"The Worthy Against the Licentious"

From: Subject: "The Worthy Against the Licentious" Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:06:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file://C:\Documents\virginiabeachcourse\worthyagainstlicentious.html X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 "The Worthy Against the Licentious"

THE WORTHY AGAINST THE LICENTIOUS=20
From Gordon S. Wood's The Creation of the = American=20 Republic, excerpts from 87-112.=20
=20
Gordon S. Wood=20

=20
How the Federalists expected a new central government to remedy = the vices=20 the individual states had been unable to remedy is the central = question, the=20 answer to which lies at the heart of their understanding of what was = happening=20 in the critical period. In the minds of the Federalists and of "men of = reflection" generally, most of the evils of American society-the = atmosphere of=20 mistrust, the breakdown of authority, the increase of debt, the = depravity of=20 manners, and the decline of virtue could be reduced to a fundamental = problem=20 of social disarrangement. Even the difficulties of the United States = in=20 foreign affairs and its weakness as a nation in the world, as Jay = argued in=20 The Federalist Number 3, could be primarily explained by what the = Revolution=20 had done to America's political and social hierarchy. More than = anything else=20 the Federalists' obsession with disorder in American society and = politics=20 accounts for the revolutionary nature of the nationalist proposals = offered by=20 men like Madison in 1787 and for the resultant Federalist = Constitution. Only=20 an examination of the Federalists' social perspective, their fears and = anxieties about the disarray in American society, can fully explain = how they=20 conceived of the Constitution as a political device designed to = control the=20 social forces the Revolution had released.=20
=20
The most pronounced social effect of the Revolution was not = harmony or=20 stability but the sudden appearance of new men everywhere in politics = and=20 business. "When the pot boils, the scum will rise:' James Otis had = warned in=20 1776; but few Revolutionary leaders had realized just how much it = would rise.=20 By the end of the war men like Governor James Bowdoin of Massachusetts = could=20 "scarcely see any other than new faces:' a change almost "as = remarkable as the=20 revolution itself." The emigration of thousands of Tories, the = intensification=20 of interest in politics, the enlargement of the legislatures and the = increase=20 in elections, the organization of new militia and political groups, = the=20 breakup of old mercantile combinations and trade circuits, the = inflation and=20 profiteering caused by the war-all offered new opportunities for = hitherto=20 unknown but ambitious persons to find new places for themselves. As = John Adams=20 noted, his own deep resentment of his supposed social superiors was = being=20 echoed throughout various levels of the society. For every brilliant=20 provincial lawyer ready to challenge the supremacy of the imperial = clique in=20 the colonial metropolis, there were dozens of lesser men, not so = brilliant but=20 equally desirous of securing a local magistracy, a captaincy of the = militia,=20 some place, however small, of honor and distinction. With the = elimination of=20 Crown privilege and appointment men were prepared to take the = republican=20 emphasis on equality seriously. The result, as one Baltimore printer = declared=20 as early as 1777, was "Whiggism run mad." "When a man, who is only fit = to=20 patch a shoe: attempts to patch the State: fancies himself a Solon or=20 Lycurgus, . . . he cannot fail to meet with contempt." But contempt = was no=20 longer enough to keep such men in their place.=20
=20
Everywhere "Specious, interested designing men:' "men, respectable = neither=20 for their property, their virtue, nor their abilities:' were taking a = lead in=20 public affairs that they had never quite had before, courting "the = suffrages=20 of the people by tantalizing them with improper indulgences." = Thousands of the=20 most respectable people "who obtained their possessions by the hard = industry,=20 continued sobriety and economy of themselves or their virtuous = ancestors" were=20 now witnessing, so the writings of nearly all the states proclaimed = over and=20 over, many men "whose fathers they would have disdained to have sat = with the=20 dogs of their flocks, raised to immense wealth, or at least to carry = the=20 appearance of a haughty, supercilious and luxurious spendthrift." = "Effrontery=20 and arrogance, even in our virtuous and enlightened days:' said John = Jay "are=20 giving rank and Importance to men whom Wisdom would have left in = obscurity."=20 Since "every new election in the States," as Madison pointed out in = The=20 Federalist Number 62,"is found to change one half of the = representatives," the=20 newly enlarged state legislatures were being filled and yearly = refilled with=20 different faces, often with "men without reading, experience, or = principle."=20 The Revolution, it was repeatedly charged (and the evidence seems to = give=20 substance to the charges), was allowing government to fall "into the = Hands of=20 those whose ability or situation in Life does not intitle them to it. = "=20 Everywhere in the 1780's the press and the correspondence of those = kinds of=20 men whose letters are apt to be preserved complained that "a set of=20 unprincipled men, who sacrifice everything to their popularity and = private=20 views, seem to have acquired too much influence in all our = Assemblies." The=20 Revolution was acquiring a degree of social turbulence that many, for = all of=20 their knowledge of revolutions, had not anticipated. Given the = Revolutionary=20 leaders' conventional eighteenth-century assumption of a necessary = coincidence=20 between social and political authority, many could actually believe = that their=20 world was being "turned upside down."=20
=20
Beginning well before the Revolution but increasing to a fever = pitch by=20 the mid-eighties were fears of what this kind of intensifying social = mobility=20 signified for the traditional conception of a hierarchical society = ("in due=20 gradation ev'ry rank must be, Some high, some low, but all in their = degree")-a=20 conception which the Revolution had unsettled but by no means = repudiated. In=20 reaction to the excessive social movement accelerated by the = Revolution some=20 Americans, although good republicans, attempted to confine mobility = within=20 prescribed channels. Men could rise, but only within the social ranks = in which=20 they were born. Their aim in life must be to learn to perform their = inherited=20 position with "industry, economy, and good conduct. "A man, wrote Enos = Hitchcock in his didactic tale of 1793, must not be "elevated above = his=20 employment. " In this respect republicanism with its emphasis on = spartan=20 adversity and simplicity became an ideology of social stratification = and=20 control. Over and over writers urged that "the crosses of life improve = by=20 re-trenching our enjoyments:' by moderating "our expectations," and by = giving=20 "the heart a mortal disgust to all the gaudy blandishments of sense." = Luxury=20 was such a great evil because it confounded "every Distinction between = the=20 Poor and the Rich" and allowed "people of the very meanest parentages, = or=20 office, if fortune be but a little favourable to them" to "vie to make = themselves equal in apparel with the principal people of the place."=20 "Dissipation and extravagance" encouraged even "country-girls in their = market=20 carts, and upon their panniered horses," to ride "through our streets = with=20 their heads deformed with the plumes of the ostrich and the feathers = of other=20 exotick birds." Although many, especially in the South, had expected = the=20 Revolution to lessen this kind of social chaos, republicanism actually = seemed=20 only to have aggravated it.=20
