which was probably equal to that of the natural fertility of the best square mile of land in New England-a territory to be inhabited at some future day by more than thirty times the existing population of the original States, and by a population in equal proportion to that of the original States, the descendants of those whose arms and sufferings secured the independence of the American Union!

So, too, individually the power of all the other corporators would be diminished by the increase of the number; and the material interests of New England would really be more benefited by this addition of States than those of the contiguous western ones. Agriculture could never be the leading interest among the sterile rocks and the keenly enterprising people of New England. In proportion to population or territory, she excelled in the maritime branch of national industry. She would soon be inevitably called upon to take the lead in the manufacturing branch, for she had the best natural facilities therefor, and the greatest need of employments extraneous of agriculture. The incorporation of New States would widen her markets, and at the same time increase and cheapen the products she required in exchange. To the agricultural States, the addition of new ones raising the same products opened no new markets, and it increased the competitors desirous to supply those already existing, or which were to spring up with new interests in the less fertile Atlantic States.

If the addition would disturb the partisan statu-quo, one would think the Federalists were reduced to a condition too depressed to ask to have a territory larger than all the original territory of the Union kept in perpetual colonial subserviency, for the sake of leaving them a chance for recovering their political ascendency. Besides, those who profess any grade of republican principles, are bound to recognize the propriety as well as the right of self-government in those who are as capable as themselves of its exercise. If they believe their own doctrines, they are also bound to believe they will prevail in the minds of such persons.

No Federal statesman of that day besides Governeur Morris, foresaw the natural and legitimate consequences which ought to inure to New England from the erection of trans-Mississippian States. His views were tinged with some of his customary

refinements, and he imagined motives which would probably never have operated; but he caught the main idea, that New England ought to be the section of the Union more than all others, benefited by the purchase of Louisiana.

Not so thought the class of statesmen who then represented New England Federalism. Plunging forward from one transparent inconsistency to another-acrid, pharasaical, and controlled by a narrow and selfish partisanship-they resisted the acquisition desperately to the last; and when it took place, immediately entered upon a course as well calculated to drive off every resulting benefit to New England, as if it had been devised for that especial purpose.

It is not necessary here to recount all the partisan manœuvres which took place in the House of Representatives, pending its action on the treaty.

The resolution, that provision ought to be made for carrying it into effect, passed October 25th, yeas ninety, nays twenty-five.

On the act authorizing a creation of stocks to raise money for the stipulated payments to France, the Federal senators were enabled to relieve their feelings, also, before a public audience; and the whole range of the debate in the House was again travelled over, and with increased violence, because their talking increased their excitement.

White, of Delaware, declared it was only "buying of France an authority to make war on Spain," and he asked if gentlemen would "submit to the degradation" "at so inconvenient a price?" Admitting that we must have New Orleans and some other positions on the river, necessary to secure its navigation, he believed the possession of Louisiana "would be the greatest curse that could at present befall us ;"" he would rather see it given to France or Spain." But if "this extent of territory was a desirable acquisition, fifteen millions of dollars was a most enormous sum to give." Our ministers at Paris ought to have taken advantage of circumstances to "lessen the consideration."

Pickering, of Massachusetts, did not believe the third article of the treaty could be rendered legal by even an amendment of the Constitution made in the ordinary way. He believed the assent of every State would be requisite. He took the usual ground that the Government could acquire new territory by purchase or conquest, and govern it as a dependent province."

This recent Secretary of State contemptuously repudiated any reliance on the honor and justice of France, declaring that "for ten or fifteen years past we had known too well what they were."

John Q. Adams, of Massachusetts, who had voted against the bill which had passed the Senate (October 26th) to enable the President to take possession of the ceded territory, declared himself in favor of the present bill. He said he " was free to confess that the third article [of the treaty] and more especially the seventh, contained engagements placing us in a dilemma, from which he saw no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather an addition to the Constitution." But this was only saying that the President and Senate had bound the nation to engagements which required the coöperation of more extensive powers than theirs, to carry them into execution. He continued:

"This is what your ministers, in the very case before you, have confessedly done. It is well known that their powers did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the benefit of their country, and this House by a large majority has advised to the ratification of their proceedings. Suppose, then, not only that the ministers who signed, but the President and Senate who ratified this compact, have exceeded their powers. Suppose that the other House of Congress, who have given their assent by passing this and other bills for the fulfillment of the obligations it imposes on us, have exceeded their powers. Nay, suppose even that the majority of States competent to amend the Constitution in other cases, could not amend it in this, without exceeding their powers-and this is the extremest point to which any gentlemen on this floor has extended his scruples-suppose all this, and there still remains in the country a power competent to adopt and sanction every part of our engagements, and to carry them entirely into execution. For Lotwithstanding the objections and apprehensions of many individuals, of many wise, able and excellent men, in various parts of the Union, yet such is the public favor attending the transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which I hope will terminate in our full, undisturbed, and undisputed possession of the ceded territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the Constitution, amply sufficient for the accomplishment of everything for which we have contracted, shall be proposed, as I think it ought, it will be adopted by the legislature of every State in the Union. We can therefore fulfill our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a right to require of us.

