Page:The Iowa journal of history and politics, v. II.pdf/41

Rh decided advantage. The Anti-Federalists were left in most States without a well-defined issue. It was a period of transition in our party history. Now that the Constitution was assured there was a growing disposition, though by no means a unanimous one, to give it a fair trial. The Federalist leaders were, consequently, quite generally able to manipulate the elections, finding most trouble in New York and Virginia. Neither the electoral vote of Washington nor of Adams furnishes a measure of the relative strength of the two parties. Washington's candidacy was not partisan, but national, and Adams' vote was cut down through fear that it would exceed that of the head of the ticket, and by the pressure of local sentiment in behalf of "favorite sons." A better test is the complexion of the first House of Representatives, which contained ten Anti-Federalists, distributed among the States as follows: Massachusetts, one; New York, two; Virginia, three; North Carolina, two; and South Carolina, two. It is barely possible that fuller information may add to this number, but not more than four at the most. The number of Federalists reduces to about fifty-five. There were but two avowed Anti-Federalists in the Senate.

The members of the first Congress were generally moderate men. Candidates of the type of Hamilton or Henry did not run well. Already, availability, inoffensive partisanship, and a fairly neutral record were elements of successful candidacy. The absence of the well known leaders of both parties is quite conspicuous. A few may have declined the honor. Charles Pinckney says he might have been senator from South Carolina, but did not desire the position. The absence of such men as the Pinckneys, Ham-