7 o A*";^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^'^^^x. 
 
 - '^^ ^^ ^yiW<' .^^ V. -J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » M o ^^* 
 
 vs^ 
 
 n> - » • . *>i .S 
 
 
 
 
 •v %.# .- 
 

 
 
 
 
 
XTbe "QlniversttB of Cbfcago 
 
 rHE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION 
 
 THE LECTURE-STUDY DEPARTMENT 
 
 No. 177.— Price, 10 Cts. 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR A 
 STRONGER FEDERAL 
 UNION, 1783-1828 
 
 SYLLABUS OF A 
 COURSE OF SIX 
 LECTURE-STUDIES 
 
 By GEORGE ELLIOTT HOWARD, Ph.D., 
 PROFESSORIAL LECTURER IN HISTORY 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 ^be TUniversfts ot Cblcago press 
 1903 
 
•X? 
 
 EXERCISES 
 
 Topics for exercises are given at the end of the outline of each lecture. Answers 
 in writing, to not more than two questions each week, are invited from all persons 
 attending the lecture. These should be written on one side of the paper only, a 
 broad margin being reserved on the left. The name of the center, with some 
 signature of the writer, should stand at the top of the first page. The exercises 
 should be sent to Geo. E. Howard, Ph.D., The University of Chicago, Chicago, 
 so as to arrive at least two days before the following lecture. They will be re- 
 turned at the Review, the following week, with such marginal and oral comments as 
 they seem to require. If application is made to the lecturer, there will be an Exam- 
 ination at the end of the course for students who are qualified and desire to take it. 
 
 Any of the books referred to in these lectures may be obtained at special rates 
 from The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111. Prices will be quoted on 
 application. 
 
 Readings in connection with each lecture are designated in the 
 syllabus. The syllabus is provided with a perforated leaf which 
 each student desiring University credit or recognition in any form 
 should fill out immediately after the opening of the course, and 
 mail to the Secretary of the Lecture-Study Department, Uni- 
 versity Extension Division, University of Chicago. 
 
 The conditions on which University credit can be secured are 
 given on the second page of the leaf. 
 
 Gift 
 The University 
 S2?0b 
 
ASSIGNED READINGS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 FiSKE, John: Critical Period (Boston, 1888), pp. 1--220. 
 Hart, A. B.: Formation of the Union (4th ed„ New York and London, 
 1894), pp. 102-19. 
 
 LECTURE IL 
 
 FiSKE, John: Critical Period, pp. 221-350. 
 Hart, A. B.: Formatiott of the Union, pp. 120-35. 
 
 LECTURE III, 
 
 Hart, A. B.: Formation of the Union, pp. 154-98. 
 Morse, J. T.: fefferson (Boston, 1883, 1885). 
 
 lecture IV. 
 
 Magruder, a. B.: fohn Marshall {Bosion, 1885). 
 
 Hitchcock, Henry: "Constitutional Development in the United States 
 as Influenced by Chief Justice Marshall," in Constitutional History 
 of the United States as Seen in the Developme7it of American Law 
 (New York and London, 1889), pp. 53-120. 
 
 lecture v. 
 Hart, A. B.: Fotcndations of Ainerican Foreign Policy (New York and 
 
 London, 1901), pp. 211-40. 
 GiLMAN, D. C: Monroe (Boston, 1883), PP- 156-74- 
 
 lecture VI. 
 Hart, A. B.: Formation of the Union, pp. 245-62. 
 Morse, J. T.: fohn Quincy Adams (Boston, 1882). 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 SOCIAL ANARCHY FORCES OUT A UNION SENTIMENT (l 783-87). 
 
 I. Character of the "Critical Period." 
 
 1. Washington's "legacy," June 8, 1783. 
 
 2. Lack of a true "national sentiment." 
 
 3. Weakness of the Confederation : articles ratified March i, 
 1781 (Fiske, 99; Schouler, I, 16). 
 
 a) The requirement of a vote of nine states for all impor- 
 tant measures; and unanimous consent of all states for 
 an amendment. 
 
 d) State control of commerce ; helplessness of United 
 States in dealing with foreign powers. 
 
 c) Lack of coercive power ; no action of the national gov- 
 ernment on the individual ; Congress might demand 
 troops and money, but could not enforce the requisition. 
 
 4. Early evidences of the weakness of the Confederation 
 (Fiske, chap. iii). 
 
 a) Madison's proposed amendment giving the United 
 States power to use military force to compel a " delin- 
 quent state to fulfil its federal engagements ; " a consti- 
 tutional convention proposed by Pelatiah Webster, May, 
 1 781 (Fiske, 99 ff.). 
 
 d) Military weakness and the cause. 
 
 c) Financial weakness; interest on foreign debt; dread of 
 the army ; the 5 per cent, duty ; Colonel Nicola wishes 
 Washington made king; the "Newburg address," March 
 II, 1783; expulsion of Congress from Philadelphia, June 
 21, 1783. 
 
 d) The Order of the Cincinnati; cause of the violent oppo- 
 sition to it? 
 
 e) Failure to carry out the treaty of 1783; persecution of 
 the Tories; the New York Trespass Act, 1784; Ham- 
 ilton and the case of Rutgers vs. Waddington ; the 
 
 4 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 5 
 
 Phocion (Hamilton) and Mentor (Ledyard) letters; 
 England retains the western posts. 
 
 II. Commercial Relations Reveal Impending Anarchy. 
 
 1. The early embargoes, 1775-81 (Sumner, Financier, I, 132- 
 40); mischievous and selfish prohibitions; ruinous results of 
 the system. 
 
 2. Paper money, and stay and tender acts. 
 
 3. State navigation acts, and discriminative tariff and tonnage 
 acts directed against Great Britain, 1785 (Fiske, 142, 143). 
 
 4. State acts discriminating against sister-states lead to com- 
 mercial war (Fiske, 144-47; McMaster, I, 404-6; Elliot, 
 Debates, V, 119-30; Bancroft, Constitution, I, 175). 
 
 a) Connecticut admits British goods free and taxes those 
 of Massachusetts. 
 
 b) Pennsylvania discriminates against Delaware and New 
 Jersey. 
 
 c') New York discriminates against Connecticut and New 
 Jersey; they seek retaliation ; character of Clinton (Fiske, 
 145-47)- 
 III. Territorial and Boundary Disputes Reveal Impending Anarchy. 
 
