1606 |SVO9800

AIM

aS
——

te.

WANE
(PN a

Tye)

dye PN

Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2007 with funding trom
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/essayshistorical01 fiskuoft

k ")
iv
a)

eee

ne. 4

CML

$20

aL Are

OE Uply

A RS yi
thre

i Dds FA I fry ey
WPT Lv Ag
4 .

TPA.

Tye

wr
My

Nk

Se ih
yy

.

pean ee

Essays

Historical and Literary

BY

JOHN FISKE

VOLUME I

SCENES AND CHARACTERS IN AMERICAN
HISTORY

“ Study as if for Life Eternal, live prepared to die to-morrow.”

— MONKISH PROVERB,

~ New Bork
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

"LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Lrp.
1902

All rights reserved

E
176
FSu
V, |

CopyRIGHT, 1902,

By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and electrotyped September, rgo2.

(* BRA bh
(| NOV26 1965)

Ly v
, wy
<RSITY oF TOROS

1025441

Norwood JBress
J. 8. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.

VIII.

IX.

INDEX

CONTENTS

Tuomas HutTcHInson, Last RovaL GOVERNOR OF

MASSACHUSETTS ‘ . : : ‘ ; ;
CHARLES LEE, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE ? P :
ALEXANDER HAMILTON AND THE FEDERALIST Party .
THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER .
JAMES MADISON, THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN
ANDREW JACKSON, FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER

ANDREW JACKSON AND AMERICAN Democracy SEv-
ENTY YEARS AGO . : ‘ ‘ ; ‘ ‘

HARRISON, TYLER, AND THE WHIG COALITION (‘“ T1P-
PECANOE AND TYLER TOO’) .°. ;

DANIEL WEBSTER AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION

PAGE

- 315

. 363

INTRODUCTION

THE material in this volume was intended, by the
Author, to be embodied in a greater work, A History
of the American People. Many of these chapters
were given by him as lectures in every part of our
broad country, always enlarging and strengthening
the bond of friendship with his people— who freely
gave him such personal opinions, letters, and private
documents as aided him in perfecting his historical
work. Some of these letters, of especial significance,
I have here included as notes.

Through the courtesy of D. Appleton & Company, I
am enabled to reproduce in the essays — Charles Lee,
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson,
and Daniel Webster — biographical passages written
by the Author for the Encyclopzdia of American
Biography.

ABBY MORGAN FISKE.

WESTGATE,
September 26, rgo2.

vii

I

-THOMAS HUTCHINSON ©
ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

is c

I

THOMAS HUTCHINSON

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

One of the most encouraging features of the age in
which we live is the rapidity with which the bitter
feelings attendant upon a terrible civil war have faded
away and given place to mutual friendliness and
esteem between gallant men who, less than thirty years
ago, withstood one another in deadly strife. Among
our public men who hunger for the highest offices, a
few Rip van Winkles are still to be found who, with-
out sense enough to realize the folly and wickedness of
their behaviour, try now and then to fan into fresh life
the dying embers of sectional prejudice and distrust;
but their speech has lost its charm, and those that bow
the ear to it are few. The time is at hand when we
may study the great Civil War of the nineteenth cen-
tury as dispassionately as we study that of the seven-
teenth; and the warmest admirer of Cromwell and
Lincoln may: rejoice in belonging to a race of men
that has produced such noble Christian heroes as
Lucius, Viscount Falkland, and General Robert Lee.
Such a time seems certainly not far off when we see
how pleasantly the generals of opposing armies can
now sit down and tell their reminiscences, and discuss
each other’s opinions and conduct in the pages of a
popular magazine.

4 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

Had the Civil War resulted in dividing the United
States into two distinct nations, such an era of recon-
ciliation would, of course, have been long delayed.
With most people the sentiment of patriotism, which
now extends, however inadequately, over the whole
country, would then have become restricted to half of
it. It would have been long before an independent
Confederacy could have recognized the personal merit
of men who strove with might and main to prevent
its independence; and it would have been long before
the defeated and curtailed United States could have
been expected to admire the character or do justice to
the motives of those who had shorn it of power and
prestige. When one group of people owes its national
existence to the military humiliation of another, the
situation is very unfavourable for correct historical
judgments, and it is apt to fare ill with the reputation
of men who have been upon the unpopular side. Such,
for the past hundred years, have been the relations
between the United States and Great Britain, and
accordingly many of the illustrious men of the Revo-
lutionary period are still sadly misunderstood, in the
one country if not in the other. The two foremost
men of the time, the two that tower above all others
in that century, Washington and Chatham, are indeed
accepted as heroes in both countries; their fame is the
common possession of the English race. The admi-
ration which our British cousins feel for Washington
is perhaps even more disinterested than that which
we Americans feel for our eloquent defender, Chat-
ham ; but in either case the homage is paid to tran-
scendent greatness. In the portraits of too many of
the actors upon our Revolutionary scene, the brush of

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS = 5

partisan prejudice has obscured or distorted the true
features. To this day British writers are apt to speak
of Patrick Henry as a ranting fire-eater, and Samuel
Adams as a tricksome demagogue; while upon the
pages of American historians may be found remarks
that, as applied to such high-minded gentlemen as
Burgoyne or Cornwallis, are simply silly.

But of all the men of that day none have fared so
ill as the American loyalists. They were not only out
of sympathy with the declared policy of their country,
but they were on the losing side. As a party they
were crushed out of existence, as individuals they were
driven into exile by thousands; and for a long time
their voice was silenced. Liberal leaders in England, |
like Fox and Richmond, who hailed with glee the
news of each American victory, were equally out of
sympathy with the declared policy of their own coun-
try; but they were, nevertheless, a power in the land.
The unanswerable logic of events was on their side;
it was they that could say, “We told you so”; they
represented principles that triumphed at Yorktown and
were soon to triumph in England. The American
loyalists, on the other hand, represented principles
that have been irredeemably and forever discredited.
They set themselves in opposition to the strongest
and most wholesome instinct of the English race, the
inborn love of self-government ; and they have incurred
the fate which is reserved for men who diverge too
widely from the progressive movement of the age in
which they live. It becomes difficult for the next age
to understand them, or to attribute their behaviour to
anything but sheer perverseness. Yet among these
American loyalists were men of noblest character and

6 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

purest patriotism: and we need only to divest our-
selves for the moment of the knowledge of subsequent
events which in their day none could foresee; we
need only to put ourselves back, in imagination, into
the circumstances amid which their opinions were
formed and their actions determined, in order to do
justice to the deep humanity that was in them. We
may dissent from their opinions, and disapprove their
actions as heartily as ever; but it is our duty, as stu-
dents of history, to take our stand upon that firm
ground where, freed from the fleeting passions of a
day, true manliness may be taken for its worth.

Among the American loyalists of the Revolutionary
period there is perhaps none who has had such hard
measure as Thomas Hutchinson. It may be doubted
if any other American in high position, except Benedict
Arnold, has ever incurred so much obloquy. But to
couple these two names, even for a moment, is gross
injustice to the last royal governor of Massachusetts.
Alike for intellectual eminence and for spotless purity
of character, there have been few Americans more
thoroughly entitled to our respect than Thomas
Hutchinson. It is sad indeed, though perfectly natu-
ral, that such a man should have had to wait a hundred
years before his countrymen could come to consider
his career dispassionately, and see him in the light in
which he would himself have been willing to be seen.
Let us take a brief survey of the personal history of
this man; and as he belonged to a family distinguished
in both the Old World and the New, let us begin with a
glance at his ancestry. |

In the English literature of the seventeenth century
there are few books more charming than the memoirs |

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 7

of Colonel John Hutchinson of Owthorpe, written by
his widow Lucy. Nowhere do we get a pleasanter
picture of domestic life in the time of Charles I., or of
the personality of a great Puritan soldier, than in those
strong pages, glowing with sweet wifely devotion.
This John Hutchinson, valiant defender of Notting-
ham and regicide judge, was eleventh in descent from
Bernard Hutchinson, of Cowland, in Yorkshire, a
doughty knight of the time of Edward I. From the
same Bernard, apparently through Richard of Wyck-
ham, in the sixth generation, in a chain of which one
link still awaits complete verification, came Edward
Hutchinson, of Alford, in Lincolnshire, who flourished
in the reign of Elizabeth, but lived long enough to see
hundreds of his friends and neighbours forsake their
homes and set forth under Winthrop’s leadership to
found a colony in Massachusetts Bay. From one of
Edward’s younger sons are descended the Irish earls
of Donoughmore, including the able general who, for
overthrowing the remnant of Napoleon’s army in
Egypt in 1801, was first raised to the peerage as Lord
Hutchinson.’ Edward’s eldest son, William, born two
years before the defeat of the Spanish Armada, was
married in 1612 to Anne Marbury, daughter of a
Lincolnshire clergyman, a scion of the distinguished
family of Sir Walter Blunt. Anne’s mother was sister
to Sir Erasmus Dryden, grandfather of the great poet.

William and his wife were warm friends and adhe-
rents of John Cotton, rector of St. Botolph’s, and after
that famous divine had taken his departure for New
England, they were not long in following him. Will-
iam’s father, the venerable Edward, had died in 1631;
and three years afterward, taking the widowed mother,

8 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

Susanna, the wife, and fourteen children, William
made his way across the Atlantic to Boston, where he
proceeded to build a comfortable house on the site
where now stands the Old Corner Bookstore. There,
however, he was not destined long to dwell. The
Antinomian heresy soon roused such fierce disputes as
to threaten the very existence of the colony, and Mrs.
Hutchinson, as the leading agitator, was tried for sedi-
tion and banished. Early in 1638 the family fled to
the Narragansett country, where at first they were fain
to seek shelter in a cave. But presently Mr. Hutchin-
son, with William Coddington and a few faithful fol-
lowers, bought the island of Aquednek from the
Indians for forty fathoms of white wampum, and
forthwith the building of the towns of Portsmouth
and Newport went on briskly. In 1642, when Mr.
Hutchinson died, the outlook for the little colony was
dubious. The New England Confederacy was about
to be formed, and there were strong hints that the
Rhode Island settlements, if they would share in its
advantages, must put themselves under the jurisdic-
tion either of Massachusetts or of Plymouth. Absurd
and horrible tales were told about Mrs. Hutchinson,
and found many believers. There were some who
suspected her of being a paramour of Satan, and per-
haps the fear of arrest on a charge of witchcraft may
have had something to do with her next move. At all
events, soon after her husband’s death, the poor woman,
with most of her children and a few friends, removed
to a place since known as Pelham, a few miles west of
Stamford and within the tolerant jurisdiction of the
New Netherlands. There in the course of the follow-
ing year they were all cruelly murdered by Indians,

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 9

save one little ten-year-old daughter, Susanna, who
was ransomed after four years of captivity.

In this wholesale massacre the eldest son, Edward,
was not included. At the time of his mother’s banish-
ment he was twenty-five years old. He had lately
returned from a visit to England, bringing with him a
fair young bride who was admitted to communion
with the First Church in Boston in December, 1638.
While Edward’s loyalty to his mother got him so far
into trouble that he was heavily fined and sentence of
banishment was passed upon him, we may imagine
that his wife’s orthodoxy may have helped him some-
what in making his peace with the magistrates of the
Puritan commonwealth. Atany rate he spent the rest
of his life in Boston, where for seventeen years he was
a deputy in the General Court. He was also the chief
commander of horse in the colony, and in the summer
of 1675, after the disastrous beginning of King Philip's
War, he was sent to Brookfield to negotiate with the
Nipmuck Indians. The treacherous savages appointed
the time and place for a rendezvous, but lay in ambush
for Captain Hutchinson as he approached, and slew
him, with several of his company.

Of Edward’s twelve children, the eldest son, Elisha,
came to be judge of common pleas and member of
the council of assistants, and in 1688 was joined with
Increase Mather, in London, in protesting against the
high-handed conduct of Sir Edmund Andros. One
of the earliest recollections of the royal governor was
the great pomp of his grandfather Elisha’s funeral on a
bleak December day of 1717, when the militia com-
panies and the chief dignitaries of the province marched
in stately procession to the place of burial. As Elisha

IO THOMAS HUTCHINSON

left twelve children, the Hutchinson family in New
England was getting to be a large one; and we find
many of them in places of distinction and trust.
Elisha’s eldest son, Thomas, became a wealthy mer-
chant and ship-owner. For twenty-six years he was a
member of the council of assistants, and was noted for
his resolute integrity and the fearlessness with which
he spoke his mind without regard to the effect upon
his popularity. He was also noted for a public-spirited
generosity so lavish as to have made serious inroads
upon his princely fortune. He has been called‘ “one
of Boston’s greatest benefactors.” At his death, in
1739, though still a very rich man, he lamented his
inability to provide for his children on a scale com-
mensurate with his wishes. One can readily believe
that such families as these men had must have heavily
taxed their resources. This Thomas Hutchinson’s
children were twelve in number, which seems to have
been the normal rate of multiplication in that family.
His wife, Sarah Foster, a lady of sterling character
and sense, was daughter of Colonel John Foster, who
took an active part in the insurrection which overthrew
the government of Andros. Their fourth child and
eldest surviving son, Thomas, most illustrious and in
some respects most unhappy of this remarkable family,
was born on the 9th of September, 1711, in that stately
house in the old north end of Boston to which our
attention will by and by again be directed. At five
years of age the little Thomas began to con his multi-
plication table and spelling-book in the North gram-
mar school on Bennet Street, which his father had
lately founded, and over the lintel of which were en-

1E. G. Porter, “ Rambles in Old Boston,” p. 205.

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS II

graved the arms of the Hutchinsons of Lincolnshire.
Thus in daily going out and in at the door, as in the
vague wonder of the grandsire’s stately funeral, may
the thoughtful and impressible child, in somewhat the
mood of a generous little prince, have come to feel
himself identified with the civic life of Boston. Of
adulation for such boys there is usually enough and to
spare; but Thomas Hutchinson was not of the sort
that is easily spoiled. In the writings of his later
years, amid all the storm and stress of a troubled life,
nothing is more conspicuous than the absence of per-
sonal vanity and the sweetness of temper with which
events are judged aside from their bearings upon
himself.

In the simple school life of those days there were
not so many subjects to be half learned as now, and
boys became freshmen at a very tender age. Hutch-
inson was barely sixteen when he received his bach-
elor’s degree at Harvard, and in after years he frankly
confessed that he could not clearly see what he had
done to earn it. At first the ledger interested. him
more than the lexicon. He carried on a little foreign
trade by sending ventures in his father’s ships, and
thus earned enough money to have defrayed the whole
cost of his education, while at the same time he became
an expert in bookkeeping. In those days Harvard
students were graded according to social position.
Early in the freshman year a list of names was hung
in the college buttery, and those at the top were al-
lowed the best rooms and other privileges. Usually
this list remained without change, and it is in this
order that the names appear on the triennial catalogue
until 1773, when the democratic alphabet took its

I2 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

place. In the class of 1727, which numbered thirty-
seven students, the only names above Hutchinson’s
were those of the two Brownes, one of whom was after-
ward son-in-law of Governor Burnet and father of one
of the “mandamus councillors” of 1774. Another
distinguished member of the class was Jonathan
Trumbull, the great “war governor” of Connecticut
and valued friend of Washington, and according to
one tradition, the original “ Brother Jonathan.”

It was after Hutchinson had left college, and become
an apprentice in his father’s counting-room, that the
scholarly impulse seized and mastered him. He fell
in love with the beauties of Latin, and diligently used
his leisure evenings until he had become fairly accom-
plished in that language; to this he soon added a
practical knowledge of French. Of history he was
always fond. As a child he would rather curl down
in the chimney corner and pore over Church’s “ Indian
War” and Morton's “ New England Memorial” than
coast and snowball with boys in the street; and his
Puritan education did not prevent him from shedding
tears over the sufferings and death of King Charles.
The seventy-fours and frigates that now and then
sailed into Boston harbour, stately and beautiful, and
symbolic of England’s empire, had a special charm for
him. In their snug cabins he found agreeable com-
panions, among them Lieutenant Hawke, afterward to
be known as one of the greatest of British sea kings.
Still pleasanter society was found in the household
of a widow lady, with three beautiful daughters, who
had lately moved to Boston from Rhode Island. To
Margaret Sanford, the second daughter, aged seven-
teen, Hutchinson was married in 1734. In the course

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 13

of the following year he became a member of the Con-
gregational church on Hanover Street, known at that
time as the New Brick Church. Throughout his life
he was strictly religious, according to the Puritanism
of the eighteenth century, which in Massachusetts had
already come to be much more genial and liberal than
that of the seventeenth.

Hutchinson’s public life began soon after his mar-
riage. In his diary he tells how much pleasure he felt
when, in his twenty-sixth year, he was chosen a select-
man for the town of Boston, and a few weeks later a
representative in the General Court. “‘ But his public
career was stormy from the outset. The people were
then greatly agitated over the question of paper money.
As long ago as 1690, upon the return of Sir William
Phips from his disastrous expedition against Quebec,
Massachusetts had issued promissory notes, called
bills of credit, in denominations from 2s. to £10;
they were receivable for sums due to the public treas-
ury. The inevitable results followed. The promissory
notes issued by a government which had no cash for
paying its debts, and because it had no cash, of course
fell in value. Coin was therefore driven from circu-
lation, and there was a great inflation of prices, with
frequent and disastrous fluctuations. The disturbance
of trade became serious, and then, as always, trick-
some demagogues played upon the popular ignorance,
which sought a cure for the disease in fresh issues of
paper. Pretty much the same nonsense was talked in
1737 as afterward in 1786, and yet again in 1873.
The trouble extended over New England, and it is
curious to observe, between three of the states, the
same differences of attitude as in the great crisis of

14 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

1786. In Connecticut the advocates of paper money
made but little headway. In 1709 and 1713 bills of
credit were issued, but in such small amount and with
such judicious and stringent measures for redemption
that the depreciation was but slight, and specie pay-
ments were resumed with little difficulty. In Rhode
Island, on the other hand, rag money won an easy
victory, and the resulting demoralization lasted through
the century, until after the adoption of the Federal
Constitution. In Massachusetts parties were more
evenly divided, but whereas in 1786 the advocates of
paper were in the minority, in 1737 they had a decided
majority. They were the popular party, and especially
so after their policy had led to complaints from British
merchants trading with Massachusetts, until the royal
governor, Jonathan Belcher, was ordered by the Lords
of Trade to veto any further issue of bills of credit.
A quarrel ensued between Belcher and his legislature,
and as the governor proved inexorable, wildcat bank-
ing schemes were devised to meet the emergency.
The agitation was coming to a crisis when Hutchin-
son took his seat in the House. Upon all financial
questions he had a remarkably clear head, and there
was nothing of the demagogue about him. He would
not palter with a question of public policy, or seek to
hide his opinions in order to curry favour with the
people. He was a man to whom strong convictions
and dauntless courage had come by inheritance, and
as his great-grandfather Edward had stoutly opposed
the persecution of the Quakers, so now the great-
grandson opposed the paper money delusion with
untiring zeal. His conduct was the more noteworthy
in that representatives were at that time in Massachu-

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 15

setts regarded as mere deputies, in duty bound to give
voice to the wishes or whims of the voters that sent
them to the legislature. The liberty accorded to them
of using their own judgment was narrow indeed. In
spite of his independence, Hutchinson was reélected
in 1738; but soon afterward in town meeting a set of
instructions were reported, enjoining it upon the rep-
resentatives of Boston to vote for the further emission
of paper. This measure was intended to curb the
refractory young man, but it only called him at once
to his feet with a powerful speech, in which he de-
nounced the instructions as foolish and wicked, and
ended by flatly refusing to obey them. Indignant
murmurs ran about the room, and one wrathful voice ©
shouted, “ Choose another representative, Mr. Mod-
erator!” But this was too silly; it was not for the
presiding officer of a town meeting to seat or unseat
representatives. There was no help for it until next
year, when Hutchinson, who had been as good as his
word, was defeated at the polls. About this time a
typhoid fever struck him down, and for several weeks
he was at death’s door. He had three very eminent
physicians, either of whom might have sat for the
portrait of Dr. Sangrado, but by dint of an ample
inheritance of vitality he withstood both drugs and
disease; and presently, taking counsel of a sensible
friend, threw physic to the dogs, and recovered strength
by means of a judicious diet and horseback rides in
the country. One of the doctors lost his temper and
stormed about empirics and quacks; the others showed
more candour. When Hutchinson found himself able
again to attend to business, the general confidence in
his uprightness and ability prevailed over the dislike

16 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

of his policy, and he was again chosen representa-
tive. |

In this year, 1740, there was an outburst of excitement
in Boston not unlike those that ushered in the Revo-
lutionary War. Of the wildcat banking schemes, two °
were especially prominent. The one known as the
“Specie Bank” undertook to issue £110,000 in promis-
sory notes, to be redeemed at the end of fifteen years
in silver at 20 s. per ounce; but it was not altogether
clear from what quarter this desirable silver was to
come. There is something pathetic about these per-
sistently recurring popular fancies, based on a still
surviving faith in that old Norse deity to which our
heathen forefathers did reverence as the god Wish/
The rival scheme, known as the “ Land Bank,” under-
took to issue £150,000 in promissory notes, redeemable
at the end of twenty years in manufactures or produce.
There were about eight hundred stock-holders, or part-
ners. Each partner mortgaged his house or farm to
the company, and in return for this security borrowed
the company’s notes at three per cent interest. He
was to pay each year not only the interest, but
one-twentieth part of the principal; and payment
might be made either in the same notes or else in
merchandise at rates assigned by the directors of the
company.’ The exploit of “basing” a currency on
nothing and “floating” it in the air was never more
boldly attempted. As a means of transacting business
in a commercial society, a note payable in another
note, or in whatever commodity might after twenty
years happen to be cheapest, must have been a device
of scarcely less efficiency than the far-famed philoso-
pher’s stone. A man who sold one hundred bushels —

1 Palfrey, IV. 550; Sumner, “American Currency,” 29.

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 17

of wheat for such a note would have such a precise
knowledge of how much it was going to be worth to
him! But in financial matters, where the wish is so
apt to father the thought, there seems to be no delu-
sion too gross to find supporters. By 1740 the Land
Bank and the Specie Bank had both been put into
operation, in spite of Governor Belcher, who dissolved
the assembly, cashiered colonels, disbenched justices,
and turned out office-holders to right and left, for the
offence of receiving and passing the notes; and pres-
ently a flagrant political issue was raised. Finding
that paper professing to represent at least 450,000
had been issued by the Land Bank, the governor
appealed to Parliament for help, and in this he was
upheld by some of the best men in Massachusetts.
This was in Walpole’s time, and his Parliaments
handled American affairs more delicately than those
of George III.; it happened that a new statute ex-
pressly for this occasion was not needed. Twenty
years before, upon the collapse of the famous South
Sea Bubble, an act had been passed forbidding the
incorporation of joint stock companies with more than
six partnérs. Parliament now simply declared that
this act was always of force in the colonies as well as
in Great Britain. The two Massachusetts companies
were thus abruptly compelled to wind up their affairs
and redeem their scrip; and as the partners were held
individually liable, they incurred heavy losses, and
would have been quickly ruined if the claims against
them had been rigorously pressed. One of the directors
of the Land Bank, and perhaps the wealthiest of its
partners, was the elder Samuel Adams, deacon of the
Old South Church, and one of the justices of the

Cc

18 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

peace whom Belcher had displaced. A considerable
part of his fortune melted away in a moment, so that
his famous son, who was that summer in the graduat-
ing class at Harvard, may be said in a certain sense
to have inherited his quarrel with the British gov-
ernment. It is interesting, in this connection, to re-
member how, three years later, as a candidate for the —
master’s degree, young Samuel Adams chose as the
subject of his Latin thesis the question, “ Whether it
be lawful to resist the supreme magistrate if the com-
monwealth cannot otherwise be preserved?” and this
bold question he answered in the affirmative, while the
new royal governor, Shirley, as guest of the college on
Commencement Day, sat on the platform and heard
him. The question as to the authority of Parliament
over the colonies, which had for a moment attracted
attention as long ago as 1644, was now more warmly
agitated. The friends of the Land Bank loudly de-
nounced the declaratory act of 1740 as a violation of
the chartered rights of Massachusetts, and the bitter
feelings engendered by this affair must unquestionably
be set down among the causes of the American Revo-
lution. Hutchinson’s conduct at this time was emi-
nently wise and patriotic. On theory he was then, as
always, a firm believer in the ultimate supremacy of
Parliament over every part of the British empire. He
understood better than most Americans of his day
that the supremacy of the crown was figurative rather
than real. He believed that if sovereignty over the
whole did not reside somewhere, the unity of the
empire was virtually at an end; and where else could
such sovereignty reside if not in Parliament? At the
same time he shared with many other able and thought-

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS I9

ful men in the fear that, if the protecting hand of Great
Britain were once removed, the colonies would either
fall a prey to France or Spain, or else would tear
themselves to pieces with internecine wars; and who
is there that can read the solemn story of the impend-
ing anarchy from which Washington and Madison
and Hamilton saved the people of these states in the
anxious years that followed the victory at Yorktown,
and then say that such forebodings were wholly un-
reasonable. It is easy to be wise after the event; but
in distributing the meed of praise and blame, the his-
torian must bear in mind the aspect of things in the
times which he seeks to describe, when events, now as

familiar as our daily bread, were as yet in the darkness -
of the future, undreamed of and improbable. Noth-
ing can be clearer to-day than that Hutchinson’s fun-
damental theory was wrong. He failed to take in the
situation, and paid so heavy a penalty for his failure
that we can well afford to give him due credit for the
wisdom and good feeling which in some respects he
did show to an eminent degree. Like Dickinson and
Burke, he realized that the question of the ultimate
supremacy of Parliament was a dangerous one to
insist upon. He saw distinctly the foolishness of
enlisting such a wholesome feeling as the love of
self-government in behalf of such a wretched concern
as the Massachusetts Land Bank; and he earnestly
advised Governor Belcher to bide his time, and trust
in accomplishing its downfall in some other way than
by a direct appeal to Parliament. Surely Belcher, as
an ambitious politician, undervalued the counsel of
this young man of nine and twenty, for the immedi-
ate result of his violent conduct was his own downfall;

20 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

to appease the popular indignation, the same British
government that sustained his policy transferred him
to the inferior position of governor of New Jersey, and
put William Shirley, a man of more tact, in his place,
But the legacy of distrust and discontent remained.
This was the first, but not the last, time that serious
trouble between England and America was brought
about by disregarding Thomas Hutchinson’s advice.

In the midst of this controversy Hutchinson was
intrusted by his fellow-citizens with an important
mission. The boundary line between Massachusetts
and New Hampshire had for some time been matter
of dispute, and he was sent over to England to adjust
the affair. His conduct seems to have been satisfac-
tory, but his diary gives little information as to the
details of what he saw and did in the mother country,
save that homesickness assailed him, and that in all
his life he could not “remember any joy equal to that
of meeting his wife again,” after an absence of thirteen
months. On his return he was chosen representative,
and was annually reélected until 1749. In 1746 and
the two following years he was Speaker of the House,
and in this capacity he came once more into conflict
with popular prejudice, and for a long time to come
enjoyed a well-earned triumph. By the treaty of Aix-
la-Chapelle in 1748 the stronghold of Louisburg, which
New England troops had captured in 1745, was re-
stored to France in exchange for Madras in Hin-
dustan.

