The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-04-11
either In act or thought. He regards the con-
tention that they were i~nsincore as rather par
tisan than truly historical.

settlement Of the Missouri question and tho
compromise in reference to the remainder OF the
Louisiana Territory had put the problem OF ne
gro slavery out of tho field of national poll
tics. As q matter Of fact, the struggle over
those questions had planted IL inoxtricably In
that field, and had first opened tho eyes OF tho
shareholders TO tho bearings OF tho slavery In
forest upon all the questions Of constitutional
law and public policy. From the point OF Wow
Of that interest, was their attitude toward all
these questions, moro and more to DO determined
as tho Shareholders came to understand moro and
moro clearly the relation OF these questions TO
that interest. While, therefore,. tho MIS-
souri, settlement and compromise served
to withdraw tho question Of slavery tempo
rarilv from the public mind, they loft 1t to exer-
else n secret influence over views and actions in
many, II not most, directions. Nevertheless,
neither in tho question Of tho tariff nor in that
OF internal improvements, nor, OF course, in
diplomatic questions, was anything more than
tho faint beginning OF tho particularistic reac-
ton to be discovered in tho period between 1920
and 1924. In fact, as DIR. Burgess reminds us,
1t may DO said that tho year 1920 marks roughly
tho date OF the extinction of the old Federal
party and Of the almost complete absorption OF
tho whole voting population In the Republican
party. In the Presidential election Of that year
the candidate of the Republican party, Mr.. Mon
EOb, EoCClNou vi IL 3d. otS Nuokt
and tho one elcctor who did not vote for
him WINS a Republican. The Federal party
did not even undertake 10 present a ticket
From the viewpoint OF the preservation Of it's own
dominance, the Federal party had two
grave errors, one of principle and one OF politics.
1t had held TO the principle that the mass OF
men are not fit to govern themselves, but should
be governed by the few who are wise and good;
1t had adopted the policy Of too close alliance
with tho commercial interest of the country.
The dwelling influence of the French political
philosophy. which swept like n tidal wave over
tho country during the last decade of the
eighteenth century, and was worked up
Into u political dogma by Jefferson and his
disciples, together with the reflex influence
OF the practical equality which established
itself among the first adventures who settled
the land beyond the AlleRhanies, destroyed
tho Federal party upon the side Of principle;
while the great extension OF tho agricultural
interests produced by these same settlements
made it intolerable upon tho side OF policy.
Tho earlier advantage, moreover. which the
Federal party. as the upholdcr of CEN
tralization, enjoyed over the Republican
party as the champion OF States rights,
had been lost by the naturalization Of the
Republican party through the war Of 1912
, and the denationalization of the Federal party at
that epoch. In 1920. therefore, there was only ono
party in fact and in principle. II is admitted.
indeed, by Prof. Burgess that the struggles
of the years 1919 and 1920 had sowod the seeds
of dissonsion in this MISUNDERSTANDING Rcpub-
lican party. Four years, however. did not con-
stitute a period of time sufficient for their com
plotted growth and qualification. Consequently,
the Presidential contest of 1924 could not DO
fought upon the issues Of party principles. 1t
was little more, and. under the circumstances,
could be little more, than a personal contest be-
tween the leaders OF the Republican party. Tho
result Of 1t, however, contributed very largely to
the development of political differences and to
the organization of parties upon the basis Of these
differences.
Ar interesting chapter on the Notification
Ordinance of South Carolina ends with the &C
acknowledgement that 1t is difficult to see what
principle or what party finally triumphed in the
contest caused by this ordinance. or to compre-
bend all the motives OF the chief actors in it. 1t
has been said that Mr.. Calhoun. chagrined and
disappointed at not gaining the Presidency in
1882, was induced to take the course which he
followed in reference to notification by tho
hope of breaking up the Union and thus
winning the Presidency of a Southern
Confederacy; that President jackson was
largely influenced in the decided attitude which
he assumed by tho desire to take revenge on Mr..
Calhoun and South Carolina for Mr.. Calhoun's
attempt to court-martial him moro than a dozen
years before, and for South Cardinals slight
upon him in the election Of 1882; and that Mr..
Clay was moved far more by his jealousy of
President Jackson and his fear of trusting him
with extraordinary power than by any dread of
destruction of the Union. DIR. Burgess thinks
that there is probably some truth in GER
tain, IL not all. OF these speculations,
huf hn hnlia aI,rh fhipDa mot tn no
tho matter Of chief value in the search for tho
line OF development Of tho constitutional history
OF this country. They do. indeed, help us 10 APP
preciatc the motives for the particular form of
adjustment put upon that development at any
stage OF it's course; but our chief concern must
be with the advance or rctrogression in principle
of that development; our primary inquiry must
be whether the Union and the Constitution were
strengthened or weakened by the events of 1882
and 1888. whether the political nationality of
the country was comented or suffered disin-
tegration. and whether strength was gathered
or the seeds of weakness wero sown in the re-
suits obtained.
From our present point Of view. a point much
more national than any reached before 1850. the
settlement Of 1888 is usually regarded as a
great misfortune, as, In truth. a fatoful error.
which led the country finally into civil war. 1t
is now frequently said that the national cause
lOst everything III principIe, hhu lhat nuiiihCu-
ton was virtually acknowledged by the act of
Congress repeating the nulliied laws at tho
Same moment that 1t enacted the measure
for upholding tho supremacy Of the laws of
tho United States. Tho author of this book
holds. on tho other hand. that, from a purely
historical view Of tho development Of tho
constitutional law of the country. this propo-
sition cannot be accepted as true. at least
not without great notifications. To him 1t seems
more correct to say that the doctrine formulated
by Mr.. Calhoun and his colleagues in South Car
olina was only tho exact logical outgrowth Of
the principles advanced by Mr.. Jefferson In the
kentucky resolutions of 1898, principles through
tho advocacy of which Mr.. Jefferson and the
Republicans turned the Federalists out Of power
and captured the Government; that, under tho
pressure Of foreign war and through Its results,
tho Republican practice In administering tho
Government had boon driven into lines
almost 70 MT ouitc contradictory IN tho