=20
Most American leaders, however, were not opposed to the idea of = social=20 movement, for mobility, however one may have decried its abuses, lay = at the=20 heart of republicanism. Indeed, many like John Adams had entered the=20 Revolution in order to make mobility a reality, to free American = society from=20 the artificial constraints Britain had imposed on it, and to allow = "Persons of=20 obscure Birth, and Station, and narrow Fortunes" to make their mark in = the=20 world. Republicanism represented equality of opportunity and careers = open to=20 talent. Even "the reins of state:' David Ramsay had said at the = outset, "may=20 be held by the son of the poorest man, if possessed of abilities equal = to that=20 important station." Ramsay's qualification, however, was crucial to = his=20 endorsement of mobility. For all of its emphasis on equality, = republicanism=20 was still not considered by most to be incompatible with the = conception of a=20 hierarchical society of different gradations and a unitary authority = to which=20 deference from lower to higher should be paid. Movement must = necessarily exist=20 in a republic, if talent alone were to dominate, if the natural = aristocracy=20 were to rule. But such inevitable movement must be into and out of = clearly=20 discernible ranks. Those who rose in a republic, it was assumed, must = first=20 acquire the attributes of social superiority-wealth, education, = experience,=20 and connections-before they could be considered eligible for political = leadership. Most Revolutionary leaders clung tightly to the concept of = a=20 ruling elite, presumably based on merit, but an elite nonetheless - a = natural=20 aristocracy embodied in the eighteenth-century ideal of an educated = and=20 cultivated gentleman. The rising self-made man could be accepted into = this=20 natural aristocracy only if he had assimilated through education or = experience=20 its attitudes, refinements, and style. For all of their earlier = criticism of=20 "the better sort of People" in the name of "real Merit," few of the=20 Revolutionary leaders were prepared to repudiate the idea of a = dominating=20 elite and the requisite identity of social and political authority. . = . .=20
=20
In South Carolina these kinds of sentiments became particularly = pronounced=20 in the eighties; the planters found themselves confronted with = widespread=20 challenges to their authority that they had never anticipated in 1776, = challenges that came from a new kind of politician, one who, as a = defender=20 proudly pointed out, "had no relations or friends, but what his money = made for=20 him." In the tense atmosphere of the mid-eighties the case of William=20 Thompson, an unfortunate tavern-keeper who was threatened with = banishment from=20 the state by the legislature for allegedly insulting John Rutledge, = became a=20 cause c=E9l=E9bre and a focal point for the political and social = animosities=20 released and aggravated by the Revolution. Thompson's address to the = public in=20 April 1784 is a classic expression of American resentment against = social=20 superiority, a resentment voiced, as Thompson said, not on behalf of = himself=20 but on behalf of the people, or "those more especially, who go at this = day,=20 under the opprobrious appellation of, the Lower Orders of Men." = Thompson was=20 not simply attacking the few aristocratic "Nabobs" who had humiliated = him, but=20 was actually assaulting the entire conception of a social hierarchy = ruled by a=20 gentlemanly elite. In fact he turned the prevailing eighteenth-century = opinion=20 upside down and argued that the natural aristocracy was peculiarly = unqualified=20 to rule. Rather than preparing men for political leadership in a free=20 government, said Thompson, "signal opulence and influence:' especially = when=20 united "by intermarriage or otherwise:' were really "calculated to = subvert=20 Republicanism." The "persons and conduct" of the South Carolina = "Nabobs" like=20 Rutledge "in private life, may be unexceptionable, and even amiable, = but their=20 pride, influence, ambition, connections, wealth and political = principles,=20 ought in public life, ever to exclude them from public confidence." = All that=20 was needed in republican leadership was "being good, able, useful, and = friends=20 to social equality," for in a republican government "consequence is = from the=20 public opinion, and not from private fancy." In sardonic tones = Thompson=20 recounted how he, a tavern-keeper, "a wretch of no higher rank in the=20 Commonwealth than that of Common-Citizen:' had been debased by "those=20 self-exalted characters, who affect to compose the grand hierarchy of = the=20 State- . . for having dared to dispute with a John Rutledge, or any of = the=20 NABOB tribe." The experience had been degrading enough to Thompson as = a man,=20 but as a former officer in the army it had been "insupportable" - = indicating=20 how Revolutionary military service may have affected the social = structure.=20 Undoubtedly, said Thompson, Rutledge had "conceived me his inferior" = But=20 Thompson like many others in these years - tavern-keepers, farmers, = petty=20 merchants, smalltime lawyers, former military officers - could no = longer=20 "comprehend the inferiority." The resultant antagonism between those = who=20 conceived of such men as their inferiors, unfit to hold public = positions, and=20 those who would not accept the imputation of inferiority lay beneath = the=20 social crisis of the 1780's - a social crisis which the federal = Constitution=20 of 1787 brought to a head.=20
=20
The division over the Constitution in 1787-88 is not easily = analyzed. It=20 is difficult, as historians have recently demonstrated, to equate the=20 supporters or opponents of the Constitution with particular economic = groupings=20 The Antifederalist politicians in the ratifying conventions often = possessed=20 wealth, including public securities, equal to that of the Federalists. = While=20 the relative youth of the Federalist leaders, compared to the ages of = the=20 prominent Antifederalists, was important, especially in accounting for = the=20 Federalists' ability to think freshly and creatively about politics, = it can=20 hardly be used to explain the division throughout the country. = Moreover, the=20 concern of the 1780's with America's moral character was not confined = to the=20 proponents of the Constitution. That rabid republican and = Antifederalist,=20 Benjamin Austin, was as convinced as any Federalist that "the = luxurious living=20 of all ranks and degrees" was "the principal cause of all the evils we = now=20 experience." Some leading Antifederalist intellectuals expressed as = much fear=20 of "the injustice, folly, and wickedness of the State Legislatures" = and of=20 "the usurpation and tyranny of the majority" against the minority as = did=20 Madison. In the Philadelphia Convention both Mason and Elbridge Gerry, = later=20 prominent Antifederalists, admitted "the danger of the levelling = spirit"=20 flowing from "the excess of democracy" in the American republics. = There were=20 many diverse reasons in each state why men supported or opposed the=20 Constitution that cut through any sort of class division. The = Constitution was=20 a single issue in a complicated situation, and its acceptance or = rejection in=20 many states was often dictated by peculiar circumstances - the = prevalence of=20 Indians, the desire for western lands, the special interests of = commerce -=20 that defy generalization. Nevertheless, despite all of this confusion = and=20 complexity the struggle over the Constitution, as the debate if = nothing else=20 makes clear, can best be understood as a social one. Whatever the = particular=20 constituency of the antagonists may have been, men in 1787-88 talked = as if=20 they were representing distinct and opposing social elements. Both the = proponents and opponents of the Constitution focused throughout the = debates on=20 an essential point of political sociology that ultimately must be used = to=20 distinguish a Federalist from an Antifederalist. The quarrel was = fundamentally=20 one between aristocracy and democracy. . . .=20