In an empire extending over half the globe, it was
not always easy to reconcile imperial with local inter-
ests. The people of New England were naturally
indignant. Their capture of Louisburg was the first

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 21

event that awakened Europe to the fact that in the
western hemisphere a new military power had come
into existence. The place had, moreover, a great
strategic value in its relations to New England and
Canada, and we can well understand the wrath that
greeted the news that this. important conquest had
been bartered away for a heathen city on the other
side of the globe. To appease the popular indigna-
tion, Parliament voted that adequate compensation
should be made for the expense of the capture of
Louisburg. The sum due to Massachusetts in pursu-
ance of this vote was £138,649, which was nearly
equivalent to the total amount of paper then circulat-
ing in the colony at its current valuation of one-
eleventh of its face value. To attempt to raise such a
currency to par was hopeless. Hutchinson proposed
in the assembly that Parliament should be asked to
send over the money in Spanish dollars, which should
be used to buy up and cancel the paper at eleven for
one. Whatever paper remained after this summary
process should be called in and redeemed by direct
taxation, and any issue of paper currency in future was
to be forbidden. “This rather caused a smile,” says
the diary, “few apprehending that he was in earnest;
but upon his appearing very serious, out of deference
to him as Speaker, they appointed a committee.”
After a year of hard work, Hutchinson’s bill was
passed, amid the howls and curses of the people of
Boston. “Such was the infatuation that it was com-
mon to hear men wish the ship with the silver on
board might sink in her passage.” They wanted no
money but rag money. At the election in 1749 Hutch-
inson was defeated by a great majority, but was imme-

22 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

diately chosen a member of the council. People soon
found, to their amazement, that a good hard dollar had
much greater purchasing power than a scrap of dirty
paper worth about nine cents; and it was further
observed that, when an inferior currency was once out
of the way, coin would remain in circulation. The
revival of trade was so steady and so marked that the
tide of popular feeling turned, and Hutchinson was as
much praised as he had before been abused. His
services at this time cannot be rated too highly. To
his clear insight and determined courage it was largely
due that Massachusetts was financially able to enter
upon the Revolutionary War. In 1774 Massachusetts
was entirely out of debt, and her prosperity contrasted
strikingly with the poverty-stricken condition of Rhode
Island, which persisted in its issues of inconvertible
paper. It was then that the West India trade of
Massachusetts, a considerable part of which had hith-
erto been carried on through Newport, was almost
entirely transferred to Boston and Salem.

About this time Hutchinson was cherishing an in-
tention of giving up all mercantile business and deal-
ing but little more with practical politics. On the
summit of Milton Hill, seven miles south of Boston,
in one of the most charming spots in all that neigh-
bourhood, he had built a fine house, which still stands
there, though largely reconstructed. Sitting at its
broad windows, or walking upon the velvet lawn
under the shade of arching trees, one gets entrancing
views of the Neponset River, with its meadows far
below, and of the broad expanse of the harbour
studded with its islands and cheery with white-winged
ships. To this earthly paradise, Hutchinson, having

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 23

passed his fortieth birthday, was hoping soon to retreat
with his wife and children, there to spend the re-
mainder of his days in his favourite historical studies
and in rural pursuits. Like two eminent historians of
our own time, Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Parkman, he was
an expert at gardening and had a passion for flowers.
But it is not so easy to tear oneself away from public
life. In the spring of 1752, the death of his uncle,
Edward Hutchinson, left vacant the offices of judge of
probate and justice of common pleas for the county of
Suffolk, and the nephew accepted an appointment
to fill these places. Two years afterward he met with
an overwhelming affliction in the sudden death of his
wife, at the age of thirty-seven. For twenty years
their life had been so happy that the remembrance of
it kept him ever after from the mere thought of another
marriage. He now sought relief from sorrow in in-
creased devotion to public affairs. In that same year,
1754, he was one of the delegates to the memorable
Congress at Albany, where he was associated with
Franklin on the committee for drawing up a plan of
union for the thirteen colonies. It is pleasant for a
moment to see these two eminent men working to-
gether in a friendly spirit, little dreaming of their
future estrangement. For the conception of the
famous Albany Plan, Hutchinson gives the credit
entirely to Franklin. At that time the views of the
two were in harmony. No one had as yet thought
seriously of such a thing as separation from the British
empire. If this sagacious scheme for a federal union
of the thirteen colonies, with a parliament or grand
council of their own, a viceroy appointed by the crown,
and local self-government guaranteed to the people,

24 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

could have been once put into successful operation, the
history of the next half-century would have been very
different from. what it was. There would probably
have been no Stamp Act, no Committees of Corre-
spondence, no Boston Tea Party, perhaps no Revolu-
tion. It is idle to pursue such speculations. A
general acquaintance with history would lead one to
doubt if, under a federal union thus formed, and ham-
pered by connection with a remote imperial govern-
ment, the political career of the American people
could have been worked out with as much success as
that which we have actually witnessed. But we need
not go so far as this, inasmuch as any plan whatever
for a federal union, in 1754, was premature and im-
practicable. Men like Franklin and Hutchinson
might see the desirableness of such a thing, but
people in general did not see it. The time for con-
structive national politics on this grand scale had not
arrived; and probably nothing but hardship would
have brought it. It is only through pain that higher
and higher forms of life, whether individual or social,
are evolved.

In 1757 Shirley was succeeded in the governorship
of Massachusetts by Thomas Pownall, and the next
year Hutchinson was appointed lieutenant-governor.
Under the management of William Pitt the fortunes
of the world-wide war against France were now sud-
denly changed. “We are obliged to ask every day,”
said Horace Walpole, “what new victory there is, for
fear of losing one.” Hutchinson’s energy and popu-
larity made him of great service in calling out the mili-
tary resources of Massachusetts, and in these campaigns
the province began to awaken to a consciousness of

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 25

its strength. Pownall stayed only till 1760, when he
was replaced by Francis Bernard, who, soon after-
ward, on the death of Stephen Sewall, appointed
Hutchinson chief justice of Massachusetts, much to
the disgust of the elder James Otis, who desired the
position and expected to obtain it. In later days
Hutchinson was charged with greed of office, because
he was at once judge of probate, member of the
council, chief justice, and lieutenant-governor. Still.
later the charge of avarice has been thoughtlessly
added by writers forgetful of the facts that he was
liberal in money matters, far too rich to be attracted
by the meagre salaries of these laborious offices, and
as a scholar somewhat inclined to be miserly of his
time. The explanation is rather to be found in his
inheritance of public spirit and rare ability, combined
with the general favour won by genial manners and
unblemished purity of life. For twenty years he was
the popular idol of Massachusetts, and was wanted for
all sorts of things. —There may seem something strange
in appointing to the chief justiceship a man who had
not practised at the bar, instead of a lawyer so eminent
as Otis. But Hutchinson’s eight years’ service as
judge of a county court had shown that, along with a
_ judicial temper, he possessed an extraordinarily wide
and accurate knowledge of law; and when Bernard
appointed him chief justice he did so at the earnest
request of several leading members of the bar, headed
by Jeremiah Gridley, one of the greatest lawyers of
that age.

On a December day of 1760, soon after this appoint-
ment was made, the news came to Boston that King
George II. was dead and his youthful grandson had

26 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

ascended the throne as George III. No one could
then have dreamed what this announcement portended.
But soon there followed the news of Pitt’s resignation,
and the next three years saw the abandonment of the
whole grand policy in support of which British and
American troops had for the last time stood side by-
side, and its replacement by that domestic struggle for
supremacy between the king and the Whig families,
out of which grew some of the immediate causes of
the American Revolution. In the year 1761 there
appeared in the horizon the little cloud like untoa
man’s hand which came before the storm. This was
the famous argument on the writs of assistance en-
abling revenue officers to enter houses and search for
smuggled goods. In this case, in which Hutchinson
presided and Gridley appeared for the crown officers,
the younger James Otis made the startling and pro-
phetic speech in which he showed successfully that
the issue of such writs was contrary to the whole
spirit of the British constitution. According to the
letter of the law, however, the case was not so clear.
Such general search-warrants had been allowed by a
statute of Charles II., another statute of William III.
in general terms here granted to revenue officers in
America like powers to those they possessed in
England, and neither of these statutes had been re-
pealed. As to the legality of the writs there was
room for doubt; and Hutchinson accordingly sus-
pended judgment until the next term, in order to
obtain information from England as to the present
practice there. In accordance with advice from the
law officers of the crown, the writs were finally granted.
Here, as in other yet weightier matters which were

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 27

hereafter to come up for fierce debate, it was becoming
apparent that the real question was concerned with
something even more fundamental than the interpre-
tation of the law. The real question was whether
Americans were bound to obey laws which they had
no voice in making. An out-and-out issue upon this
point was something that Hutchinson dreaded as
anxiously as Clay and Calhoun, in their different ways,
dreaded an out-and-out issue upon the slavery question. |
He earnestly deprecated any action of Parliament
which should encroach upon American self-govern-
ment; and by the same token he frowned upon such
action on the part of his fellow-citizens as might irritate
Parliament, and provoke it into asserting its power.
Should the issue be raised, he felt that the choice was
between anarchy and submission to Parliament, and
that the very love which he bore to Massachusetts
must urge him to a course that was likely to deprive
him of the esteem of valued friends, and heap cruel
imputations upon his character and motives. Such
questions of conflicting allegiance have no pity for
men in high positions. They were fraught with
sorrow to Thomas Hutchinson as to Robert Lee, and
- many another noble and tender soul.

- It was natural, therefore, that when the Grenville
ministry began to talk about a stamp act, Hutchinson
should have done his best to dissuade them from such
a rash measure. Here, as before, if his advice had
been taken, much trouble might have been avoided.
As a high public official, however, he could not with
propriety blazon forth what he was doing, and many
people misunderstood him. He condemned the re-
sistance which was beginning to organize itself under

28 - THOMAS HUTCHINSON

the leadership of Samuel Adams, as tending inevita-
bly toward counter-resistance and strife. Such an
attitude was liable to be interpreted as indicating
tacit approval of the Stamp Act. At this juncture
an unfortunate incident served to direct upon him
the rage of the rough populace that swarmed about
the wharves and waterside taverns of the busy sea-
port. The enforcement of the Navigation Acts had
already made much trouble in Boston, and in more
than one instance warehouse doors had been barri-
caded and the officers successfully defied. Governor.
Bernard had become very unpopular through his zeal
in promoting seizures for illicit trade, which he was
supposed to have made quite profitable by his share
in the forfeitures. In the ordinary course of business
concerning these matters, depositions were made be-
fore Chief Justice Hutchinson, and attested by him.
In Bernard’s reports to the Lords of Trade, such
depositions were sometimes sent over to London as
evidence of the state of affairs, and were placed on
file at the Plantation Office. There it happened that
Briggs Hallowell, a Boston merchant, saw some of
these documents in which John Rowe and others of
his fellow-citizens were mentioned by name as smug-
glers. Reports of this reached Boston in the summer
of 1765, on the very eve of the Stamp Act riots.

The house in which Hutchinson still continued to
dwell when in town was his father’s home, where he
had been born. It stood between Garden Court and —
Hanover Street, next to the house of Sir Harry Frank-
land, in a neighbourhood from which the glory has
long since departed. At that time it was probably
the noblest dwelling-house in America, for along with

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 29

its rich furnishings and works of art it contained the
superb library which its owner had for thirty years
been collecting, and which included many precious
manuscripts illustrating our early history, —docu-
ments for a sight of which to-day the historical stu-
dent would deem their weight in diamonds a cheap
price. On the oaken desk which stood amid these
crowded shelves the ink was hardly dry upon the last
pages of the second volume of that “ History of Massa-.
chusetts ” which remains to-day one of the most admi-
rable histories ever written by an American. The
first volume, bringing the story down to the accession
of William III., was published in 1764; the second,
continuing the narrative to 1750, was now about to go
to press, when riot and confusion burst in upon the
scene. On the 14th of August the Sons of Liberty
paraded through the streets, in just and rightful ex-
pression of indignation at the Stamp Act. Nothing
violent was done, though the beams of a house just
going up, and supposed to be intended for a stamp
office, were pulled down and used for a bonfire. By
the next night more disreputable elements were at
work. A mob surrounded Hutchinson’s house, and
_ shouted to him to come out and deny, if he could,

that he had advised and abetted the Stamp Act.
But this he refused to do. It was not for him to
yield to a demand made fn such a spirit. Upon com-
pulsion, he, like Gabriel Varden, would do nothing.
An aged merchant hereupon harangued the crowd,
and assured them that they were quite in the wrong;
Mr. Hutchinson disapproved the Stamp Act, and was
in no wise responsible for it. So for that night all
passed quietly, but during the next week vague, ill-

30 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

understood rumours from London wrought their effect
upon the mob. On the night of the 26th a bonfire in
King Street gathered a crowd together. First they
broke into the cellars of the comptroller of customs,
and drank freely from the rum and brandy casks
stored there. Then a fury for punishing informers .
seized them, and they rushed to the chief justice’s
house. A few blows with broadaxes split the doors
and window-shutters, and the howling, cursing rabble
swarmed in. Their approach had been heard some
minutes before, and Hutchinson had told his children
to flee; but his eldest daughter refused to go without ~
him, and while she was expostulating with him, the
doors were broken in. Carrying her in his arms, he
fled across the garden to the house of his brother-in-
law, the Rev. Samuel Mather, leaving the mob in
full possession. Pictures were cut to pieces, mirrors
smashed, wearing apparel and silver stolen, and price-
less books and manuscripts flung into the street. The
halts made from time to time in the well-stocked wine-
bins served to keep up and enhance the fury, until
before daybreak even the partition walls had been
partly torn down, and great breaches had been hacked
in the brickwork. By sunrise the crowd had dis-
persed, and friendly hands had begun searching for
the treasures of the ruined library. The manuscript
of the second volume of the history, scattered hither
and thither, and drenched in a midnight shower, was
picked up and carefully put together by the Rev.
Andrew Eliot, so that the author found little difficulty
in restoring it, and it was published two years later.
The next morning, before Governor Bernard could
summon the council, a huge town meeting in Faneuil

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 31

Hall declared by a unanimous vote its abhorrence of
the shameful work of the night. It was the opening
day of the session of court, and the chief justice, whose
wardrobe had perished, came to the bench in his loose-
gown, and with the quiet dignity that never deserted
him pointed out to the crowded audience the wicked-
ness of the misunderstanding of which he had been
made the victim. Court adjourned till order could be
restored. Town meetings throughout Massachusetts
condemned the mob. Several ringleaders were arrested
and sent to jail, but another mob released them. The
disorder was not fully abated until the 9th of Septem-
ber, when news came from England that the Grenville
ministry had fallen. The advent of Lord Rocking-
ham as prime minister gave hope that the Stamp Act
policy would be reconsidered, and for two years quiet
was restored in America. A bill for the relief of per-
sons who had suffered from the riots was passed by
the Massachusetts assembly, and Hutchinson’s dam-
ages were repaired, so far as might be, in money. The
loss of materials for the student of American history
was something that could never-be repaired.

In the year of the Stamp Act Samuel Adams was
chosen a member of the legislature. The exclusion
of crown officers from a seat in either branch of that
body had for some time been one of his favourite ideas,
and in 1766 he so far succeeded in realizing it that
Hutchinson, with four others, failed to be elected to
the council. The last two years of Bernard’s admin-
istration, 1768 and 17609, were full of strife and_ bitter-
ness. The news of Charles Townshend’s measures
led to the famous resolutions of 1768 and the circular
letter inviting the other colonies to resistance. .Then

32 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

came the demand from the ministry that the circular
letter should be rescinded, to which the Massachusetts
assembly replied with a flat refusal, and was forthwith
turned out of doors by the governor. Then, in order
to catch Samuel Adams and carry him to England for
trial, there was the revival of a half-forgotten act of

Henry VIII., about treason committed beyond sea.
The two regiments which were landed in Boston in
the autumn of 1768 came at Bernard’s solicitation, to
aid the crown officers in preserving order. Such an
event as the sacking of Hutchinson’s house went far
toward creating an impression in England that such
assistance was necessary. The intention of the gov-
ernment in sending the troops was no doubt innocent
enough; but it would have been hard to hit upon a
more dangerous measure, or one revealing a more
hopeless ignorance of the American character. It
could not be regarded otherwise than as a threat, and
it put Great Britain into somewhat the attitude of a
man who, in the course of an argument with his friend,
suddenly draws a pistol. An intelligent and disinter-
ested government might have asked itself the question
whether it were a wise policy to keep up an odious
revenue law that in such an orderly town as Boston
made it necessary to introduce soldiers to prevent dis-
order. But not only was the government neither in-
telligent nor disinterested, but it was entirely natural
to argue that a town whose magistrates could not pre-
vent the sacking of private houses did not deserve
to be called an orderly town. As for Hutchinson
himself, he would have been more than human if such
considerations had not coloured his own view of the
case, although the serenity and sweetness of temper

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 33

with which, in his history, as also in his private diary,
he speaks of his personal hardships, are very remark-
able. The pages of these charming books show the
thoroughbred Christian gentleman. But as a states-
man he was far from reading the temper of the people
correctly. He £ew that in the violence which touched
him so nearly the sympathy of the people was not with
the rioters. He /e/¢ that all the troubles were due to
the unreasonable obstinacy of a few such men as James
Otis and Samuel Adams; and that if these men could
be defeated, the general sense of the people would be
in favour of peace and quiet. In this opinion he mis-
conceived the facts of the situation very much as they
are misconceived to-day by such well-meaning British
writers as Mr. Lecky and Mr. Goldwin Smith. With
all their fairness toward America, these writers are
still blind to the fact that the issues raised by George
III. and his ministers —in the Stamp Act of 1765, in
the Townshend acts of 1767, in the measures concern-
ing the salaries of crown officers in 1772, and finally
in the vindictive acts of 1774 after the Boston Tea
Party — were one and all of them such issues as the
Americans could not for a moment accept without
shamefully abandoning the principles of free govern-
ment for which the whole English race has been man-
fully striving since the days of Magna Charta. If
British historians, sincerely desirous of doing justice
to America, find it hard to understand these things
to-day, perhaps it was not strange that some able men
like Hutchinson did not understand them at a time
when the baleful policy and selfish aims of George ITI.
were still dimly viewed through the mists of contem-

porary prejudice and passion. Hutchinson’s own
D

34 | THOMAS HUTCHINSON

views were thus expressed in a private letter to a
friend in Dublin, early in 1772, “It is not likely
that the American colonies will remain part of . the
British dominion another century, but while they do
remain, the supreme absolute legislative power must
remain entire, to be exercised upon the colonies so
far as is necessary for the maintenance of its own
authority and the general weal of the empire, and no
farther.” This was moderately expressed ; probably at
that moment neither Dickinson nor Franklin would
have taken serious exception to it. Yet the argument
could not be pushed without involving the surrender
of the American cause. It does not appear that
Hutchinson was anxious to push it, or that he courted
the position of chief upholder of Toryism in America;
but the attitude of mind that went naturally along
with his official position could hardly fail to drive him
in this direction. In the summer of 1769 Governor
Bernard was recalled to England, to appease the people
of Massachusetts, while his own feelings were assuaged
with a baronetcy. Before his ship had weighed anchor
in the harbour, the sound of clanging bells and boom-
ing cannon told him of the fierce rejoicings over his
departure. The administration of affairs was left in
the hands of Hutchinson as lieutenant-governor, and
it was not long before the course of events was such
as to show, with vivid and startling suddenness, the
false position into which he was drifting. In the fatal
squabble between soldiers and townspeople on that
memorable moonlit evening in March, 1770, he showed
vigour and discretion, and but for his prompt arrest
of the offending soldiers the affair might have grown
into something which it would have been no misnomer

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 35

to call a “massacre.” But next morning, when he
looked out from the window of the town house, and
saw the surging crowd of people in King Street, on
their way from Faneuil Hall to the Old South Church,
and when he exclaimed that their spirit seemed to be
as high as that of their ancestors when they rose
against Andros, one cannot but wonder if his thoughts
did not go back for a moment to the winter day when
as a little child he had stood by the grave of the grand-
father who had stoutly opposed that agent of tyranny.
Did it seem quite right for the grandson, with whatso-
ever honest intent, to be standing in Andros’s place?
A few hours later, when Samuel Adams, for the second
time that day, came into the council chamber, with the |
final message from the people, and with uplifted finger
solemnly commanded Hutchinson to remove all sol-
diery from Boston, the king’s representative obeyed.
That his knees trembled and his cheeks grew pale,
as Adams afterward told, we may well believe. Not
from fear, however, but more likely from a sudden
sickening sense of the odium of his position. Not
long afterward he wrote to London, asking to be re-
lieved of all further share in the work of administration.
But before the letter was received his commission as
royal governor of Massachusetts had been drawn up.
Lord North was at this time earnest in the wish to
pursue a conciliatory policy, and Hutchinson was
appointed governor because it was supposed that the
people would prefer his administration. Indeed, except
for the unfortunate affray in King Street, the departure
of Bernard already seemed to have done much to clear
the air. After the troops had been sent out to the
Castle, there was a general sense of relief, and many

36 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

people entertained hopes that the troubles were over.
In reply to Hutchinson’s letter, the ministry told him
to take his own time to consider whether or not he
would accept the appointment; and it was during this
lull in the storm, toward the end of 1770, that he de-
cided to accept it. He might well believe that under
his own management of affairs fewer occasions for dis-
sension would arise. When the storm arose again, it
burst from a quarter where no one would have looked
for it.

For the two years following the so-called “ Boston
Massacre,” Hutchinson’s administration was compara-
tively quiet. In the summer of 1772 the excitement
again rose to fever heat, over the royal order that the
salaries of the judges should henceforth be paid by
the crown. This measure, striking directly at the
independence of the judiciary, led Samuel Adams to
the revolutionary step of organizing the famous Com-
mittees of Correspondence. Hutchinson at first under-
estimated the importance of this step, but presently,
taking alarm at the progress which resistance to the
government was making, he tried to check it bya
sober appeal to reason. In January, 1773, he sent a
message to the legislature, containing an elaborate and
masterly statement of the doctrine of the supremacy
of Parliament over the whole British empire. It was
a document of prodigious learning and written in
excellent temper. Its knowledge of law was worthy
of Lord Mansfield, who expressed the warmest admi-
ration for it. It was widely read on both sides of the
Atlantic, and Whigs as well as Tories admitted its
power. But Hutchinson’s great antagonist was equal
to the occasion. Never did the acuteness, the strong

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 37

sense, and the dialectic skill of Samuel Adains show
to better advantage than in the reply which he drew
up for the legislature. Its force was such as to make
the governor doubt whether he had done wisely, after
all, in opening an argument on the subject. He sent
in an elaborate rejoinder, to which Adams again
replied, and for some time the controversy was sus-
tained with dignity on bothsides. Whatever opinions
were held as to the merits of the arguments, the gov-
ernor certainly gained in personal popularity during
the winter, and still more in the spring, when he met
‘the governor of New York at Hartford, and succeeded
in adjusting the long-disputed boundary line between
New York and Massachusetts, to the entire satisfac-
tion of the latter colony.

This was the last moment of popular favour that
Hutchinson was ever to know. The skein of events
that were to compass his downfall had already. unwound
itself in London. For several years a private and
‘unofficial correspondence had been kept up between
Hutchinson and other officers of the crown in Massa-
chusetts, on the one hand, and Thomas Whately, who
had formerly been private secretary to George Grenville,
on the other. Whately was a friend to America, and
disapproved of the king’s policy. Besides Hutchinson,
the chief writers were his_ brother-in-law, Andrew
Oliver, who was now associated with him as lieutenant-
governor, and Charles Paxton, one of the revenue
officers in Boston. In these letters Hutchinson freely
commented on the policy of Samuel Adams and other
popular leaders as seditious in tendency; he doubted
if it were practicable for a colony removed by three
thousand miles of ocean to enjoy all the liberties of

38 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

the mother country without severing its connection
with her; and he had therefore reluctantly come to
the conclusion that Massachusetts must submit to “an
abridgment of what are called English liberties.” In
this there was nothing that he had not said again and
again in public, and amply explained in his famous
message to the assembly. But Oliver went farther,
and urged that judges and other crown officers should
have fixed salaries assigned and paid by the crown, so
as to become independent of popular favour. Paxton
enlarged upon the turbulence of the people of Boston,
and thought two or three regiments needful for pre-
serving order. ‘The letters were written independently
on different occasions, and the suggestions were
doubtless made in perfect good faith. In June, 1772,
Thomas Whately died, and all his papers passed into
the custody of William, his brother and executor. In
the following December, before William Whately had
opened or looked over the packet of letters from
Massachusetts, it was found that they had been pur-
loined by some person unknown. It is not certain
that the letters had ever really passed into William
Whately’s hands. They may have been left lying in -
some place where they may have attracted the notice
of some curious busybody, who forthwith laid hands
upon them. This has never been satisfactorily cleared
up. At all events they were carried to Dr. Franklin, as
containing political intelligence that might prove im-
portant. Franklin was then the agent at the British
court, representing Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Georgia. The dispute over the salaries of
the judges was then raging in Massachusetts. The
judges had been threatened with impeachment should

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 39

they dare to receive a penny from the royal treasury,
and at their head was Andrew Oliver’s younger brother
Peter, chief justice of Massachusetts. As agent for
the colony, Franklin felt it his duty to give information
of the contents of the letters now laid before him.
Although they purported to be merely a private corre-
spondence, it appeared to him that they were written
by public officers to a person in public station, on
public affairs, and intended to procure public measures ;
their tendency, he thought, was to incense the mother
country against her colonies. Franklin was doubtless
mistaken in this, but he felt as Walsingham might
have felt on suddenly discovering, in private and con-
fidential papers, the clew to some popish plot against
the life of Queen Elizabeth. From the person who
brought him the letters he got permission to send
them to Massachusetts, on condition that they should
be shown only to a few people in authority, that they
should not be copied or printed, that they should
presently be returned, and that the name of the per-
son from whom they were obtained should never be
disclosed. This last condition was thoroughly ful-
filled. The others must have been felt to be mainly a
matter of form; it was obvious that, though they
might be literally complied with, their spirit would
inevitably be violated. The letters were sent to the
proper person, Thomas Cushing, speaker of the Massa-
chusetts assembly, and he showed them to Hancock,
Hawley, and the two Adamses. To these gentlemen
it could have been no new discovery that Hutchinson
and Oliver held such opinions as were expressed in
the letters; but the documents seemed to furnish
tangible proof of what had long been vaguely sur-

40 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

mised, that the governor and his lieutenant were plot-
ting against the liberties of Massachusetts. They
were soon talked about at every town meeting and on.
every street corner. The assembly twitted Hutchin-
son with them, and asked for copies of these and other
such papers as he might see fit to communicate. He
replied, somewhat sarcastically, “ If you desire copies
with a view to make them public, the originals are
more proper for the purpose than any copies.” Mis-
taken as Hutchinson’s policy was, his conscience
acquitted him of any treasonable purpose, and he must
naturally have preferred to have people judge him by
what he had really written, rather than by vague and
distorted rumours. His reply was taken as sufficient
warrant for printing the letters, and they were soon:
in the possession of every reader in England or
America who could afford sixpence for a_ political
tract. On the other side of the Atlantic they aroused
as much excitement as on this, and William Whately
became concerned to know who could have stolen the
letters. On very slight evidence he charged a Mr.
Temple with the theft, and a duel ensued, in which
Whately was dangerously wounded. Hearing of this
affair, Franklin published a card, in which he avowed
his own share in the transaction, and in a measure
screened everybody else by drawing the full torrent of
wrath and abuse upon himself. All the ill-suppressed
spleen of the king’s friends was at once discharged
upon him.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts the excitement was
furious. The autumn of 1773 had arrived, and with
it Lord Dartmouth’s tea ships, and Hutchinson was
brought into an attitude of hostility to the people such

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 41

as he could not have foreseen when he accepted the
governorship. It was mainly his stubborn courage
that kept the consignees of the tea from resigning
their commissions in Boston, as the consignees in
New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston had done.
This made Boston the battle-ground upon which the
tea question was to end in a flat defiance of the British
government. Hutchinson tried to avoid the difficulty
by advising the consignees to order the vessels on
their arrival to anchor below the Castle, so that if it
should seem best not to land the tea they might go to
sea again. When the first ship arrived, she was
anchored accordingly, but it happened that she had
other goods on board which some merchants in town
were needing, and a committee, headed by Samuel
Adams, ordered the captain to bring his ship to dock,
in order to land these goods. This brought the vessel
within the jurisdiction of the custom-house, and when
the officers refused to give her a clearance until she
had landed the tea also, there was no way of getting
her out to sea without a pass from the governor. But
Hutchinson felt that granting a-pass for a ship until
she had been duly cleared at the custom-house would
be a violation of his oath of office. The situation was
thus a complete deadlock, and for the popular party
there was no way out except in the destruction of the
tea.

