thought, the latter angrily asked,
of a president who refused to make any distinction between the sheep
and the goats? But while Mr. Adams, unmoved by argument, anger, or
entreaty, thus alienated many and discouraged all, every one was made
acquainted with the antipodal principles of his rival. The consequence
was inevitable; many abandoned Adams from sheer irritation; multitudes
became cool and indifferent concerning him; the great number of those
whose political faith was so weak as to be at the ready command of
their own interests, or the interests of a friend or relative, yielded
to a pressure against which no counteracting force was employed. In a
word, no one who had not a strong and independent personal conviction
in behalf of Mr. Adams found the slightest inducement to belong to his
party. It did not require much political sagacity to see that in quiet
times, with no great issue visibly at stake, a following thus composed
could not include a majority of the nation. It is true that in fact
there was opening an issue as great as has ever been presented to the
American people,--an issue between government conducted with a (p. 200)
sole view to efficiency and honesty and government conducted very
largely, if not exclusively, with a view to individual and party
ascendency. The new system afterward inaugurated by General Jackson,
directly opposite to that of Mr. Adams and presenting a contrast to it
as wide as is to be found in history, makes this fact glaringly plain
to us. But during the years of Mr. Adams's Administration it was dimly
perceived only by a few. Only one side of the shield had then been
shown. The people did not appreciate that Adams and Jackson were
representatives of two conflicting principles of administration which
went to the very basis of our system of government. Had the issue been
as apparent and as well understood then as it is now, in retrospect,
the decision of the nation might have been different. But
unfortunately the voters only beheld two individuals pitted against
each other for the popular suffrage, of whom one, a brilliant soldier,
would stand by and reward his friends, and the other, an uninteresting
civilian, ignored all distinction between friend and foe.

It was not alone in the refusal to use patronage that Mr. Adams's
rigid conscientiousness showed itself. He was equally obstinate in
declining ever to stretch a point however slightly in order to (p. 201)
win the favor