, chap. viii; and Dodd, 63-64; and Ambler, 35-36.) The mission to France at the close of the American Revolution, while ”an honor,” was avoided rather than sought by those who were keen for career. (Dodd, 36-39.)

Seldom has any man achieved such a recovery as that of Jefferson in the period now under review. Perhaps Talleyrand's rehabilitation most nearly approaches Jefferson's achievement. From the depths of disfavor this genius of party management climbed to the heights of popularity and fame.

[100] Jefferson to Hopkinson, March 13, 1789; _Works_: Ford, v, 456.

[101] Jefferson to Was.h.i.+ngton, Paris, Dec. 4, 1788; _Works_: Ford, v, 437-38. Compare with Jefferson's statements when the fight was on against ratifying the Const.i.tution. (See vol. I, chap. VIII; also Jefferson to Humphreys, Paris, March 18, 1789; _Works_: Ford, v, 470.)

[102] Jefferson to Short, Dec. 14, 1789; _Works_: Ford, vi, 24.

[103] The Legislature which met on the heels of the Virginia Const.i.tutional Convention hastened to adjourn in order that its members might attend to their harvesting. (Monroe to Jefferson, July 12, 1788; Monroe's _Writings_: Hamilton, i, 188.) But at its autumn session, it made up for lost time in its practical display of antagonism to the Nationalist movement.

<script>