 1. The Wyoming trouble (Fiske, 147-51; McMaster, I, 210-16). 
 
 a) Decision of federal court in favor of Pennsylvania, 1782. 
 
 b) The disasters of 1784; conduct of the Pennsylvania 
 legislature. 
 
 c) The inhabitants expelled by Patterson ; civil war ; alleged 
 treachery of Armstrong; decision of the censors; repa- 
 ration ordered. 
 
 2. The Green Mountain trouble : the " New Hampshire Grants " 
 declare themselves a state (Vermont) under Chittenden as 
 governor, March, 1778; attempt to form a state of "New 
 Connecticut," 1779; Massachusetts asserts jurisdiction; 
 Vermont encroaches on New York and New Hampshire ; 
 civil war threatened ; failure of Congress to settle dispute 
 (Hildreth, III, 407-10; Fiske, 151-53: McMaster, I, 347-55). 
 
 3. Attempts to form new states reveal the weakness of the 
 Confederation. 
 
6 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 a) For cases of Vermont and "New Connecticut" see 2, 
 
 above. 
 /;) Proposed state in Maine (Hildreth, III, 442). 
 
 c) The state of Franklin (" Frankland ") and John Sevier, 
 1784-87 (McMaster, I, 155-63, 262-65; Fiske, 200, 
 201; Hildreth, III, 46S-70). 
 
 (/) Proposed state of Kentucky, 1784 (McMaster, I, 163, 
 164; Hildreth, III, 457, 470, 529, 543). 
 
 IV. The Mississippi Question, 1783-87, and Threatened Rupture of the 
 Union. 
 
 1. October 6, 1786, treaty of Jay and Gardoqui proposes to 
 close the river for twenty-five years. 
 
 2. New England and Kentucky threaten secession. 
 
 3. The treaty postponed. 
 
 V. The Paper-Money Craze and Shays' Rebellion. . 
 
 VI. Failure of All Plans to Strengthen the Confederacy. 
 
 1. By grant of specific powers. 
 
 a) Five per cent, scheme, 1781-83. 
 i) Revenue scheme, 1783-86. 
 c) Commerce scheme, 1784-87. 
 if) Minor schemes. 
 
 (i) Monroe's report, July 13-14, 1785 (Bancroft, History, 
 
 VI, 142-45; idem. Constitution, I, 192-96). 
 (2) Seven amendments to the Articles of Confederation 
 proposed August, 1786 {ibid., 260-62). 
 
 2. By grant of coercive powers. 
 
 a) Washington urges, 1781-86 (Fiske, ibid., 99, 100; Madi- 
 son Papers, I, 81-84). 
 
 b) New York Senate recommends, September, 1780 (Ban- 
 croft, Constitution, I, 12, 13). 
 
 c) Madison proposes in report to Congress, March 12, 
 1 781 {Madison Papers, I, 86-90; Bancroft, Constitution, 
 
 I, 23). 
 
 d) The Virginia resolution. May, 1784: distress on indi- 
 viduals (Bancroft, Constitution, I, 163). 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 7 
 
 3. By change in the form of government. 
 
 a) To a monarchy or dictatorship, 1781-83 (Fiske, 107, 108; 
 Gay, Madison, 77-79). 
 
 b) To a centralized government, the states to be suppressed 
 or reduced to mere provinces (Gay, 78). 
 
 e) To a closer federal union, 1780-85. 
 
 (i) Price convention of northeastern states, at Boston, 
 August, 1780, declares for one supreme head and a 
 more efficient legislature; recommends the Hartford 
 Convention (Sumner, Financier, I, 92). 
 
 (2) November 11, 1780, Hartford Price Convention of 
 northeastern states and New York urges need of 
 stronger federal government (Bancroft, Constitution, 
 I, 14, 15)- 
 
 (3) Amendments to Articles of Confederation proposed 
 in report of a Congressional Committee (Randolph, 
 Ellsworth, Varnum), August 22, 1781 (Bancroft, 
 Constitution, I, 25-27). 
 
 VII. Growth of a Popular Sentiment in Favor of a Stronger Government. 
 
 1. Influence of Washington, Hamilton, and Madison; of 
 Pelatiah Webster and Noah Webster (1784). 
 
 2. Early proposal for a constitutional convention. 
 
 a) By Hamilton in his letter to Duane, September 30, 1780; 
 and in Congress, April i, 1783 (Curtis, I, 236-39, notes). 
 
 b) By Thomas Paine in "Public Good," December, 1780 
 (Bancroft, Constitution, I, 13). 
 
 c) Greene demands, 1780 {ibid., 14). 
 d^ William Barton urges. May, 1781. 
 
 3. Proposed by legislatures of New York, 1782; and Massachu- 
 chusetts, 1785. 
 
 4. The Virginia-Maryland Commercial Commission, 1784-85. 
 
 5. The Annapolis convention, September 14, 1786. 
 
 STUDIES. 
 
 1. Importance of Pelatiah Webster's political and economic views. 
 
 2. John Sevier and the origin of Kentucky. 
 
8 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 3. Critical account of the Wyoming incident. 
 
 4. Franklin's plan for a confederation compared with that adopted. 
 
 5. Treatment of the Tories after the peace. 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 
 1. General references. — Fiske, Critical Period, 1-220; Bancroft, Constitution, I; 
 
 idem. United States, VI; Hildreth, United States, III; McMaster, People of 
 United States, I ; Pitkin, United States, II, chap, xi (Franklin's plan); Morse, 
 Franklin, 206; Draper, Civil War, I, 258 £f. 
 