=20
The disorganization and inertia of the Antifederalists, especially = in=20 contrast with the energy and effectiveness of the Federalists, has = been=20 repeatedly emphasized. The opponents of the Constitution lacked both=20 coordination and unified leadership; "their principles:' wrote Oliver=20 Ellsworth,"are totally opposite to each other, and their objections = discordant=20 and irreconcilable." The Federalist victory, it appears, was actually = more of=20 an Antifederalist default. "We had no principle of concert or union: = 'Iamented=20 the South Carolina Antifederalist, Aedanus Burke, while the supporters = of the=20 Constitution "left no expedient untried to push it forward." Madison's = description of the Massachusetts Antifederalists was applicable to = nearly all=20 the states: "There was not a single character capable of uniting their = wills=20 or directing their measures . . . . They had no plan whatever. They = looked no=20 farther than to put a negative on the Constitution and return home. = "They were=20 not, as one Federalist put it, "good politicians."=20
=20
But the Antifederalists were not simply poorer politicians than = the=20 Federalists; they were actually different kinds of politicians. Too = many of=20 them were state-centered men with local interests and loyalties only,=20 politicians without influence and connections, and ultimately = politicians=20 without social and intellectual confidence. In South Carolina the = up-country=20 opponents of the Constitution shied from debate and when they did = occasionally=20 rise to speak apologized effusively for their inability to say what = they felt=20 had to be said, thus leaving most of the opposition to the = Constitution to be=20 voiced by Rawlins Lowndes, a low-country planter who scarcely = represented=20 their interests and soon retired from the struggle. Elsewhere, in New=20 Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North = Carolina, the=20 situation was similar: the Federalists had the bulk of talent and = influence on=20 their side "together with all the Speakers in the State great and = small." In=20 convention after convention the Antifecleralists, as in Connecticut, = tried to=20 speak, but "they were browbeaten by many of those Cicero'es as they = think=20 themselves and others of Superior rank." "The presses are in a great = measure=20 secured to their side," the Antifederalists complained with justice: = out of a=20 hundred or more newspapers printed in the late eighties only a dozen = supported=20 the Antifederalists, as editors, "afraid to offend the great men, or=20 Merchants, who could work their ruin," closed their columns to the = opposition.=20 The Antifederalists were not so much beaten as overawed. In = Massachusetts the=20 two leading socially established Antifederalists, Elbridge Gerry and = James=20 Warren, were defeated as delegates to the Ratifying Convention, and=20 Antifederalist leadership consequently fell into the hands of newer, = self-made=20 men, of whom Samuel Nasson was perhaps typical - a Maine shopkeeper = who was=20 accused of delivering ghostwritten speeches in the Convention. Nasson = had=20 previously sat in the General Court but had declined reelection = because he had=20 been too keenly made aware of "the want of a proper Education I feel = my Self=20 So Small on many occasions that I all most Scrink into Nothing Besides = I am=20 often obliged to Borrow from Gentlemen that had advantages which I = have not."=20 Now, however, he had become the stoutest of Antifederalists, "full = charged=20 with Gass," one of those grumblers who, as Rufus King told Madison, = were more=20 afraid of the proponents of the Constitution than the Constitution = itself,=20 frightened that "some injury is plotted against them" because of "the=20 extraordinary Union in favor of the Constitution in this State of the = Wealthy=20 and sensible part of it."=20
This fear of a plot by men who "talk so finely and gloss over = matters=20 so smoothly" ran through the Antifederalist mind. Because the many = "new men"=20 of the 1780's, men like Melancthon Smith and Abraham Yates of New York = or John=20 Smilie and William Findley of Pennsylvania, had bypassed the social = hierarchy=20 in their rise to political leadership, they lacked those attributes of = social=20 distinction and dignity that went beyond mere wealth. Since these = kinds of men=20 were never assimilated to the gentlemanly cast of the Livingstons or = the=20 Morrises, they, like Americans earlier in confrontation with the = British=20 court, tended to view with suspicion and hostility the high-flying = world of=20 style and connections that they were barred by their language and = tastes, if=20 by nothing else, from sharing in. In the minds of these socially = inferior=20 politicians the movement for the strengthening of the central = government could=20 only be a "conspiracy" "planned and set to work" by a few aristocrats, = who=20 were at first, said Abraham Yates, no larger in any one state than the = cabal=20 which sought to undermine English liberty at the beginning of the = eighteenth=20 century. . . .=20
=20
Nothing was more characteristic of Antifederalist thinking than = this=20 obsession with aristocracy. Although to a European, American society = may have=20 appeared remarkably egalitarian, to many Americans, especially to = those who=20 aspired to places of consequence but were made to feel their = inferiority in=20 innumerable, often subtle, ways, American society was distinguished by = its=20 inequality. "it is true:' said Melancthon Smith in the New York = Ratifying=20 Convention, "it is our singular felicity that we have no legal or = hereditary=20 distinctions . . . ; but still there are real differences." "Every = society=20 naturally divides itself into classes. . . . Birth, education, = talents, and=20 wealth, create distinctions among men as visible, and of as much = influence, as=20 titles, stars, and garters. " Everyone knew those "whom nature hath = destined=20 to rule:' declared one sardonic Antifederalist pamphlet. Their = "qualifications=20 of authority" were obvious: "such as the dictatorial air, the = magisterial=20 voice, the imperious tone, the haughty countenance, the lofty look, = the=20 majestic mien." . . .=20
=20
Such influence was difficult to resist because, to the continual = annoyance=20 of the Antifederalists, the great body of the people willingly = submitted to=20 it. The "authority of names" and "the influence of the great" among = ordinary=20 people were too evident to be denied. "Will any one say that there = does not=20 exist in this country the pride of family, of wealth, of talents, and = that=20 they do not command influence and respect among the common people?" . = . .=20 Because of this habit of deference in the people, it was "in the power = of the=20 enlightened and aspiring few, if they should combine, at any time to = destroy=20 the best establishments, and even make the people the instruments of = their own=20 subjugation," Hence, the Antifederalist - minded declared, the people = must be=20 awakened to the consequences of their self-ensnarement; they must be = warned=20 over and over by popular tribunes, by "those who are competent to the = task of=20 developing the principles of government:' of the dangers involved in = paying=20 obeisance to those who they thought were their superiors. The people = must "not=20 be permitted to consider themselves as a grovelling, distinct species, = uninterested in the general welfare. " . . .=20
=20
In these repeated attacks on deference and the capacity of a = conspicuous=20 few to speak for the whole society-which was to become in time the=20 distinguishing feature of American democratic politics - the = Antifederalists=20 struck at the roots of the traditional conception of political = society. If the=20 natural elite, whether its distinctions were ascribed or acquired, was = not in=20 any organic way connected to the "feelings, circumstances, and = interests" of=20 the people and was incapable of feeling "sympathetically the wants of = the=20 people," then it followed that only ordinary men, men not = distinguished by the=20 characteristics of aristocratic wealth and taste, men "in middling=20 circumstances" untempted by the attractions of a cosmopolitan world = and thus=20 "more temperate, of better morals, and less ambitious, than the = great," could=20 be trusted to speak for the great body of the people, for those who = were=20 coming more and more to be referred to as "the middling and lower = classes of=20 people." The differentiating influence of the environment was such = that men in=20 various ranks and classes now seemed to be broken apart from one = another,=20 separated by their peculiar circumstances into distinct, unconnected, = and=20 often incompatible interests. With their indictment of aristocracy the = Antifederalists were saying, whether they realized it or not, that the = people=20 of America even in their several states were not homogeneous entities = each=20 with a basic similarity of interest for which an empathic elite could = speak.=20 Society was not an organic hierarchy composed of ranks and degrees=20 indissolubly linked one to another; rather it was a heterogeneous = mixture of=20 "many different classes or orders of people, Merchants, Farmers, = Planter=20 Mechanics and Gentry or wealthy Men. "In such a society men from one = class or=20 group, however educated and respectable they may have been, could = never be=20 acquainted with the "Situation and Wants" of those of another class or = group.=20 Lawyers and planters could never be "adequate judges of tradesmens = concerns."=20 If men were truly to represent the people in government, it was not = enough for=20 them to be for the people; they had to be actually of the people. = "Farmers,=20 traders and mechanics . . . all ought to have a competent number of = their best=20 informed members in the legislature "=20
=20
Thus the Antifederalists were not only directly challenging the=20 conventional belief that only a gentlemanly few, even though now in = America=20 naturally and not artificially qualified, were best equipped through = learning=20 and experience to represent and to govern the society, but they were = as well=20 indirectly denying the assumption of organic social homogeneity on = which=20 republicanism rested. Without fully comprehending the consequences of = their=20 arguments the Antifederalists were destroying the great chain of = being, thus=20 undermining the social basis of republicanism and shattering that = unity and=20 harmony of social and political authority which the eighteenth century = generally and indeed most Revolutionary leaders had considered = essential to=20 the maintenance of order.=20
=20
Confronted with such a fundamental challenge the Federalists = initially=20 backed away. They had no desire to argue the merits of the = Constitution in=20 terms of its social implications and were understandably reluctant to = open up=20 the character of American society as the central issue of the debate. = But in=20 the end they could not resist defending those beliefs in elitism that = lay at=20 the heart of their conception of politics and of their constitutional = program.=20 All of the Federalists' desires to establish a strong and respectable = nation=20 in the world, all of their plans to create a flourishing commercial = economy,=20 in short, all of what the Federalists wanted out of the new central = government=20 seemed in the final analysis dependent upon the prerequisite = maintenance of=20 aristocratic politics.=20
=20
At first the Federalists tried to belittle the talk of an = aristocracy;=20 they even denied that they knew the meaning of the word. "Why bring = into the=20 debate the whims of writers-introducing the distinction of well-born = from=20 others?" asked Edmund Pendleton in the Virginia Ratifying Convention. = In the=20 Federalist view every man was "well-born who comes into the world with = an=20 intelligent mind, and with all his parts perfect. " Was even natural = talent to=20 be suspect? Was learning to be encouraged, the Federalists asked in=20 exasperation, only "to set up those who attained its benefits as butts = of=20 invidious distinction?" No American, the Federalists said, could = justifiably=20 oppose a man "commencing in life without any other stock but industry = and=20 economy," and "by the mere efforts of these" rising "to opulence and = wealth."=20 If social mobility were to be meaningful then some sorts of = distinctions were=20 necessary. If government by a natural aristocracy, said Wilson, meant = "nothing=20 more or less than a government of the best men in the community," then = who=20 could object to it? . . .=20
=20
But the Antifederalist intention and implication were too = conspicuous to=20 be avoided: all distinctions, whether naturally based or not, were = being=20 challenged. Robert Livingston in the New York Convention saw as = clearly as=20 anyone what he thought the Antifederalists were really after, and he = minced no=20 words in replying to Smith's attack on the natural aristocracy. Since = Smith=20 had classified as aristocrats not only "the rich and the great" but = also "the=20 wise, the learned, and those eminent for their talents or great = virtues:'=20 aristocrats to the Antifederalists had in substance become all men of = merit.=20 Such men, such aristocrats, were not to be chosen for public office,=20 questioned Livingston in rising disbelief in the implications of the=20 Antifederalist argument, "because the people will not have confidence = in them;=20 that is, the people will not have confidence in those who best deserve = and=20 most possess their confidence?" The logic of Smith's reasoning, said=20 Livingston, would lead to a government by the dregs of society, a = monstrous=20 government where all "the unjust, the selfish, the unsocial = feelings:'where=20 all "the vices, the infirmities, the passions of the people" would be=20 represented. "Can it be thought:' asked Livingston in an earlier = development=20 of this argument to the Society of the Cincinnati [a hereditary = society formed=20 by Revolutionary army officers in 1783], "that an enlightened people = believe=20 the science of government level to the meanest capacity? That = experience,=20 application, and education are unnecessary to those who are to frame = laws for=20 the government of the state?" Yet strange as it may have seemed to = Livingston=20 and others in the 1780's, America was actually approaching the point = where=20 ability, education, and wealth were becoming liabilities, not assets, = in the=20 attaining of public office. "Envy and the ambition of the unworthy" = were=20 robbing respectable men of the rank they merited. "To these causes:' = said=20 Livingston, "we owe the cloud that obscures our internal governments." =
=20
The course of the debates over the Constitution seemed to confirm = what the=20 Federalists had believed all along. Antifederalism represented the = climax of a=20 "war" that was, in the words of Theodore Sedgwick, being "levied on = the=20 virtue, property, and distinctions in the community." The opponents of = the=20 Constitution, despite some, "particularly in Virginia:' who were = operating=20 "from the most honorable and patriotic motives:' were essentially = identical=20 with those who were responsible for the evils the states were = suffering from=20 in the eighties - "narrowminded politicians . . . under the influence = of local=20 views." "Whilst many ostensible reasons are assigned" for the = Antifederalists'=20 opposition, charged Washington, "the real ones are concealed behind = the=20 Curtains, because they are not of a nature to appear in open day." = "The real=20 object of all their zeal in opposing the system:' agreed Madison, was = to=20 maintain "the supremacy of the State Legislatures:' with all that = meant in the=20 printing of money and the violation of contracts. The Antifederalists = or those=20 for whom the Antifederalists spoke, whether their spokesmen realized = it or=20 not, were "none but the horse-jockey, the mushroom merchant, the = running and=20 dishonest speculator," those "who owe the most and have the least to = pay,"=20 those "whose dependence and expectations are upon changes in = government, and=20 distracted times:' men of "desperate Circumstances:' those "in Every = State"=20 who "have Debts to pay, Interests to support or Fortunes to make: = 'those, in=20 short, who "wish for scrambling Times. " Apart from a few of their=20 intellectual leaders the Antifederalists were thought to be an = ill-bred lot:=20 "Their education has been rather indifferent - they have been = accustomed to=20 think on the small scale, "They were often blustering demagogues = trying to=20 push their way into office "men of much self-importance and supposed = skill in=20 politics, who are not of sufficient consequence to obtain public = employment."=20 Hence they were considered to be jealous and mistrustful of "every one = in the=20 higher offices of society," unable to bear to see others possessing = "that=20 fancied blessing, to which, alas! they must themselves aspire in = vain." In the=20 Federalist mind therefore the struggle over the Constitution was not = one=20 between kinds of wealth or property, or one between commercial or=20 noncommercial elements of the population, but rather represented a = broad=20 social division between those who believed in the right of a natural=20 aristocracy to speak for the people and those who did not.=20
=20
Against this threat from the licentious the Federalists pictured=20 themselves as the defenders of the worthy, of those whom they called = "the=20 better sort of people," those, said John Jay, "who are orderly and=20 industrious, who are content with their situations and not uneasy in = their=20 circumstances." Because the Federalists were fearful that republican = equality=20 was becoming "that perfect equality which deadens the motives of = industry, and=20 places Demerit on a Footing with Virtue:' they were obsessed with the = need to=20 insure that the proper amount of inequality and natural distinctions = be=20 recognized. . . . Robert Morris, for example, was convinced there were = social=20 differences-even in Pennsylvania. "What!" he exclaimed in scornful = amazement=20 at John Smilie's argument that a republic admitted of no social = superiorities.=20 "is it insisted that there is no distinction of character?" = Respectability,=20 said Morris with conviction, was not confined to property. "Surely = persons=20 possessed of knowledge, judgment, information, integrity, and having = extensive=20 connections, are not to be classed with persons void of reputation or=20 character." . . .=20
=20
It was not simply the number of public securities, or credit = outstanding,=20 or the number of ships, or the amount of money possessed that made a = man think=20 of himself as one of the natural elite. It was much more subtle than = the mere=20 possession of wealth: it was a deeper social feeling, a sense of being = socially established, of possessing attributes-family, education, and=20 refinement-that others lacked, above all, of being accepted by and = being able=20 to move easily among those who considered themselves to be the = respectable and=20 cultivated. It is perhaps anachronistic to describe this social sense = as a=20 class interest, for it often transcended immediate political or = economic=20 concerns, and . . . was designed to cut through narrow occupational=20 categories. The Republicans of Philadelphia, for example, repeatedly = denied=20 that they represented an aristocracy with a united class interest. "We = are of=20 different occupations; of different sects of religion; and have = different=20 views of life. No factions or private system can comprehend us all." = Yet with=20 all their assertions of diversified interests the Republicans were not = without=20 a social consciousness in their quarrel with the supporters of the=20 Pennsylvania Constitution. If there were any of us ambitious for = power, their=20 apology continued, then there would be no need to change the = Constitution, for=20 we surely could attain power under the present Constitution. "We have = already=20 seen how easy the task is for any character to rise into power and = consequence=20 under it. And there are some of us, who think not so meanly of = ourselves, as=20 to dread any rivalship from those who are now in office."=20
=20
In 1787 this kind of elitist social consciousness was brought into = play as=20 perhaps never before in eighteenth-century America, as gentlemen up = and down=20 the continent submerged their sectional and economic differences in = the face=20 of what seemed to be a threat to the very foundations of society. = Despite his=20 earlier opposition to the Order of the Cincinnati, Theodore Sedgwick, = like=20 other frightened New Englanders, now welcomed the organization as a = source of=20 strength in the battle for the Constitution. The fear of social = disruption=20 that had run through much of the writing of the eighties was brought = to a head=20 to eclipse all other fears. . . . The Federalists were astonished at = the=20 outpouring in 1787 of influential and respectable people who had = earlier=20 remained quiescent. Too many of "the better sort of people," it was = repeatedly=20 said, had withdrawn at the end of the war "from the theatre of public = action,=20 to scenes of retirement and ease," and thus "demagogues of desperate = fortunes,=20 mere adventurers in fraud, were left to act unopposed." After all, it = was=20 explained, "when the wicked rise, men hide themselves." Even the = problems of=20 Massachusetts in 1786, noted General Benjamin Lincoln, the repressor = of the=20 Shaysites, were not caused by the rebels, but by the laxity of "the = good=20 people of the state." But the lesson of this laxity was rapidly being = learned.=20 Everywhere, it seemed, men of virtue, good sense, and property, = "almost the=20 whole body of our enlighten'd and leading characters in every state:' = were=20 awakened in support of stronger government. "The scum which was thrown = upon=20 the surface by the fermentation of the war is daily sinking:' Benjamin = Rush=20 told Richard Price in 1786, while a pure spirit is occupying its = place."=20
=20
Still, in the face of this preponderance of wealth and = respectability in=20 support of the Constitution, what remains extraordinary about 1787-88 = is not=20 the weakness and disunity but the political strength of = Antifederalism. That=20 large numbers of Americans could actually reject a plan of government = created=20 by a body "composed of the first characters in the Continent" and = backed by=20 Washington and nearly the whole of the natural aristocracy of the = country said=20 more about the changing character of American politics and society in = the=20 eighties than did the Constitution's eventual acceptance. It was = indeed a=20 portent of what was to come. . . .=20
=20
If the new national government was to promote the common good as=20 forcefully as any state government, and if, as the Federalists = believed, a=20 major source of the vices of the eighties lay in the abuse of state = power,=20 then there was something apparently contradictory about the new = federal=20 Constitution, which after all represented not a weakening of the = dangerous=20 power of republican government but rather a strengthening of it. "The=20 complaints against the separate governments, even by the friends of = the new=20 plan:' remarked the Antifederalist James Winthrop, "are not that they = have not=20 power enough, but that they are disposed to make a bad use of what = power they=20 have." . . What, in other words, was different about the new federal=20 Constitution that would enable it to mitigate the effects of = tyrannical=20 majorities? What would keep the new federal government from succumbing = to the=20 same pressures that had beset the state governments? The answer the=20 Federalists gave to these questions unmistakably reveals the social = bias=20 underlying both their fears of the unrestrained state legislatures and = their=20 expectations for their federal remedy. . . .=20
=20
The Federalists were not as much opposed to the governmental power = of the=20 states as to the character of the people who were wielding it. The=20 constitutions of most of the states were not really at fault. = Massachusetts=20 after all possessed a nearly perfect constitution. What actually = bothered the=20 Federalists was the sort of people who had been able to gain positions = of=20 authority in the state governments, particularly in the state = legislatures.=20 Much of the quarrel with the viciousness, instability, and injustice = of the=20 various state governments was at bottom social. "For," as John = Dickinson=20 emphasized, "the government will partake of the qualities of those = whose=20 authority is prevalent.". . . Since "it cannot be expected that things = will go=20 well, when persons of vicious principles, and loose morals are in = authority,"=20 it was the large number of obscure, ignorant, and unruly men occupying = the=20 state legislatures, and not the structure of the governments, that was = the=20 real cause of the evils so much complained of.=20
=20
The Federalist image of the Constitution as a sort of = "philosopher's=20 stone" was indeed appropriate: it was a device intended to transmute = base=20 materials into gold and thereby prolong the life of the republic. = Patrick=20 Henry acutely perceived what the Federalists were driving at. "The=20 Constitution:' he said in the Virginia Convention, "reflects in the = most=20 degrading and mortifying manner on the virtue, integrity, and wisdom = of the=20 state legislatures; it presupposes that the chosen few who go to = Congress will=20 have more upright hearts, and more enlightened minds, than those who = are=20 members of the individual legislatures." The new Constitution was = structurally=20 no different from the constitutions of some of the states. Yet the = powers of=20 the new central government were not as threatening as the powers of = the state=20 governments precisely because the Federalists believed different kinds = of=20 persons would hold them. They anticipated that somehow the new = government=20 would be staffed largely by "the worthy," the naturally social = aristocracy of=20 the country. "After all:' said Pelatiah Webster, putting his finger on = the=20 crux of the Federalist argument, "the grand secret of forming a good=20 government, is, to put good men into the administration: for wild, = vicious, or=20 idle men, will ever make a bad government, let its principles be ever = so=20 good."=20
=20
What was needed then, the Federalists argued, was to restore a = proper=20 share of political influence to those who through their social = attributes=20 commanded the respect of the people and who through their = enlightenment and=20 education knew the true policy of government. "The people commonly = intend the=20 PUBLIC GOOD:' wrote Hamilton in The Federalist but they did not = "always reason=20 right about the means of promoting it." They sometimes erred, largely = because=20 they were continually beset "by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, = by the=20 snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the = artifices of=20 men who possess their confidence more than deserve it, and of those = who seek=20 to possess rather than to deserve it." The rights of man were simple, = quickly=20 felt, and easily comprehended: in matters of liberty, "the mechanic = and the=20 philosopher, the farmer and the scholar are all upon a footing." But = to the=20 Federalists matters of government were quite different: government was = "a=20 complicated science, and requires abilities and knowledge, of a = variety of=20 other subjects, to understand it." "Our states cannot be well = governed," the=20 Federalists concluded, "till our old influential characters acquire = confidence=20 and authority." Only if the respected and worthy lent their natural=20 intellectual abilities and their natural social influence to political = authority could governmental order be maintained.=20
=20
Perhaps no one probed this theme more frenziedly than did Jonathan = Jackson=20 in his Thoughts upon the Political Situation of the United States, = published=20 in 1788. For Jackson the problems of the eighties were not merely = intellectual=20 but personal. Although at the close of the Revolution he had been one = of the=20 half-dozen richest residents of Newburyport, Massachusetts, by the end = of the=20 eighties not only had his wealth been greatly diminished but his = position in=20 Newburyport society had been usurped by a newer, less well-educated, = less=20 refined group of merchants. His pamphlet, expressing his bitter = reaction to=20 this displacement, exaggerated but did not misrepresent a common = Federalist=20 anxiety.=20
=20
Although differences of rank were inevitable in every society, = wrote=20 Jackson, "there never was a people upon earth . . . who were in less = hazard=20 than the people of this country, of an aristocracy's prevailing-or = anything=20 like it, dangerous to liberty." America possessed very little = "inequality of=20 fortune. "There was "no rank of any consequence, nor hereditary = titles."=20 "Landed property is in general held in small portions, even in = southern=20 states, compared with the manors, parks and royal demesnes of most = countries."=20 And the decay of primogeniture and entail, together with the "diverse" = habits=20 and passions between fathers and sons, worked to retard the engrossing = of=20 large estates. The only kind of aristocracy possible in America would = bean=20 "aristocracy of experience, and of the best understandings," a = "natural=20 aristocracy" that had to dominate public authority in order to prevent = America=20 from degenerating into democratic licentiousness, into a government = where the=20 people "would be directed by no rule but their own will and caprice, = or the=20 interested wishes of a very few persons, who affect to speak the = sentiments of=20 the people." . . .=20