The antagonism between governor and people, which
thus culminated in the first great crisis of the American
Revolution, had been immeasurably enhanced by the
adroit use which had been made of the Whately letters.
One cannot, in this particular, view the conduct of
Samuel Adams and his friends with entire approval.

42 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

As Dr. Ellis has well said, it was a case of “the most
vehement possible cry with the slightest possible
amount of wool.” Strong emphasis was laid upon the
phrase “abridgment of what are called English liber-
ties,” and serious injustice was done by tearing it from
its context. Nothing could show this more clearly .
than the governor’s own frank and manly statement:
“T differ in my principles from the present leaders of
the people... . I think that by the constitution of
the colonies the Parliament has a supreme authority
over them. I have nevertheless always been an advo-
cate for as large a power of legislation within each
colony as can consist with a supreme control. I have
declared against a forcible opposition to the execution
of acts of Parliament which have laid taxes on the
people of America; I have, notwithstanding, ever
wished that such acts might not be made as the
Stamp Act in particular. I have done everything in
my power that they might be repealed. I do not see
how the people in the colonies can enjoy every liberty
which the people in England enjoy, because in Eng-
land every man may be represented in Parliament

. ; but in the colonies, the people, I conceive, can-
not have representatives in Parliament to any advan-
tage. It gives me pain when I think it must be so.
I wish also that we may enjoy every privilege of an
Englishman which our remote situation will admit of.
These are sentiments which I have without reserve
declared among my private friends, in my speeches
and messages to the General Court, in my correspond-
ence with the ministers of state, and I have published
them to the world in my history; and yet I have
been declared an enemy and a traitor to my country

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 43

because in my private letters I have discovered the
same sentiments, for everything else asserted to be
contained in those letters (I mean of mine) unfriendly
~ to the country, I must deny as altogether groundless
and false.” By this last qualification the governor
shows himself aware of the cruel injustice wrought in
holding him responsible for everything that Paxton
and Oliver had said. The letters, when published to-
gether in a single pamphlet, were read as containing.
from first to last the sentiments of Hutchinson. In
the popular excitement the fact that they were not all
his letters was lost sight of; and by a wild leap of
inference not uncommon in such cases, people soon
reached the conclusion that the conduct of the British
government for the past ten years had been secretly
instigated by him; that he was to blame for the Stamp
Act, the sending of troops to Boston, the tea measures,
and everything. It was this misunderstanding that
heaped upon Hutchinson’s name the load of oppro-
brium which it has had to carry for a hundred years.
His mistaken political attitude would not of itself have
sufficed to call forth such intense bitterness of feeling.
The erroneousness of his policy is even clearer to us
than to his contemporaries, for with the lapse of time
it has been more and more completely refuted by the
unanswerable logic of events. But we can also see
how grievously he was misjudged, since we know that
he was not the underhanded schemer that men sup-
posed him to be. Never has there been a more
memorable illustration of the wrong and suffering that
is apt to be wrought in all directions in a period of
revolutionary excitement than the fact that during the
autumn of 1773 one of the purest and most high-

44 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

minded citizens of Massachusetts was regarded by so
many other pure and high-minded citizens as little
better than-a traitor. Acting upon this belief the
assembly, sometime before the crisis of the Tea
Party, had already despatched a memorial across the
ocean, beseeching his Majesty to remove Governor.
Hutchinson and Lieutenant-governor Oliver from
office.

In January, 1774, the petition was laid before the
privy council, in the presence of a large and brilliant
gathering of spectators. Never before had so many
lords been seen in that chamber at one time. The ~
Archbishop of Canterbury was there, and Lord Shel-
burne, and Edmund Burke; and there, too, were to
be seen the illustrious Dr. Priestley and youthful Jer-
emy Bentham. At the head of the table sat the Lord
President Gower, and in the chimney corner stood an
old man of eight and sixty, with spectacles and flow-
ing wig, dressed in a suit of dark Manchester velvet.
This was Dr. Franklin, to whose part it fell, as agent
for the Massachusetts assembly, to present its petition.
The news of the Boston Tea Party had just arrived
in London, and people’s wrath waxed hot against the
Americans. The solicitor-general, David Wedder-
burn, instead of discussing the petition on its merits,
broke out with a scurrilous invective against Frank-
lin, whom he accused, if not of actually stealing the
Whately letters, at least of basely meddling with pri-
vate correspondence from the lowest of motives, to
get Hutchinson dismissed from office and secure for
himself the governorship of Massachusetts. Such a
man, said Wedderburn, has forfeited forever the re-
spect of his fellow-creatures, and should never dare

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 45

again to show his face in society, — this man of letters,
forsooth! “a man of three letters.” At this obvious
allusion to the old Roman slang expression preserved
in Plautus, where “a man of three letters” is fu-7, a
thief, there were loud cries of ‘‘ Hear, hear!” Of the
members of government present, Lord North alone
preserved his unfailing decorum; the others laughed
and applauded, while Franklin stood as unmoved as
the moon at the baying of dogs. His conduct had,
perhaps, been hardly defensible, and it had probably
worked more harm than good, but his conscience was
certainly quite clear; and he could not but despise the
snarls of such a cur as Wedderburn, whom the king,
while fain to use him as a tool, felt free to call the big-
_gest knave in the realm. Ralph Izard, the hot-blooded
South Carolinian, who listened to the insulting speech,
afterward declared that if it had been aimed at him,
he would have answered on the spot with a challenge.

Lord Shelburne wrote to Lord Chatham that the in- |

decency of the affair was such as would have disgraced
an ordinary election contest. Before the meeting was
adjourned, Wedderburn stepped up to say good-morn-
ing to Dr. Priestley; but the great man of science,
kindest and most gentle of mortals, indignantly turned
his back. Ah, quoth Immanuel Kant, in his study at
distant Konigsberg, as he smoked his evening pipe
and listened to the story, we have heard before how
Prometheus, who brought fire from heaven, was teased
by an unclean bird. The affair ended as might have
been foreseen. The Massachusetts petition was not
simply rejected, but condemned as scandalous; and
next day Franklin was dismissed from his office of
postmaster-general for America.

46 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

Events, however, soon brought about practically
Hutchinson’s removal. When in April Parliament
made up its mind, in retaliation for the Tea Party, to
annul the charter of Massachusetts and starve the
town of Boston into submission, it was clear that such
a man as Hutchinson would not serve the purpose.
For such measures of martial law a soldier was likely
to be needed, and the work was intrusted to Thomas
Gage. This change afforded Hutchinson the oppor-
tunity he had for some time desired, of going to Eng-
land in the hope of doing something toward putting
an end to these dreadful quarrels and misunderstand-
ings. Of the retaliatory measures he profoundly dis-
approved, and could he but meet the king face to face,
he hoped that his plea for Massachusetts might prove
not ineffectual. When on the morning of the first of
June, 1774, he left his charming home in Milton, with-
out the slightest premonition that he was never to see
it again, it was in the spirit of a peacemaker that he
embarked for England, but there were many who saw
in it the flight of a renegade. It was not in a moment,
however, that this view prevailed. In spite of all the
bitter conflict and misunderstanding that had come to
pass, a character so noble as Hutchinson’s could not ~
all at once lose its hold upon honest men and women
who had known him for years in the numberless little
details of life that do not make a figure in political
history. The governor’s heart was cheered, even if
his forebodings were not quieted, by formal addresses
from some of the leading townsmen of Milton and
Boston, in which his many services to the common-
wealth received their full meed of affectionate acknow-
ledgment. But events were now moving fast, and

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 47

relations among men were to be whirled hither and
thither as in acyclone. Most of these addressers were
soon to be judged as Tories and condemned to outer
darkness. Those of us who remember the four years
following 1860, remember how lax men’s memories
are of some things, how tenacious of others. So the
guns of Lexington and Bunker Hill soon left little of
Hutchinson’s reputation standing, save that which the
last two years had brought him. The house at Milton
was used as barracks for soldiers; the portrait of its
owner, now in the possession of the Massachusetts
Historical Society, was slashed and torn by bayonets ;
all his accessible property was confiscated, and his
best coach was sent over to Cambridge for the use of
General Washington. Even so late as 1774 4 little
town in the highlands of Worcester County was incor-
porated under the name of Hutchinson, but two years
later, on its earnest petition, the legislature allowed it
to call itself after the eloquent Colonel Barré, who
had in Parliament so warmly defended the Americans.
Hutchinson Street in Boston, leading down to the
wharf which had witnessed the smashing of the tea-
chests, was rechristened as Pearl Street. Even the
school in Bennet Street lost the name of its founder,
and is known to-day as the Eliot school.

No sooner had Hutchinson arrived at his hotel in
London, than Lord Dartmouth came for him and hur-
ried him off to an interview with the king, without
waiting for him to change his clothes. The conversa-
tion, as preserved in the diary, is interesting to read.
Neither king, minister, nor governor had the faintest
glimmer of prevision as to the course which events
were about to take. Hutchinson was right, however,

48 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

in feeling uneasy about the vindictive acts of April,
and expressed, in guarded but emphatic terms, his dis-
approval of them and his wish that they might be
repealed; but the king and Dartmouth felt sure that
Gage would soon mend matters so that there would
be no need for further harshness, and it was intended

that Hutchinson should presently return to Boston —
and resume the office of governor. The king did not
regard him as superseded by Gage, and it is accord-
ingly right to call Thomas Hutchinson the last royal
governor of Massachusetts. A few weeks later the
king offered him a baronetcy, which he refused. He
cared little for such honours or emoluments as Eng-
land could give him. His heart was in Massachusetts.
Better a farmhouse there, he said, than the finest palace
in the Old World. Life in London was, nevertheless,
made pleasant for him by the society of the most cul-
tivated and interesting people, and he was everywhere
treated with the highest consideration. He now de-
voted his working hours to the third volume of his
history, covering the period from 1750 to 1774. This
was, from the nature of the case, largely a narrative of
personal experience, and in view of what that experi-
ence had been, its fairness and good temper are simply
_ astonishing. The volume remained in manuscript until
1828, when it was published in London by one of the
author’s grandsons. His diary and letters covering
the period of his life in London have been published
in two volumes by a great-grandson, since 1884, and
amply confirm the most favourable view that can be
taken of his character and motives. These documents
give a most entertaining view of the state of opinion
in London, as the fragmentary tidings of the war found

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 49

their way across the ocean, and they throw much light
upon the history of the whole situation. The writer’s
intense love for New England is mournfully conspicu-
ous from first to last. Until Burgoyne’s surrender he
cherished the hope of returning thither, but after that
event he resigned himself to the probability that he
must die in exile. The deaths of two of his five chil-
dren took from his fast-diminishing strength. On the
3d of June, 1780, as he was getting into his carriage
at Brompton, there came a stroke of apoplexy, and he
fell back into the arms of his servant. His funeral
procession passed by the smouldering wrecks .of houses
just burned in those hideous Gordon riots that Dickens
has immortalized in “ Barnaby Rudge.”

For intellectual gifts and accomplishments, Hutch-
inson stands far above all the other colonial governors
and in the foremost rank among American public men
of whatever age. For thorough grasp of finance, he
was the peer of Hamilton and Gallatin. In 1809 John
Adams, who loved him not, said “he understood the
subject of coin and commerce better than any man I
ever knew in this country.” His mastery of law was
equally remarkable, and as a historian his accuracy is
of the highest order. His personal magnetism was so
great that in spite of all vicissitudes of popular feeling,
so long as he remained upon the scene, and until after
his departure for England had been followed by the
outbreak of war, he did not fully lose his hold upon the
people. He was nothing if not public-spirited, and his
kindness toward persons in distress and sorrow knew
no bounds. Yet in intellectual sympathy with plain
common people he seems to have been deficient. He

was too thoroughly an aristocrat to enter into their
E

50 THOMAS HUTCHINSON

ways of thinking; and herein was one source of his
weakness as a statesman. But the chief source of that
weakness, as is so often the case, was closely related to
one of his most remarkable features of strength. That
inborn legal quality of his mind which, without the
customary technical training, made him a jurist capa-.
ble of winning the admiration of Lord Mansfield, was
too strongly developed. Allied with his rigid Puritan
conscience, it outweighed other good qualities and
warped his nature. He was enveloped in a crust of
intense legality, through which he could not break.
If he had lived a century later, he might have written —
the memorable pamphlet in which another great Mas-
sachusetts jurist, Benjamin Curtis, argued that Presi-
dent Lincoln had no constitutional authority for
emancipating the slaves. It is always well that such
strides in advance should be made under careful pro-
test, for only thus is society kept secure against crude
experiments. But the men best fitted to utter the pro-
test are not likely to be competent leaders in revolu-
tionary times, when it becomes necessary to view many
facts in a new light. For this is required the rare tact
of a Samuel Adams or a Lincoln. It was Hutchin-
son’s misfortune that, with such a rigidly legal tem-
perament, he should have been called to fill a supreme
executive office at the moment of a great revolutionary
crisis. Nothing but failure and obloquy could come
‘from such a situation. Yet the pages of history are
strewn with examples of brave men slain in defence of
unworthy causes, and because they have been true to
their convictions we honour and respect them. Never
did Hutchinson flinch a hair’s-breadth for the sake of
personal advancement. Would that there were more

LAST ROYAL GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS 51

of this disinterested courage among our public men
to-day! When.we listen to the cowardly talk of can-
didates who use language to conceal thought, and
dare not speak out like men for fear of losing votes,
it occurs to us sometimes that in the life of nations
there is no danger so great as the loss of true manli-
ness; and we cannot but feel that from the stormy
career of this old Tory governor — maligned, misun-
derstood, and exiled, but never once robbed of self-
respect — there is still a lesson to be learned.

> ao
ee

es

L.
THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE

eae

4

‘CHAR

if
\

‘
:
4
¥
”

II

CHARLES LEE

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE

WHENEVER a great war is going on, it is apt to draw
from other countries a crowd of officers who come to’
look on and give advice, or perhaps to study the art of
war under new conditions, or to carve out for them-
selves a career for which no chance seems to be
offered them at home. This was amply illustrated in
the American War of Independence. The war was
watched with interest in Europe, not from any special)
regard for the Americans,— about whom people in
general knew rather less than they knew about the
inhabitants of Dahomey or of Kamtchatka, — but from
a belief that the result would seriously affect the posi-
tion of Great Britain as a European power. A swarm
of officers crossed the Atlantic in the hope of obtaining
commands, and not less than twenty-seven such for-
eigners served in the Continental army, with the rank
of general, either major or brigadier. I do not refer
to such French allies as came with Rochambeau, or in
company with the fleets of D’Estaing and De Grasse.
I refer only to such men as obtained commissions
from Congress and were classed for the time as Ameri-
can officers. For the most part these men came in
the earlier stages of the war, before the French alliance
had borne fruit. Some were drawn hither by a noble,
disinterested enthusiasm for the cause of political lib-

55

56 CHARLES LEE

erty; some were mere selfish schemers, or crack-
brained vagrants in quest of adventure. Among the
latter one of the most conspicuous was Thomas Con-
way. Among the former there were five who attained
real eminence, and have left a shining mark upon the
pages of history. These were De Kalb and Pulaski,
who gave up their lives on the battle-field; Lafayette
and Kosciuszko, who afterwards returned to their own
countries to play honourable but unsuccessful parts;
and, last not least, the noble Steuben, who died an
American citizen in the second term of Washington’s
presidency.

But in the eyes of the generation which witnessed
the beginning of the Revolutionary War, none of the
European officers just mentioned was anything like
so conspicuous or so interesting a figure as the man to
whose career I invite your attention this evening;
Charles Lee was on the ground here before any of
these others; he had already been in America; he
came with the greatest possible amount of noise; he
laid claim to the character of a disinterested enthusiast
so vehemently that people believed him. For a while
he seemed completely identified with the American
cause; and as his name happens to be the same as
that of an illustrious Virginian family, posterity seems
to have been in some danger of forgetting that he was
not himself an American. I don’t know how many
times I have been asked to state his relationship to the
Lees of Virginia; and, what is worse, I found in print
some time ago, in a history of the town of Greenwich,
R.I., the statement that the traitor of Monmouth was
father of the great general, Robert Edward Lee, who
might thus be supposed to have inherited what the

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 57

writer is pleased to consider his natural propensity
toward treason!* Such absurdities show that even
the industrious writers of town histories do not always
consult biographical dictionaries and other easily
accessible sources of information, but it is a pity that
they should find their way into print. Whether the
Cheshire family to which Charles Lee belonged was
in any remote way connected with the Lees of Vir-
ginia is uncertain. Of Charles Lee’s immediate
ancestry little is known except that he was the young- |
est son of John Lee, of Dernhall in Cheshire, and
Isabella, daughter of Sir Henry Bunbury, of Stanney
in the same county. John Lee was for some time
captain of dragoons, and at length, after 1742, colonel
of the 44th regiment of infantry. Charles Lee was
born at Dernhall in 1731, and is said to have received
a commission in the army at the age of eleven. This
seems at first a ridiculous story; but that was an age
of abuses, and a study of the British army list in the
good old days of the two first Georges brings to light
some astonishing facts. Ensigns and cornets were
duly enrolled, and drew their quarterly stipends, before
leaving the nursery ; and the Duchess of Marlborough,
in one of her letters, has something still better to tell.
Colonel Lepel made his own daughter a cornet in his
regiment as soon as she was born; and why not? asks
the duchess; at that time of life a girl was quite as
useful to the army asa boy. This girl was afterward
Lady Hervey, and she went on drawing her salary as

1“ Charles Lee died a miserable, neglected, and disappointed man. It
would seem that treason is hereditary, as his son, the late General Lee,
commander-in-chief of the Southern Rebellion (sic), followed in the foot-
steps of his father.” — D. H. Greene’s “ History of East Greenwich, R.I.,”
p- 259.

58 CHARLES LEE

cornet for some years after she had become maid of
honour to the queen. By and by it occurred to Lord
Sunderland that this was a little too absurd; and so
he induced her to resign her commission in exchange
for a pension from George I.’ This memorable inci-
dent seems to have escaped the notice of our modern
framers of pension bills.

As the date at which Charles Lee reached the age
of eleven was precisely that at which his father reached
the rank of colonel, it is not improbable that he may
have received a commission of the sort just described.
However this may have been, he is known to have -
studied at the free grammar-school of Bury St. Ed-
munds, in Suffolk, and afterward at an academy in
Switzerland. He acquired some familiarity with
Greek and Latin, and a thorough practical knowledge
of French. In later years, in the course of his
rambles about Europe, he became more or less pro-
ficient in Spanish, Italian, and German. From an
early age he seems to have applied himself diligently
to the study of the military art. In May, 1751, shortly
after his father’s death, he received a lieutenant’s com-
mission in that 44th regiment, of which his father
had been colonel. The regiment was ordered. to
America in 1754, and under its lieutenant-colonel,
Thomas Gage, formed the advance of Braddock’s
army, and received the first attack of the French and
Indians in the terrible battle of the Monongahela. It
was in this disastrous campaign that Lee must have
become acquainted with Horatio Gates and perhaps
with George Washington. The remains of the shat-
tered army were in the autumn taken northward to

1G. H. Moore, “ Treason of Charles Lee,” p. 5.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 59

Albany and Schenectady, where they went into win-
ter quarters. Lee was present at several conferences
between Sir William Johnson and the chiefs of the
Six Nations, and became much interested in the
Indians. His relations with them soon became so-
friendly that he was adopted into the Mohawk tribe of
the Bear, and thus acquired the privilege of smoking
a pipe with them as they sat around the council fire.
He also formed a temporary matrimonial alliance with
one of the foremost families of the Six Nations, and
wrote about it to his sister in England, with quaint
frankness. “ My wife,” said he, “is daughter to the
famous White Thunder who is Belt of Wampum to
the Senakas — which is in fact their Lord Treasurer.
She is a very great beauty, and is more like your
friend Mrs. Griffith than anybody I know. I shall
say nothing of her accomplishments, for you must be
certain that a woman of her fashion cannot be without
many. The Indians, he continues, are even more
polite than the French, “if you will allow good breed-
ing to consist in a constant desire to do everything that
will please you, and a strict carefulness not to say or
do anything that may offend you.” Of this well-bred
desire to please, the same letter gives an instance.’
_ A young Mohawk, anxious to show his gratitude for
some trifling service Lee had rendered him, prowled
about the neighbouring woods until he succeeded in
killing a French sergeant on picket duty; then he
carefully decorated the scalp with bright blue ribbons
and presented it to Lee in token of brotherly love.
Lee’s definition of good breeding is excellent; but his
practice did not comport with his theory. He was

1 New York Historical Society Collections, Lee Papers, I. 5.

60 CHARLES LEE

already noted among his fellow-soldiers for an arro-
gant and quarrelsome temper, and the significant
name bestowed upon him by his Mohawk friends was
“ Boiling Water.” He seemed to court opportunities
for saying and doing offensive things. His tongue
bit shrewdly; it was a nipping and an eager tongue.
He was fond of commenting upon the imbecility of his
superior officers, and the conduct of the war afforded
plenty of occasions for this display of humour.
About this time — in accordance with a practice
which survived in the British army until Mr. Glad-
stone put an end to it—he purchased, for £900, a ©
captain’s commission in the 44th. The commission
was dated June 11, 1756. The regiment did little
that year except take part in a futile attempt to raise
the siege of Oswego, which surrendered to the French
on the 14th of August. After another idle winter in
the neighbourhood of Albany, the troops were con-
veyed by sea to Halifax, from which point the Earl of
Loudon intended to pounce upon the great stronghold
of Louisburg. A powerful force was collected, and
some acres were prudently planted with succulent
vegetables as a safeguard against scurvy; but nothing
more was accomplished, for the commander-in-chief,
according to. Franklin, resembled King George on the
tavern sign-boards, always on horseback but never
getting ahead. When Captain Lee openly derided
the campaign as a “cabbage-planting enterprise,” the
remark drew public attention to the young man, and
no doubt there were quarters where it sank deep and
was remembered against him.

Early in the next summer, 1758, we find the 44th
regiment marching up the valley of the Hudson, as

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 61

part of the fine army with which General Abercrombie
was expected to take Ticonderoga. At the Flats near
Albany, Lee’s company encamped on the farm of Mrs.
Schuyler, aunt of the distinguished general of that
name, a noble and benevolent woman, of whom Mrs.
Grant of Laggan has left such a charming description,
in her“ Memoirs of an American Lady.” Mrs. Schuy-
ler’s generosity toward soldiers was well known; but
_ Lee, who had forgotten to provide himself with the
proper certificates for obtaining supplies, and was
seizing horses and oxen, blankets and eatables, to
right and left, with as little ceremony as if in an
enemy's country, did not spare this lady's well-stocked
farm; and when she ventured a few mild words of
expostulation, he replied with such a torrent of foul
epithet that she had much ado to restrain her ser-
vants from assaulting him. A few days later came
the murderous battle before Ticonderoga, where Brit-
ish and Americans were so terribly defeated by Mont-
calm. There Thomas Gage fought side by side with
Israel Putnam and John Stark, little dreaming of
another bright summer day near Boston, seventeen
years to come; there was slain Lord Howe, eldest of
the three famous brothers; and there in a gallant
charge our cynical young captain was shot through
the body and carried off from the field. Bruised and
battered, and with two ribs broken, he doubtless had
breath enough left to growl and snarl over the incom-
_petency of the general whom, in the next letter to his
sister, he calls “beastly poltroon” and “booby-in-
chief.” On hearing the news, Mrs. Schuyler had her
largest barn prepared for a hospital. Thither, with
many others, Captain Lee was taken and treated so

62 CHARLES LEE

kindly that his rough heart was softened. He averred,
with terrific oaths, that “a place would surely be re-
served for Madame in heaven, though no other woman
should be there, and that he should wish for nothing
better than to share her final destiny.” '

By December the wound had healed, and we find -
him in winter quarters on Long Island, thrashing the
surgeon of his regiment for a scandalous lampoon.
And here we are introduced to the first of a series of
little “special providences” keeping this personage
alive for the singular part which he was to play in
American history. The cowardly doctor nursed his ©
wrath, lurked among the bushes by a lonely roadside,
seized the captain’s bridle, and fired at his heart; but
the horse opportunely shied and the bullet tore Lee’s
clothing and skin just under the left arm. The sur-
geon was cocking a second pistol when another
officer came up and struck it from his hand. Then
the surgeon was collared and dragged off to camp,
where a court-martial presently turned him adrift
upon the world.

The next summer Lee was present at the capture
of Fort Niagara, and was sent with a small party to
follow the route of the few French who escaped.
This was the first party of English troops that ever
crossed Lake Erie. Their march led them to Fort
Duquesne (now Pittsburg), which General Forbes had
captured the year before. Thence a march of seven
hundred miles brought them to Crown Point to meet
General Amherst. There was yet another long marchas
to Oswego and back before Lee settled down for the ~
winter in Philadelphia, and was employed in beating»

1 Lossing’s “ Schuyler,” I. 154.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 63

up recruits. In the final campaign of 1760 his regi-
ment was part of the force led by Amherst from Lake
Ontario down the St. Lawrence to Montreal; and
after the capture of that town had completed the con-
quest of Canada, he returned to England. His uncle,
Sir William Bunbury, writing from London, had
alluded to chances of promotion, and _ incidentally
observed that many fashionable matches were re-
ported, and he had better come home before all the
fine young ladies were disposed of. Perhaps Sir
William had not heard of the accomplished daughter
of the “ Lord Treasurer” White Thunder. The pro-
motion came in August, 1761, when Lee was appointed
Major in the 103d regiment, known as the Volunteer
Hunters. War was then breaking out between Spain
and Portugal, and in 1762 a small British army was
sent to aid the Portuguese. The chief command of
the allied forces was given to one of the ablest gen-
erals of his time, the famous Count von Lippe-Schaum-
burg, a grandson of King George I., and own cousin
to the brothers Howe. Lee accompanied the expedi-
tion with a brevet of lieutenant-colonel from the king
of Portugal, and his brigadier-commander was General
Burgoyne. The campaign was a brilliant success, and
Lee received honourable mention for the masterly way
in which he surprised and carried by storm the Span-
ish position at Villa Velha on the Tagus. On his
return to England he busied himself with schemes of
colonization in America, in which he aspired to emu-
late the fame of Penn and Oglethorpe. A colony was
to be founded on the Ohio River below the Wabash,
and another on the Illinois. Inducements were to be
. held out for Protestant emigrants from Switzerland

64 CHARLES LEE

and Germany, as well as from England; but the
enterprise found few supporters. About this time, in
1763, the 103d regiment was disbanded, and Lee
passed virtually into retirement as a major on half-pay.
At this he was disappointed and enraged, for a good
word from the Count von Lippe-Schaumburg had .
given him some reason to expect promotion. But the
ministry disliked him, partly on account of his liberal
opinions and the vehemence with which he declared
them, partly because of the fierceness with which he vili-
fied and lampooned anybody of whom he disapproved.
Though his later career showed that he had not the
courage of his convictions, yet there can be no doubt
that he really entertained very decided opinions. He
was a radical free-thinker of the unripe, acrid sort, like
his contemporaries, John Wilkes and Thomas Paine.
He wrote and talked quite sensibly about many
things; his sympathetic appreciation of Beccaria’s
great treatise on “Crime and Punishment” was much
to his credit; as a schoolboy in Switzerland he had
learned republican theories under good teachers; and
there is no reason for doubting his sincerity in hating
and despising the despotism which then prevailed
almost everywhere on the continent of Europe.
Sometimes he dealt humorously with such topics; as
in his epistle to David Hume. In reading books on
history, he said, nothing had so frequently shocked
him as the disrespectful and irreverent manner in
which divers writers have spoken of crowned heads.
“ Many princes, it must be owned, have acted in some
instances not altogether as we could wish,” but it is
the duty of the historian to draw, a veil over their
weakness. He was glad to see that Mr. Hume had

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 65

acted upon this sound precept in depicting the exalted
virtues of the Stuarts. He had heard that this history
of England was the only one his sacred Majesty
George III. could be induced to read, and he didn’t
wonder at it. He had often thought of writing his-
tory himself, and now that he had got his cue from
Mr. Hume, he should go on and devote his energies
to the much-needed task of rescuing from unmerited
odium those grossly slandered saints, the emperor
Claudius and his successor Nero.