 2. Character of the Confederation. — Fiske, Critical Period, chap, iii ; Frothingham, 
 
 Pise of the Republic, 481, 517, 569-71, 573-^84; Curtis, Constitutional History, 
 I, 80, 86 ff., 221 ff.; Preston, Documents, 218, 219; Schouler, United States, I, 
 13-34; Hildreth, III, 395 ff., 453, 454; Bancroft, United States, V, 199 ff., 
 439 ff.; VI, chaps, vi, vii, viii ; idem. Constitution, I, chaps, vi, vii ; McMaster, 
 I, 356 ff., 391 ff.; von Hoist, Constitutional History, I, chap, i; Lalor, Cyclo- 
 ptsdta,\l\, 475, 476; Elliot, Debates, I, 67 ff.; Federalist, index at "Confedera- 
 tion;" Story, Commentaries, I, sees. 269-7 1; Woolsey, Political Science, II, 
 245-48; Donaldson, Public Do?nain, 59, 60; Landon, Constitutional History, 
 42-62; Johnston, United States, 136; Macy, Our Government, ^f, S..; Fiske, 
 Civil Government, 1^-22,; Crane and Moses, Politics, 135-41; Morse, Hamil- 
 ton, I, chaps, iv, v; Lodge, Hamilton; Gay, Madison, 53~63; Hart, Formation 
 of the Union, 102-23; Morse, Franklin, 2\ii-i,20; Holmes, ^««a/j, II, 353-71; 
 Bryant and Gay, IV, 79-99; Tucker, United States, I, 291-347; Weeden, 
 Economic and Social History, II, chaps, xxii, xxiii; Sumner, Financier, II, 
 chaps, xvi-xviii. 
 
 3. Origin of the Federal Convention. — Bancroft, Constitution, I, 169-74, i?^, 177, 
 
 249-57, 267-78; idem. United States, VI, 129, 184, 185, 195-203; Curtis, I, 
 221-25, 230 ff.; McMaster, I, 277 ff., 389-400; Fiske, Critical Period, 212, 
 222; Schouler, I, 29-35; Frothingham, 585-89; Hildreth, III, 477, 478; 
 Story, Commentaries, I, sees. 272-74; Qt-A.^, Madison, 47-87; l^oAge, Hamilton, 
 50-57; Elliot, Debates,!; Roberts, New For/', II, 444-48 ; Morse, Hamilton, 
 I, 158-76; Lodge, Washington, II, 1-29; Landon, 56-66; Hart, 115-28; 
 Goldwin Smith, United States, 119-29. 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 I. Theory of the Constitutional Convention 
 
 (Lalor, Cyclopadia, I, 626-37 ; Jameson, Constitutional Conven- 
 tion, 1-13, 99 ff.). 
 I. The Revolutionary Convention. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 9 
 
 a) English example : the convention Parliaments of 1399. 
 d) French examples: the convention of 1793-95, etc. 
 
 c) American examples: Massachusetts convention, 1689; 
 the state conventions and provincial congresses, 
 1775-77; the state secession conventions, 1861. 
 
 2. The Constitutional Convention. 
 
 a) An American institution, suggested by the revolutionary 
 convention. 
 
 d) Limitation of its sphere or power, 
 (i) French theory. 
 
 (2) American theory. 
 
 c) Its function : to enact organic as opposed to statutory 
 
 law; to formulate a "written constitution." 
 
 d) Call, election, and procedure of a convention (Jameson, 
 
 99 ff.)- 
 
 II. Organization, Composition, and General Character of the Conven- 
 tion of 1787. 
 
 1. The gathering. May 14-25. 
 
 2. Organization, May 25: Washington, president; William 
 Jackson, secretary; Nicholas Weaver, messenger; rules 
 adopted May 28; proceedings to be secret (Elliot, Debates, 
 I. 139-43; Schouler, I, 36). 
 
 3. Difficulties (Fiske, 222-32; von Hoist, I, 49 ff. ; Lalor, I, 
 547; Gay, Madison, 89-97; Frothingham, 5S5, 586; Hil- 
 dreth, III, 584-87; McMaster, I, 418-23; Schouler, I, 
 36-38; Hart, 121 ff. 
 
 a) Popular jealousy of a convention ; timidity of members 
 Washington's appeal (Fiske, 231, 232); lack of experi- 
 ence and difference of interests. 
 
 ^) The limitation of the convention's power, as shown by 
 the call of Congress and the credentials of members 
 (Elliot, Debates, I, 119, 123-39); did the convention 
 transcend its proper authority in preparing a new con- 
 stitution? (Bryce, I, 18, note). 
 
 ^) Character and ability of the members; education, num- 
 ber of college men. Leaders : Washington, Franklin, 
 Hamilton, etc.; Madison, the " Father of the Constitu- 
 
lO THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 tion;" difference in individual views (Fiske, 224-32; 
 Hildreth, III, 484); representative men not members 
 (Fiske, 225). 
 d) Parties and antagonisms. 
 
 (i) Federalists and anti-Federalists (for the "Irrecon- 
 cilables" and anti-federal leaders see Fiske, 229). 
 
 (2) Friends of centralization vs. the advocates of state 
 sovereignty. 
 
 (3) Large states vs. small states. 
 
 (4) Commercial or trade states vs. agricultural states. 
 
 (5) North vs. South. 
 
 (6) East vs. West. 
 
 III. The Principal Plans of Government Submitted. 
 
 1. The Virginia (Madison's) plan, May 29; centralization; 
 action on individuals (Elliot, I, 143-45, 181-83). 
 
 a) Principal features. 
 
 (i) Two houses : lower chosen by popular vote ; upper, 
 by the lower from nominees of state legislatures. 
 
 (2) In each house individual vote and majority decision. 
 
 (3) Representation according to property or population. 
 
 (4) Executive to be chosen by the national legislature. 
 
 (5) National legislature to nullify unconstitutional state 
 laws. 
 
 (6) National judiciary. 
 
 b) Debate on the Virginia plan (Elliot, I, 150 ff.; Fiske, 
 242-45). 
 
 2. The New Jersey (Patterson's) plan; June 15 (Elliot, I, 
 
 175-77)- 
 
 a) Leading features. 
 
 (i) In general, the plan provided for mere amendment 
 of the Articles. 
 
 (2) An executive, in form of council, to be chosen by 
 Congress. 
 
 (3) Powers of Congress increased, but no action on 
 individual. 
 
 b) Debate on scheme; rejected June 19 (Elliot, Debates, I, 
 177 ff.; Fiske, 245-50). 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION II 
 
 3. Other plans. 
 
 a) Plan of Charles Pinckney, May 29 (Elliot, I, 145-50); 
 
 not genuine. 
 l>) Plan of Alexander Hamilton, June 18; centralization 
 
 (t'did., 179, 180; Schouler, I, 41). 
 
 IV. The Three Great Compromises. 
 
 1. The First, or Connecticut, Compromise (July 7): state rep- 
 resentation (Fiske, 250 ff.; Elliott, V, 248-87, 311-19)- 
 
 a) Lower house, composed of representatives chosen by 
 popular vote and distributed according to population 
 (one for 30,000). 
 
 d) Upper house, composed of two senators from each state, 
 voting as individuals. 
 
