responsible to the institutor. Democracy also meant, a government administered by the people personally. The distinction is considered as useful, for relieving the mind from an association, between the sovereignty of the people, and the evils produced by a nation's exercising the functions of government.
Let us now take up the thread of this essay. I have endeavoured to prove that aristocracy is artificial and not natural that the aristocracies of superstition and landed wealth have been destroyed by knowledge, commerce and alienation: that a new aristocracy has arisen during the last century from paper and patronage, of a character so different from titled orders, as not to be compressible within Mr. Adams's system; and that his system is evidently defective, in having silently past over this powerful aristocracy, now existing in England.
By the civil policy of the United States, I mean the general and state constitutions, as forming one system. Most of the state constitutions existed when Mr. Adams wrote, and no new principles have been introduced by those since created. The differences among them all, consist only in modifications of the same principles. As immaterial is the anachronism of applying Mr. Adams's reasoning to the general constitution, because if his system is inimical to that, it must have been more so to the state constitutions he professed to defend; as in that, the executive and senatorial lines are drawn with a stronger pencil than in those.[1]
Mr. Adams's system simply is, "that nature will create an aristocracy, and that policy ought to create a king, or a single, independent executive power, and a house of popular representatives, to balance it."
Let one of the state constitutions speak for the rest. That of Massachusetts declares, that "all men are born free and equal." That "no man, or corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages. or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those
- ↑ Adams's Def. 3 v. 187 & 436