But it was seldom that Lee’s sarcasm was so gentle
as this. Usually he lost his temper and hurled about
such epithets as scoundrels, idiots, numskulls, diaboli-
cal tyrants, damned conspirators, sceptred robbers,
impious cutthroats. Was it a public man of whom
he disapproved, he would say “everything he touches
becomes putrid;” was it some opinion from which
he dissented, he would say “it was the most cun-
ning fiend in hell who first broached this doctrine.” ?
Speech less peppery than this seemed tasteless to
Charles Lee. The accumulation of oaths and super-
latives often makes the reading of his letters and
pamphlets rather dreary work. When they were first
published, or quoted in conversation, they served to
offend powerful people and ruin the writer’s hopes of
advancement. Had he been a man of real ability, or
had he been favoured by some queer freak of fortune
that would have made him, like Wilkes, a bone of
contention, he might have risen to eminence in the
opposition party. But his talents were too slender for
this; something more than growling and swearing
was needed. Accordingly he soon made up his mind

1 New York Historical Society Collections, Lee Papers, I. 74.
F

66 CHARLES LEE

that he was not properly appreciated in England, and
early in 1765 he made his way to that home of turbu-
lent spirits, Poland, where he received an appointment
on the staff of the new king, Stanislaus Augustus.
Next year, in accompanying the Polish embassy to
Turkey, he narrowly escaped freezing to death on the -
Balkan Mountains, and again, while in Constantinople,
came near being buried in the ruins of his house,
which was destroyed by an earthquake. In 1766 he
returned to England and spent two years in a fruitless
attempt to obtain promotion. Having at length quite
established his reputation as a disappointed and vin-
dictive place-hunter, he tried Poland again. In 1769
he was commissioned major-general in the Polish
army, but did not relinquish his half-pay as a British
major, because it was “too considerable a sum to
throw away wantonly.”! Early in the winter he
served in a campaign against the Turks, and was
present in a battle at Chotzim on the Moldavian
frontier. Here, as usual, he declared that the com-
manders under whom he served were fools.’ His
brief service was ended by a fever from which he
barely escaped with his life. The rest of the winter
was spent in Vienna, and in the spring of 1770 he pro-
ceeded to Italy, where he lost two fingers in an affair
of honour in which an Italian officer crossed swords
with him. His earliest biographer, Edward Lang-
worthy, observes that “his warmth of temper drew
him into many rencounters of this kind; in all which
he acquitted himself with singular courage, sprightli-
ness of imagination, and great presence of mind.”°

1 Moore, p. 15. 2 Lee Papers, I. 89.
8 Langworthy, “ Memoirs of Charles Lee,” London, 1792, p. 8.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 67

What in the world sprightliness of imagination in
duelling may be, we are left to conjecture. Perhaps
in this case it may have been exemplified in the imme-
diate recourse to pistols, the result of which was that
the Italian was slain, and Lee was obliged to flee to
Gibraltar, where he embarked for London. In May,
1772, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-
colonel on half-pay, but was unable to obtain any
further recognition from government.

Ever since the Stamp Act our knight-errant iad
kept an eye upon the troubles in America, and his
letters show that by soldiers and princes at least, even
as far as Poland, the quarrel between Great Britain
and her colonies was watched with interest. It now
seems to have occurred to him that America might
afford a promising career for a soldier of fortune. He
arrived in New York on the roth of November, 1773,
in the midst of the agitation over the tea ships, and
the next ten months were spent in a journey through
the colonies as far as Virginia in one direction and
Massachusetts in the other. In the course of this
journey he made the acquaintance of nearly all the
leaders of the Revolutionary party, and won high favour
from the zeal with which he espoused their cause. He
visited Mount Vernon and was warmly greeted by
Washington. Whether Washington remembered him
or not, as a lieutenant in 1755, is not at all clear. But
now the great European soldier, who had fought on
the banks of the Tagus and of the Dniester, and was
a member of the liberal party in England withal, was
sure to interest the noble, genial,and modest man who
commanded the militia of Virginia. Whether he
could have found favour with Mrs. Washington is

68 CHARLES LEE

much more doubtful. With ladies Lee was never a
favourite. Mercy Warren, the sister of James Otis,
and one of the brightest and most highly cultivated
women of her time, saw Lee under all the glamour of
his newly assumed greatness, yet, while she admitted
that he was “judicious” and “learned” (these were -
her words), she could not but remark upon his extreme
coarseness and his slovenly habits. Indeed, when we
observe the frightful latitude of speech in some of his
letters, we feel that he would have been an uncom-
fortable guest to invite to dinner. He was tall and
extremely slender, almost without shoulders, the fore-
head rather high but very narrow, the nose aquiline
and enormous, the complexion sallow, the eyes small
and deep-set, inquisitive and restless, the upper lip
curled in chronic disdain of everything and every-
body, the chin contracted and feeble; such was Charles
Lee at the age of two and forty, when he revisited
America,a weak, dyspeptic, querulous man. His linen,
like Daniel Quilp’s, was of a peculiar hue, for such was
his taste and fancy; his clothes had the air of hav-
ing been only half put on; and he was seldom seen in
private or in public without five or six dogs at his
heels. Once he is said to have invited a friend to
dinner, and when the meal was served the only other
guests were found to be half a score of dogs, both
great and small, which squatted on chairs and lapped
up their food from plates set before them on the
table. “I must have some object to embrace,” said
he; “when I can be convinced that men are as worthy
objects as dogs, I shall transfer my benevolence, and
become as stanch a philanthropist as the canting
Addison affected to be.” |

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 69

All these uncouth looks and ways were at first inter-
preted by the people as eccentricities of genius. To
some persons, doubtless, they seemed to add a touch
of romantic interest to a man whom every one looked
upon as a public benefactor. There is no doubt that
at this time he did render some real services with
tongue and pen, while his self-seeking motives were
hidden by the earnestness of his arguments in behalf
of political liberty and the unquestionable sincerity of
his invectives against the British government. The
best of his writings at this time was the “ Strictures on
a Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans, in
Reply to Dr. Myles Cooper,” in which the arguments
of the Tory president of King’s College were severely
handled. This pamphlet, published in 1774, was many
times reprinted, and exerted considerable influence.
While the first Continental Congress was in session at
Philadelphia, Lee was present in that city and was
ready with his advice and opinions. He set himself
up for an expert in military matters, and there was not
a campaign in ancient or modern history which he
could not expound and criticise with the air of a man
who had exhausted the subject. —The American leaders,
ill acquainted with military science, and flattered by
the prospect of securing the aid of a great European
soldier, were naturally ready to take him at his own
valuation; but he felt that one grave obstacle stood in
the way of his appointment to the chief command. In
a letter to Edmund Burke, dated the 16th of December,
1774, he observed that he did not think the Americans
“would or ought to confide in a man, let his qualifi-
cations be ever so great, who has no property among
them.” To remove this objection he purchased, for

70 CHARLES LEE

about £5000 in Virginia currency (equal to about
4 3000 sterling), an estate in Berkeley County, in the
Shenandoah valley, near that of his friend Horatio
Gates. He did not complete this purchase till the
last of May, 1775, while the second Continental Con-
gress was in session. A letter to Gates at this time
seems to indicate that he was awaiting the action of —
the Congress, and did not finally commit himself to
the purchase until virtually sure of a high military
command. To pay for the estate he borrowed £3000
of Robert Morris, to whom he mortgaged the property
as security, while he drew bills on his attorney in
England for the amount. On the 17th of June he
received as high a command as Congress thought it
prudent to give him, that of second major-general in
the Continental army. The reasons for making Wash-
ington commander-in-chief were generally convincing.
It was as yet only the four New England states that
had actually taken up arms, and in order to swell the
rebellion to continental dimensions it was indispensa-
ble that’ Virginia should commit herself irrevocably in
the struggle. For this reason John Adams was fore-
most in urging the appointment of Washington as
commander-in-chief. But as the only Continental army
at that moment existing was the force of sixteen thou-
sand New England men with which General Artemas
Ward was besieging Boston, it was not deemed polite °
to place a second in command over Ward. Some of
Lee’s friends, and in particular Thomas Mifflin, after-
ward active in the Conway cabal, urged that he should
at least have the first place after Washington; but John
Adams declared that, while the New England army
would cheerfully serve under Washington, it could not

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 71

be expected to acquiesce in having another than its
own general in the next place. Accordingly Ward was
appointed first of the major-generals and Lee second.
The British adventurer, who had cherished hopes of
receiving the chief command, was keenly disappointed.
For the present he repressed his spleen against Wash-
ington, but made no secret of his contempt for Ward,
whom he described as “a fat old gentleman who had
been a popular churchwarden, but had no acquaintance
whatever with military affairs.” When Lee was in-
formed of his appointment, he begged leave, before
accepting it, to confer with a committee of Congress
with regard to his private affairs. The committee be-
ing immediately appointed, he made it a condition of
his entering the American service that he should be
indemnified by Congress for any pecuniary loss he
might suffer by so doing, and that this reimbursement
should be made as soon as the amount of such loss
should be ascertained. Congress at once assented to
this condition, and Lee accepted his appointment. Up
to this moment he had retained his commission as
lieutenant-colonel in the British army. Three days
after obtaining definite promise from Congress, he
wrote to Lord Barrington, the secretary of war, in the
following characteristic vein : —

“My Lord: Although I can by no means subscribe
to the opinion of divers people in the world, that an
officer on half-pay is to be considered in the service,
yet I think it a point of delicacy to pay a deference to
this opinion, erroneous and absurd as it is. I there-
fore apprise your lordship, in the most public and
solemn manner, that I do renounce my half-pay from
the date hereof. At the same time I beg leave to

72 CHARLES LEE

assure your lordship that whenever it may please his
Majesty to call me forth to any honourable service
against the natural hereditary enemies of our country,
or in defence of his just rights and dignity, no man
will obey the righteous summons with more zeal and
alacrity than myself; but the present measures seem

to me so absolutely subversive of the rights and lib- ©

erties of every individual subject, so destructive to the
whole empire at large, and ultimately so ruinous to his
Majesty’s own person, dignity, and family, that I think
myself obliged in conscience, as a citizen, Englishman,
and soldier of a free state, to exert my utmost to defeat
them. I most devoutly pray to Almighty God to direct
his Majestyinto measures more consonant to his interest
and honour, and more conducive to the happiness and
glory of his people.” *

That Lee should have felt called upon to refuse
further pay from the crown at the moment of accept-
ing a commission from a revolutionary body engaged
in maintaining armed resistance to the crown and its
officers, one would think but natural. That in so
doing he should have declared himself to be acting in
deference to anabsurd and overstrained notion of deli-
cacy, shows how far from overstrained his own sense
of delicacy was. His letter’ is an unconscious con-
fession that he ought long ago to have resigned his
half-pay. Now he was simply making a merit of
necessity; for there could be little doubt that, as soon
as the news of his American commission should reach
the ears of the ministry, his half-pay would be cut off,

1 Lee Papers, I. 186.
2 Found in February, 1858, in Sutton Court, Somerset, home of Sir
Edward Strachey, where he kept many documents.

mae

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 73

and his other sources of income, amounting in all to
about £1000 yearly, confiscated. It was right that he
should be indemnified for the loss, and Congress did
not for a moment call in question the reasonableness
of his request. Nevertheless, when we remember how
Lee was afterward fond of prating about his rare dis-
interestedness and the sacrifices he had made in the
cause of American freedom, when we consider espe-
cially how he liked to bring himself into comparison
_with Washington, to the disadvantage of the latter, we
cannot help feeling the strong contrast between all
this careful bargaining and the conduct of the high-
minded man who, at that same moment, in accepting
the chief command of the Revolutionary army, refused
to take a penny for his services.

To this matter of Lee’s indemnification our atten-
tion will again be directed. Meanwhile, having thus
entered the American service, the soldier of fortune
accompanied Washington in his journey to Cam-
bridge, and at every town through which they passed
he seemed to be quite as much an object of curiosity
and admiration as the commander-in-chief. Accord-
ing to Lee’s own theory of the relationship between
the two, his was the controlling mind. He was the
trained and scientific European soldier to whose care
had been in a measure intrusted this raw American
general, who for political reasons had been placed in
command over him. In point of fact, Lee’s military
experience, as we have here passed it in review, had
been scarcely more extensive than Washington’s; and
of actual responsibility he had wielded much less.
Such little reputation as he had in Europe was not
that of a soldier, but of a caustic pamphleteer. Yet if

74 | CHARLES LEE

he had been the hero of a dozen great battles, if he
had rescued Portugal from the Spaniard and Poland
from the Turk, he could not have claimed or obtained
more deference in this country than he did. And no
one treated him with higher consideration, or showed
more respect for his opinions, than the grand and
modest hero, all unconscious of his own _ Titanic
powers, who rode beside him.

On arriving at Cambridge, Lee was placed in com-
mand of the left wing of the army, with his head-
quarters at Winter Hill, in what is now Somerville.
The only incident that marked his stay at Cambridge
was a correspondence with his old friend Burgoyne,
then lately arrived in Boston, which led to a scheme
for a conference between Lee and Burgoyne, with a
view to the restoration of an amicable understanding
between the colonies and the mother country. The
proposal came from Burgoyne, and Lee treated it
with frankness and discretion. He laid the matter
before the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, and
when that body mildly signified its disapproval but
left it for Lee to decide, he sent a polite note to Bur-
goyne declining the interview. This was in July.
Four months afterward there came from the Old
World a warning that Lee was not a man of trust-
worthy character. A provisional government had then
been formed in Massachusetts with the president of the
council for its executive head, and James Otis, in one
of the last of his lucid intervals, then occupied that
position. On the 14th of November Otis sent a letter
to Lee, quite touching for its high-minded simplicity.
The council had come into possession of a letter from
Ireland, making very unfavourable mention of Lee.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 75

It produced no impression upon the council. On
the contrary, says Otis, “we are at a loss to know
which is the highest evidence of your virtues —the
greatness and number of your friends, or the malice
and envy of your foes.”* Good advice is often taken
in this way. A century has passed without giving us
any further clew to this letter.

In December it was learned that Sir Henry Clinton
was about to start from Boston on an expedition to the
southward, and fears were entertained for Rhode
Island and New York. Washington accordingly sent
Lee to meet the emergency. After stopping at
Newport long enough to arrest a few Tory citizens,
Lee proceeded in January to New York, where he did
good service in beginning the fortifications needed for
the city and neighbouring strategic points. On the
news of Montgomery’s death, he was appointed to
command the army in Canada; but scarcely had he
been informed of this appointment when his destina-
tion was changed. On the roth of February, John
Adams wrote him, “ We want you at New York, we
want you at Cambridge, we want you in Virginia, but
Canada seems of more importance than any of these
places, and therefore you are sent there. I wish you
as many laurels as Wolfe and Montgomery reaped
there, with a happier fate.” From such expressions
one may infer that, while Adams had for political
reasons urged the appointment of Washington to the
chief command of the army, he still placed his main
reliance upon the presumed military talents of Lee.
At any rate there can be little doubt that the adventurer
himself so interpreted them. On the same day a letter

1 Lee Papers, I. 218.

76 CHARLES LEE

from Franklin said, “I rejoice that you are going to
Canada”; and another from Benjamin Rush observed,
“T tremble only at the price of victory ...; should
your blood mingle with the blood of Wolfe, Montcalm,
and Montgomery, posterity will execrate the Plains of
Abraham to the end of time.” But on the 3d of
March Lee wrote to Washington: “ My destination is
altered. Instead of going to Canada, I am appointed
to command to the southward. ... As I am the only
general officer on the continent who can speak and
think in French, I confess it would have been more
prudent to have sent me to Canada, but I shall obey
with alacrity.” The reason for this change was the
discovery that Clinton’s expedition was aimed at some
point in the Southern states. Its effect upon Lee’s
fortunes was much more favourable than he supposed.
In Canada, even if he had possessed all the genius for
which people gave him credit, he could never have
held his ground against Carleton’s fine army, outnum-
bering him four to one; at the South, on the other
hand, circumstances played into his hands and enabled
him very cheaply to increase his reputation. He went
first to Virginia, where he stayed till the middle of May,
with headquarters at Williamsburg. The burning
political question that spring was whether the colonies
should unite in a declaration of independence, and on
this point Lee expressed himself with his customary
emphasis. To Edward Rutledge he wrote, “ By the
eternal God! if you don’t declare yourselves inde-
pendent, you deserve to be slaves.” At the hesitating
action of the Maryland convention in March he lost
all patience. ‘“ What!” he cried, “ when an execrable
1 Lee Papers, I. 312-314; 343.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE par

tyrant, an abandoned parliament, and a corrupt, pusil-
lanimous people have formed a hellish league to rob
you of everything men hold most dear; is it possible
there should be creatures who march on two legs and
call themselves human, who can be so destitute of
sentiment, courage, and feeling, as sobbingly to protest
they shall consider separation from these butchers
and robbers as the last of misfortunes? Oh, I could
brain you with your ladies’ fans!”* We shall do well
to remember this fervid vehemence when we come to
the very different key in which the writer’s sentiments
are pitched just twelve months later.

While these things were going on, Clinton was
cruising about Albemarle Sound, but late in May Sir
Peter Parker’s fleet arrived, with fresh troops under
Lord Cornwallis, and presently on the 4th of June the
whole armada was collected before the entrance to
Charleston harbour. Lee, following by land, reached
the city on the same day. Preparations had already
been made to resist the enemy, and Colonel William
Moultrie was, constructing his famous palmetto fort on
Sullivan’s Island. Lee blustered and found fault, as
usual, sneered at the palmetto stronghold, and would
have ordered Moultrie to abandon it; but President
Rutledge persuaded him to let the sagacious colonel
have his way. In the battle which ensued, on the
28th of June, between the fort and the fleet, Moultrie
won a decisive and very brilliant victory. But as
Moultrie was as yet unknown outside of South
Carolina, the credit was by most people inconsiderately
given to Lee. In his despatch to Congress the latter
spoke generously of the courage and skill of his

1 Langworthy’s “ Memoirs,” p. 382.

78 CHARLES LEE

subordinate officer. Perhaps it was hardly to be ex-
pected of him that he should frankly confess that the
victory was won through neglect of his own scientific
advice. On the departure of the discomfited British
fleet, the “hero of Charleston,” as he was now called,
prepared to invade Florida; but early in September
he was ordered to report to Congress at Philadelphia.
The question of his indemnification had been laid
before Congress in a letter from Mr. Rutledge, dated
the 4th of July, and action was now taken upon it.
The bills for £ 3000 drawn upon his agent in England
to repay the sum advanced by Robert Morris for the
purchase of the Virginia estate had been protested for
lack of funds, as Lee’s property in England had been
sequestrated. Congress accordingly voted, on the 7th
of October, to advance $30,000 to General Lee by way
of indemnification. Should his English estate ever
be recovered, he was to repay this sum.

This point having been made, he went on to New
York, where he arrived on the 14th of October, and took
command of the right wing of Washington’s army
upon Harlem Heights. By the resignation of General
Ward in the spring, Lee had become senior major-
general, and in the event of disaster to Washington
he might hope at length to realize his wishes and be-
come commander-in-chief. The calamitous fall of
Fort Washington, on the 16th of November, seemed
to afford the desired opportunity. At that moment
Washington, whose defensive campaign had from the
outset been marked in every particular by most con-
summate skill, had placed half of his army on the New
Jersey side of the river, in order to check any move-
ment of the British toward Philadelphia. He had left |

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE . 79

Lee at Northcastle, with the other half of the army,
about seven thousand men, with instructions to await
his orders and move promptly upon receiving them.
As soon as it had become evident that Howe was
about to throw a superior force against Washington,
the latter sent an order to Lee to cross the Hudson
River without a moment's delay, and effect a junction
of the two parts of the army. But Lee pretended to
regard the order in the light of mere advice, raised
objections, fumed and quibbled, and did not stir.
While Washington was now obliged to fall back
through New Jersey, in order to avoid fighting against
overwhelming odds, his daily messages to Lee grew
more and more peremptory, but no heed was paid to —
them. Many people were throwing the blame for the
loss of Fort Washington upon the commander-in-chief,
and were contrasting him unfavourably with the “hero
of Charleston”; and Lee, instead of obeying orders,
busied himself in writing letters calculated to spread
and increase this disaffection toward Washington.
Among his correspondents were some of the men who
in the course of the next year became implicated with
the Conway cabal, such as Gates and Dr. Benjamin
Rush. In letters to prominent New England men, he
tried to play upon the most contemptible of all the
mean feelings that disgrace human nature, — the feel-
ing of sectional dislike and distrust which many in
that part of the country entertained toward the great
Virginian. At the same time he tried to assume com-
mand over General Heath, whom Washington had left
in charge of the Highlands with very explicit instruc-
tions. Lee wished to detach part of Heath’s force,
and announced that since a broad river intervened

80 CHARLES LEE

between himself and Washington, he now considered
himself invested with an independent command. But
for courage and fidelity Heath was a true bulldog.
Lee’s letters to him grew more and more angry. “I
suppose you think,” said Lee, “that if General Wash-
ington should remove to the Straits of Magellan, never-
theless the instructions he left with you are to be
followed in spite of what your superior officers might
say; but I will have you to understand that I command
on this side of the river, and for the future I must and
will be obeyed.”* Heath, however, was immovable;
and a letter from Washington, arriving the next day,
declared his own view of the case in such unequivocal
language that Lee did not deem it prudent to push his
Patagonian theory any farther. So he desisted, with
a very ill grace, and on the 2d of December, after a
fortnight’s delay, he crossed the Hudson, with a force
diminished to four thousand men. On that same day
Washington in his swift retreat reached Princeton,
with his force diminished to three thousand men.
The terms of service of many of the soldiers had
expired, and the prospect was so dismal, that few were
willing to reénlist. It was the gloomiest moment in
the Revolutionary War and in Washington’s career;
and the most alarming feature in the whole situation
was this outrageous insubordination on the part of
Lee. Washington had ordered him to keep-well to
the westward, and had even indicated the particular
road and ferry by which he wished him to cross the
Delaware, near Alexandria, but in flat disregard of
these orders Lee marched slowly to Morristown. At
this moment Gates was approaching, on his way from

1 Lee Papers, II. 313.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 81

Ticonderoga, with seven regiments sent down by
Schuyler to Washington’s assistance; but Lee inter-
posed, and with more success than he had had in
Heath’s case, diverted three of these regiments to
Morristown. By this time Washington had retreated
beyond the Delaware, and almost everybody considered
his campaign hopelessly ruined. It seemed as if the
cause of American independence was decisively over-
thrown, and it certainly was not Charles Lee’s fault
that it was not so. His design in thus moving inde-
pendently was to operate upon the British flank from
Morristown, a position of which Washington himself
afterward illustrated the great value. The selfish
schemer wished to secure for himself whatever advan-
tage might be gained from such a movement. His
plan was to look on and see Washington defeated and
humbled, and then strike a blow on his own account.
If Cornwallis had prevailed upon Howe to let him col-
lect a flotilla of boats and push on across the river in
pursuit of Washington, there would have been a
chance offered to Lee to strike the enemy’s rear before
the crossing had been fully effected. But Howe, per-
haps mindful of such a contingency, decided to wait a
few days in the hope of seeing the river frozen hard
enough to bear troops. In the meantime Lee's castle
in the air was overthrown by his own foolishness. On
the 13th of December, having left his army in charge
of Sullivan, he had for some unknown reason passed
the night at White’s tavern in Baskingridge, about
four miles distant. A zealous Tory in the neighbour-
hood had noted the fact, and galloped off to the
nearest British encampment, eighteen miles distant.

Lieutenant-colonel Harcourt, with Captain Banastre
G

82 CHARLES LEE

Tarleton and a party of thirty-eight horse, immediately
started forth in quest of such high game. At day-
break young Major Wilkinson arrived at the inn, with
a message from Gates, and found Lee in bed. The
general jumped up, thrust his feet into slippers, threw
on an old flannel gown over his nightclothes, and pro- -
ceeded to write a letter to Gates, setting forth his own
exalted merits and Washington’s matchless stupidity.
He had hardly signed and folded it when Wilkinson
at the window screamed, “ The British! the British!”
In the twinkling of an eye the house was surrounded
and the blustering letter-writer dragged from his bed-
room. Several of these soldiers had served with Lee
in Portugal and witnessed his gallantry at Villa Velha.
They were now surprised and disgusted at seeing him
fall on his knees in abject terror, raving like a mad-
man and begging Colonel Harcourt to spare his life.
“Had he behaved with proper spirit,” says Captain
Harris, in his journal, “I should have pitied him.”
No time was wasted. They picked him up, bare-
headed and half-dressed, mounted him on Wilkinson’s
horse, tied him hand and foot, and led him off, with
taunts and mirthful jeers. Of course, they said, he
must not be surprised if General Howe were to treat
him as a deserter, because he was one. The miserable
creature muttered and cursed, and let fall one remark
which they did not quite comprehend. “Just as I had
got the supreme command,” said he,’ and presently
added, ‘“‘ The game is up, it is all up.” So they carried
him off to New Brunswick, while his troops, thus
opportunely relieved of such a commander, were
promptly marched by Sullivan to Washington’s assist-
1 Moore, p. 63.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 83

ance, in time to take part in the glorious movement
upon Trenton and Princeton. Had it not been for
Lee’s capture, in the very nick of time, it is doubtful
if Washington would have had men enough to under-
take that movement, which instantly reversed the
fortunes of the campaign and opened the way for the
decisive triumphs of the next year. But the Ameri-
cans, who did not possess the clew to Lee’s strange
conduct, felt that they had lost a treasure. .

Of his conduct in captivity, which would soon have
afforded such a clew, nothing was known until all the
actors in those stirring scenes had been for many a
year in their graves. Lee was taken to New York
and confined in the City Hall, where he was courte-
ously treated, but he well understood that his life was
in danger in case the British government should see
fit to regard him as a deserter from the army. Sir
William Howe wrote home for instructions, and in
reply was directed to send his prisoner to England for
trial. Lee had already been sent on board ship, when
a letter from Washington puta stop to these proceed-
ings. The letter informed Howe that Washington
held five Hessian field-officers as hostages for Lee’s
personal safety. In thus choosing Hessians as hos-
tages, Washington showed his unfailing sagacity. The
king’s feeling toward Lee was extremely bitter and
revengeful, and no doubt he would have taken pleasure
in putting him to an ignominious death; but to disre-
gard the safety of the Hessian officers would arouse a
dangerous spirit of disaffection among the German
troops. In this quandary the obstinate and vindictive
king entered upon a discussion that lasted just a year.
Letters went back and forth between Howe and the

84 CHARLES LEE

ministry on the one hand, and Howe and Washington
on the other, until at length, in December, 1777,
Howe was instructed to consider Lee a prisoner of
war, and subject to exchange as such whenever con-
venient.

