office. The internal revenue laws were repealed; but Jefferson became so far reconciled to the United States Bank as to suggest "a judicious distribution of favors" to that and other banks "to engage the individuals who belonged to them in support" of his administration. A bill enabling the United States Bank to establish branches in the territories was approved by him.

In general, it may be said that the Jeffersonian triumph restored the supremacy of the civilian group. They proceeded to put down the army and navy, and rid themselves as rapidly as possible of the burden of national defence; but there was no reluctance about making a large use of the powers of government which had come into their hands. The Louisiana purchase was effected by an assumption of authority quite in Hamilton's style. Jefferson himself salved his wounded sense of consistency by recommending the adoption of a constitutional amendment expressly legalizing his act; but even his own Cabinet would not pay any attention to his scruples. The embargo upon American commerce, which he ingeniously conceived as a dignified retaliation for the insults and injuries which his policy encouraged England and France to inflict, carried national authority to logical extremities to which the Federalists would not

have dared to go. The enforcement act passed to sustain the embargo was a greater interference with the ordinary privileges of citizens than would

have been necessary in the exercise of war powers. The executive behavior of Jefferson and Madison shows that they were willing to go to any length in the development of authority, so long as it was in its nature such as would remain in civilian hands.1

All this was a great stumbling-block to the state sovereignty theorizers, who at a later day declared that they were simply holding out for the ideas of Jefferson. Calhoun, with his habitual intellectual honesty, frankly admitted that Jefferson did not live up to the principles which he had enunciated. Calhoun said: "He did nothing to arrest many great and radical evils; nothing towards elevating the judicial departments of the governments of the several states, from a state of subordination to the judicial department of the United States, to their rightful constitutional position as coördinates; nothing towards maintaining the rights of the states, as parties to the constitutional compact, to judge in the last resort as to the extent of their delegated powers; nothing towards restoring to Congress the exclusive right to adopt measures necessary and proper to carry into operation its own as well as other powers vested in the government, or in any of its departments; nothing towards reversing the order of General Hamilton which united the government

1 Henry Adams' History of the United States, Vol. IV., pp. 398-400.

with the banks; and nothing effectual towards restricting the money power to objects specifically enumerated and delegated by the constitution." 1

In its character the government was as aristocratic as before. Manhood suffrage had been established in Kentucky and in Vermont, and a general movement towards the removal of restrictions on the suffrage had begun; but in most of the states the voters were still a limited class of

the adult male population. In only six of the

With

sixteen states which voted in 1800 were electors chosen by popular vote. Political leaders set up candidates and made nominations in their party interest in pretty much the same style in which such matters were done in England. In 1808, Jefferson wrote to William Wirt: "The object of this letter is to propose to you to come into Congress. That is the great commanding theatre of this nation and the threshold to whatever department of office a man is qualified to enter. your reputation, talents, and correct views, used with the necessary prudence, you will at once be placed at the head of the House of Representatives; and after obtaining the standing which a little time will assure you, you may look, at your own will, into the military, the judiciary, diplomatic, or other civil departments, with a certainty of being in either whatever you please; and in the present state of what may be called the eminent 1 Calhoun's Works, Vol. I., p. 360.

talents of our country you may be assured of being engaged through life in the most honorable employments."

No party leader in our time would dare to give. so broad a guarantee. Of the early period of our politics, Professor Alexander Johnston remarks: "In both parties the abler leaders assumed the direct initiative in party management to an extent which would be intolerable, if openly asserted at the present time."1 Nevertheless, the democratic tendencies of the times were very marked, and the circumstances were such that the natural care of the administration for its own interests, in dispensing the patronage of the government, tended to foster those tendencies. It may seem strange that the democratic movement, which eventually overthrew the old régime, should have been promoted by such a close oligarchy as the Virginia dynasty of presidents. But it is a thing of common occurrence in politics to find that special exigencies impel politicians in directions opposed to their traditional tendencies.

In using the patronage for party ends, Jefferson and his successors adopted no new principle of conduct. Such use of the patronage was an inveterate practice of English politics. It dates from the time when the crown, no longer able to overawe Parliament by power, had to resort to influence that is to say, it dates from the Revolu

1 Cyclopædia of Political Science, Vol. I., p. 769.

tion of 1689. The rage for office was quite as great in the colonies as in England. During colonial times, quarrels over questions of patronage were the cause of many conflicts between provincial assemblies and the governors. The state of antagonism, which generally existed between the governor and the assembly, strengthened and perpetuated the original English conception of the speakership as the office of a party leader, a character which has never left it in this country. Most of the time of the Continental Congress seems to have been consumed in disputes about the offices. John Adams says: "Congress was torn to pieces by these disputes, and days and months were wasted in such controversies, to the inexpressible injury of the service." The restoration of the general government made no change of disposition in this respect. So far as the influence of patronage could extend, it was used to secure political support for the administration. Maclay notes in his diary that Washington had begun to consult with representatives as to his appointments, and took this as a sign of "a courtship of and attention to the House of Representatives, that by their weight he may depress the Senate and exalt his prerogative on the ruins." 2 Although the administration was non-partisan in theory, yet it was careful in making appointments to select such as

1 Adams' Works, Vol. VI., pp. 538, 539.

2 Maclay's Diary, p. 122.