Dayton, of New Jersey, favored the bill in a vigorous speech, and he properly condemned the "allusions artfully made" in public debate by some of his political friends, and particularly White of Delaware, to "documents communicated under the injunction of secrecy."

Tracy, of Connecticut, took the same ground with Pickering in regard to the necessity of obtaining the unanimous consent of the States to sanction the incorporation of territory into the Union, and in regard to the constitutional right of acquiring and governing foreign territory.

On the Republican side, Jackson of Georgia, Wright of Maryland, Taylor of Virginia, Butler of South Carolina, Breckenridge of Kentucky, Nicholas of Virginia, and Cocke of Tennessee, spoke in favor of the bill.

The question was taken, November 3d, and the vote stood yeas twenty-six, nays five. All the Republicans voted for it, and also Adams, Dayton, Olcott, and Plumer (the two last from New Hampshire), Federalists.

The reputation acquired by the Administration from the Louisiana purchase would have been great under any circumstances. But the bitter opposition of its opponents added to the effect. They drew attention to the subject. They set the nation to contemplating the results likely to flow from the acquisition. They prevented the people from tacitly settling down into the idea that it was a sort of matter of course under the circumstances, and that any set of rulers would have taken the same steps, and secured the same advantages. They by these means taught candid and reflecting men, even among the Federalists, that a great and vigorous statesman guided the helm of public affairs, instead of the philosophical and visionary theorist who had been described to them. And when liberal men discover that they have been mistaken in estimating an opponent in one important particular, they are prone to push their investigations further.

There was much which was calculated to make a fair scrutiny redound to the further credit of the Administration. The standing army had been reduced to a handful, and our great naval preparations were stopped, yet our foreign relations, beyond the speck of war in the Mediterranean, were strictly peaceful; we had not been so free from foreign aggressions since the origin of the government; and internally not a county, or town, or hamlet of the United States was menacing "insurrection," or even expressing discontent. The taxes were abolished, yet public debt was visibly and rapidly decreasing. Great treasury schemes were extinct, yet industry prospered. The press and tongue were free, yet the Government gained daily in popularity.

Democracy was everywhere triumphant, yet law, order, and religion maintained their ascendency. Great and expensive judicial "engines of government" had fallen, yet every man sat under his own vine and fig tree, and enjoyed his own in security. Never since the dawn of time was there a government which met all the ends of its institution better, or with less burden to the governed.

The Federalists, since the Administration of Washington, had not only seized nearly every practicable occasion to legislate unwisely, but they had exhibited an infatuation-what almost seemed an infatuated desire-to seize occasions to take a violent issue with the settled feelings and opinions of the American people. They had, in the election of 1801, alienated the body of the people. Yet many a man of character lingered with them, ashamed. to abandon his colors. The desertion of leaders at that time bore no proportion to the popular desertion. But their conduct on the Louisiana question sent off to their enemy's camp a large body of their principal men. That a little handful in Congress, scarcely numerous enough to make a serious parliamentary opposition, should, on this question, where the Government had almost the entire mass of the nation on its side, so furiously and acrimoniously contest every inch, was something more than a common party error. It betrayed an extent of political folly for which there could be neither cure nor hope. It was no shame to leave men to their own labors, who, like Sydney Smith's Mrs. Partington, chose to employ themselves in mopping back the Atlantic! The vote in the Senate foreshadowed that thenceforth the Federal ascendency would be found tottering even in New England.

But the ultra-Federalist leaders were predestined to learn nothing by experience. They were pure "exotics" amidst the mass of American mind. They could neither see nor hear anything but their favorite idea. They groped about like foreigners, never understanding the character of their countrymen, nor the system of things in which they were placed. They were the shadows of an old régime, having no commixture or sympathy with the generation about them. They were political Quixotes, dreaming over the dreams, and, in imagination, fighting over the battles of a bygone age.

Fisher Ames wrote Thomas Dwight, October 31, 1803: