With all their differences, however, the Federalists and their opponents had certain common opinions and interests, and it was these common opinions and interests which prevented the split from becoming irremediable.  The men of both parties were individualist in spirit, and they were chiefly interested in the great American task of improving their own condition in this world.  They both wanted a government which would secure them freedom of action for this purpose.  The difference between them was really less a difference of purpose than of the means whereby a purpose should be accomplished.  The Federalists, representing as they did chiefly the people of wealth and education, demanded a government adequate to protect existing propertied rights; but they were not seeking any exceptional privileges—­except those traditionally associated with the ownership of private property.  The anti-Federalists, on the other hand, having less to protect and more to acquire, insisted rather upon being let alone than in being protected.  They expressed themselves sometimes in such an extremely insubordinate manner as almost to threaten social disorder, but were very far from being fundamentally anti-social in interest or opinion.  They were all by way of being property-owners, and they all expected to benefit by freedom from interference in the acquisition of wealth.  It was this community of interest and point of view which prepared the way, not only for the adoption of the Constitution, but for the loyalty it subsequently inspired in the average American.

It remains none the less true, however, that the division of interest and the controversy thereby provoked was sharp and brought about certain very unfortunate consequences.  Inasmuch as the anti-Federalists were unruly democrats and were suspicious of any efficient political authority, the Federalists came, justly or unjustly, to identify both anti-Federalism and democracy with political disorder and social instability.  They came, that is, to have much the same opinion of radical democracy as an English peer might have had at the time of the French Revolution; and this prejudice, which was unjust but not unnatural, was very influential in determining the character of the Federal Constitution.  That instrument was framed, not as the expression of a democratic creed, but partly as a legal fortress against the possible errors and failings of democracy.  The federalist point of view resembled that of the later constitutional liberals in France.  The political ideal and benefit which they prized most highly was that of liberty, and the Constitution was framed chiefly for the purpose of securing liberty from any possible dangers.  Popular liberty must be protected against possible administrative or executive tyranny by free representative institutions.  Individual liberty must be protected against the action of an unjust majority by the strongest possible legal guarantees.  And above all the general liberties