 2. The Second, or Three-fifths, Compromise: representation 
 for slaves, July 12 (Elliott, V, 294-310). 
 
 a) The struggle leading to the compromise. 
 
 d) Was the compromise just or expedient ? Was it open ? 
 
 (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 222-24; Fiske, 
 
 261, 262). 
 
 3. The Third, or New England-South Carolina, Compromise 
 (August 25): slave trade and federal control of commerce 
 (Elliott, I, 256, 374, 375 ; V, 454-62, 477, 478, 488-92). 
 
 a) Why the South opposed commercial powers (Fiske, 
 262). 
 
 b) Slave trade granted till 1808. 
 
 c) Opposition of Mason and Virginians. 
 
 d) Was the compromise necessary? 
 
 V. Debates on the Details of the Constitution. 
 
 1. On the executive; original purpose of the electoral col- 
 lege. 
 
 2. On the judicial department; is the Supreme Court an 
 original feature ? 
 
 3. On "bills of credit." 
 
 VI. Ratification of the Constitution. 
 VII. Deficiencies of the Constitution. 
 
12 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 STUDIES. 
 
 1. The ratification of the Constitution in Massachusetts. 
 
 2. Intended character of the electoral college. Show from history 
 whether it is a useful part of the Constitution. 
 
 3. The slavery compromises: were they necessary? 
 
 4. Deficiencies of the Constitution. 
 
 5. What changes in the Constitution are now frequently proposed ? 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 1. General references. — Documentary History of the Constitution, 1 786-1 870 (3 
 
 vols., Washington, 1894); Elliot, Debates; Fiske, Critical Period, 222-350; 
 Schouler, I, 36,37; Bancroft, Constitution, II \ idem. United States,^!, -zoi- 
 270; Frothingham, 589 ff.; McMaster, I, 417-27,437-53; Bryce, Covimon- 
 ■wealth, I, 18-25; Jameson, Constitutional Convention, c!i^2,^z.\,'n\,\v; Hildreth, 
 III, 482 ff. ; von Hoist, Constitutiofial History, I, 49 ff. ; Lalor, I, 637-40, 
 548, 549; II, 973-75; Johnston, Politics, 10-17; Curtis, I, 315 ff.; Hart, For- 
 mation of the Union, 121 ff.; von Hoist, Constitutional Law, 15 ff.; Cooley, 
 Constitutional Law, 15; Goldwin Smith, United States, 121 ff.; Foster, On the 
 Constitution, I, 19 ff., 80 ff. 
 
 2. 77^1? comprotnises. — Fiske, 242-68 ; Bancroft, Constitution, II, 47, 48, 128-32, 
 
 141-44, 151-60; idetn. United States, VI, 239-69, 299-301, 315-23; Curtis, I, 
 368, 314 ff.; von Hoist, I, 289-91, 293-99; Hildreth, HI, 494-520; Gay, 
 Madison, 98-114; Wilson, Slave Power, I, 39-53; Elliot, Debates, I, IV; 
 Lalor, I, 547-49; II, 973-75; Foster, I, 41-44- 
 
 3. Electoral college and the executive. — Elliot, V, 334-50, 358-70; Landon, 70-77; 
 
 Tiedeman, Unwritten Constitution, 40-5 1; Bryce, Cotnmonwealth, I, 37-41; 
 Curtis, I, 425,455, 563-66; Bancroft, Constitution, II, 166-94; idem. United 
 States, VI, 326 ff.; Fiske, 280 ff.; Madison Papers, III, Index at "Executive;" 
 Story, II, sees. 1410-88. 
 
 4. Ratification of the Constitution. — Elliot, II-IV; Federalist; von Hoist, I, 52-75 ; 
 
 Story, I, sees. 281-92; Lalor, I, 99, 606, 607; II, 165; McMaster, I, 
 454 ff. ; Curtis, I, 623-97; Bryce, I, 23-25; Hildreth, III, 533-39; Schouler, 
 I, 54-70; Fiske, 306 ff.; Frothingham, 579-603; Republic of Republics, 73- 
 I47> 433-56; Lodge, Hamilton, t^-2>0\ Bancroft, Constitution, II, 225-367; 
 Gay, Madison, 115-27; Morse, Jefferson, 92-95; Hosmer, Samuel Adams, 
 392-401 ; Tyler, Henry, 279-301; Landon, 82-96; Bancroft, United States, 
 VI, 374-462; Morse, Hatnilton, I, 238-75; Foster, I; Libby, Geographical 
 Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Constitutio7i, 
 /7(5'7-<S, in " Bulletins of the University of Wisconsin" (Madison, 1894), V; 
 McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania in the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia, 
 1888); Walker, Birth of the Federal Constitution, a History of the New Hamp- 
 shire Convention (Boston, 1888); Harding, Contest over the Ratification of the 
 Federal Constitution in Massachusetts {l;iev/Yo\]ii, 1894); Ford, Essays on the 
 Constitution Published During its Discussion (Brooklyn, 1888); Ford, Pamph- 
 lets on the Federal Constitution (Brooklyn, 1888). 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 1 3 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 THE POLITICAL REVOLUTION OF t8oO. 
 
 I. Rise and Fall of the Federalist Party. 
 
 1. Services of the Federalists: work of Hamilton; influence of 
 Washington. 
 
 2. Causes of the fall of the Federalists. 
 
 a) Foreign policy: indiscretions of the "war party" lead 
 to "alien and sedition laws;" and war with France. 
 
 b) Domestic policy : the direct tax. 
 
 c) Party dissensions ; Adams's cabinet ; the " Essex Junto ; " 
 characteristics of Adams ; his "midnight appointments ; " 
 the new circuit courts. 
 
 d) Aristocratic tendencies : views of Hamilton ; of Adams. 
 
 II. Character and Policy of Thomas Jefferson 
 
 (Hildreth V, 419 ff.; Hart, 176-78; Schouler, II, 200 ff.). 
 
 1. His personal appearance (Adams, United States, I, 185-87). 
 
 2. Sources of his great influence over the masses. 
 
 a) Sincere confidence in the rising principle of pure 
 democracy, of which he was the best exponent. 
 
 d) Capacity to organize ; to draft public documents ; literary 
 skill. 
 
 c) Social powers ; table talk. 
 
