Page:American Historical Review vol. 6.djvu/604

594 Reviews of Books record what actually happened, to cite written documents, to characterize leaders. The American people have expressed through party organiza- tions far more than party organizations are meant to express. No phase of the national character but must be realized, no considerable interest but must be considered, no class or section that can be neglected, by the man who tries to comprehend our party system. Professor Gordy's plan is merely to ask of each party what it aims to do, and the answer to that question is perhaps all that a historian not endowed with genius can hope to achieve. He finds that the Federalist party was trying " to give the country a government with power enough to do the things essential to the well-being of the nation," and that it succeeded. He does not say simply " to cre- ate a nation," because he holds that we were one nation and not thirteen, under the Articles of Confederation, notwithstanding that the Articles were no true constitution of government and notwithstanding the popular impression to the contrary which prevailed at the time. Into that old controversy it is scarcely worth while to enter here, but Professor Gordy himself supplies ample material for argument on the other side. Indeed, even one who inclines to the contrary view may well question whether the notion that a man's state was his nation ever was so widespread as Professor Gordy thinks it was. Few writers have ever held the balance so firmly true while weighing Hamilton against Jefferson. Professor Gordy has not the imagination and literary skill to present these two fascinating characters in a way to make us see them as their contemporaries saw them. But he credits each of them with great abilities, he finds for each a place which no other could have filled. That Hamilton was not in sympathy with those ideas and aspirations which have worked themselves out in American history, and which are now generally recognized as the characteristic and essential things in American life, he makes plainer [than ever. He even intimates that Hamilton changed his position on the question of our relations with France when Adams had been persuaded to make him second in command to Washington, and that he was influenced by his ambition for a military career. But the wisdom of the specific measures which Hamilton originated is fully conceded. As to Jefferson and his philosophy, Jefferson the Republican is clearly and justly distinguished from Jefferson the Democrat. The dis- tinction is an important one. If only his extreme states-rights views, his violent opposition to centralization, be taken into account, it is hard to see that the teaching of Jefferson has to-day any force with his countrymen. The national government has so grown in power, its revenues and activities have been so multiplied, and the sovereignty of the individual states has become so meaningless a phrase, that his views in that regard may be considered as antiquated as Hamilton's monarchical proclivities. Jefferson the interpreter of the Constitution is discredited by subsequent history quite as effectively as Hamilton the distruster of the people. It is Jefferson the champion of the individual who still,