Mr. Jefferson [pp. 642-650]

10Mr. Jeferson.
with great power, on the ground that it effected an
entire change in the principles upon which the
states had originally associated together;-it was
said to be a consolidated and not a federative sys
tem, and to confer powers on the federal govern-t
ment dangerous to liberty;-it was defended not on
the ground that it was in fact a consolidated government, and for that reason to be preferred, but
it was strenuously desired to be so;-it was said
that the powers entrusted to it were absolutely necessary to the public interest, and in no wise dangerous to public liberty. It is remarkable that at
that day there was no political party, and scarcely
an individual of any note in the United States, who
ventured to defend the constitution on the ground
of its anti-federative character. On the contrary,
its enemies assailed it as a consolidation; and its
friends supported it as strictly a confederation.
The latter prevailed: and, whatever in point of
fact the system may be, there can be no doubt that
it was adopted by the people of the several states
as a confederation, and consequently as acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of the confederating parties. Indeed many of the states in their
acts of ratification expressly asserted this principle, and claimed the recognition of it as an indispensable condition.
When the new government went into operation,
it was natural that it should be narrowly watched
by both parties. They had then assumed the names
of federal and anti-federal, afterwards better known
as democratic;-the former from their approval of
the constitution, because they considered it a confederation;-the latter from their opposition to it,
because they considered it a consolidation. The
true character of many of its important provisions
could be determined only by their practical operation; and hence every public measure, involving the
question of federal power, as opposed to state power
and sovereignty, was matter of great interest and
importance, as settling by construction the principles of the government. Those who had opposed
the adoption of the constitution, on the ground that
it conferred dangerous powers on the federal government, were anxious to give it such an interpretation as would limit those powers as far as possible; whilst their opponents, who believed that
those powers were scarcely great enough, were not
unwilling to extend them by liberal construction.
It was to be expected, therefore, that the two parties would array themselves in opposition on the
first question of that sort which should be presented. Abundant occasions were soon presented.
The propositions to assume the debts of the states —
to establish a national bank —and others of like
sort —kept the two parties in a state of constant
organization, and active and bitter opposition.
The question between them had changed its character in some degree. It was no longer a dispute
whether or not additional powvers should be confer
instrument.
From this brief summary it appears that the two
great parties, democratic and federal, did not arise
after the constitution was formed: and di d no t owe
t he i r o rigin to any difference of opinion i n relation
to th at instrument. They existed under the old
confederation, and originated in a keen and sensitive jealousy of the rights and sovereignty of the
states. Whatever modifications the y as sumed in
the progress of public even ts, the o riginal ground
of distinction still prevailed. The various measures of government upon which they differed,
served only to array them against each other in
more inveterate opposition; but we must look to a
much more remote period for the principles in
which they originated. Their source will be found
in the belief, cherished by nine-tenths of the people, that the states became absolutely sovereigneach within itself by the Declaration of Independence; that the recognition of that sovereignty in
all public measures was indispensable to the safety
of public liberty; and of course, that no power
ought to be granted to the federal government calculated to abridge or endanger that sovereignty in
any respect. The new constitution was recommended and adopted upon the ground that it fully
preserved this principle; and that the federal goverment possessed no power under it except those
which it expressly conferred. The revolution of
1800 placed the government distinctly upon this
principle; and so strong and so general has been
the attachment of the people to it, that no success*ful politician, from that time to this, has ever ventured to disown it.
The part which Mr. Jefferson bore ire all these
transactions is well known. He was the acknowledged head and leader of the party which contended for the strictest construction of the constitution, allowing to the federal government no power
which that constitution did not expressly confer,
and denying to the states none which they had not
expressly relinquished. It is somewhat remarkable that Mr. Tucker, who adopted his principles
and acted with his party, and who is perfectly familiar with the general course of his opinions and
measures, should have been misled in regard to
them, by a casual expression in a familiar letter.
His language is this: " His notions of the subor" dination of the states to the united power of the
"whole, even under the old c on, differ
1840.]
647
red on the federal aovernment; but whether or not
they had, in point of fact, been onferred by the
new constitution, and to what extent they had been
so conferred. A large majority of the country
-thought that the true limitations of power in the
constitution, had been greatly transcended in many
of the leading measures of Mr. Adams's admi-nistration; and. by electing Mr. Jefferson in his place,
they meant to establish, and did in fact establish, a
different and more restricted construction of that
A