 3. Faults and limitations. 
 
 a) Mistaken view of human nature. 
 
 d) Too much self-confidence. 
 
 c) A poor speaker; lacked aggressive power; but able to 
 lead others to fight for him. 
 
 4. His theories (Morse, y^_^/'j-^/z, 90-93, 103, 209-18 ; Schouler, 
 11,2-15). 
 
 a) Champion of religious liberty; the friend of science and 
 the enemy of slavery. 
 
 b) Political doctrines. 
 
 (i) Influence of Rousseau and the French Revolution : 
 believer in little government and the rule of the 
 masses rather than the classes. 
 
14 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 (2) A strict constructionist; drafted the Kentucky reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 (3) Hated a national debt and thought internal improve- 
 ments unconstitutional. 
 
 (4) Disliked the use of force against insurrections : 
 attitude toward Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey 
 Insurrection. 
 
 (5) Opposed a standing army and large navy. 
 
 c) In some respects he was far ahead of his age : the 
 leader in many ideas which have prevailed in the thought 
 of the century. 
 
 III. Jefferson's Administration. 
 
 1. His theory of republican government compared with that 
 of the Federalists. 
 
 2. Theory and practice as to the civil service. 
 
 3. Repeal of judiciary act, 1802; Marbury vs. Madison, 1803; 
 impeachments of Pickering and Chase. 
 
 4. Louisiana purchase, 1803. 
 
 5. The "restrictive system"; failure of the policy of "non- 
 resistance". 
 
 6. Jefferson's services to the nation. 
 
 STUDIES. 
 Adams and the Essex Junto. 
 Debates on the Louisiana purchase. 
 
 Origin and importance of Washington's neutrality proclamation. 
 The Genet incident. 
 The civil service under Washington. 
 Jefferson and Federal patronage. 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 Jefferson, Works (10 vols., New York, 1892); Johnston, Orations, I, 99-108; Wil- 
 liams, Statesman's Manual, I, 139 ff . ; Hildreth, V, 419 ff.; Schouler, II, i £f.; 
 McMaster, II, 538 ff., 583 ff.; Adams, United States, I-IV; Morse, Jefferson, 
 90-93, 103, 209 ff., 263-68; W. E. Curtis, Trtte Thomas Jefferson; Adams, 
 Randolph, 48-61, 71-73, 123-315 Gay, Madison, 252-56; Stevens, Gallatin, 
 289 ff.; Hart, Formation of the Union, 154-98 ; Bryant and Gay, United States, 
 I, 144-84; von Hoist, Coftstitutional History, I, 168-226; Tucker, United 
 States, II, 146-348; Bradford, Constitutional History, I, 202-329; Adams, 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 15 
 
 Gallatin (Philadelphia, 1879); Randall, Z//'^' of Jefferson {2 vols., New York, 
 1858); Randall, Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson (New York, 1872); Tucker, 
 Life of Jefferson (Philadelphia, 1837); Forman, Thomas Jefferson (Indianapolis, 
 1900); J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, I, 248-551; W. Sullivan, Fafniliar Letters, 
 187-289; Goodrich, Recollections,!, 106-37, 265-98. 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 JOHN MARSHALL, THE EXPOUNDER OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 I. Characteristics of John Marshall. 
 II. Characteristics of the Federal Constitution. 
 
 1. What is a constitution ? 
 
 2. Varieties of constitutions (Jameson, Constitutional Conven- 
 tion, 67-87). 
 
 3. Sources of the Constitution. 
 
 4. Relative expansibility of written and unwritten constitu- 
 tions; chief clauses under which the expansion of the 
 Federal Constitution has taken place; difificulty of amend- 
 ment. 
 
 5. Alleged new feature in the Constitution (Robertson, in 
 Annals of American Academy, I, 203 ff.). 
 
 a) Constitutional functions of the Supreme Court. 
 b^ The dual statehood. 
 ^) Popular sovereignty. 
 (f) The system of "checks and balances." 
 <?) Practical result: a new and most significant experiment 
 in self-government. 
 
 6. Deficiences of the Constitution. 
 
 7. To what extent did it express the will of the people ? 
 
 III. John Marshall and the "Settlement" of the Constitution. 
 
 1. He reveals the powers of the Supreme Court. 
 
 2. Significance of his opportunity: what the Constitution 
 "might have been" through interpretation. 
 
 3. Vast numbers of opinions delivered by Marshall, 1801-35. 
 
l6 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 4. Some leading decisions : 
 
 a) Marbury vs. Madison, 1803 (i Cranch, 137). 
 
 b) "Olmstead case": United States vs. Peters, 1809 (5 
 Cranch, 137; Hildreth, III, chap. xxii). 
 
 c) Cohens vs. Virginia, 1821 (6 Wheaton, 264). Cf. Martin 
 vs. Hunter's Lessee, 1816 (i Wheaton, 304, 323. 362). 
 
 d) McCulloch vs. Maryland, 1819 (4 Wheaton, 316,421). 
 
 g) Osborn vs. Bank of United States, 1824; Weston vs. 
 Charleston, 1829 (9 Wheaton, 738 ; 2 Peters, 449)- 
 
 /) American Insurance Company vs. Canter, 1828 (i 
 Peters, 511, 542)- 
 
 g) Fletcher vs. Peck, 1810 (6 Cranch, 87, 135-40; ^/ Ras- 
 kins, in American Historical Asssciation Papers, V, 395 ff-)- 
 
 h) Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 1819 (4 Wheaton, 
 518 ; ^/. Van Santvoord, Lives of Chief Justices, 394-98)- 
 
 i) Ogden vs. Saunders, 1827 (12 Wheaton, 213). 
 
 J) The Burr trial (4 Cranch, Note B, 473; Adams, United 
 States, III, 441-71; Robertson, Burr Trial (Philadel- 
 phia, 1808); Kennedy, Life of Wirt, I, 161-206; Van 
 Santvoord, 364-79. 
 
 STUDIES. 
 
