blasphemies, still smoking with sufferings and crimes.”nAmes was not alone in his fears. Burke in Englandnreacted the same way. The French’ Revolution probablyncreated more misanthropes than any other event in history.nIn other bloodbaths the evildoers have been exotic foreignnmarauders or nations within nations — Huns, Bolsheviks,nNazis, Khmer Rouge—but in the France of the Terror theynwere the People, humanity’s uppercase whole.nThe French Revolution frightened Jefferson and hisndemocratic republicans too, but for a very differentnreason. The conservative Federalists, fearing the people,nwanted a strong central government with a powerful executivenbranch. But the liberal Jeffersonians, fearing kings,nwanted separation of powers, with checks and balances toncontrol the executive, whom they saw as a potential LouisnXVI ever ready to abridge the people’s rights. To Ames, thisnamounted to a deliberate weakening of executive authorityninflicted on the Constitution by those who imagined allngovernment to be a Bourbon king.nAmes deplored “persons clad in English broadcloth andnIrish linen who import their conveniences from Englandnand their politics from France.” He meant Thomas Jefferson,nwhom he loathed, considering him a dupe of thenFrench Enlightenment’s naive, optimistic faith in the essentialngoodness of human nature. Whenever anyone quotednJefferson’s “all men are created equal,” Ames shot back:n”but differ greatly in the sequel.”nThe “Jeffs,” as Ames called the democratic republicans,nmoved him to savage eloquence: “The crimes they cannexcuse, and even persuade themselves to call virtues, theyndo not blush to commit. They foresee little and dread littlenof what they foresee. They learn to throw their eyes beyondnthe gulf of revolution, confusion, and civil war, which yawnsnat their feet, to behold an Eden of primitive innocence,nequality, and liberty. . . . The rights of man are to benestablished by being solemnly proclaimed, and printed, sonthat every citizen shall have a copy. Avarice, ambition,nrevenge, and rage will be disenchanted from all hearts andndie there; man will be regenerated . . . and the gloriousnwork of that perfectibility of the species, foretold by Condorcet,nwill begin.”nTo the republican claim that anarchy could be avoided byngiving the people so much freedom that they would havennothing to rebel against, Ames countered, “a stomachnspoiled by sweets will loathe its medicines.” Human naturenbeing what it is, he said, people will always find something tonrebel against; if nothing else, envy will make them craven”the power to make others wretched.”nHe predicted the rise of what he called “factions” and wencall pressure groups: “A combination of a very smallnminority can effectually defeat the authority of the nationalnwill. . . . Suppose at first their numbers to be exceedinglynfew, their efforts will for that reason be so much the greater.nThey will call themselves the People; they will in their namenarraign every act of government as wicked and weak; theynwill oblige the rulers to stand forever on the defensive. . . .nWith a venal press at command, concealing their numbernand their infamy, is it to be doubted that the ignorant willnsoon or late unite with the vicious?”nBut, the democratic republicans argued, the majorityn24/CHRONICLESnnnrules! No, said Ames, they don’t. The price of liberty isneternal vigilance, and most people are unwilling to pay it:n”The virtuous, who do not wish to control the society, butnquietly to enjoy its protection; the enterprising merchant,nthe thriving tradesman, the careful farmer, will be engrossednby the toils of their business, and will have little time orninclination for the unprofitable and disquieting pursuit ofnpolitics.”nThe only eternally vigilant citizens in a democracy, Amesnwarned, will be members of factions whose ceaselessndemands will cause “a state of agitation that is justly terriblento all who love their ease. … It tries and wears out thenstrengths of the. government and the temper of the people. Itnis a game which the factious will never be weary of playing,nfor conquering parties never content themselves with halfnthe fruits of victory.”nAmes opposed the addition of the Bill of Rights to thenConstitution, believing that the Magna Charta guaranteedneverything that needed to be guaranteed. A member ofnCongress when the Bill of Rights was introduced, he wrotenscathingly in a letter to Thomas Dwight:nMr.- Madison has introduced his long expectednamendments. They are the fruit of much labor andnresearch. He has hunted up all the grievances andncomplaints of newspapers, all the articles ofnconventions, and the small talk of their debates. Itncontains a bill of rights, the right of enjoyingnproperty, of changing the government at pleasure,nfreedom of the press, of conscience, of juries,nexemption from general warrants, gradual increasenof representatives. . . . This is the substance. Therenis too much of it. Oh! I had forgot, the right of thenpeople to bear arms. Risum teneatis amici? [Cannwe restrain our laughter?] Upon the whole, it mayndo some good towards quieting men, who attend tonsounds only, and may get the mover somenpopularity, which he wishes.nAmes wrote the final version of the First Amendment notnbecause he approved of it, but simply to bring literary ordernto the unwieldy bundle of rights that Madison amassed.nAs time went on and his health failed, Ames’s bitternessnincreased. When Jefferson was elected President he said:n”We are in the hands of the philosophers of Lilliput.” As fornthe Louisiana Purchase, it was “a Callo-Hispano-IndiannOmnium Gatherum” destined to produce even morenfactions and lead us down that fatal Roman road from anrepublic ruled by laws to an empire ruled by power.nHe continued to pound away at democracy. “What othernform of civil rule so irresistibly tends to free vice fromnrestraint and to subject virtue to persecution?” “There isnuniversally a presumption in democracy that promisesneverything, and at the same time an imbecility that cannaccomplish nothing, not even preserve itself.” “We arensliding down into the mire of a democracy, which pollutesnthe morals of the citizens before it swallows up theirnliberties.”nFive years before his death he wrote Thomas Dwight:n”Our country is too big for union, too sordid for patriotism,ntoo democratic for liberty.” He was glad to be out of politics:n”Nor will I any longer be at the trouble to govern thisn