During this interval, while his fate was in suspense, -
the prisoner was busy in operations on his own ac-
count. First he assured the brothers Howe that he
was opposed to the Declaration of Independence; that
“if the Americans had followed his advice, matters
could never have gone to such a length;”* and even
now he hoped, if he could only obtain an interview
with a committee from Congress, to be able to open
negotiations for an honourable and satisfactory adjust-
ment of all existing difficulties. The Howes, who
were well disposed toward the Americans and sin-
cerely anxious for peace, allowed him to ask for the
interview; but Congress refused to grant it. Lee’s
extraordinary conduct before his capture had some-
what injured his reputation, and there were vague sus-
picions, though no one knew exactly what to suspect
him of. These doubts affected the soundness of his
judgment rather than of his character. His behaviour
was considered wayward and eccentric, but was not
seen to be treacherous. The worst that was now sup-
posed about him was that he had suffered himself to
be hoodwinked by the Howes into requesting a con-
ference that could answer no good purpose. If the
truth had only been known, how sorely would all good
people have been.astonished! No sooner was the
conference refused than the wretch went over to the
enemy, and sought to curry favour with the Howes by

1 Moore, p. 83.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 85

giving them aid and counsel for the next campaign
against the Americans. He went so far as to write
out for them a detailed plan of operations. After the
disastrous result of the campaign of 1777 the brothers
did not wish to disclose the secret of their peculiar
obligations to such an adviser. Lee's document re-
mained in possession of their private secretary, Sir
Henry Strachey, who carried it home to England next
year, and carefully stowed it away with other papers
in the library at Sutton Court, his fine, hospitable old
country house in Somersetshire. There, after a slum-
ber of eighty years, it was found and perused by intelli-
gent eyes,‘ and it has since found its way into the
Lenox Library in New York. The paper is in Lee’s
handwriting, folded, and indorsed as ‘‘ Mr. Lee’s Plan
—2o9th March 1777.” The indorsement is in the
handwriting of Sir Henry Strachey. In this paper
Lee expressly abandons the American cause, enters
“sincerely and zealously” (those are his words) into
the plans of the British commanders, and recommends
an expedition to Chesapeake Bay essentially similar to
that which was undertaken in the following summer.
This elaborate paper throws some light upon the
movements of General Howe, in July and August,
1777, which were formerly regarded as so strange.
Instead of moving straight up the Hudson River, to
cooperate with Burgoyne in accordance with the care-
fully studied plan of the ministry, General Howe
wasted the summer in a series of movements which
landed him at the end of August fifty miles south of
Philadelphia, with Washington’s army in front of him,
while the gallant Burgoyne, three hundred miles away,
1 Magazine of. American History, Il. 450.

86 CHARLES LEE

was marching to his doom. This supreme blunder
on the part of Howe was ruinous to the British cause.
It led directly to the surrender of Burgoyne, and thus
to the French alliance and indirectly to Yorktown.
The blunder was no doubt largely due to Lee’s wild
advice, but we owe him small thanks for it. It is im-
possible to read his paper and not see that in his stu- ~
pendous conceit he regarded himself as the palladium
of the American cause. His capture he regarded as
the final overthrow of that cause. What was left of it
could be of no use to anybody, and he had better
secure good terms for himself by helping to stamp it
out as quickly as possible.

If anything had been known about these treacherous
shifts on the part of Lee, he certainly never would have
been taken back into the American service. As noth-
ing whatever was known about the matter, he was
exchanged for General Richard Prescott early in May,
1778, and joined Washington’s army at Valley Forge.
What a frightful situation for the Americans: to have,
for the second officer in their army, the man whom the
chances of war might at any moment invest with the
chief command, such a man as this who had so lately
been plotting their destruction! What would Wash-
ington, what would Congress, have thought, had the
truth in its blackness been so much as dreamed of?
But why, we may ask, did the intriguer come back?
Why did he think it worth his while to pose once more
‘in the attitude of an American? Could it have been
with the intention of playing into the hands of the en-
emy? and could the British commander, knowing this
purpose, have thus gladly acquiesced in his return? It
is hard to say, but probably this explanation is too

“.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 87

simple to cover the case. We must remember that
Sir William Howe, the Whig general, had just re-
signed his command and gone home to defend his
military conduct against the fierce attacks of the king’s
party. His successor, Sir Henry Clinton, was not only
a Tory, but the personal relations between the two
were not altogether friendly; so that it is hardly credi-
ble that Clinton could have known anything about
Lee’s coéperation with Howe; if he had known it,
the secret would not have been buried for eighty years.
It is much more likely that, since the disastrous failure
of Lee’s advice, he was reduced to painful insignifi-
cance in the British camp, and so thought it worth
while to try his fortune again with the Americans.
The past year had seen the tables completely turned.
The American star was now in the ascendant; most
people expected to see the British driven to their ships
before autumn; and Lord North’s commissioners were
on their way across the ocean, to offer terms of peace.
While Lee could see all this, he could not see how
greatly Washington’s popular strength had increased
during the past winter, as the intrigues against him
had recoiled upon their authors. The days of the
Conway cabal were really gone by, but this was not
yet apparent to everybody. The ambitious schemes
of Gates were frustrated, and Lee might now hope
again to try his hand at supplanting Washington, with
one more rival out of the way. Indeed, there is some
reason for believing that the very schemers and syco-
phants who had been putting Gates forward were al-
ways ready, if occasion should offer, to drop him and
take up Lee instead. Doubtless, therefore, Lee came
back in the renewed hope of supplanting Washington.

88 CHARLES. LEE

Whether he can also have had any secret understand-
ings with the enemy, it is hard to say. A very friendly
letter from a British gentleman, George Johnson, dated
at Philadelphia, the 17th of June, and addressed to
General Lee at Valley Forge, observes in its post-
script, “Sir Henry Clinton bids me thank you for
your letter.” What this letter may have referred to,
or whether it is still anywhere in existence, or whether
there was any further correspondence between Clinton
and Lee, we do not know. Sir Henry had, at any
rate, probably seen and heard enough to confirm the
declared opinion of Sir Joseph Yorke, that such a man .-
as Charles Lee was “the worst present the Americans
could receive.” In the campaign just beginning he
proved himself to be such.

When, in June, Sir Henry Clinton evacuated Phila-
delphia, it was his purpose to retreat across New
Jersey to the city of New York without a battle, if
possible. It was Washington’s object to attack Clin-
ton on his retreat, cut to pieces the rear division of his
army, and thus essentially cripple him. Lee at first
endeavoured to dissuade Washington from making
such an attack. Then, when it was resolved to make
the oblique attack upon the rear division, with the
purpose of cutting it asunder from the advanced divi-
sion, Lee showed such unwillingness to undertake the
task that Washington assigned it to Lafayette. Each
of the opposing armies numbered about fifteen thou-
sand men, and since the arrival of Steuben, with his
Prussian tactics and discipline, the quality of the
American troops had been signally improved. Each
army was marching in two divisions, three or four

1 Lee Papers, II. 406.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 89

miles apart. The American advance, of about six
thousand men, under Lafayette, was to attack the
British rear division upon its left flank and engage
it until Washington, with the remainder of the army,
should come up and complete its discomfiture. At
the last moment Lee changed his mind and solicited
the command of the advance. The nobleness of
Washington’s nature made him very kind in his judg-
ments of other men. He was always ready to make
allowances, and up to this time he had found some ©
charitable interpretation for Lee’s behaviour. Now
he showed the defects of his excellence, and was too
trustful. He so arranged matters that Lee should
have the command, and Lafayette most gracefully
yielded the point. Washington’s orders to Lee were
explicit and peremptory. On the morning of the 28th
of June the advance division overtook the enemy near
Monmouth Court House. The position was admirable
for an oblique attack upon the British flank, and in
the opinion of Anthony Wayne and other brigade
commanders a prompt and spirited attack was called
for. But the fighting had scarcely begun when Lee’s
conduct became so strange and his orders so contra-
dictory as to excite uneasiness on the part of Lafay-
-ette, who sent a messenger back to Washington,
urging him to make all possible haste to the front.
When the commander-in-chief, with his main force,
had passed Freehold church on his way toward the
scene of action, he was astonished at the spectacle of
Lee’s division in disorderly retreat, with the enemy
close upon their heels. Ai little farther on he met the
faithless general. The men who then beheld Wash-
ington’s face, and listened to his terrific outburst of

90 CHARLES. LEE

wrath, could never forget it for the rest of their lives.
It was one of those moments that live in tradition.
People of to-day who know nothing else about Charles
Lee think of him vaguely as the man whom Wash-
ington upbraided at Monmouth. People who know
nothing else about the battle of Monmouth still dimly
associate it with the disgrace of a General Lee. Leav-

1 The following letter gives a version of the rebuke :—
£ g

““ CHARLOTTEVILLE, VA., Oct. 26, 1895.
“ PROFESSOR JOHN FISKE : —

“ Dear Sir : — At your request, I have reduced to writing the incident
I related to you last evening, at the reception, after your lecture upon Gen- -
eral Charles Lee—‘ The Soldier of Fortune.’
“Tam, Sir,
“ Yours faithfully,
“Wn. ROBERTSON.

“In the year 1840, while I was a student at Hampton, Sydney College,
and boarding in the family of Mrs. Ann Rice (the widow of the Rev. John
H. Rice, D.D.), her father, Major Jacob Morton, a Revolutionary soldier,
living in an adjoining county (Cumberland), came to visit her. Major
Morton was then upward of eighty years old, but still in full possession of
all his mental faculties. . . .

“ The talk at the dinner table was of his reminiscences of the Revolu-
tionary War . . . the Battle of Monmouth. . . ._ I sought an opportun-
ity of further conversation with him, and having heard or read that just
before that battle General Washington, on meeting General Charles Lee in
retreat, had ‘ cursed and swore’ at him, I asked Major Morton whether that
report was true. ‘No, sir! No, sir!’ replied the major with animation.
‘It isnot true! Itso happened that the meeting of General Washington
with General Lee on that day took place within a very few yards of me,
and I saw and heard all that passed between them. I will tell you how it
was. Our troops were marching rapidly, expecting soon to be engaged
with the British ; the day was very hot, the road heavy with sand, our men
fatigued by the march. I was then a sergeant in my company and had fre-
quently to face about in order to keep my platoon aligned on the march, —
myself walking backwards. While doing so, I saw General Washington
coming from the rear of our column, riding very rapidly along the right
flank of the column; and as he came nearer, my attention was fixed upon
him with wonder and astonishment, for he was evidently under strong emo-

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 9I

ing the cowering and trembling culprit, Washington
hurried on to rally the troops and give the orders
which turned impending defeat into victory. As he
rode about the field, his suspicions of foul play were
more and more thoroughly aroused, and presently,
meeting Lee again, he ordered him to the rear. The

tion and excitement. I never saw such a countenance before. It was like
a thunder-cloud before the flash of lightning. Just as he reached the flank
of my platoon he reined up his horse a little, and raising his right hand
high above his head, he cried out with a loud voice, “My God! General
Lee, what are you about?” Until that moment I had not known that Gen-
eral Lee was near; but on turning my head a little to the left (still stepping
backward on the march) I found that General Lee had ridden from the
head of our column along our right flank and was only a few yards distant,
in front of General Washington. In answer to General Washington’s ex-
cited exclamation, “My God! General Lee, what are you about?” General
Lee began to make some explanation ; but General Washington impatiently
interrupted him, and with his hand still raised high above his head, waving
it angrily, exclaimed, “Go to the rear, sir,” spurred his horse, and rode
rapidly forward. The whole thing occurred as quickly as I can tell it to
you.’

“This conversation with old Major Morton interested me profoundly
and made a deep impression upon my memory. My recollection of it is
still (after the lapse of about fifty-five years) clear and distinct. What I
have written about it, if not in his very words, is substantially what he toid
me. The words, ‘My God! General Lee; what are you about?’ are the
very words which he declared that General Washington uttered. I will
add that Major Morton, in all the region of country in which he spent his
long life, was reputed to be a man of the very highest integrity — no one
who ever knew, him ever doubted or questioned his veracity. Indeed, he
was proverbial for honesty, courage, and veracity. Altho’ only a sergeant
at the date of the battle of Monmouth, he afterward rose to the rank of a
major in the Revolutionary Army ; and in the service acquired the sobri-
quet of ‘Solid Column.’ When, in 1825, General Lafayette revisited the
United States, and held a levee at Richmond, Va., at which many of the
surviving officers and soldiers of the Revolution from various parts of
the state of Virginia attended, and were successively presented to him ; as
Major Morton’s turn came to be presented, Lafayette said, cordially, ‘Oh,
it is not necessary to introduce “old Solid Column” to me, I remember
him well.’

| “Wn. ROBERTSON.”

92 CHARLES LEE

next day Lee, having recovered his self-possession and
thought of a line of defence, wrote to Washington
demanding an apology for his language on the battle-

field. Washington replied that he believed his words =i

to have been fully warranted by the circumstances, and
added that a court-martial would soon afford General
Lee an opportunity for explaining his conduct. “ Quite

right,” answered Lee; “you cannot afford me greater j |

pleasure than in giving me the opportunity of showing —

to America the sufficiency of her respective servants. 4
I trust that the temporary power of office, and the tin-

sel dignity attending it, will not be able, by all the
mists they can raise, to obfuscate the bright rays of
truth.”* Washington answered by placing Lee under
arrest. He was tried by court-martial on three charges:
(1) Disobedience of orders in not attacking the
enemy. (2) Misbehaviour before the enemy in mak-
ing an unnecessary, disorderly, and shameful retreat.

(3) Gross disrespect to the commander-in-chief. On —

the 12th of August he was found guilty on all three
charges, and suspended from all command in the army
for the term of one year. a

For a long time Lee’s conduct at Monmouth seemed
quite unintelligible. The discoveries since made re-
garding his behaviour in captivity do not yet clear it up,

though they make it seem susceptible of the worst in- —

terpretation. If we suppose that he was actually in
collusion with Clinton, the simplest supposition is that —

he intended to wreck the army; and certainly few —
things could be better calculated to do so than throw-
ing a mass of disorderly fugitives in the face of the —
advancing reénforcements. But I believe the true

1 Lee Papers, Il. 437.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 93

explanation is not quite so simple as this. It does not
seem probable that there was any secret understanding
with Clinton. It is much more likely that Lee was
again at his old trick of trying to discredit and supplant
Washington. With this end in view he first loudly
condemned Washington’s plan of battle and refused
to take the part assigned him. On second thought it
occurred to him that by taking that command he
might insure the defeat of Washington's plan, and
still bring off the army to such a position that he
might claim the credit for having saved it from the
effects of Washington’s rashness. This explanation
is indicated by the line of defence which he chose upon
his trial. His retreat lay across two deep ravines, and
it was upon the brink of the second one that Wash-
ington met him. He argued ingeniously before the
court-martial that if he had attacked as Washington
directed, the result would have been disastrous; but
in his retreat he was simply luring the enemy across
these ravines into a position where he could suddenly
turn upon him and defeat him with a dangerous ravine
at his back. All this would have been done, he declared,
if Washington had not come upand spoiled the game.
This explanation may have been concocted after the
event; but it is not unlikely that Lee may really have
entertained some such wild scheme. A very difficult
plan it would be to carry out, especially with his brigade
commanders all hopelessly bewildered. Confusion
could not but result, and well indeed it was that the
reins of the runaway team were suddenly seized by the
powerful hand of Washington.

Such is the explanation least unfavourable to Lee.
Even on his own showing it is one of the most out-

94 CHARLES LEE

rageous cases of insubordination recorded in the annals
of war. But one incident, mentioned in the testimony
of Steuben, throws perhaps the blackest shade upon
the conduct of this miserable creature. After Lee had
been ordered to the rear, as he rode away baffled and
spiteful, he met Steuben with a couple of brigades
hurrying to the front in pursuance of an order just
received from Washington. Lee now tried to turn
him off in another direction, alleging that the order
was misunderstood. But the good baron was not to
be trifled with and resolutely kept on his way.’ Lee
was so enraged at this testimony that he made reflec-
tions upon Steuben, which presently called forth a
challenge from that gentleman.’ That “sprightliness
of imagination” heretofore mentioned seems now to
have deserted our soldier of fortune. It is to be re-
gretted that we have not the reply in which he
declined the encounter. There is a reference to it in
a letter from Alexander Hamilton to the Baron von
Steuben, a fortnight after the challenge: “I have
read your letter to Lee with pleasure. It was conceived
in terms which the offence merited, and if he had any
feeling, must have been felt by him. Considering the
- pointedness and severity of your expressions, his
answer was certainly a very modest one, and proved
that he had not a violent appetite for so close a ¢éZe-a-
téte as you seemed disposed to insist upon. His
evasions, if known to the world, would do him very
little honour.”* Upon what grounds Lee refused to
fight with Steuben, it is hard to surmise; for within
another week we find him engaged in a duel with

1 Lee Papers, III. 96. 2 Td. 253.
8 Jd. 254.

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 95

Washington’s aide-de-camp, Colonel Laurens, for
whom Hamilton. acted as second.’ In this affair Lee
was slightly wounded in the rightarm. His venomous
tongue now kept getting him into trouble more than
ever. He could not hear Washington’s name men-
tioned without losing his temper. After some time
he addressed one of his impudent letters to Congress,
and was immediately dismissed from the army. He
retired in disgrace to his estate in the Shenandoah
valley, and lived there long enough to witness the final
triumph of the cause he had done so much to injure.
On a visit to Philadelphia he was suddenly seized with
a fever, and died in a tavern, friendless and alone, on
the 2d of October, 1782. His last words, uttered in
delirium, were, “Stand by me, my brave grenadiers!”
A scoffer to the last, he had expressed in his will a
wish that he might not be buried within a mile of any
church or meeting-house, as since his arrival in Amer-
ica he had kept so much bad company in this world
that he did not wish to continue it in the next. He
was buried, however, in the cemetery of Christ Church,
and his funeral was attended by the President of Con-
gress and other eminent citizens.

General Lee was one of the numerous persons
credited with the authorship of the famous “ Letters
of Junius,” and the way in which this came to pass is
worthy of notice for the further illustration it affords
of his character. In a letter dated at Dover, Feb-
ruary 1, 1803, published in the W2elmzngton Mirror
and copied into the Sz. James Chronicle, London,
Mr. Thomas Rodney gave the substance of a conversa-
tion between himself and General Lee in 1773. That

3 1 Jd. 283.

96 CHARLES LEE

was the year when Lee came to America and travelled
up and down the country in order to impress upon
the minds of our people his great importance in the
European world. In the course of this conversation
Lee observed that not a man in the world but himself,
not even the publisher, knew the secret of the author--
ship of “Junius.” Rodney naturally replied that no
one but the author himself could make such a remark
asthat. Leestarted. “I have unguardedly committed
myself,” said he, “and it would be folly to deny you
that I am the author; but I must request you will not —
reveal it during my life, for it never was and never will
be revealed by me to any other.” Lee then went on
to point out several circumstances corroborative of his
claim. Such a statement, from a gentleman of such
high character as Mr. Rodney, at once attracted atten-
tion in Europe and America. Two intimate friends
of Lee maintained opposite sides of the question.
Ralph Wormeley of Virginia published a letter in
which he argued that Lee was very far from possessing
the knowledge of parliamentary history exhibited in
the pages of “Junius.” Daniel McCarthy of North
Carolina published a series of articles in the Vergzxza
Gazette in refutation of Wormeley. Dr. Thomas
Girdlestone of Yarmouth, England, followed on the
same side in a small volume entitled, “ Facts tending
to prove that General Lee was never absent from this
country for any length of time during the years 1767—
1772, and that he was the author of ‘ Junius.’” This
curious little book was published in London in 1813.
The first part of Dr. Girdlestone’s title points to the
fatal obstacle to his hypothesis. The simple fact is
that Lee was absent in such remote countries as

THE SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 97

Poland and Turkey at the very dates when “ Junius”
was publishing letters exhibiting such minute and
detailed acquaintance with affairs every day occurring
in London as could only have been possessed by an
eye-witness living on the spot. This fact makes it
impossible that he should have written the “ Letters
of Junius”; and Mr. Rodney’s statement only goes to
show that, in other than military matters, the soldier
of fortune was willing to claim what did not belong to
him.

Such was the man to whom some of our great-
grandfathers were at times almost ready to intrust the
destinies of their country rather than to George
Washington! When we consider how narrowly the
cause of American independence escaped _ total
wreck at the hands of this unprincipled adventurer,
the thought is enough to make us shudder after
the hundred years that have passed. In judging the
character of the man, there may be found some who
would urge that his eccentricities were so marked as
perhaps to afford some ground for the plea of insanity
whereby to palliate his misdemeanours. One will not
grudge him the benefit of such a plea, in so far as it
may have any value. His mind was no doubt ill
balanced, or, to use one of his own favourite words, it
was “unhinged ” by colossal vanity and ravening self-
ishness; and accordingly, what chiefly strikes us now
in reviewing his career is the contrast between his
enormous pretensions and his unparalleled feebleness.
We shall have to search the field of modern history
far and wide to find his equal as a charlatan. In
comparison with such a man even the figure of

Benedict Arnold acquires dignity. We can imagine
H

98 | CHARLES LEE

the latter admired and trusted in some circles of the a 3

lower world. But Charles Lee belongs rather to that

limbo described by Dante as the final home of those if
caitiff souls @ Dio spiacentd ed ai nemiti sut, too

wicked for the one place, too weak for the other.

PSN a eee

et

_ ALEXANDER HAMILTON
AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY

(Pm gl tere te 2, 8» ta ae ee ttl ie NO AN Nl OL ALE CLALIT TLL LL ALLO LLL LOL LLL LLL LEE LS ALS ALLL LLL ALA LL ENF

°
7
|
‘

a eee” ve

II]

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY

Tue 6th of July, 1774, was a memorable day in the
history of New York. The question as to how far
that colony would go in support of Massachusetts in
its defiance of Parliament was pressing for an answer.
Parliament had in April passed an act which deprived
Massachusetts of her charter, and another which shut —
up the port of Boston until the town should see fit to
pay the East India Company for the tea which had
been thrown into the harbour. On the ist of June
Hutchinson had sailed for England, hoping through

a personal interview with the king to effect a repeal

of these tyrannical acts, and on the same day Thomas
Gage, intrusted with the work of enforcing them, as-
sumed military command over Massachusetts. Troops
were encamped on Boston Common, frigates rode at
anchor in the harbour, great merchantmen lay idle at
the wharves while sailors and shipwrights roamed the
streets or sat drinking in the taverns. The legislature
was convened at Salem, where on the 17th Samuel
Adams achieved a master stroke and carried the reso-
lutions inviting all the sister colonies to join in a Con-
tinental Congress, to meet at Philadelphia on the 1st
of September. Rhode Island and Maryland had at
once elected delegates to attend the proposed Con-
gress. In Virginia a convention was about to be

IOI

102 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

held, and such expressions of opinion had come from
that quarter as to leave no doubt as to what its action
would be. The time had arrived when New York
must do something. But what she should do was
hard to determine, for parties were quite evenly
balanced.

The king, indeed, in his harsh measures against
Massachusetts relied confidently upon the support of
New York. He believed that his Tory friends there
were in a decided majority, and they declared there
would be no Congress. As for New York, they said,
“She will never appoint delegates; Massachusetts
must be made to feel that she is deserted.” There
was something more in this than the old local dislike
between New York and New England. For thirteen
years Massachusetts had been suffering~acute irrita-
tion at the hands of crown officers, and her temper
had thus grown so belligerent that in most parts of
the country there was a disposition to regard her as
perhaps a little too obstinate and fierce. There were
people in New York who thought that both Massa-
chusetts and the king were going too far, and _ per-
suaded themselves that the tea might be paid for
without surrendering the principles which had led to
its destruction. Some who were about to become
eminent as Revolutionary leaders had not yet fully
made up their minds. Tory politicians led in the
Committee of Correspondence, and on the 4th of July,
while it was decided to take part in the Congress, on
the other hand the delegation which was appointed
seemed to the extreme Whigs too conservative in
character. The Sons of Liberty, who feared that
Massachusetts would not find due support in the Con-

——*

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 103

gress, were well represented in the city of New York.
At their head were the merchants, Isaac Sears and
Alexander Macdougall, and the eloquent lawyer, John
Morin Scott.. The Tories used to sneer at these men
as “the Presbyterian junto.” They wished to recon-
sider the action of the committee, and to make a
popular demonstration which would go as far as pos-
sible toward committing New York to espouse the
cause of Massachusetts. Accordingly, on the 6th of
July, a great meeting of citizens was held in the fields
north of the city, with the canny Scotchman, Macdou-
gall, as chairman. Many eminent speakers addressed
the meeting, but among the hearers was a lad of
seventeen years, small and slight in stature, who lis-
tened with intense eagerness as he felt that, besides all
that was said, there were other weighty arguments
which seemed to occur to nobody. At length, unable
to keep silence any longer, he rose to his feet, and
somewhat timidly at first, but gathering courage every
moment, he addressed the astonished company. His
arguments compelled assent, while his dignified elo-
quence won admiration, and when he had finished
there was a buzz of inquiry as to who this extraordi-
nary boy could be. There were some who had seen
him walking back and forth under the shade of some
large trees in Dey Street, absorbed in meditation and
now and then muttering to himself; a few knew him
as “the young West Indian”; on further inquiry, it
appeared that he was a student at King’s College, and
his name was Alexander Hamilton.

Instances of marvellous precocity are more often
found in mathematics, or linguistics, or music, than in
political science; for in the latter case something

104 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

more than consecutive thinking or tenacious memory
or a fine artistic sense are required; there is needed
an insight into human nature and the conditions of
human life such as can hardly be acquired save by
long years of experience. Seldom has there been
such a case as that of Hamilton. His intellect
seemed to have sprung forth in full maturity, like
Pallas from the brain of Zeus. What little is known
of his childhood and youth can be told in few words.
Alexander Hamilton was born upon the island of
Nevis, in the West Indies, on the 11th of January,
1757. His father belonged to the famous Scottish
family of the Hamiltons of Grange, his mother was
daughter of a Huguenot gentleman named Fawcette,
who had fled to the West Indies after the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. He was equally at home in
the English and French languages. His father fell
into financial difficulties, and his mother died during
his childhood, so that he was placed at school at Santa
Cruz under the care of some of her relatives. His
school studies were accompanied by a wide course of
miscellaneous reading, assisted by the advice of Dr.
Hugh Knox, a kindly and sagacious Presbyterian
minister and a graduate of Princeton. Before his
thirteenth birthday he entered the counting-house of
Nicholas Cruger, a merchant, who carried on a very
considerable business. Here his wonderful precocity
soon showed itself. Business letters of his, written at
that period, have been preserved which would do
credit to a trained business man; and before the boy
had been a year in the house, his employer, having
occasion to leave the island, intrusted its entire man-
agement to him. In spite of this extraordinary apti-

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 105

tude, for the work he felt no special fondness. In a
letter dated just two months before he was thirteen,
he thus unbosomed himself to a schoolmate: “To
confess my weakness, Ned, my ambition is prevalent,
so that I contemn the grovelling ambition of a clerk,
or the like, to which my fortune condemns me, and
would willingly risk my life, though not my character,
to exalt my station. I am confident, Ned, that my
youth excludes me from any hope of immediate pre-
ferment, nor do I desire it; but I mean to prepare the
way for futurity. I’m no philosopher, you see, and
may be justly said to build castles in the air; my
folly makes me ashamed, and beg you'll conceal it.
Yet, Neddy, we have seen such schemes successful,
when the projector is constant. I shall conclude by
saying, I wish there was a war.”

The reading of Plutarch has awakened generous
ambition in many a youthful mind. Hamilton “ pre-
pared the way for futurity” by studying and com-
‘menting upon this author, and by trying his hand
at literary composition. In August, 1772, the island
was visited by a terrible hurricane; and a remarkable
description of it, published in a newspaper at St.
Christopher, attracted general attention throughout
the British West Indies. The authorship was traced
to Hamilton; it was decided that such literary talent
required wider opportunities than were furnished on
the islands; the needful funds were raised by sub-
scription; and before the end of October the boy’s
romantic temperament was at once gratified and
stimulated, as he found himself on board ship headed
for Boston, with potent letters of introduction from
Dr. Knox in his pocket. The connection with this

106 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

Presbyterian divine led him to New Jersey, where
he entered a grammar school at Elizabethtown, and
for a while made his home in the house of William
Livingston. There he was introduced to the best
society, and met many good friends, among them
John Jay, who was soon to marry one of the four
charming daughters. A full year had not passed
when he was declared fit to enter Princeton, and he
called upon Dr. Witherspoon, the able president,
with the request that he might be allowed to ad-
vance toward his degree as fast as he could pass
the examinations, and without regard to the pre-
scribed curriculum. When the request was refused
by the trustees as vain and unreasonable, he re-
paired to New York, and succeeded in entering
King’s College (now Columbia) upon his own
terms. |

This was late in the autumn of 1773, the stirring
season of the Boston Tea Party. Hamilton’s wish
for a war was soon to be gratified. His childhood
had been passed in an atmosphere of loyalism; he
knew little as yet of American politics; his instincts
were then, as always, in favour of strong government,
and opposed to anything that looked like insurrec-
tion, and his first impressions leaned toward the Tory
side. But he had hardly been six months at college
when he happened to visit Boston, about the time
when news arrived of the vindictive acts of Parlia-
ment and the appointment of a military governor.
It was a good place and a‘good time for comprehend-
ing the true character of the political situation. The
young man mastered the arguments with his usual
swiftness and thoroughness, and returned to New

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 107

York in time to exert a powerful influence upon the
great assemblage in the fields. The practical result
of the meeting was seen a few weeks later, when the
delegates embarked at Cortlandt Street to the sound
of drum and trumpet, pledged to “support at the risk
of everything dear” such resolutions as the Conti-
nental Congress might see fit to adopt.