 1. The Yazoo claim, and the case of Fletcher vs. Peck. 
 
 2. The Dartmouth College case. 
 
 3. Marshall and Jefferson and the Burr trial. 
 
 4. Is the system of "checks and balances" breaking down? 
 
 5. An estimate of Marshall's influence on the Constitution. 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 I. Characterhlics of the Constitution.— ^\.oxy. Commentaries, I, sees. 339, 340 
 (definition) ; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 4 ; idem. Constitutional Law, 
 21 (definition); Tiedeman, Unwritten Constitution, 16 ff., I45, 110-28, 137-44; 
 Jameson, Co7tslitutional Convention, 67-87; Stephens, Sources of the Constitu- 
 tion; Foster, On the Constitution, I, 27-60; Morey, in Annals of American 
 Academy I, 529-57; Robertson, ibid., I, 203 ff.; Bryce, Commonwealth, I, 
 chaps, xxiii (Supreme Court), xxviii (nature); Wilson (H. H.), Unwritten 
 Elements of the Constitution, 420-24 ; Wilson (W.), Congressional Government, 
 10-14 (checks and balances), 475-79 (nature of Constitution); Hart, Formation 
 of the Union, 133-35; y[z.\nt. Popular Government, 202 ^.; Cooley, "Supreme 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 1 7 
 
 Court," in Constitutional History of the United States as Seen in the Development 
 of American Law (New York and London, 1889), 27-52. 
 2. John Marshall. — Hitchcock, " Constitutional Development of the United States 
 as Influenced by Chief Justice Marshall," in Constitutional History, etc., 53-120 ; 
 Story, Miscellaneous Writings, 183-200 ; Thayer (J. B.), John Marshall (Bos- 
 ton, 1901); Dillon (J. F.), John Marshall (Chicago, 1903); Centennial Anni- 
 versary (Philadelphia, 1901), containing, 21-66, J. T. Mitchell's oration; 
 Craighill, in his Virginia Peerage, I, 229-84 ; Flanders, Lives and Times of 
 the Chief Justices, 279-550 ; Lodge, in his Fighting Frigate, etc. (New York, 
 1902); Phelps, in his Orations and Essays (New York, 1901); Libby, John 
 Marshall (Brunswick, 1901); Draper, John Marshall and the March of the 
 Constitution (n. p., 1901); Marshall (John), Writings on the Federal Constitu- 
 tion (Boston, 1839 ; Washington, 1890); Magruder, John Marshall (Boston, 
 1885). 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 JAMES MONROE AND HIS DOCTRINE IN THE LIGHT OF 
 RECENT HISTORY. 
 
 Origin of the Principle (Oilman, Monroe, 156-74; Schouler, III, 277 ff., 
 289-93, note; Tucker, Monroe Doctrine, I-II ; Hart, American History 
 Leaflets, No. 4, pp. I-13). 
 
 1. Evolution of the doctrine of neutrality and non-interven- 
 tion. 
 
 a) Washington's influence. 
 (5) Influence of Madison and Jefferson. 
 c) Other evidences of the rise of a popular sentiment in 
 favor (see Oilman, Monroe, 156 ff.). 
 
 2. J. Q. Adams's share in formulating the doctrine (Tucker, 
 21-23; especially Ford, in Ajtierican Historical Review, VII, 
 676-96, and Reddaway, 69 ff.). 
 
 Immediate Causes of the Assertion of the Doctrine (Schouler, III, 
 277 ff.; Tucker, 6-1 1; Hart, 241-43; North American Review, XVII, 
 373-75; Reddaway, 12 ff; Keasbey, 123 ff.; Ford, 676 ff.). 
 
 I. Revolt of the Spanish-American colonies (Dyer, Modern 
 Europe, V, 370). 
 
 a) First revolt, 1808; returned to nominal allegiance, 1S14. 
 b^ Second revolt, 1816-22 (Hart, 241, 242; Schouler, III, 
 255); work of Bolivar. 
 
I8 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 2 The "Holy Alliance" of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, 
 ■ September 26, 1815: a league in favor of "legitimacy, 
 /. e., " despotism." . 
 
 3. The congress at Laybach (in Styria), 1820: intervention of 
 Holy Alliance to suppress revolution in Naples. 
 
 4. The congress at Verona, 1822. , ^.tt ^f 
 a) To consider the insurrection against Ferdinand VII. of 
 
 Spain. The latter is restored by Louis XVIII. of 
 France, with approval of the alliance. 
 ^) Question of assisting the revolting Spanish colonies 
 raised : Spain asks intervention. 
 5. The (revolted) Spanish-American states recognized by 
 
 United States, 1822 (Schouler, III, 255). 
 6 Russian plans for colonization in the Northwest. 
 a) Russian claims (Schuyler, Diplomacy, 294-97)- 
 
 b\ The ukase of 1821. ^ , t 1 
 
 ,) Secretary Adams' declaration to Baron Tuyl, July i . 
 
 1823 (Hart, Zm/^/^, 1 1)- o. -n ^ 
 
 7. Canning and Richard Rush (Schouler, III. 282-86; For^. 
 
 a) ^Canning proposes that Great Britain and the Unite. 
 States unite in a declaration against European interven 
 tion in American colonies. 
 
 b) Motives of England. 
 
 c) Was Rush justified in declining? 
 
 TTT Monroe States the Doctrine in His Seventh Annual Message 
 "'• Decerber TxT^S (WilUa.s. I, 460-62 ; Hart, Leaflets, 13 ; Tucker. X5 ff.. 
 American continent not subject to European colonization : 
 meaning (Dana, Wheaton, 103; Webster, Works, III, 178). 
 No European interposition in affairs of American states:: 
 meaning (Dana, Wheaton, no, in; Tucker, 122 ff.). 
 No extension of European system in America. 
 Second declaration in Monroe's eighth annual message. 
 (Hart, Leaflets, 14, 15; Tucker, 19; Williams, I, 465 ff-)- 
 IV. immediate Effects of the Declaration (Gihnan, 171-74; Schouler. Ill, 
 292 293; von Hoist, I, 421 ff.). 
 I. On the United States Constitution : an executive declaratior 
 
 I. 
 
 2. 
 
 3- 
 4- 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION I9 
 
 never confirmed as a whole by Congress. Clay's resolution 
 (Benton, Abridgment, VII, 650-52; Tucker, 21). 
 