=20
In a review of Jackson's pamphlet Noah Webster raised the crucial=20 question. It was commendable, he wrote, that only the wise and honest = men be=20 elected to office. "But how can a constitution ensure the choice of = such men?=20 A constitution that leaves the choice entirely with the people?" It = was not=20 enough simply to state that such persons were to be chosen. Indeed, = many of=20 the state constitutions already declared "that senators and = representatives=20 shall be elected from the most wise, able, and honest citizens . . . . = The=20 truth is, such declarations are empty things, as they require that to = be done=20 which cannot be defined, much less enforced." It seemed to Webster = that no=20 constitution in a popular state could guarantee that only the natural=20 aristocracy would be elected to office. How could the federal = Constitution=20 accomplish what the state constitutions like Massachusetts's and = Connecticut's=20 had been unable to accomplish? How could it insure that only the = respectable=20 and worthy would hold power?=20
=20
The evils of state politics, the Federalists had become convinced, = flowed=20 from the narrowness of interest and vision of the state legislators. = "We find=20 the representatives of countries and corporations in the Legislatures = of the=20 States:' said Madison, "much more disposed to sacrifice the aggregate=20 interest, and even authority, to the local views of their = Constituents" than=20 to promote the general good at the expense of their electors. Small = electoral=20 districts enabled obscure and designing men to gain power by = practicing "the=20 vicious arts by which elections are too often carried." Already = observers in=20 the eighties had noticed that a governmental official "standing, not = on local,=20 but a general election of the whole body of the people" tended to have = a=20 superior, broader vision by "being the interested and natural = conservator of=20 the universal interest." "The most effectual remedy for the local = biass" of=20 senators or of any elected official, said Madison, was to impress upon = their=20 minds "an attention to the interest of the whole Society by making = them the=20 choice of the whole Society." If elected officials were concerned with = only=20 the interest of those who elected them, then their outlook was most = easily=20 broadened by enlarging their electorate. Perhaps nowhere was this = contrast=20 between localism and cosmopolitanism more fully analyzed and developed = than in=20 a pamphlet written by William Beers of Connecticut. Although Beers = wrote in=20 179 1, not to justify the Constitution, his insight into the workings = of=20 American politics was precisely that of the Federalists of 1787.=20
=20
"The people of a state:' wrote Beers, "may justly be divided into = two=20 classes": those, on one hand, "who are independent in their = principles, of=20 sound judgments, actuated by no local or personal influence, and who=20 understand, and ever act with a view to the public good"; and those, = on the=20 other hand, who were "the dependent, the weak, the biassed, local = party=20 men-the dupes of artifice and ambition," . . . [T]he best people were = often=20 overpowered in small district elections, where "the success of a = candidate may=20 depend in a great degree on the quantity of his exertions for the = moment:' on=20 his becoming "popular, for a single occasion, by qualities and means, = which=20 could not possibly establish a permanent popularity or one which = should=20 pervade a large community," on his seizing "the occasion of some = prevailing=20 passion, some strong impression of separate interest, some popular = clamor=20 against the existing administration, or some other false and fatal = prejudice,=20 " . . . But an entire state could not be so deluded. "No momentary = glare of=20 deceptive qualities, no intrigues, no exertions will be sufficient to = make a=20 whole people lose sight of those points of character which alone can = entitle=20 one to their universal confidence." With a large electorate the = advance toward=20 public honors was slow and gradual. "Much time is necessary to become = the=20 object of general observation and confidence. " Only established = social=20 leaders would thus be elected by a broad constituency. Narrow the = electorate,=20 "and you leave but a single step between the lowest and the most = elevated=20 station. You take ambition by the hand, you raise her from obscurity, = and=20 clothe her in purple." With respect to the size of the legislative = body, the=20 converse was true. Reduce the number of its members and thereby = guarantee a=20 larger proportion of the right kind of people to be elected, for "the = more you=20 enlarge the body, the greater chance there is, of introducing weak and = unqualified men."=20
=20
Constitutional reformers in the eighties had continually attempted = to=20 apply these insights to the states, by decreasing the size of the = legislatures=20 and by proposing at-large elections for governors and senators in = order to=20 "make a segregation of upright, virtuous, intelligent men, to guide = the helm=20 of public affairs." Now these ideas were to be applied to the new = federal=20 government with hopefully even more effectiveness. The great height of = the new=20 national government, it was expected, would prevent unprincipled and = vicious=20 men, the obscure and local-minded men who had gained power in the = state=20 legislatures, from scaling its walls. The federal government would act = as a=20 kind of sieve, extracting "from the mass of the society the purest and = noblest=20 characters which it contains." Election by the people in large = districts would=20 temper demagoguery and crass electioneering and would thus, said James = Wilson,=20 "be most likely to obtain men of intelligence and up-rightness." = "Faction," it=20 was believed, "will decrease in proportion to the diminution of = counsellors."=20 It would be "transferred from the state legislatures to Congress, = where it=20 will be more easily controlled." The men who would sit in the federal=20 legislature, because few in number and drawn from a broad electorate, = would be=20 "the best men in the country." "For," wrote John Jay in The Federalist = "although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place = men in=20 State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive = departments,=20 yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other = qualifications=20 will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national = government."=20 Only by first bringing these sorts of men, the natural aristocracy of = the=20 country, back into dominance in politics, the Federalists were = convinced,=20 could Americans begin to solve the pressing foreign and domestic = problems=20 facing them. Only then, concluded Jay, would it "result that the=20 administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of = the=20 national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious = than those=20 of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect = to other=20 nations, as well as more safe with respect to us." The key therefore = to the=20 prospects of the new federal government, compared to the experience of = the=20 confederation of sovereign states, declared Francis Corbin of Virginia = in=20 words borrowed from Jean Louis De Lolme, the Genevan commentator on = the=20 English constitution, lay in the fact that the federal Constitution = "places=20 the remedy in the hands which feel the disorder; the other places the = remedy=20 in those hands which cause the disorder."=20