Soon after the Congress had adjourned in October,
to await the results of its action upon the British gov-
ernment, its proceedings were adversely criticised in
two able pamphlets written jointly by two Episcopal
clergymen, the famous Samuel Seabury, afterward
Bishop of Connecticut, and Isaac Wilkins of West-
chester County. The pamphlets, which purported to
come from “A Westchester Farmer,” cast dismay into
the ranks of the Whigs. They were extremely plau-
sible, and were already making converts, when within
a fortnight there appeared an anonymous tract in
vindication of Congress, which at once threw the
“Farmer” upon the defensive, and ruffled his temper
withal, as his next pamphlet showed. The anony-
mous writer returned to the charge with a voluminous
essay quite properly entitled “ The Farmer Refuted ”;
it completely unhorsed and disarmed the adversary ;
the two ministers had no more to say. Great curios-
ity was felt as to the anonymous writer. Some thought
it must be Jay, others his father-in-law, Livingston.
When it was at length ascertained that it was a boy
of eighteen, and the same boy that had addressed the
meetings in the fields, the astonishment was profound.
There was no trace of immaturity in thought or ex-
pression in his two essays, and their boldness of tone
was accompanied by a grasp of the political situation

s

108 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

that must seem even more remarkable to-day than it
did at the time, since we can appreciate the writer’s
foresight as contemporaries necessarily could not. At
the beginning of 1775 very few leaders, even in Mas-
sachusetts or Virginia, were in favour of independence.
The author of “ The Farmer Refuted” hints at inde-
pendence as the possible outcome of the quarrel, indi-
cates a Fabian military policy as most likely to baffle
Great Britain, and surmises that France and even
Spain might find it for their interest to take part in
the struggle. That such advanced views could have
been even suggested without weakening the effect of
the pamphlet shows a tact and an artfulness of state-
ment not less remarkable than the other qualities of
the young writer.

It was not long before the news of Lexington
wrought the excitement in New York to fever heat.
There were strect fights between Tories and Whigs,
and here Hamilton’s hatred of anarchy was well illus-
trated. To him independence was one thing, mob
law quite another. A party of rioters beset the house
of Dr. Cooper, the Tory president of the college, with
intent to seize him and in some way maltreat him.
Hamilton got into the foremost rank of the crowd till
he reached the door-step, then faced about and ad-
dressed the rioters, and held them at bay while the
doctor escaped through the back garden and took
refuge on the deck of a British seventy-four. Pres-
ently, when Isaac Sears raised a troop of horse over in
Connecticut and dashed into New York at their head
to attack Rivington’s Tory printing-press, Hamilton
incurred no little risk in confronting them with argu-
ments and expostulations. The press was destroyed

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 109

and the Tory type carried off to Connecticut to be
melted into Whig bullets.’

By this time the boy was ranked among the leading
spirits of the Whig party. He had already begun to
study the military art, and now joined acorps of young
men, chiefly college students, known as “ Hearts of
Oak.” They wore green coats and leather caps
adorned with the motto, “Freedom or Death,” and
they were drilled and paraded daily until they became
a model of discipline. On the 14th of March, 1776,
Hamilton was appointed captain of the first company
of artillery raised by the state. Presently the thorough-
ness of its drill and the grace of its movements caught
the keen eye of that great genius and eager military
student, Nathanael Greene, who arrived in New York
on the 17th of April. Greene was so impressed that
he sought Hamilton’s acquaintance and spoke of him
enthusiastically to Washington. The young captain
and his company did good service at the battle of
Long Island and the retreat which followed; and
again at White Plains and Trenton and Princeton.
On the 1st of March, 1777, he accepted a position on
Washington’s staff, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel.
It was with some reluctance that he took this place,
_ for he had been looking forward to promotion in the
line ; but what he lost in one direction he probably
more than gained in another, through the peculiarly .
intimate relations into which he entered with Wash-
ington. His great work was to be, not that of a
general, but of a statesman; and there was no place
more favourable than Washington’s staff for studying
minutely into the causes of the miserable weakness

1 Morse’s “ Hamilton,” I. 19.

IIO ALEXANDER HAMILTON

which the imperfect union between the states entailed
upon the whole country, or for discussing the most
proper measures for remedying this condition of affairs
through the establishment of a more perfect union.
The impossibility of raising a national revenue, save
from precarious foreign loans or the wretched expedi-
ent of issuing promissory notes without any discover-
able means of paying them, was a source of perpetual
anxiety to the commander-in-chief. The consequences
of this poverty were daily brought home to his head-
quarters in the difficulty of enlisting troops, or of sup-
plying them with clothing and ammunition, or of
paying them even a small instalment of wages over-
due. At the end of the war there was no one who
could have told better than Hamilton how hard it had
sometimes proved to keep the army from melting away,
or how many times some promising military scheme
had been nipped in the bud for want of supplies, while
men in Congress and in the state legislatures were
wondering why Washington could not march without
shoes, sup without food, fight without powder, and
defeat a well-equipped and well-fed enemy that out-
numbered him two to one. No one understood better
than Hamilton that, but for the radical want of
efficiency in the government of the confederation,
such obstacles would have been far less formidable,
and the enemy might much sooner have been driven
from the country. No doubt the daily intercourse for
four years between Washington and his confidential
aide added much to the strength of both, and to the
effectiveness with which they were afterward able to
reénforce one another in contributing to found a better
government. Almost from the outset Washington

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY III

consulted Hamilton more frequently than the other
members of his staff and intrusted the most weighty
affairs to his charge. It was remarkable that this
preference, accorded to so young a man, should have
excited no jealousy. But the “little lion,” as the older
officers called him, was so frank and good-natured, so
buoyant and brave, and so free from arrogance, that he
won all the hearts. There was a mixture in him of
Scottish shrewdness with French vivacity that most
people found irresistible. Knox and Laurens, Lafay-
ette and Steuben, loved him with devoted affection.

Along with the desire to please, which was one
secret of his attractiveness, there was a due amount
of sternness latent, as appeared when occasion called
for it. If necessary, the “little lion” could com-
mand in a tone that made weaker creatures tremble.
All his tact and all his imperiousness were required
on his mission to Saratoga after Burgoyne’s sur-
render, to get back the troops which Washington
had sent to Gates and which the latter no longer
needed. Gates was more than ready to leave Wash-
ington in the lurch, as Charles Lee had done the year
before. In Congress there was so strong a party
opposed to Washington that to offend his unscrupu-
lous rival while all the glamour of victory surrounded
him would not be timely. The skill with which this
young man, not yet one-and-twenty, wrested the troops
from the reluctant Gates, peremptorily asserting Wash-
ington’s claim, yet never allowing the affair to develop
into a quarrel, was simply marvellous.

As a staff officer Hamilton was present at the bat-
tles of the Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth;
he was Colonel Laurens’s second in the duel between

112 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

that officer and Charles Lee; and at West Point he
was the first to receive and read the papers taken from
André’s stockings and containing the melancholy proofs
of Arnold’s treason. He saw much of André and of
Mrs. Arnold, and his letters give a most touching
description of the affair. Soon after this his connec-
tion with Washington’s staff came abruptly to an end.
On the 16th of February, 1781, as Washington was
going up the stairs at his headquarters at New Wind-
sor, he met Hamilton coming down and told him that
he wished to speak to him. Hamilton, who was on his
way downstairs to deliver an important order, replied
that he would return ina moment. On his way back
he was met by Lafayette, who accosted him on some
pressing matter of business. In his impatience to
return upstairs he cut Lafayette short in a manner
which, as he says, but for their intimacy would have
been more than abrupt. He was not aware of having
consumed more than two minutes altogether, but
when he reached the head of the staircase he found
Washington waiting there, and these words were
exchanged : —

“Colonel Hamilton, you have kept me waiting at
the head of the stairs these ten minutes. I must tell
you, sir, you treat me with disrespect.”

“TI am not conscious of it, sir; but since you have
thought it necessary to tell me so, we part.”

“Very well, sir, if it be your choice.”

And so they parted. At first sight the breaking of
such an important relation on such a slight occasion
seems silly, and Hamilton’s reply to his commander
childishly petulant. But Washington’s temper was
hasty. That he believed himself to have reproved his

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY Lm ee

young friend unjustly was shown by his sending an
aide to him a few moments afterward, with what was
virtually an apology and a request that he would
reconsider his decision. Hamilton, however, had for
some time wished to leave the staff for a place in the
line, and now that the matter had taken this shape
he preferred to let it remain so. Any resentment he
expressly disclaimed, and it does not appear that the
cordial friendship between the two men was in the
least disturbed by this little episode. Hamilton pres-
ently obtained the opportunity which he coveted, and
in the Yorktown campaign commanded a body of
light infantry in Lafayette’s division, at the head of
which he stormed one of the British redoubts with
signal valour. This was the end of his military career.
On his mission to General Gates he had become ac-
quainted with Elizabeth, daughter of General Schuy-
ler, and their marriage took place on the 14th of
December, 1780. In the spring of 1782, as soon as
it became evident that the war was over, Hamilton
removed to Albany, and in July was admitted to the
bar. |

Other business than Jaw practice, however, came up
to occupy his attention. We have seen how forcibly
the weakness of the government and the need for
revenue had been brought home to Washington’s staff
officer. He had pondered deeply on these subjects,
and had already conceived the scheme of an alliance.
of interests between the federal government and the
moneyed class of society. One of the instruments by
which the alliance was to be effected was a national
bank, which was to be a corporation in private hands,

but to some extent supported and controlled by Con-
1

I14 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

gress. He also advocated extending the powers of
the federal government and placing the departments
of war and finance in the hands of individuals instead
of committees. His views made a great impression
upon Robert Morris, who was appointed in 1781
superintendent of finance. In December of that year
the Bank of North America was established, and
Hamilton must share with Robert and Gouverneur
Morris the authorship of that scheme. About the
time he entered the bar he was appointed continental
receiver of taxes for the state of New York. In that
capacity he visited the legislature at Poughkeepsie,
had an earnest conference with a committee of both
houses, and presently the legislature actually passed
resolutions calling for a convention of all the states
for the purpose of enlarging the powers of Congress,
especially with regard to taxation. Nothing ever
came of this action, but in view of the subsequent
course of New York, it is remarkable that Hamilton’s
first attempt should have succeeded so well. But
there can be little doubt that between 1782 and 1788
the politics of New York were somewhat corrupted by
her custom-house. In the general confusion she found
herself prospering at the expense of her neighbours,
and the strength of the Anti-federalist or Clintonian
party was naturally increased by that circumstance;
it would have been so in any state.

In October, 1782, the New York legislature chose
Hamilton as one of its delegates to Congress. There
he first came into familiar contact with Madison, and
met James Wilson, with others of less note; and there
he witnessed some months of barren and almost
purposeless wrangling which convinced him _ that

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY I15

nothing was to be hoped from any attempt at reform
which should stop short with the mere amending of
the confederation; it must be entirely superseded by
a stronger government. On every proposal which
looked toward amendment he took the affirmative and
argued with his accustomed power that nothing was
accomplished. This winter’s experience doubtless in-
creased his disgust at the jealousies and the perpetual
jarring between the states. Hamilton’s own position
was peculiar in so far as he was not a native of any one
of the states, and had from his first connection with
public affairs felt more interest in the country as a
whole than in any part of it. His attitude, therefore,
was such as to enable him to move much more freely
and directly toward the construction of a national
government than any of his contemporaries. Another
effect of so much fruitless discussion may well have
been to confirm his distrust of popular government.
For what an Athenian would have called the rule of
the many-headed King Demos he never had much
liking. He could see much more clearly than the
men around him many of the things that were needed
and the most efficient means for obtaining them; and
there was in his temperament an impatience and an
imperiousness that made him irk at the dulness of his
fellow-creatures and the length of time required to set
their common sense to work in the right direction.
He was a devoted friend to free government; not,
however, to that kind of free government in which the
people rule, but the kind in which they are ruled by
an upper class, with elaborate safeguards against the
abuse of power. To such views Hamilton was pre-
disposed by nature; his intimate experience of the

116 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

contrast between Washington’s efficiency and the in-
efficiency of Congress had done much to confirm
them; his own winter of hard work in Congress no
doubt confirmed them still more. Every man has the
defects of his excellences, and this element of narrow-
ness in Hamilton’s view of popular government was
closely related to the qualities that made him so pre-
eminent as a constructive thinker.

One winter of such hopeless work was for the
present enough for Hamilton. In 1783 he returned
to the practice of law and began rising rapidly at the
bar. Even in his professional practice he had an
opportunity to figure as a defender of the federal
government against the state sovereignty. Just as it
was in later years with Daniel Webster, his first
famous law case stood in a noticeable relation to his
career as a Statesman. Hamilton was honourably dis-
tinguished for his vigorous condemnation of the cruel
and silly persecution to which the Tories, especially
in New York, were subjected after the close of the
war. His first great case, in 1784, was one in which
the treaty obligations of the United States to protect
the Tories from further abuse came into conflict with
a persecuting act which the New York legislature had
lately passed against such people. There was then
no federal Supreme Court, or any other federal court,
in which such questions could be settled. The case
was one which must begin and end in the state courts
of New York, and its bearing upon the political ques-
tion was rather implied than asserted. It was a case
in which, if the state law were upheld, a poor widow
would recover property of which the vicissitudes of
war deprived her; but if the state law were set aside, a

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 117

mass of spoliation would be prevented in comparison
with which the widow’s affair was the veriest trifle.
Popular sympathy was wholly with the widow and
against her Tory opponent, and in acting as counsel
for the latter Hamilton showed such moral courage as
had hardly been called for in any law case since John
Adams and Josiah Quincy defended the British soldiers
concerned in the so-called Boston Massacre. That he
should have won his case against a hostile court, in
such a moment of popular excitement; was hardly to
be expected. That he did win it, and in so doing
overturn the state law in question, was a marvellous
feat,—the strongest proof one could wish of his
unrivalled power as an advocate. The decision of the
court was followed by a war of pamphlets in which
Hamilton again won the day, and went far toward
changing the public sentiment. At this moment there
entered upon his life the ominous shadow of the duel,
that social pest, which by and by, under other circum-
stances and at other hands, was to cut him off in the
very prime of his powers and usefulness. A club of
blatant pothouse politicians proposed to take turns in
calling him out until some one of them should have
the good fortune to kill him; but the wild scheme
came to naught.

Two more years elapsed while Hamilton was en-
gaged in professional work, and then Virginia, under
the lead of Madison, called for a convention of all the
states at Annapolis, to consider the feasibility of estab-
lishing a uniform system of commercial regulations
for the whole country. Here Hamilton saw his oppor-
tunity, and succeeded in getting New York to appoint
delegates, with himself among them. When the con-

118 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

vention met in September, 1786, only five states were
represented, so that the only thing worth while to do
was to try again and call another convention. It was
Hamilton who wrote the address calling for a conven-
tion at Philadelphia, to meet in the following May, to
consider the best means of clothing the federal goy- -
ernment with powers adequate for the maintenance of
order and the preservation of the Union. It was high
time for such work to be undertaken, for the whole
country was falling under the sway of the lord of mis-
rule. Congress was bankrupt, foreign nations were
scoffing at us, Connecticut had barely escaped from war
with Pennsylvania and New York from New Hamp-
shire, there were riots and bloodshed in Vermont,
Rhode Island seemed on the verge of civil war, Mas-
sachusetts was actually engaged in suppressing armed
rebellion, Connecticut and New Jersey were threat-
ening commercial non-intercourse with New York.
Spain was defying us at the mouth of the Mississippi,
and a party in Virginia was entertaining the idea of a
separate Southern confederacy. Under such circum-
stances it was necessary to act quickly, and it was
Hamilton’s business to see that New York was repre-
sented in the convention. To that end he succeeded
in getting elected to the legislature, and spent the win-
ter in a hard fight against the party that was opposed
to a clear union of the states. That party was very
strong. At its head was the governor, George Clinton,
who preferred to remain the most powerful citizen of
New York rather than occupy a subordinate place
under a national government in which his own state
was not foremost. The policy of local high tariffs
directed against the neighbouring states had been

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY IIg

temporarily successful, although it was already threat-
ening New York with a war. Though some of the
most intelligent people in the state understood the
shortsightedness of the governor’s policy, the multitude
were always ready to throw up their caps and shout,
“Hurrah for Clinton!” It was this unreasoning pop-
ular support that made Clinton at that moment the
most formidable enemy then living in the United
States to all schemes and movements that tended
toward a closer union. Here again the circumstances
were such as naturally to strengthen Hamilton’s hatred
of democracy. Here was democracy confronting him
with intent to thwart and prevent the work to which
he had now come to consecrate his life.

This was a hot fight. At length Hamilton, with the
valuable aid of Schuyler and the Livingstons, won a
victory, such as it was. Delegates were indeed chosen,
so that New York was not unrepresented in the con-
vention, like Rhode Island. Hamilton was one of
these delegates, so that he was to have a chance to
express his views and make his influence felt. But
every effort to obtain more than three delegates was
voted down, and Hamilton’s two colleagues, Robert
Yates and John Lansing, were uncompromising Anti-
federalists, so that it was perfectly certain that he
would never succeed in the convention in carrying the
vote of New York for one single measure looking ~
toward the fulfilment of the objects for which that
convention had been called.

Thus hampered, the share which Hamilton took in the
debates of the convention was a small one. He could
only express his individual preferences, well knowing
that as soon as it came to a vote his two colleagues

120 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

would overrule him. To have disputed every point
would simply have emphasized the fact that he did not
really represent his own state, and would thus have
impaired his usefulness. So he threw all his force into
one great speech. Early in the proceedings, after vari-
ous plans of government had been laid before the
convention, he took the occasion to present his own
view of the general subject. Only an outline of his
speech, which took five hours in delivery, has been
preserved. Gouverneur Morris said it was the most
impressive speech he ever heard in his life. In the
course of it Hamilton read his own carefully prepared
plan, of which we need only notice the two cardinal
features. /7rst¢, he would have had the President and
senators: elected by persons possessed of a certain
amount of landed property, and he would have had
them hold office for life or during good behaviour. This
would have created an aristocratic republic, as near to
an elective monarchy with a life peerage as one could
very well get. Secondly, he would have aimed a death-
blow, not merely at state sovereignty, but at state rights,
by giving the President the appointment of the several
state governors, who were to have a veto on the acts of
their legislatures. If such a measure as this had been
adopted, the Union in all probability would not have
lasted a dozen years. The position of a governor ap-
pointed by any power outside the state would have
borne altogether too much likeness to the position of
the royal governors before the Revolution. The will
of the people, as expressed by the state legislature,
would have been liable at any moment to be overruled
by a governor who, whether a native of the state or not,
would have owed his position to considerations which

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY r2i

might be antagonistic to the policy of the state. The
clashing between imperial and local interests might
not have been so violent as before the Revolution, but
there would have been so much to remind people of
the old state of things that the new government would
have been discredited from the start.

It seems clear, then, that in this suggestion Hamil-
ton did not show his wonted sagacity. He failed to
understand what was really sound and valuable in
state rights, and this was not at all strange in a man
who, having been born outside of the United States,
was at this very moment contending against. the ex-
treme state sovereignty doctrines of New York and
her narrow-minded governor.

Fortunately, however, there was not the slightest
chance of Hamilton’s extreme views prevailing in the
convention, and this he knew as well as any one. His
suggestions, it was said, were praised by everybody,
but followed by no one. Presently urgent. business
called him home, and his two colleagues quit the con-
vention in disgust, so that New York was left without
representation there. Toward the close he returned
to Philadelphia, and when the draft of the federal
Constitution was completed, he made an eloquent
speech, urging all the delegates to sign it. No man’s
ideas, he said, could be more remote from the plan
than his were known to be; but was it possible for a
true patriot to deliberate between anarchy and civil
war, on the one side, and the chance of good to be ex-
pected from this plan, on the other? This was the
spirit of the true statesman, and in this spirit he signed
alone for New York.

The “Empire State” has had many illustrious citi-

122 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

zens, but to none does she owe such a debt of gratitude
as to Alexander Hamilton for inscribing her name on
this immortal record. In the desperate struggle which
followed, every inch of ground once gained counted
as a victory; and it was much that when the Constitu-
tion was first published to the world the name of New -
York was attached to it.

In the ten months which followed the close of the
convention we see Hamilton at the most interesting
period of his life. Still buoyant with youthful energy,
just finishing his thirty-first year, his rare flexibility of
mind was now most strikingly illustrated. Like a wise
statesman, when he could not get the whole loaf, he
made the most that he could out of the half. His
noble, disinterested patriotism, not content with leading
him to sign a constitution of which he only half ap-
proved, now urged him to defend it with matchless
ability in the papers which make up that immortal
volume, the “ Federalist.” The Constitution, as finally
adopted by the convention, was very far from being
the work of any one man, but Madison’s share in fram-
ing it had been very great, and it represented his theory
of government much more nearly than Hamilton’s.
The thoroughness, however, with which Hamilton
made the whole work his own, is well illustrated by
the difficulty in deciding from internal evidence what
parts of the “ Federalist ” were written by him and what
parts by Madison. In the controversy which has been
waged upon this question, it has been shown that we
can seldom light upon such distinctive features of treat-
ment and style as to lead to a sure conclusion. This
shows how completely the two writers were for the
moment at one, and it shows Hamilton’s marvellous

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 123

adaptability. It also illustrates one characteristic of
his style. Had he been endowed with a gorgeous
poetical imagination like Burke, or had he been a
master of rhetoric in the same sense as Webster, there
could never have been any difficulty in distinguishing
between his writing and Madison’s. But Hamilton’s
style was a direct appeal to man’s reason; and the
wonder of it was that he could accomplish by such a
direct appeal what most men cannot accomplish with-
out calling into play the various arts of the rhetorician.
To make a bare statement of facts and conclusions in
such a way that unwilling minds cannot choose but
accept them is a rare gift indeed. But while this was
Hamilton’s secret, it was to some extent Madison’s
also. Though a much less brilliant man in many
ways, in this one respect Madison approached Hamil-
ton, though he did not quite equal him. Hence, as it
seems to me, the general similarity of style through-
out the disputed numbers of the “ Federalist.”

As the speeches in Xenophon’s “ Anabasis” give one
a very brief opinion of the intelligence of the Greek
soldiers to whom such arguments might even be sup-
posed to be addressed, so the essays in the “ Federalist ”
give one a very high opinion of the intelligence of our
great-grandfathers. The American people have never
received a higher compliment than in having had such
a book addressed to them. That they deserved it was —
shown by the effect produced, and it is in this dem-
ocratic appeal to the general intelligence that we get
the pleasantest impression of Hamilton’s power.

The most remarkable exhibition of it, however, was
in the state convention at Poughkeepsie, in June and
July, 1788, for considering the question as to ratifying

124 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

the federal Constitution. Ten of the thirteen states
had now ratified it, or one more than the number
necessary for putting it into operation. The laggards
were New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.
The latter state, isolated between her two stronger
neighbours, might be left out of account for the
moment, and so might North Carolina, for owing to
the slavery compromises South Carolina had become
intensely Federalist, a fact of cardinal importance in
the history of the next thirty years. But as for New
York, she could not for a moment be disregarded.
Though not yet one of the greatest states, her position
made her supremely important. It had been so in
the days of Stuyvesant, and of Frontenac, and of
Montcalm, and of Burgoyne; and just so it was in the
days of George Clinton. If he could have carried his
point, our federal Union, cut in twain by the Mohawk
and Hudson valleys, would have had but a short life.
That he did not carry it was mainly due to Hamilton’s
wonderful power of striking directly home at the sober
reason of his fellow-men. It is not so very often that
we see one man convince another by sheer argument.
When passions and prejudices are enlisted, it is seldom
that either side will budge an inch. The more they
argue the more obstinate they grow, and if the affair
gets settled, it is usually by some sort of compromise,
in which each side tries to comfort itself with the
belief that it has overreached the other. In the New
York convention of 1788 there was no chance for com-
promise; the question as to ratifying the constitution
must be answered with Yes or No; and if the vote had
been taken at the beginning two-thirds of the members
would have voted No. At the head of the Anti-feder-

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 125

alist forces was Melanchthon Smith, an extremely able
debater, no mean antagonist even for Hamilton. He
must have been a man of rare candour, too, for after
weeks of debate he owned himself convinced. The
Clintonian ranks were thus fatally broken, and the
decisive vote showed a narrow majority of three in
favour of the Constitution. Seldom, indeed, has the
human tongue won such a victory. It was the Water-
loo of Anti-federalism. In the festivities that followed
in the city of New York, when the emblematic federal
ship—the ship of state—was drawn through the
streets, it was with entire justice that the name of
Hamilton was emblazoned upon her side.

A new chapter was now to begin in Hamilton’s
career. President Washington, in endeavouring to
represent in his cabinet the nation rather than a party,
selected Jefferson as his Secretary of State and Ham-
ilton as his Secretary of the Treasury. Nothing but
strife could come out of such relations between two
such powerful and antagonistic natures. The dissen-
sions between the two leaders and the great division
between American parties arose gradually but rapidly,
as Hamilton’s bold, aggressive financial policy declared
itself. It was a time when bold measures were needed.
At home and abroad American credit was dead, be-
cause the Continental Congress had no power to tax
the people and therefore could get no money to pay.
its debts. Now, under the new Constitution the House
of Representatives could tax the people, and the
problem for Hamilton was to suggest the best means
of using this new, unfamiliar, and unpopular power, so
as to obtain a steady revenue from the very start with-
out arousing too much hostility. A preliminary part

126 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

of the problem was to decide what was to be done
with the mass of public debt already incurred. There
were three kinds of such debt. First, there were the
sums due to foreign governments for money lent to
the United States for carrying on the War of Inde-
pendence. Everybody,agreed that this class of debts
must be paid to the uttermost farthing. Secondly,
there were the debts due to American citizens who
had invested their money in Continental securities.
Hamilton’s proposal that these should be paid in full,
interest as well as principal, met with some opposition.
In the chaos which had hitherto prevailed, such
securities had fallen greatly in value, and the first
glimmer of a better state of things showed that specula-
tors had been buying them up in hopes of a rise. It
was now argued that, by redeeming all such securities
at their full value, the government would be benefiting
the speculators rather than repaying the original in-
vestors. But Hamilton understood clearly that, with
nations as with individuals, credit can be maintained
only by paying one’s debts in full, without asking what
is going to become of the money. After some dis-
cussion this view prevailed in Congress.

Over the third class of debts there was a fierce dis-
pute. These were the debts owed by the several state
governments to private citizens. Much distress had
ensued from the inability of the states to discharge
these obligations. The discontent in Massachusetts,
which had culminated in Shays’s rebellion, was partly
traceable to such a cause. On every side creditors
were clamorous. Nothing would go so far toward
strengthening the new government as to allay this
agitation and awaken a feeling of confidence in busi-

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY E27

ness circles. To this end Hamilton came forth with
a measure .of startling boldness. He proposed that
the federal government should assume all these state
debts and pay them, principal and interest !

This was no doubt a master stroke of policy. It
was one of the most important steps taken by Wash-
ington’s administration toward setting the new govern-
ment fairly upon its feet. Had it not been for this act |
of assumption state creditors would have been so jeal-
ous of national creditors, there would have been such
a jumble of clashing interests, that no steady financial
policy could have been carried out, and people would
soon have been impatiently asking wherein was the
new government any better than the old. But by this
act of assumption all public creditors, from Maine to
Georgia, were at once made national creditors, and all
immediately began to feel a personal interest in
strengthening the federal government, This measure
of Hamilton’s was as shrewd as his idea of having
governors appointed by the President had been fool-
ish. That, if adopted, would have sought to drive
men; this was an attempt to dvaw them.