 2. On Europe: joint intervention abandoned; and Spain 
 gives up reconquest of her revolted colonies. 
 
 3. On Russia: Treaty of 1824 (Schuyler, 297-304). 
 
 4. On the American states. 
 
 5. On England : she recognizes the American states. 
 V. History of the Doctrine (Tucker, Monroe Doctrine, 23 £f.). 
 
 1. The Panama congress, 1826 (Tucker, 23-26; von Hoist, I, 
 chap, xi; Henderson, 342 ff.). 
 
 a) Wish of the United States: to form an agreement with 
 American states as to maintenance of doctrine. 
 
 U) Messages and discussions leading to appointment of 
 United States envoys to the Congress. 
 
 c) Opposition of the slavery party (see von Hoist). 
 
 d) No action. 
 
 2. Proposed intervention in Yucatan, 1848; Polk's doctrine. 
 a) Causes. 
 
 U) Calhoun's speech on limitation of the doctrine (Calhoun, 
 Works, IV., 454; Tucker, 93-112). 
 
 3. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, April 19, 1850, and the inter- 
 ocean canal (Lalor III, 948; Tucker, 43-76; Treaties and 
 Conventions, 440-44). 
 
 a^ The occasion and' importance of the treaty. 
 
 ^) Provisions : which clauses led to misunderstandings and 
 
 negotiations ? 
 c) History: negotiations for modification ; question of right 
 
 of United States to avoid treaty. 
 
 (i) Blaine, 1881. 
 
 (2) Hay, 1900. 
 
 4. Cuba (Tucker, 77-91): why its possession was important to 
 England ; to the United States. The Filibusters and the 
 Ostend manifesto (Hart's Leaflets, No. 2; Lalor, II, 184; 
 111,36; Rhodes, II, 11-44; von Hoist, index at "Cuba"). 
 
 5. French intervention in Mexico, 1861-66. Did the United 
 States maintain the doctrine? 
 
 6. Other cases of application of the doctrine. 
 
20 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 VI. Expansion of the Doctrine (Hart, "Monroe Doctrine and the Doctrine 
 of Permanent Interest," American Historical Review, VII). 
 
 1. The original meaning, 1823. 
 
 2. Polk's doctrine, 1845-49: annex to prevent annexation. 
 
 3. Seward's view in case of France and Mexico, 1861-67 
 (Curtis, 10 1 ff.). 
 
 4. Blaine's doctrine, 1881: United States to be sole guardian 
 of the isthmian canal, and the arbiter of disputes between 
 Latin American powers (Foster, 461 ff.). 
 
 5. Olney's doctrine, 1895 (Foster, 467 ff.; Henderson, 411 ff.). 
 
 VII. What Should Be the Policy of the United States? 
 
 1. Shall the Monroe doctrine be abandoned? 
 
 2. Shall the United States participate in the world's affairs? 
 
 3. Moral responsibilities of a great nation. 
 
 STUDIES. 
 
 1. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. 
 
 2. The Venezuela incident, 1895. 
 
 3. Influence of the United States in the East. 
 
 4. The Ostend manifesto. 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 Hart, " The Monroe Doctrine and the Doctrine of Permanent Interest," American 
 Historical Review, VII, 77-91: or the same in his Fonndatiotis of American 
 Foreign Policy {New York and London, 1901), 211-40; Ford, "John Quincy 
 Adams and the Monroe Doctrine," American Historical Revie^u, VII, 676-96; 
 Keasbey, TAe Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe Doctrine (New York and 
 London, 1896), 123 ff., 556 ff.; Reddaway, The Monroe ZJor/rzwi? (Cambridge, 
 1898), 12 ff., 69 ff., 91 ff.; Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy (Boston, 
 1900), 438 ff.; Henderson, American Diploviatic Questions (New York and 
 London, 1901), 289-448; Travis, History of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (Ann 
 Arbor, 1900); Tucker, Monroe Doctrine (Boston, 1885); Latind, Diplomatic 
 Relations of the United States and Spanish Afnerica (Baltimore, 1900) ; Curtis, 
 The United States and Foreign Powers (New York, 1899), 93 ff.; Reinsch, 
 World Politics (New York, 1900) ; Schouler, III, as cited ; Hart, Formation 
 of the Union, 241-44; Oilman, Monroe, 156-74; Wharton, Digest of Interna- 
 tional Law, sees. 57-61, 72; Dana's Wheaton's International Law, 97-112; 
 von Hoist, I, 409 ff.; Schuyler, Diplomacy, as cited ; Morse,y. Q. Adams, 128- 
 38 ; Lalor, I, 66-69 '■> Ht 898-900 ; Williams, Statesman's Manual, I, 462, 
 465 ff. ; Treaties and Conventions; Kasson, in North American Review, 
 CXXIII, 241-54, 523-33; Nation, XXXIV, 9 ; Bibliography, J. F. Jameson, 
 in Oilman's Monroe, 269-80. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 2 1 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, A PURITAN SCHOLAR IN POLITICS. 
 
 A, Adams as President. 
 
 I. Characteristics of Adams : His Experience Before He Became 
 President. 
 
 II. The Administration of Adams. 
 
 1. Election of 1824; candidates: Jackson, Clay, Crawford, 
 and Adams. 
 
 2. Election in the House, 1825. 
 
 a) Was the choice of Adams constitutional? 
 i>) Question of a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and 
 Clay. 
 
 III. The Election of 1828. 
 
 1. Opposition to Adams, 
 
 a) Question of abuse of patronage. 
 
 d) Question of extravagance and fiscal abuse. 
 
 2. Triumph of Jackson; signs of a new era. 
 
 B. Adams and Federal Patronage. 
 I. Evolution of the Spoils System before Jackson. 
 
 1. Intention of the framers of the Constitution: Madison's 
 declaration {Annals of Congress, First Congress, first session 
 498). 
 
 2. Rise of the system in the states. 
 
 a) Introduced into Pennsylvania by Governor McKean, 
 1799, 1805 : criticised for his course, but not impeached 
 (Hildreth, V, 362, 591). 
 
 b) In New York. 
 
 (i) Monopoly of patronage of the great families (Roose- 
 velt, New York, 161). 
 
 (2) Jay's honorable course (Jay, yirv, 392). 
 
 (3) Aaron Burr establishes the machine in New York, 
 1 80 1 (Roberts, New York, II, 481); Burr's maxims 
 as to political management (Lalor, III, 783). 
 
