Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/409

Oliver : Alexander Hamilton 399 anathematized, but even the Federahsts who did not support Hamilton's peculiar plans are put without the domain of his approval. As to the Democratic party, it is enough to say that it is declared that " It had its origin in the intrigues of which Horatio Gates was the hero" (p. 270). This point is supported by several arguments from John C. Hamilton's History. Little credit is given to the matters of financial and administrative opinion on which the early Republicans dififered so radically from the followers of Hamilton. Proceeding from the Conway Cabal, the beginning of the States' Rights party, the author comes to the influence of Jefferson. He says, "Jefferson accordingly found a States Rights party ready made when, outraged by the rivalry of Hamilton and offended by the rejection of his own advice in the matter of the National Bank, he determined to under- take the organization pf an opposition to the government of which he was a member." It will hardly meet the approval of American students of history, it would not have met the approval of Hamilton himself, to attribute Jefferson's actions to motives of personal spite. Mr. Oliver seems not to know that with the First Congress there came a new align- ' ment of parties, that the Federalists of 1790 were not the same as those of 1787-1789, that antifederalism in its proper sense disappeared with the disposition of the amendments of the Constitution, and that the theory of states' rights was but a small factor in political life from 1790 to the days of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. A Republican of 1792 would probably have said that the " paramount issue " was opposition to the moneyed classes; in 1794 he would have said that it was our honor- able obligations to France; and in 1795 the shameless surrender to Great Britain involved in the Jay Treaty. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Jay Treaty, which was so bad in its details that even Hamilton was disgusted at it, is passed over by Mr. Oliver in three paragraphs which together contain but forty-two lines, in which the creation of the mission, its departure, its reception in England, its re- turn to America, the adoption of the treaty, and its reception by the people are all treated. In no way do we have a statement of the con- tents of that instrument. Another illustration of the author's method is to be seen in his treat- ment of John Adams's relations with Hamilton. Strangely enough it is Adams's quarrel with Hamilton, and not, as usually depicted, Hamilton's attack on Adams. In the matter of the appointment of Hamilton as a major-general the author shuts his eyes resolutely to his hero's unusual scheming for the first position and attacks Adams for thus making " the first of a series of great blunders . . . during his term of office under the influence of uncontrollable rage " (p. 394). Adams's second blunder is pronounced his undignified procedure in making peace with France in 1799. " It is beyond doubt ", says the author, " that he caught at peace in order to prevent Hamilton from obtaining credit " (p. 395). The third mistake of Adams is thus described : " Adams, seeing everything red, and