believed in the acquisition of territory in the West, and the Federalists did not.  The Jeffersonians believed that the Westerners should be allowed to govern themselves precisely as other citizens of the United States did, and should be given their full share in the management of national affairs.  Too many Federalists failed to see that these positions were the only proper ones to take.  In consequence, notwithstanding all their manifold shortcomings, the Jeffersonians, and not the Federalists, were those to whom the West owed most.

    Right of the Westerners to Self-Government.

Whether the Westerners governed themselves as wisely as they should have mattered little.  The essential point was that they had to be given the right of self-government.  They could not be kept in pupilage.  Like other Americans, they had to be left to strike out for themselves and to sink or swim according to the measure of their own capacities.  When this was done it was certain that they would commit many blunders, and that some of these blunders would work harm not only to themselves but to the whole nation.  Nevertheless, all this had to be accepted as part of the penalty paid for free government.  It was wise to accept it in the first place, and in the second place, whether wise or not, it was inevitable.  Many of the Federalists saw this; and to many of them, the Adamses, for instance, and Jay and Pinckney, the West owed more than it did to most of the Republican statesmen; but as a whole, the attitude of the Federalists, especially in the Northeast, toward the West was ungenerous and improper, while the Jeffersonians, with all their unwisdom and demagogy, were nevertheless the Western champions.

    Vagaries of Western Constitution-Making.

Mississippi and Ohio had squabbled with their Territorial governors much as the Old Thirteen Colonies had squabbled with the governors appointed by the Crown.  One curious western consequence of this was common to both cases.  When the old Colonies became States, they in their constitutions usually imposed the same checks upon the executive they themselves elected as they had desired to see imposed upon the executive appointed by an outside power.  The new Territories followed the same course.  When Ohio became a State it adopted a very foolish constitution.  This constitution deprived the executive of almost all power, and provided a feeble, short-term judiciary, throwing the control of affairs into the hands of the legislative body, in accordance with what were then deemed Democratic ideas.  The people were entirely unable to realize that, so far as their discontent with the Governor’s actions was reasonable, it arose from the fact that he was appointed, not by themselves, but by some body or person not in sympathy with them.  They failed to grasp the seemingly self-evident truth that a governor, one man elected by the people, is just as much their representative and is just as certain to carry out