22 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 (4) De Witt Clinton proves himself a worthy pupil of 
 Burr: use of the Council of appointment (for the 
 constitutional provision see Poore, 11, 1336)- 
 
 (5) Van Buren (disciple of Burr) and the "Albany 
 Regency." After the fall of "King Caucus" he 
 carries the corrupt machine into the wards and 
 primaries (von Hoist, II, 21; Lalor, I, 45)- 
 
 (6) Senator Marcy's celebrated declaration, 1832: "To 
 the victor belong the spoils of the enemy." 
 
 3. Causes leading to the introduction of the system in the 
 federal patronage. 
 
 a) Rapid increase in the number and value of federal offices, 
 (i) The civil service in 1789 (Lalor, III, 139, 140)- 
 
 (2) The civil service, 1800-1809 (Sybert, 706). 
 
 (3) Present state of civil service {Statesman's Year Book, 
 1 89 1, p. 1058; Reports of United States Civil Service 
 Commissioner; especially Ninth Report; Tenth Re- 
 port, 3, and later Reports. 
 
 b) The overthrow of the congressional caucus. 
 
 (i) Its rise and history, 1804-24; was the practice uncon- 
 stitutional? (see Constitution, Art. II, sec. i, par. 2). 
 
 (2) Causes of its fall: the attack of Niles {Register, 
 XXIV, 19s, 322; ^wmnex, Jackson, 79; von Hoist, 
 
 11,2). 
 
 {a) Crawford's caucus nomination. 
 
 {b) The four candidates in the same party might 
 make caucus nomination equivalent to an elec- 
 tion by Congress. 
 
 {c) Jackson a candidate outside of party. 
 
 (3) Effects: Van Buren teaches how to "pack the pri- 
 maries;" the demagogue supersedes the statesman 
 in politics (Landon, Constitutional History, 149). 
 
 c) The "Demos Krateo" principle vs. the theory of the 
 constitution growing out of the election in the House, 
 1825 (von Hoist, II, 7; Stanwood, 87, 88; Sumner, 
 Jackson, 97). 
 
 d) Rotation in office as a "republican" principle. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 23 
 
 4. Significance of the Four Years' Tenure Act,. May 15, 1820 
 (Niles, XVIII, 234; Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congress, 
 I, 25; II, 2598). 
 
 a) Alleged motive of Crawford (Lalor, III, 900 ; J. Q. 
 Adams, Memoirs, VII, 424). 
 
 b) How regarded at the time by statesmen. 
 
 c) Effects {^\\var\tr, Jackson, S2>'j Schouler, III, 175; Hart, 
 246 ; Lalor, III, 900). 
 
 5. The thirst for office increased. 
 
 II. History of Appointments, 1789-1829 (Salmon, Appointing Power). 
 
 1. Washington's policy (Marshall, Washington, I, 150, 151; 
 Schouler, I, 107 ff.; Salmon, 315; Hildreth, IV, 131, 132; 
 Niles, XX, 249 ; XLII, 9). 
 
 2. John Adams's policy. 
 
 ar) Adopts Washington's principles ; ten removals in four 
 years as against nine by Washington (Niles, XLII, 9 ; 
 Morse, Adams, 293-303). 
 
 h) Censured for appointing relatives. 
 
 ^) The "midnight appointments." 
 
 3. Jefferson's policy. 
 
 4. Monroe's policy (Oilman, Monroe, 191). 
 
 a) Jackson's advice (Niles, XXVI, 164; Williams, I, 544, 
 
 545)- 
 
 b) But nine removals, and these for cause. 
 
 c) Inadvertently signs the Tenure Act, 1820; but takes no 
 partisan advantage of it. 
 
 5. Policy of John Q. Adams (Schouler, III, 343 ff.). 
 
 a) Admirable in its purpose, but almost too indulgent of 
 political enemies, even those suspected of corruption. 
 
 b) Only two removals, and these for cause. 
 
 c) His lesson for Americans. 
 
 STUDIES. 
 
 The civil service and patronage under Washington. 
 Jackson and the spoils system. 
 Origin of the spoils system in New York. 
 Jackson's early views regarding patronage. 
 
24 THE STRUGGLE FOR A STRONGER FEDERAL UNION 
 
 5. John Quincy Adams and the slavery struggle in the House of 
 Representatives. 
 
 6. Character and political career of Crawford, 
 
 7. Present state of the civil service. 
 
 REFERENCES. 
 
 1. General references. — J. Q. Adams, Memoirs (12 vols., Philadelphia, 1874-77); 
 
 Schouler, United States, 111; Hart, Formation of the Union, 245-62; Morse, 
 John Quincy Adams (Boston, 1882); Johnston, Politics; Stanwood, //istory 
 of the Presidency (Boston, 1898); von Hoist, Constitutional History, II, i ff.; 
 Benton, Thirty Years' View, I, 46-50. 
 
 2. Spoils system. — Salmon, "Appointing Power," in Am. Hist. Ass. Papers, I, 
 
 No. 5; Lalor, I, 139 ff.; II, 783-87; III, 895 fi; Hart, 246 ; Shepard, Van 
 Buren, 32-45; Roberts, New York, II, 466-84; Roosevelt, New York, 
 159-65; Hildreth, V, 360, 362, 591, 424; Sybert, Statistical Annals, 705, 
 378; Niles, Register, xxiv, xxv, index ; Sumner, Jackson, 145 ff.; Merriam, in 
 American Historical Association Papers, III ; Adams, United States, index ; 
 Morse, J. Q. Adams; Reports of United States Civil Service Commission; 
 Eaton, Civil Service; especially E. D. Lewis, The Spoils System before Jai-kson. 
 
 3. Jackson and the spoils system. — Sumner, Jackson, 136 ff.; Schouler, III, 451-05 ; 
 
 Johnston, Politics, 112, 113; 'Pz.xion, Jackson; Curtis, Webster; Ormsby, li'hig 
 Party, 185 ff.; Bradford, United States, 369, 370; Williams, II, 961 ff. 
 
 ^o 
 
 ly 
 

 * ^' 
 
 
 •/ vlff*/ "vW*/ \."'.^-.. 
 
 
 
 v^^ 
 
 ,/\. 
 
 «^ „ . . . •^^ 
 

 y ^: 
 
 
 
 
 
 'bV" 
 
 •\/... V^^\^^ "o^^^-^/ \*^\^ 
 
 
 
 ■*. ft^ -0-.^ •^ 
 
 .* .-^ixVa-. X%^^'' /^I^'-- ■ ^* -*« " «- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'J t * * f