of statesmen as during
its first years, the only other period at all comparable with it being
that which culminated in the Civil War. It was inevitable that these men
should assume the guidance of the newly-launched ship of state, and
Washington had, in every way possible, availed himself of their
assistance. Alexander Hamilton had been his secretary of the treasury,
Thomas Jefferson his secretary of state, and James Monroe his minister
to France. The first man to succeed him in the presidency, however, was
none of these, but John Adams of Massachusetts. His election
was not uncontested, as Washington's had been; in fact, he was elected
by a majority of only three, Jefferson receiving 68 electoral votes to
his 71.

Let us pause for a moment to see how this contest originated, for it was
the beginning of the party government which has endured to the present
day, and which is considered by many people to be essential to the
administration of the Republic. When Washington was elected there were,
strictly speaking, no parties; but there was a body of men who had
favored the adoption of the Constitution, and another, scarcely less
influential, who had opposed it. The former were called Federals, as
favoring a federation of the several states, and the latter were called
Anti-Federals, as opposing it.

One point of difference always leads to others, wider and wider apart,
as the rain-drop, shattered on the summit of the Great Divide, flows one
half to the Atlantic the other half to the Pacific. So, after the
adoption of the Constitution, there was never any serious question of
abrogating it, but two views arose as to its interpretation. The
Federals, in their endeavor to strengthen the national government,
favored the liberal view, which was that anything the Constitution did
not expressly forbid was permitted; while the Anti-Federals, anxious to
preserve all the power possible to the several states, favored the
strict view, which was that unless the Constitution expressly permitted
a thing, it could not be done. As there were many, many points upon
which the Constitution was silent--its framers being mere human beings
and not all-wise intelligences--it will be seen that these
interpretations were as different as black and white. It was this
divergence, combined with another as to whether, in joining the Union,
the several states had surrendered their sovereignty, which has
persisted as the fundamental difference between th