It was Hamilton’s proposal for the assumption of
the state debts that originated the first great division
between political parties under the Constitution. It
also partly drew the line of division between the
Northern and the Southern states. In the debates on.
the ratification of the Constitution it did not appear
that the desire for a more perfect union was any
stronger at the North than at the South. Virginia was
scarcely more afraid of centralization than Massa-
chusetts, and Rhode Island was even more backward
in ratifying than North Carolina. But the assumption

128 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

question tended to unite the Northern states in favour
of a centralizing policy and the Southern states in
opposition to the same. This was because the great
majority of the public creditors were to be found
among Northern capitalists. Hamilton’s policy ap-
pealed directly to their selfish interests, but it did not -
so appeal to the Southern planters. One of the chief
reasons for Virginia’s hesitancy in accepting the Con-
stitution had been her fear that the commercial North
might acquire such a majority in Congress as to en-
able it to tyrannize over the agricultural South. The
Virginians now denounced the assumption policy as
unconstitutional, and Hamilton in self-defence was
obliged to formulate what is known as the doctrine
of “implied powers.” He gave a liberal interpretation
to that clause in the Constitution (Art I., Sect. viii,
p. 18) which authorized Congress “to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution” such powers as are explicitly vested in the
government of the United States. The opponents of
a strong government, on the other hand, insisted upon
a strict and narrow interpretation of that clause; and
thus arose that profound antagonism between “ strict
constructionists” and “loose constructionists” which
has run through the entire political history of the last
hundred years. As a rule the Republican party of
Jefferson, with its lineal successor, the Democratic
party from Jackson to Cleveland, has advocated strict
construction; while loose construction has character-
ized the Federalist party of Hamilton, with its later
representatives, — the National Republican party of
Quincy Adams, the Clay and Webster wing of the
Whig party, and the Republicans of the present day.

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 129

This general rule, however, has been seriously com-
plicated by the fact that the same: party is apt to
entertain very different views when in power from
those which it entertains when in opposition. The
tendency of the party in possession of the govern-
ment is to interpret its powers liberally, while the
party in opposition seeks to restrict them. So gen-
erally has this been the case in American history that
it would be difficult to lay down any theory of the
subject which any statesman has consistently applied
on all occasions. Hamilton, however, was always a
loose constructionist. As we have seen, the Consti-
tution was never nearly centralizing enough to suit
him, and the more powers that could be given to the
- general government, the better he was satisfied.

The division between North and South on the
assumption policy was not complete, for here, as on
most questions previous to 1820, South Carolina was
on the Federalist side. In this particular instance her
interests were like those of some of the Northern
states, for. she had a heavy war debt, of which the pro-
posed measure would relieve her. Even with this
assistance, however, the bitter fight over assumption
would have ended in defeat for Hamilton, had not an-
other fight then raging afforded an opportunity for
compromise. A new city was about to be designed
and reared as the Federal capital of the United States, .
and the question was where should it be situated. The
Northern members of Congress were determined that
it should not be farther south than the Delaware
River; the Southern members were equally resolved
that it should not be farther north than the Potomac;

the result was the first, and in some respects the
K

130 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

greatest, instance of “log-rolling” known to American
history. The Northern advocates of assumption car-
ried their point by yielding to the Southerners in the
matter of the capital. Congress assumed over
$20,000,000 of state debts, and the city of Washington
was built upon the bank of the Potomac.

This was a great victory for Hamilton, for the Fed-
eralist party, and for the United States as a nation. It
certainly required a pretty liberal interpretation of the
Constitution to justify Congress in assuming these
debts, but if it had not been done it is very doubtful if
the Union could long have been held together. We
must always be grateful to Hamilton for his daring
and sagacious policy, yet at the same time we must
acknowledge that the opposition was animated by a
sound and wholesome feeling. Every day showed
more clearly that Hamilton’s aim was to insure the
stability of the government through a firm alliance
with capitalists, and the fear was natural that such a
policy, if not held in check, might end in transforming
the government into a plutocracy,—that is to say, a
government in which political power is monopolized
by rich men, and employed in furthering their selfish
interests without regard to the general welfare of the
people. Those who expressed such a fear were more
prescient than their Federalist adversaries believed
them to be; for now after the lapse of a hundred years
the gravest danger that threatens us is precisely such
a plutocracy! It has been one of our national misfor-
tunes that for three-quarters of a century the mere
maintenance of the Union seemed to call for theories
which when put into operation are very far from mak-
ing a government that is in the fullest sense “of the

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY I3I

people, by the people, and for the people.” The only
party that ever extricated itself from the dilemma, and
stood at one and the same time unflinchingly for the
Union and against paternal government in every form,
was the party of Jackson and Van Buren between
1830 and 1845. But with Hamilton paternal govern-
ment was desirable, not only as a means of strengthen-
ing the Union, but as an end in itself. He believed that
a part of the people ought to make laws for the whole.

Having now provided for the complete assumption
of all debts, domestic and foreign, state and federal, by
the United States, the next question was how to raise
the money for discharging them. The new govern-
ment was regarded with distrust by many people. It
_ was feared that the burden of federal taxation would
be intolerable. Men already found it hard to pay
taxes to their town, their county, and their state; how
could they endure the addition of a fourth tax to the
list? There was but one way to deal with this diff-
culty. Probably a general system of direct taxation
would not have been endured. It was accordingly
necessary to depend almost entirely upon custom-house
duties. This gentle, insidious method enables vast
sums to be taken from people’s pockets without their
so much as suspecting it. It raises prices, that is all;
and the dulness of the human mind may be safely

counted upon, so that when a tax is wrapped up in the |

extra fifty cents charged for a yard of cloth, it is so
effectually hidden that most people do not know it is
there. Custom-house duties were accordingly levied,
and the foreign trade of the United States was already
so considerable that a large revenue was at once real-
ized from this source. To win added favour to this

*

132 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

policy Hamilton advocated a tariff for what is called
protection as well as for revenue, although his argu-
ment fell very short of meeting the exorbitant require-
ments of the pampered industries of our own time.
Here, as in his assumption policy, it was Hamilton’s
aim to ally the government with powerful class inter-
ests. Hesaw the vast natural resources of the country
for manufactures, he knew that flourishing industries
must presently spring up, and he understood how to
enlist their selfish interests in defence of a liberal con-
struction of the powers of government. A remarkable
instance of his foresight was exhibited some years
afterward in the case of Daniel Webster, who, although
in principle an advocate of free trade, nevertheless
succumbed to the protectionists and allied himself
with them, in order to save the principle of loose con-
struction and thus leave the general government with
powers adequate to the paramount purpose of preserv-
ing the Union.

‘The necessity of relying chiefly upon custom-house
duties was strikingly illustrated by the reception given
in one part of the country to a direct federal tax.
Upon distilled liquors Hamilton thought it right to
lay a direct excise; but it was with some difficulty
that he succeeded in getting the measure through
Congress, and it was no sooner enacted than riotous
protests began to come from the mountain districts of
North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The
highest tax laid on whiskey was only twenty-five cents
per gallon, but it led to such serious disturbances in
western Pennsylvania that in the summer of 1794
President Washington raised an army of 15,000 men
to deal with them. It was the design of the malcon-

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 133

tents to capture the federal garrison at Pittsburg,
and then to secede from the Union, together with the
western counties of Virginia and North Carolina, and
form an independent state of which the corner-stone
should be free whiskey. But Washington’s action
was so prompt and his force so overwhelming that
the rebellion suddenly collapsed without bloodshed.
Thus the strength of the government was most hap-
pily asserted and Hamilton’s financial policy sustained
in all particulars.

The completion of Hamilton’s general scheme was
the establishment of a national bank, in which the
government was to own a certain portion of the stock,
and which was to make certain stated loans to the
government. This was another feature of the alli-
ance between the government and the moneyed
classes. Like the other kindred measures, it was
attacked as unconstitutional, and as in the other cases
the objection was met by asserting the loose construc-
tionist theory of the Constitution. Hamilton’s finan-
cial policy was thus in the widest sense a political
policy. In these methods of obtaining revenue and
regulating commerce were laid the foundations of the
whole theory of government upon which our federal
Union was built up. Their immediate effect in re-
viving the national credit was marvellous. They met
with most hearty support in the Northern states, while .
in the purely agricultural state of Virginia they were
regarded with distrust, and under the leadership of
Jefferson and Madison there was developed a power-
ful opposition which was soon to prove wholesome as
a restraint upon the excesses into which pure federal-
ism was betrayed.

134 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

It was the French Revolution and the consequent
war between France and Great Britain that so reacted
upon American politics as to bring about the down-
fall of the Federalist party and hurry to an untimely
end the career of its illustrious founder. During the
last decade of the eighteenth century the whole civil- -
ized world seemed bitten with the fierce malady that
was raging in France. Semel cnsanivimus omnes. In
America the excitement soon reached such a point as
to subordinate all questions of domestic policy; and
Hamilton’s opponents, foiled in their attempts to de-
feat his financial measures, were not unwilling to shift
- the scene of battle to the questions connected with
our foreign relations. It was the aim of the French
revolutionary party to drag the United States into
war with Great Britain, but the only sound policy for
the Americans was that of strict neutrality. The in-
solence of the British court made this a very difficult
course to. pursue, and probably it would have been
impossible had not the French in their demands upon
us shown equal insolence. The pendulum of popular
feeling in America, under the stimulus of alternate
insults from London and from Paris, vibrated to and
fro. The Federalists, as friends of strong government,
saw in the French convulsions nothing but the orgies
of a crazy mob; while on the other hand the Repub-
licans had a keener appreciation of the vileness of the
despotism that was being swept away and the whole-
some nature of the reforms that were being effected
amid all the horrors and bloodshed. Under the influ-
ence of such feelings the antagonism between Hamil-
ton and Jefferson grew into a bitter personal feud, and
the quarrels in the cabinet were so fierce that Wash-

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 135

ington once exclaimed he would rather be in his grave
than sit and listen to them. Never, perhaps, did
Washington’s strength of character seem more colos-
sal than in the steadiness with which he pursued his
course amid that wild confusion.

The first outburst of popular wrath was against
Great Britain on the occasion of the Jay treaty in
1794. The treaty was called a base surrender to the
British, and Hamilton was stoned while attempting to
defend it in a public meeting in New York. Wash-
ington’s personal authority, more than anything else,
carried the treaty and averted war with Great. Britain.
At that moment the Republican opposition was at its
height, and scurrilous newspapers heaped anathemas
-upon Washington, calling him the “stepfather of his
country.” Butas the Jay treaty enraged the French
and made them more abusive than ever, the zeal of the
Republican sympathizers began to cool rapidly. When
in 1798 it appeared that Prince Talleyrand was trying
to extort blackmail from the United States, popular
wrath in America was turned against France, the war
cry was raised, “ Millions for defence, not one cent for
tribute,” the Republicans were struck dumb, and the
Federalists seemed to be riding on the top of the tide.
In a moment of over-confidence the latter now
ventured upon a step which soon led to their down-
fall. In their eagerness to keep out intriguing foreign- |
ers and curb the license of the newspapers, they carried
through Congress the famous alien and sedition laws.
Through Hamilton’s influence these acts were some-
what softened in passing, but as passed they were
palpably in violation of the Constitution, and infringed
so outrageously upon freedom of speech and of the

136 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

press as to seem to justify all that had been said by
Republicans as to the dangerous aims and tendencies
of the Federalist party.

During the two years preceding the election of 1800
the Federalists steadily lost ground, and the very war
fever which had for a moment so powerfully aided them >
now gave rise to dissensions within their own ranks.
Between Hamilton and John Adams there had been
for some time a feeling of jealousy and distrust, not
based upon any serious difference of policy, but simply
upon the fact that one party was not large enough to -
hold two men of such aggressive and masterful tem-
perament. As is apt to be the case with mere personal
differences, in which no question of principle is
involved, it was marked by pettiness and silliness on
both sides. As in those days the electoral tickets did
not distinguish between the candidates for the presi-
dency and the vice-presidency, it was possible to have
such a thing as a tie between the two candidates of the
same party; it was even possible that through some
accident or trick the person intended by the party for
the second place might get more electoral votes than
his companion and thus be elected over him. In 1796
the Federalist candidates were John Adams and
Thomas Pinckney, and the advice given privately by
Hamilton to his friends was such as would, if not
thwarted, have made Pinckney President and Adams
Vice-president. Hamilton’s conduct on this occasion
was certainly ‘wanting in frankness, and when Adams
discovered it he naturally felt ill used. The relations
between the two were made more uncomfortable by
the fact that Hamilton, although now in private life,
seemed to have more influence with Adams’s cabinet

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 137

than Adams himself. In 1798 the President saw a
chance to retaliate. A provisional army was to be
raised in view of the expected war with France, and
Washington accepted the chief command on condition
that he might choose his principal officers. With this
understanding he named as his three major-generals
Hamilton, Cotesworth Pinckney, and Knox. Presi-
dent Adams tried to reverse this order, on the ground
that in the revolutionary army Knox’s rank was higher
than Hamilton’s. A quarrel ensued which involved
the whole Federalist party, and was ended only when
Washington declared that unless his wishes were
respected he should resign. Before such a stroke as
this even Adams’s obstinacy must give way, and he
was placed in the humiliating attitude of a man
who has not only tried to do a mean thing, but has
failed.

If John Adams, however, could be weak, he could
also be very strong, and his course during the year
1799 was nothing less than heroic. France was so far
affected by the warlike preparations of the United
States as to begin taking informal steps toward a
reconciliation, and Adams, who knew that war ought
if possible to be avoided, resolved to meet her half-
way. In spite of the protests of leading Federalists,
including part of his own cabinet, he sent envoys to
France, who in the following year succeeded in making
a treaty with Napoleon as First Consul. In taking
this step Adams knew that he was breaking up his
own party on the eve of a presidential election; he
knew that he was thus in all probability ruining his
own chances for that second term which he desired
most intensely; but he acted with a single eye to the

138 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

welfare of the country, and in all American history it
would be hard to point to a nobler act.

The ensuing year, 1800, was one of dire policy:
confusion. ee the spring election in New York Ham-
ilton contended unsuccessfully against the wiles of
Aaron Burr; a Republican legislature was chosen,
and in the autumn this legislature would of course
choose Republican electors for President. Political
passion now so far prevailed with Hamilton as to lead
him to propose to Governor Jay to call an extra ses-
sion of the old legislature and give the choice of
presidential electors to districts. This would divide
the presidential vote of New York and really defeat
the will of the people as just expressed. Jay refused
to lend himself to such a scheme. That Hamilton
should ever have entertained it shows how far he was
blinded by the dread of what might follow if Jefferson
and the Republicans should get control of the national
government.

Yet in spite of this dread he took the very rash ten
of writing a pamphlet attacking Adams, and advising
Federalists to vote for him only as a less dangerous
candidate than Jefferson. This pamphlet was intended
only for private circulation, but Burr contrived to get
hold of it, and its publication helped the Republicans.

Even with all this dissension among their antago-
nists, the Republican victory of 1800 was a narrow
one. Adams obtained sixty-five electoral votes. The
Republican candidates, Jefferson and Burr, each ob-
tained seventy-three, and it was left for the House of
Representatives to decide which of the two should be
President. Nobody had the slightest doubt that the
choice of the party was Jefferson, and that Burr was

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY 139

intended to be Vice-president, but the situation offered
an opportunity for intrigue. Many leading Federalists
were so bent upon defeating their arch-enemy, Jefferson,
that they were ready to aid in raising Burr above him.
But political passion could not so far confuse Hamil-
ton’s sense of right and wrong as to lead him to inflict
such a calamity upon the country. His great influence
prevented the wicked and dangerous scheme on the part ©
of the Federalists, and Jefferson became President.

In a most tragic and painful way the shadow of
the duel was now thrown across Hamilton’s career.
His eldest son, Philip, aged eighteen, a noble and high-
spirited boy, of most brilliant promise, had just been
graduated at Columbia. In the summer of 1801 this
young man was bitterly incensed at some foul asper-
sions on his father which were let fall in a public
speech by a political enemy. Meeting this unscrupu-
lous speaker some few evenings afterward in a box at
the theatre, high words ensued, and a challenge was
given. The duel took place on the ledge below Wee-
hawken Heights, which was then the customary place for
such affairs. Young Hamilton fell mortally wounded
at the first fire, and was carried home to die. As
one reads of the agonized father, on hearing the first
alarming tidings, running to summon the doctor and
fainting on the way, it comes home to one’s heart to-
day with a sense of personal affliction. The student
of history becomes inured to scenes of woe, but it is
hard to be reconciled to such things as the shocking
death of this noble boy.

It was to be the father’s turn next. The unprinci-
pled intrigues of Burr with the Federalists had ruined
his chances of advancement in the Republican party.

140 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

His only hope seemed to lie in further intrigues with
the Federalists. The wonderful success of Jefferson’s
administration was winning fresh supporters daily from
the opposite ranks, and the Federalist minority was
fast becoming factious and unscrupulous. It was be-
lieved by some that Timothy Pickering and others in
New England were meditating secession from the -
Union and the establishment of a Northern confed-
eracy, to which New York, and perhaps New Jersey
and Pennsylvania, might be added. Burr was a vain
and shallow dreamer. As governor of New York he
might rise to be president of a Northern confederacy.
At any rate it was worth while to be governor of New
York, and Burr, while still Vice-president of the United
States, became a candidate for that position in 1804.
Hamilton had earned the gratitude of his fellow-
countrymen by thwarting Burr’s schemes in 18o1.
He now thwarted them again. Burr failed of election
and vowed revenge. His political prospects were
already well-nigh ruined; to a wretch like him there
was some satisfaction in killing the man who had
stood in his way. The affair was cool and deliberate.
He practised firing at a target, while in a crafty cor-
respondence he wound his vile meshes around his
enemy, and at length confronted him with a challenge.
Hamilton seems to have accepted it because he felt
that circumstances might still call for him to playa
leading part in national affairs, and that to decline a
challenge might impair his usefulness. The meeting
took place on the 11th of July, 1804, at that ill-fated
spot under Weehawken Heights. Hamilton fell at the
first fire, and was carried home, to die the next day.
The excitement in New York was intense. Vast

AND THE FEDERALIST PARTY I4!I

crowds surrounded the bulletins which told of the
ebbing of his life, and their sobs and tears were min-
gled with fierce oaths and threats against the slayer.
As the news slowly spread through the country, the
tongue of political enmity was silenced, and the mourn-
ing was like that called forth in after years by the mur-
der of Abraham Lincoln. It has been thought that the
deep and lasting impression produced by this affair
had much to do with the discredit into which the.
practice of duelling speedily fell throughout the
Northern states.

When Alexander Hamilton’s life was thus cut
short, he was only in his eight-and-fortieth year.
Could he have attained such a great age as his rival,
John Adams, he might have witnessed the Mexican
War and the Wilmot Proviso. Without reaching
extreme old age he might have listened to Webster’s
reply to Hayne, and felt his heart warm at Jackson’s
autocratic and decisive announcement that the fed-
eral Union must be preserved. One may wonder
what his political course would have been had he
lived longer; but it seems clear that he would soon
have parted company with the Federalists. He had
already taken the initial step in breaking with them
by approving Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana. The
narrow sectional policy of Pickering and the New
England Federalists was already distasteful to him.
As the Republican party became more and more
national, he would have found himself inclining
toward it as John Adams did, and perhaps might even
have come, like Adams in later years, to recognize the
merits and virtues of the great man whose name had
once seemed to him to typify anarchy and misrule, —

142 ALEXANDER HAMILTON

Thomas Jefferson. Such mellowing influence does
wide and long experience of life sometimes have,
when one can witness great changes in the situation
of affairs, that we may be sure it would not have been
without its effect upon Alexander Hamilton. When
the new division of parties came, after 1825, there can
hardly be a doubt that he would have found his place ©
by the side of Webster and John Quincy Adams.

At the time of his death he was inclined to gloomy
views of the political future, for he lacked that serene
and patient faith in the slow progressiveness of aver-
age humanity which was the strong point in Jefferson.
His disposition was to force the human plant and to
trim and prune it, and when he saw other methods
winning favour, it made him despondent. He was in
his last days thinking of abandoning practical politics
and writing a laborious scientific treatise on the his-
tory and philosophy of civil government. Such a
book from the principal author of the “ Federalist”
could hardly have failed to be a great and useful book,
whatever theories it might have propounded. But
since we have it not, we may well be content with the
“ Federalist ” itself, a literary monument great enough
for any man and any nation. And as for Hamilton,
his quick insight, his boldness of initiative, and his
rare constructive genius have stamped his personality
so deeply upon American history that, in spite of his
untimely death, his career has for this and for future
generations all the interest that belongs to a complete
and well-rounded tale.

-.
ro

_ THOMAS JEFFERSON | ey

ns a , ‘ ;
~ a fe p ‘ _ |
; ‘

| ‘THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER | ad

J
¥ Ae ’
> . |
:
. « ~
ag i the
¥ - Be Te Aa ‘
® “ “
az Ve
‘ i
i
a
.
‘
% uf
n =

‘ : :
Fe : ‘
* 4
; Mi
- . a
F
' ;
? if ~<
r
‘ 2 Ea
he
» i
‘. : :
},
/
al}
w
a
: ; ae
,
ois
z ‘ Ms P
1 i‘ 3
4 i
3 “ Fea mi natin *
wv ~ 1 ~ Baas,
kane
ia ’ cy + ri
t PS) oy { s
4 f a
:
r os - . . ' Peat = -
‘ iad ba
r oe . 3 A. Sane:
nae a jo
“es Filey,
’ -
* = , c a " ry 1 We
i - — ‘ % 4

IV

THOMAS JEFFERSON

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER

In the development of English civilization on its
political side there have been few agencies more
potent than those represented by the independent
yeomanry and the country squire. In the history of
such a country as France, until very recent times, the
small rural freeholder scarcely plays a part. There
under the old régime we see the powerful nobleman
in his grim chateau, surrounded by villages of peas-
antry holding their property by a servile tenure. The
nobleman is exempt from taxation, his children are all
nobles and share in this exemption, so that they con-
stitute a class quite distinct from the common people
and having but little sympathy with them. The only
middle class is to be found in the large walled towns,
whose burghers have acquired from the sovereign
sundry privileges and immunities in exchange, per-
haps, for money furnished to aid him in putting down
rebellious vassals. Representative assemblies are
weak and their means of curbing the crown very
limited, so that early in the seventeenth century they
fall into disuse; and as the crown gradually conquers
its vassals and annexes their domains, the result is at
length an extremely centralized and oppressive des-
potism in which the upper classes are supported in

L 145

146 THOMAS JEFFERSON

luxurious idleness by taxes wrung from a groaning
peasantry. The state of things becomes so bad that
a radical reform is possible only at the cost of a fright-
ful paroxysm of anarchy; and the traditions of per-
sonal independence are so completely lost that a
century of earnest struggle has not yet ‘sufficed to
regain them. As a little American girl observed the
other day, as the net result of her first impressions of
Paris, ‘‘ Every man here has to have some other man
to see that he does what he ought to do.”

Now in the history of England perhaps the most
striking of all the many points of contrast with French -
history consists in the position of the rural landholder.
The greatest proprietor in the country, though almost
sure to be a peer, does not belong to a different class
from the common people: his children are not peers,
and only one of them is likely to become so, except
perhaps for personal merit. There is no more promis-
ing career for the younger son than is offered by a
chance to represent the voters of his county in the
House of Commons, and thus there has never been
a sharp division between classes, as there used to be in
France. Noble families have always paid their full
share of the taxes. The small tenants have in many
cases been freeholders, and since the fourteenth cen-
tury the higher kinds of servile tenures, such as copy-
hold, have practically ceased to be servile. The higher
grades of copyholders and the smaller freeholders con-
stitute that class of yeomanry that has counted for so
much in history. Of old these small freeholders were
often known as “franklins,” and one of their American
descendants, winning an immortal name, has illustrated
the many virtues, the boldness and thrift, the upright-

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 147

ness and canny tact, which has made them such a
power in the world. Of somewhat higher dignity than
the mere freeholder was the “lord of the manor,” or
country squire with tenants under him. He might be
the son of a peer, or he might be a yeoman who had
risen in life. This rural middle-class had many points
of contact on the one hand with the nobility and on
the other hand with the burghers of the large towns.
They were all used from time immemorial to carrying
on public business and settling questions of general
interest by means of local representative assemblies.
There was far less antagonism between town and
country than on the Continent, and when it became
necessary to curb the sovereign it was comparatively
easy for the middle class in town and country to join
hands with part of the nobility for that purpose.

We can thus understand why the earl and his castle
_ have not furnished popular tradition with the themes
of such blood-curdling legends as have surrounded the
count and his chateau. The old English yeoman,
with his yew-tree bow and clothyard shaft, was the
most independent of mortals, and nothing could exceed
his pitying contempt of the whole array of armoured
knights and starveling peasantry that he scattered in
headlong flight at Poitiers and Navarrete. His lord
of the manor was not so much the taskmaster of his
tenants as their leader and representative. <A sturdy
and thrifty race were these old English squires. To-
day perhaps it was to call out their archers and march
against the invading Scot; to-morrow it was to sit in
Parliament with hats drawn over their knitted brows
and put into dutiful but ominous phrases some stern
demand for a redress of wrongs. Age after age of such

148 THOMAS JEFFERSON

discipline made them capable managers of affairs, keenly
alive to the bearings of political questions, and fierce
sticklers for local rights. There never existed a class
of men better fitted for laying the foundations of a
nation in which a broad and liberal democracy should
be found compatible with ingrained respect for parlia-
mentary methods and constitutional checks. |

Now it was this middle class of squires and yeo-
manry that furnished the best part of colonial society
in Virginia, as it furnished pretty much the whole of
colonial society in New England. An urban middle
class of merchants and artisans came in greater num-:
bers to New England than to Virginia, and the South-
ern colony, besides its negroes, received a very low
class of population in the indented white servants, who
seem to have been the progenitors of the modern
“white trash.” But the characteristic society — that
which has made the histories of New England and of
Virginia what they are — had the same origin in both
cases. There was also in both cases a principle of
selection at work, although not so early in Virginia as
in New England. As the latter country was chiefly
settled between 1629 and 1640, the years when
Charles I. was reigning without a Parliament, so the
former received the most valuable portion of its settlers
during the Commonwealth, when the son of that un-
fortunate monarch was off upon his travels. Men who
leave their country for conscience’ sake are apt to be
picked men for ability and character, no matter what
side they may have espoused. Our politics may be
those of Samuel Adams, but we must admit that the
Hutchinson type of character is a valuable one to have
in the community. Of the gallant cavaliers who fought

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 149

for King Charles there were many who no more ap-
proved of his crooked methods and despotic aims than
Hutchinson approved of the Stamp Act. A proper
combination of circumstances was all that was required
to bring their children into active alliance with the
children of the Puritans. Most of the great leaders
that Virginia gave to the American Revolution were
descended from men who had drawn sword against
Oliver Cromwell; and a powerful set of men they were.
Virginia has always known how to produce great
leaders. The short-lived Southern Confederacy would
have been much shorter lived but for Lee, Johnston,
and Jackson; and the cause of the Union would have
fared much harder but for the invincible Thomas.
Colonial life in Virginia departed less than in New
_ England from the contemporary type of rural life in
the mother country. Agriculture in New England
_ throve best with small farms cultivated by their owners,
and this developed the type of yeomanry, while the
ecclesiastical organization tended to concentrate the
population into self-governing village communities.
Agriculture in Virginia seemed to thrive best with
great estates cultivated by gangs of labourers, and this
prevented the growth of villages. The Virginia
planter occupied a position somewhat like that of the
English country squire. He had extensive estates to
superintend and county interests to look after. He
was surrounded by dependents, mostly slaves indeed,
and in this aspect the divergence from English custom
was great and injurious; still Virginia slavery was of
a mild type. In his House of Burgesses the planter
had a parliament, and in the royal governor, represent-
ing a distant sovereign, there was a source of antago-

150 THOMAS JEFFERSON

nism and distrust requiring him to keep his faculties
perpetually alert, and to remember all the legal maxims
by which the liberties of Englishmen had been defended
since the days of Bracton and Fortescue.