=20
In short, through the artificial contrivance of the Constitution = overlying=20 an expanded society the Federalists meant to restore and to prolong = the=20 traditional kind of elitist influence in politics that social = developments,=20 especially since the Revolution, were undermining. As the defenders if = not=20 always the perpetrators of these developments-the "disorder" of the = 1780's -=20 the Antifederalists could scarcely have missed the social implications = of the=20 Federalist program. The Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic = document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period, = and as=20 such it dictated the character of the Antifederalist response. It was=20 therefore inevitable that the Antifederalists should have charged that = the new=20 government was "dangerously adapted to the purposes of an immediate=20 aristocratic tyranny." In state after state the Antifederalists = reduced the=20 issue to those social terms predetermined by the Federalists = themselves: the=20 Constitution was a plan intended to "raise the fortunes and = respectability of=20 the well-born few, and oppress the plebians"; it was "a continental = exertion=20 of the well-born of America to obtain that darling domination,which = they have=20 not been able to accomplish in their respective states"; it "will lead = to an=20 aristocratical government, and establish tyranny over us.". . .=20
=20
Aristocratic principles were in fact "interwoven" in the very = fabric of=20 the proposed government. If a government was "so constituted as to = admit but=20 few to exercise the powers of it:' then it would "according to the = natural=20 course of things" end up in the hands of "the natural aristocracy." It = went=20 almost without saying that the awesome president and the exalted = Senate, "a=20 compound of monarchy and aristocracy," would be dangerously far = removed from=20 the people. But even the House of Representatives, the very body that = "should=20 be a true picture of the people, possess a knowledge of their = circumstances=20 and their wants, sympathize in all their distresses, and disposed to = seek=20 their true interest," was without "a tincture of democracy." Since it = could=20 never collect "the interests, feelings, and opinions of three or four = millions=20 of people:' it was better understood as "an Assistant Aristocratical = Branch"=20 to the Senate than as a real representation of the people . . . . The=20 Antifederalists thus came to oppose the new national government for = the same=20 reason the Federalists favored it: because its very structure and = detachment=20 from the people would work to exclude any kind of actual and local = interest=20 representation and prevent those who were not rich, well-born, or = prominent=20 from exercising political power. Both sides fully appreciated the = central=20 issue the Constitution posed and grappled with it throughout the = debates:=20 whether a professedly popular government should actually be in the = hands of,=20 rather than simply derived from, common ordinary people.=20
=20
Out of the division in 1787-88 over this issue, an issue which was = as=20 conspicuously social as any in American history, the Antifederalists = emerged=20 as the spokesmen for the growing American antagonism to aristocracy = and as the=20 defenders of the most intimate participation in politics of the widest = variety=20 of people possible. It was not from lack of vision that the = Antifederalists=20 feared the new government. Although their viewpoint was intensely = localist, it=20 was grounded in as perceptive an understanding of the social basis of = American=20 politics as that of the Federalists. Most of the Antifederalists were=20 majoritarians with respect to the state legislatures but not with = respect to=20 the national legislature, because they presumed as well as the = Federalists did=20 that different sorts of people from those who sat in the state = assemblies=20 would occupy the Congress. Whatever else may be said about the=20 Antifederalists, their populism cannot be impugned. They were true = champions=20 of the most extreme kind of democratic and egalitarian politics = expressed in=20 the Revolutionary era. Convinced that "it has been the principal care = of free=20 governments to guard against the encroachments of the great:' the=20 Antifederalists believed that popular government itself, as defined by = the=20 principles of 1776, was endangered by the new national government. If = the=20 Revolution had been a transfer of power from the few to the many, then = the=20 federal Constitution clearly represented an abnegation of the = Revolution. For,=20 as Richard Henry Lee wrote in his Letters from the Federal Farmer, = "every man=20 of reflection must see, that the change now proposed, is a transfer of = power=20 from the many to the few." . . .=20
=20
To the Federalists the greatest dangers to republicanism were = flowing not,=20 as the old Whigs had thought, from the rulers or from any distinctive = minority=20 in the community, but from the widespread participation of the people = in the=20 government. It now seemed increasingly evident that if the public good = not=20 only of the United States as a whole but even of the separate states = were to=20 be truly perceived and promoted, the American people must abandon = their=20 Revolutionary reliance on their representative state legislatures and = place=20 their confidence in the highmindedness of the natural leaders of the = society,=20 which ideally everyone had the opportunity of becoming. Since the = Federalists=20 presumed that only such a self-conscious elite could transcend the = many narrow=20 and contradictory interests inevitable in any society, however small, = the=20 measure of a good government became its capacity for insuring the = predominance=20 of these kinds of natural leaders who knew better than the people as a = whole=20 what was good for the society.=20
=20
=20
The result was an amazing display of confidence in = constitutionalism, in=20 the efficacy of institutional devices for solving social and political = problems. Through the proper arrangement of new institutional = structures the=20 Federalists aimed to turn the political and social developments that = were=20 weakening the place of "the better sort of people" in government back = upon=20 themselves and to make these developments the very source of the = perpetuation=20 of the natural aristocracy's dominance of politics. Thus the = Federalists did=20 not directly reject democratic politics as it had manifested itself in = the=20 1780's; rather they attempted to adjust to this politics in order to = control=20 and mitigate its effects. In short they offered the country an elitist = theory=20 of democracy. They did not see themselves as repudiating either the = Revolution=20 or popular government, but saw themselves as saving both from their = excesses.=20 If the Constitution were not established, they told themselves and the = country=20 over and over, then republicanism was doomed, the grand experiment was = over,=20 and a division of the confederacy, monarchy, or worse would result. . = . .=20
=20