It was into this community that Thomas Jefferson
was born on the 13th of April, 1743. His first Ameri-
can ancestor on the father’s side had come to Virginia
among the very earliest settlers, and was a member
of the assembly of 1619, the first legislative body of —
Englishmen that ever met on this side of the ocean.
The Jeffersons belonged to the class of yeomanry.
Thomas’s father was a man of colossal stature and
strength, which the son inherited. Like Washington,
he was a land surveyor and familiar with the ways of
Indians. His farm, on which wheat was cultivated as
well as tobacco, by about thirty slaves, was situated on
what was then the western frontier, near the junction
of the Rivanna River with the James. He was a
justice of the peace, colonel of the county militia,
and for some time member of the House of Burgesses.
He died suddenly in 1757, perhaps from exposure in
the arduous frontier campaigning of that year.

Thomas’s mother was Jane Randolph, daughter of
one of the most patrician families in Virginia. From
her he is said to have inherited his extreme tenderness
of nature and aversion to strife, as well as his love of
music. From his father he derived a strong taste for
mathematics and the constructive arts, a punctilious
accuracy in all matters of business, a hatred of cere-
mony, and a dislike to have other people wait upon
him. Thomas, when full grown, was six feet and two
inches in height, lithe and sinewy, erect and alert, with
reddish hair and bright hazel eyes. His features were

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER I51

by no means handsome, but the expression of his face
was attractive. As a daring horseman, a dead shot
with a rifle, and a skilful player of the violin, he was
remarkable even among Virginians. Until he entered
William and Mary College, at the age of seventeen,
he had never seen a village of as many as twenty
houses; but since his ninth year he had pored over
Latin and Greek, and a box of mathematical instru-
ments and a table of logarithms were his constant .
companions. In college he worked with furious en-
ergy, and besides his classical and scientific studies
he kept up an extensive reading in English, French,
and Italian. He used to keep a clock in his bedroom,
and get up and go to work as soon as it was light
enough to see what time it was. After leaving col-
lege he studied law under one of the best of teachers,
George Wythe, and in two of the best of text-books,
Bracton and Coke. He had a keen appreciation of
the Toryism of Blackstone, and some suspicion of the
mistaken standpoint from which that charming writer
viewed the development of the English constitution,
as has been shown in our day, with such. wealth of
learning, by Freeman and Stubbs. He also gave
much attention to Montesquieu and Locke, and the
Parliamentary debates. In 1767 he began the prac-
tice of law, and in 1769 was elected to the House cf
Burgesses. In 1772 he was married to the blooming
widow of Bathurst Skelton. His first notable political
act was in 1774, on the occasion of the convention
held in August for choosing delegates to the first
Continental Congress. Being prevented by illness
from attending the convention, he drew up a series of
instructions such as he hoped the convention would

152 THOMAS JEFFERSON

give to the delegates. This paper, when read in the
convention, was so much liked that it was printed as
a pamphlet under the title of “A Summary View of
the Rights of British America.” In this paper Jeffer-
son set forth a doctrine which was very popular with
the Americans at that time, and deservedly so, because
it gave expression to the view of their relations with
Great Britain upon which they had always implicitly
acted. Jefferson held that “the relation between
Great Britain and the colonies was exactly the same
as that of England and Scotland” between 1603 and
1607, “and the same as her present relations with.
Hanover, having the same executive chief, but no
other necessary connection.” The Americans acknow-
ledged the headship of the king, but not the authority
of Parliament, and when that body undertook to legis-
late for Americans, it was simply a case of “one free
and independent legislature” presuming “to suspend
the powers of another, as free and independent as it-
self.” James Otis had said things not unlike this a
dozen years before, when he argued that the supremacy
of the colonial assembly in Massachusetts was as indis-
putable and as sacred as that of the Parliament in
Great Britain; and similar arguments had been used
by Samuel Adams and others. But Jefferson’s terse
way of stating the case had a decided savour of revo-
lution about it. His pamphlet went through ever so
many editions in England; its arguments were incor-
porated into the resolutions adopted by the Continen-
tal Congress; and in the following spring Jefferson
was himself elected a delegate to that great Revolu-
tionary body. He was then thirty-two years old, and
the only delegates younger than himself were John

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 153

Jay, aged thirty, and Edward Rutledge, aged twenty-
six. Four days before he took his seat the battle of
Bunker Hill was fought, and when the news reached
Philadelphia he was appointed on a committee with
Dickinson and others for drawing up a manifesto justi-
fying to the world the course of the Americans. The
manifesto as published contained only a few words of
his, but among them were the following: “ We mean

not to dissolve that union which has so long and so |
happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely
wish to see restored. Necessity has not ye¢ driven us
into that desperate measure.” Wonderfully eloquent
was that little word “yet”! The threat of all that was
to happen next year was latent in it. The current of
feeling was moving rapidly just then. Two months
later Jefferson wrote: “ There is not in the British
empire a man who more cordially loves a union with
Great Britain than I do. But by the God that made
me I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection
on such termsas the British Parliament proposes; and
in this I think I speak the sentiments of America.”
Observe the historical accuracy of this wording. It
was not a question of throwing off a yoke, but of re-
fusing to yield to a connection on newfangled and
degrading terms. The American colonies had never
been under a yoke, but they had maintained a con-
nection with Great Britain in which their legislative
independence had until within the last ten years been
virtually recognized. Now they were asked to sur-
render that legislative independence and come under
the yoke of the British Parliament, and this, said
Jefferson, they would never consent to do. The
American Revolution was essentially conservative. It

154 THOMAS JEFFERSON

was fought not so much to gain new liberties as to
preserve old ones. It was the British in this case that
were the innovators, and the Americans that were the
conservatives. This is the true historical light in
which to study our Revolution, and so this large-
minded young student of Bracton and Coke under-
stood it. Because in later years Jefferson came to be
the head of a party which sympathized with revolu-
tionary France, there has come into existence a leg-
endary view of him as a sort of French doctrinaire
politician and disciple of Rousseau. Nothing could be
more grotesquely absurd. Jefferson was broad enough
to learn lessons from France, but he was no French-
man in his politics; and we shall not understand him
until we see in him simply the earnest but cool-headed
representative of the rural English freeholders that
won Magna Charta and overthrew the usurpations of
the Stuarts.

It was chiefly in drawing up state papers that Jeffer-
son excelled in Congress, and herein he played a part
for the whole country like that which Samuel Adams
had played in the legislature of Massachusetts in the
earlier scenes of the Revolution. As an orator Jeffer-
son never figured at all. With all his remarkable
strength and vigour his voice was weak and husky, so
that he found it hard to speak in public. He had
besides a nervous shrinking from hearing himself talk
on the spur of the moment about things which he
knew he could so much better deal with sitting at his
desk. And then he was utterly wanting in combative-
ness. However he might evoke contention by his
writings, its actual presence was something from which
his deliberate, introspective, and delicately poised

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 155

nature shrank. He was in no wise lacking in moral
courage, but his sympathies were so broad and tender
that he could not breathe freely in an atmosphere of
strife.

For such a nature the pen, rather than the tongue,
is the ready instrument. As a wielder of that weapon
which is mightier than the sword Jefferson was now
to win sucha place as would have made him immortal,
even had he done nomore. In June, 1776, as Richard
Henry Lee, who had moved the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, was called home to Virginia by the illness
of his wife, Jefferson was appointed chairman of the
committee for drawing up the declaration. The draft
as. made. by him, with two or three slight changes
interlined by Franklin and John Adams, was substan-
tially adopted by Congress. There were no interpola-
tions worth mentioning, but there were a few omissions,
and the most important of these was the passage which
denounced George III. for upholding the slave-trade.
The antislavery party in Virginia was quite strong at
that time. In 1769 the legislature had enacted a law
prohibiting the further importation of negroes to be sold
into slavery, but at the king’s command the governor
had vetoed this wholesome act. Jefferson made this
the occasion of a denunciation of slavery and the slave-
trade, but inasmuch as New England shipmasters
combined with South Carolina planters in carrying on
this “ execrable commerce,” Congress remembered that
people who live in glass houses should not begin to
throw stones, and the clause was struck out.

Some expressions in the Declaration of Indepen-
dence are often quoted in illustration of Jefferson’s
Gallicism. It begins with a series of generaliza-

156 THOMAS JEFFERSON

tions: “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed,” etc. In these
sentences we may plainly see the result of French
teaching. It would be very difficult to find in the files
of the House of Commons any such abstract announce-
ments of “self-evident truths.” The traditional Eng-
lish squire would appeal, not to speculation, but to
precedent. He would defend his rights, not as the
natural rights of men, but as the chartered and pre-
scriptive rights of Englishmen. This was because the
English squire had a goodly body of prescriptive
rights which were worth defending, but the French
peasant, who had nothing but prescriptive wrongs, was
obliged to fall back upon the natural rights of man.
In attempting to generalize about liberty and govern-
ment, the French philosophers of that day soon got
beyond their depth, as was to have been expected.
Such problems cannot be solved by abstract reason,
but the attempt to rest the doctrines of civil liberty
upon a broad theoretical basis was praiseworthy.
Jefferson was always a philosopher as well as a states-
man, and he was quite capable of learning from
Voltaire and Montesquieu, Rousseau and Diderot, who
were then the most suggestive and stimulating writers
in the world. It pleased him to give a neat little
philosophical turn to the beginning of his great docu-
ment, but after this exordium he goes on to the end
in the practical tone of the English squire. The king

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 157

is arraigned at the bar of public opinion as a violator
of chartered rights, a sovereign who by breaking the
law has forfeited the allegiance of his American sub-
jects. There is something very happy in the skill with
which any explicit mention of Parliament is avoided.
“He has combined with orHers to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknow-
ledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of
pretended legislation,” etc. It is only in this way that ©
allusion was made to Parliament, and it would have
been impossible to state with more consummate skill
the American view of the position based upon solid
American precedent. In every clause is wrapped up
a genuine historic pearl. There is not one that
appears as an inference from the philosophic preamble,
which indeed might have been omitted without alter-
ing the practical effect of the document. Nothing
could more clearly show what a skin-deep affair Jeffer-
son’s Gallicism really was.

In the summer of 1776 Jefferson was reélected to
the Continental Congress, but declined to serve. It
was with him as with many other public men at that
time. Important changes were going on in the several
state constitutions, which made the services of the
ablest men needed at home. In Virginia there was a
great work to be done, and Jefferson went into it with
wonderful vigour, ably assisted by his old teacher,
George Wythe, and by Colonel George Mason and the
youthful James Madison. It was on the 7th of October,
1776, that Jefferson again took his seat in the Virginia
legislature. One week from that day he reported a
bill abolishing the whole system of entail. That
ancient abuse was deeply rooted in the affections of

158 THOMAS JEFFERSON

many of the old families, but popular feeling must
have been strongly aroused against it, for Jefferson’s
bill was passed within three weeks. All entailed
estates at once became estates in fee simple, and could
be bought and sold or attached for debt like other
property. It was a sweeping reform and won for
Jefferson the vindictive hatred of many of the aristo-
crats, some of whom were cruel enough to point to the
death of his only son as a divine judgment which he
had brought down upon himself by his impious disre- —
gard of the sacred rights of family. But the reformer
did not stop here. He next assailed primogeniture,
and presently overthrew it. At the same time, as
chairman of a committee for revising the laws, he
showed, in one important respect, a wise conservatism.
Against the advice of his able colleague, Edmund
Pendleton, he insisted upon retaining the letter of the
old laws wherever possible, because the precise mean-
ing of every phrase had been determined by decisions
of the courts, and to introduce new terminology is
always to open a fresh source of litigation. With all
this caution he did very much toward simplifying the
code. Here again we see, not the @ grzorz French
iconoclast, but the practical and liberal English squire.
Other reforms, proposed by Jefferson and ultimately
carried out, were the limitation of the death penalty to
the two crimes of murder and treason, and the aboli-
tion of imprisonment for debt. He tried to introduce
public schools like those of New England, and to
have a public library established in Richmond; but
the state of society in Virginia was not sufficiently
advanced in this direction to support him. He was
an earnest advocate of the abolition of slavery, but he

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 159

realized that there was no hope of carrying through the
legislature any measures to that end. He did, how-
ever, in 1778 bring in a bill prohibiting the further
importation of slaves into Virginia, and carried it with-
out serious opposition. |

The relations between Church and State alsoclaimed
his attention. The Episcopal Church was then estab-
lished by law in Virginia, and dissenters were taxed to
support it. Besides there were many heavy penalties »
attached to nonconformity ; a man convicted of heresy
might be deprived of the custody of his children.
Jefferson’s own views of the relations between govern-
ment and religion are expressed in the following
remarkable passage from his “ Notes on Virginia.”
Opinion, he says, is something with which govern-
ment has no business to meddle; it is quite beyond

its legitimate province. “It does me noinjury for my
neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It
neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg... . It

is error alone which needs the support of government.
Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coer-
cion, and whom will~you make your inquisitors?
Fallible men, governed by bad passions, by private as
well as public reasons. And why subject it to coer-
cion? Difference of opinion is advantageous to reli-
gion. The several sects perform the office of censor
morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable ?
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since
the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced
one inch toward uniformity. Let us reflect that the
earth is inhabited by thousands of millions of people ;
that these profess probably a thousand different sys-

160 THOMAS JEFFERSON

tems of religion; that ours is but one of that thousand;
that if there be but one right, and ours that one, we
should wish to see the nine hundred and ninety-nine
wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But
against such a majority we cannot effect this by force.
Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instru-
ments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be
indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it,
while we refuse it ourselves?” These few pithy sen-
tences have had no little influence upon American
history. For half a century they furnished the argu-
ments for the liberal-minded men who, by dint of per-
sistent effort, succeeded in finally divorcing Church
from State in all parts of our Union. For holding
such views Jefferson was regarded by many people as
an infidel; in our time he would be more likely to be
classed as a liberal Christian. The general sentiment
of the churches has made remarkable progress toward
his position, though it would be too much to say that
it has yet fully reached it. In most matters Jefferson’s
face was set toward the future; in this he was clearly
in advance of his age, and it was a notable instance of
his power over men that after only nine years of
strenuous debate his views should have become incor-
porated in the legislation of Virginia. In winning
the victory he was greatly aided by the disfavour into
which the Established Church had fallen in that state
because of the lowered character of its clergy, and the
extreme Toryism of their politics. The credit for the
victory, moreover, must be divided between Jefferson
and Madison, whose assistance, always very valuable,
was here especially powerful.

In these years Jefferson’s industry was prodigious.

tet 4
a 7

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 161

His work on legislative committees was enough to
tax the stoutest nerves, yet he found time for his gar-
dening and his scientific studies, and thanked the Lord
for the thoroughness of the early training which en-
abled him to solace himself in the intervals of hard
work by reading Homer in the original. Such strong
natures find relaxation and rest in what to ordinary
mortals is painful drudgery. His Greek and his
mathematics were a relief to him, and of course he ©
worked all the better for them, as well as for his farm-
ing and his hunting and his violin. His tastes were
all wholesome, pure, and refining; his motives were
disinterested and lofty; and under that sweet, placid
surface his energy was like a consuming fire. Seldom
has a man so stamped his personality upon a com-
munity as Jefferson in these few years upon Virginia,
and thus indirectly and in manifold ramifications upon
the federal nation in which Virginia was for nearly
half a century more to be the leading state. The code
of Virginia, when he had done with it, might almost
have been called the Code Jefferson. Pity that his
influence, reénforced by that of Washington and Madi-
son, Wythe and Mason, could not then have removed
her from the list of slave states! Every Virginian to-
day must confess that that was a pity. But Jefferson
did all that it was in human strength to do. To the
end of his days he mourned over negro slavery, and
saw in it the rock upon which the ship of state might
break into pieces and founder. “I tremble for my
country,” said he, “when I think of the negro and
know that God is just.” All the agony that creased
its furrows upon the brow of Abraham Lincoln was
foretold in those solemn words.

M

162 THOMAS JEFFERSON

The work done by Jefferson in Virginia was to some
extent imitated in other states, not only in its general
spirit but often in details. One step in his warfare
with the old Tory families intrenched about Williams-
burg was the removal of the state capital to the village
of Richmond, which he accomplished in spite of bitter
opposition. For Virginia this turned out to be a wise
policy, but it is curious to see how generally it was
imitated, apparently through a dread and a jealousy
felt by the bucolic democracy toward cities and city
people. Thus our modern capitals are not New York,
but Albany; not Philadelphia, but Harrisburg; not
Milwaukee, but Madison; not St. Louis, but Jefferson
City; not New Orleans, but Baton Rouge, and so on
through the majority of the states. In like manner,
in 1786, the Shays party wished to remove the govern-
ment of Massachusetts from Boston to some inland
village.

Another measure which Jefferson introduced in
Virginia, in 1776, and which has been generally imi-
tated, was the provision for admitting foreigners to
citizenship after a residence of two years and a decla-
ration of intention to live in the state. This policy,
when first introduced, was unquestionably sound, and
has contributed powerfully to the rapid growth of the
United States in population and in wealth. It has
brought, moreover, to a far greater extent than is
supposed in much of the current talk upon this sub-
ject, an excellent class of immigrants containing the
more energetic and adventuresome elements in the
middle and lower strata of European society. Circum-
stances, nevertheless, that could not have been fore-
seen a century ago have surrounded it with dangers.

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 163

Cheapness and ease of travel have gone far toward
making our country the dumping-ground for a much
worse class of immigrants from all quarters, so that it
becomes a serious question whether we can assimilate
them and teach them American political ideas with
sufficient rapidity. Jefferson’s plan of easy naturaliza-
tion was admirable in 1776, but in our time it stands
in need of amendment and restriction.

In 1779 Jefferson was chosen governor of Virginia, ©
but he declined a renomination in 1781, and returned
to the legislature. It was while he was governor that
Lord Cornwallis invaded the state; the legislature,
which for security had assembled at Charlottesville,
was broken up in one of Tarleton’s raids, and Jefferson
barely escaped capture in his own house at Monticello.
His political enemies afterward twitted him with run-
ning away, but I never heard of any man except Don
Diego Garcia, enshrined in the inimitable pages of
Cervantes, who undertook to fight single-handed
against a whole army. In 1782 Mrs. Jefferson died.
after having been for some years in very poor health.
For many weeks after this bereavement Jefferson’s
keen interest in life was quenched. He could do no
work, but spent his days in wandering through the
woods absorbed in grief. Of his six children, only two
daughters lived to grow up, but he had long ago
brought home the six orphan children of his brother-
in-law, Dabney Carr, and reared them with tenderest
care. In his busiest and most anxious times he never
failed to devote part of his attention, most conscien-
tiously and methodically, to their education.

In 1783 he was returned to Congress in time to
take part in ratifying the treaty of peace. He assisted

164 THOMAS JEFFERSON

Gouverneur Morris in devising our decimal currency,
and suggested the dollar as the unit. He handed to
Congress the deed of Virginia ceding the Northwestern
Territory to the United States; and he drew up the
Ordinance of 1784, in which he endeavoured to intro-
duce the principle of prohibiting all extension of
slavery into the national domain, the principle upon
which the present Republican party was founded just
seventy years later. If Jefferson could have established
this principle in 1784, it would have altered the whole
course of American history. As it is, much credit
must be given to his initiative in leading to the result
which in the Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery
north of the Ohio River. In May, 1784, Jefferson’s
legislative work, so noble and so fruitful, came to an
end. He left Congress and was appointed com-
missioner to aid Franklin and John Adams in negoti-
ating commercial treaties with European nations.
He arrived in Paris in August, 1784. In the following
spring the commission was broken up, Adams was
appointed minister to Great Britain, Franklin came
home, and Jefferson was appointed minister to France.
It has been said that “his first diplomatic move was
a bon mot, and therefore in France a success. ‘ You
replace M. Franklin, I hear,’ remarked the Count de
Vergennes at an interview. ‘I succeed him, your Excel-
lency,’ he replied promptly; ‘no one can veplace him.”

The author of the Declaration of Independence was
well received in Paris. His book entitled, “ Notes on
Virginia,” published about this time, was widely read
and greatly admired. He soon became a kind of
oracle for literary men and political theorizers to con-

1 Rosenthal, “ America and France,” p. 128.

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 165

sult. To-day it is M. Démeunier who seeks help in
preparing his articles on political economy for the
“Encyclopédie Méthodique.’ To-morrow it is M. Soulés
who is writing in four volumes a history of the Ameri-
can war and comes for advice. Counsel on still more
pressing subjects was soon called for. The four years
of Jefferson’s sojourn in Paris were of surpassing
interest, for they ended in the outbreak of the great
Revolution. Jefferson’s intimacy with Lafayette |
brought him much into the society of the men with
whom he most sympathized, the reasonable and mod-
erate reformers, such as Barnave, Rabant de Saint
Etienne, Duport, Mounier, and others, who were often
gathered around his hospitable dinner table. When
the States General were assembled, he used to go every
day to Versailles to watch the proceedings. On the
gth of July, 1789, the British ambassador, the Duke
of Dorset, wrote to Mr. Pitt that “ Mr. Jefferson, the
American minister at this court, has been a great deal
consulted by the principal leaders of the Tiers Etat;
and I have great reason to think that it was owing to
his advice that that order called itself Z’ Assemblée
Nationale.” However this may be, there is no doubt
that his advice was often sought. The most notable
instance was when the Archbishop of Bordeaux, as
chairman of a committee of the assembly for sketch-
ing the plan of a constitution for France, went so far
as to invite him “to attend and assist at their delibera-
tions.” But Jefferson did not regard such action as
becoming in a foreign minister, and accordingly he
declined the invitation. In September, 1789, before
the furious phase of the Revolution had begun, he
returned to America.

166 THOMAS JEFFERSON

The experience of these four years, aided by the
general soundness of his political philosophy, enabled
Jefferson to take a much more just view of the French
Revolution than was taken by Englishmen of nearly
all parties and by the Federalists in America. In its
earlier stages the Whigs in England and almost every-
body in America viewed the French Revolution with
earnest sympathy; but when its fierce excesses came
there was a violent reaction. Every one remembers
how Burke, in his “Letters on a Regicide Peace,”
quite lost his head and raved. He could think of no
better name for France than “cannibal castle,” and
wanted the revolutionary party summarily annihilated
by an unrelenting policy of blood and iron. Sucha
reaction of feeling was natural enough. It seized
upon the Federalists in America, and led such men as
Hamilton to entertain absurd fears of the wild orgies
of spoliation likely to ensue upon the victory of de-
mocracy in our country. The Federalists’ view has
survived down to our own time. In talking about the
French Revolution people are apt to think only of
the guillotine and its innocent victims, the saintlike
Princess Elizabeth, the sprightly Madame Roland,
Vergniaud, the brilliant orator, Malesherbes, the
noble statesman, Lavoisier, the great chemist, André
Chenier, the sweet poet, and so many others. In
contemplating such sad cases it is too easy to forget
the ineffable horrors, the pestilent foulness, of the old
régime that was forever swept away, the enlightened
and wholesome legislation that began in 1789, and
the rapid and powerful inoculation of the peoples of
Europe with ideas that have since borne fruit in a
restored Hungary, a renovated Germany and Italy,

Seer Te
. m ‘ r

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 167

and increased comfort and happiness everywhere. It
is too easy. to forget that the atrocities of the Reign of
Terror were the result of a temporary destruction of
confidence among the members of the community,
and that for this destruction of confidence the royalist
émigrés, in seeking foreign military aid against their
own country, were chiefly to blame. There can be no
doubt that Jefferson, without approving the excesses —
of the Jacobins, understood the purport of events in
France more correctly and estimated them more fairly
than most of his American contemporaries. Of course
this gave his political enemies a chance to call him a
Jacobin, and has led those people of our own time
to whom he is little more than a name to suppose
that he obtained his theory of the government from
Rousseau !

When Jefferson came home, in the autumn of 1789,
it was with the intention of soon returning to France
to watch the progress of events; but ites he arrived
at Monticello, two days before Christmas, he found
awaiting him an invitation from President Washing-
ton to the position of Secretary of State, and after some
hesitation, being strongly urged by Washington and
Madison, he accepted it. In March, 1790, he took his
place in the cabinet; during the preceding year it
had been temporarily occupied by John Jay, whom
Washington was about to make chief justice. As the
most crying need of the new government was revenue,
the work of organization had been carried on mainly
by Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury.

It has often been said that Washington, in choosing
for the chief places in his cabinet two men so antago-
nistic to each other as Hamilton and Jefferson, was

168 THOMAS JEFFERSON

actuated by a desire to represent both parties and
have a non-partisan government. On all sides Wash-
ington has been praised for this breadth of view, al-
though it has sometimes been suggested that it was
not characterized by his customary sagacity. It seems
to me that this statement is wanting in _ historical
accuracy, as it overlooks the fact that it was during
Washington’s administration, and not before it, that
the definitive divisions between political parties grew
up. It is true that Jefferson represented the type of
opinions likely to prevail among the agricultural so-
cieties of the Southern states, while Hamilton repre-
sented the type of opinions likely to prevail among
the commercial and manufacturing centres in the
Northern states; but it is hardly correct to say that
in 1789 these two men belonged to opposite political
parties. The earliest division of American parties on
a national scale began in the autumn of 1787, when
the federal Constitution was submitted to the peo-
ple of the thirteen states for their approval. Then
the friends of the Constitution were known as Fed-
eralists, and its enemies were called Anti-federalists.
At that time Hamilton and Madison were foremost
among the Federalists, while George Clinton and
Patrick Henry were the foremost Anti-federalists.
Samuel Adams has sometimes been spoken of as
an Anti-federalist, but this is utterly and grossly in-
accurate. Samuel Adams was slow in coming to a
final decision, but when he made up his mind, it was
in favour of the Constitution with such amendments
as to be equivalent to a bill of rights, — such amend-
ments as the first ten, which were soon afterward
annexed to that instrument. When he decided in

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 169

this way, his vast influence secured the ratification
of the Constitution in Massachusetts by a very narrow
majority. But for this attitude of Samuel Adams,
Massachusetts would probably have rejected the Con-
stitution, and that would have thrown everything back
into chaos. During that momentous year, 1788, Jeffer-
son was in France. What would have been his atti-
tude if he had been at home and taken part in the ©
Virginia convention? Unquestionably it would have
been like that of Samuel Adams, for he says as much
in his letters. He declared that he was much more a
Federalist than an Anti-federalist, and the only faults
he had to find with the Constitution were that it did |
not include a bill of rights, and that it did not pro-
vide against the indefinite reéligibility of the President,
and thus prevent the presidency from lapsing into
something like an elective monarchy. The first of
- those faults was soon corrected by the first ten amend-
ments, which made a very effective bill of rights;
the second was corrected by the precedent set by
Washington and confirmed by Jefferson himself, in
refusing to serve as President after two terms. It is
thus evident that Jefferson, on his return to America,
was practically a Federalist, as party lines were at
that moment drawn.

But during Washington’s administration the Fed-
eralists, led by Hamilton, having been given an inch ©
by these state conventions that grudgingly ratified the
Constitution, were naturally inclined, in the enthusiasm
of their triumph, to claim an ell. The swiftly and
radically centralizing measures of Hamilton soon car-
ried the Federalists onward to a new position, so that
those who agreed with them in 1789 had come to

170 THOMAS JEFFERSON

dissent from them in 1793. It was thus in Washing-
ton’s first administration that the seeds of all party
differences hereafter to bear fruit in America were
sown and sedulously nurtured. All American history
has since run along the lines marked out by the
antagonism between Jefferson and Hamilton. Our -
history is sometimes charged with lack of picturesque-
ness because it does not deal with the belted knight
and the moated grange. But to one who considers
the moral import of events, it is hard to see how any-
thing can be more picturesque than the spectacle of
these two giant antagonists, contending for political
measures which were so profoundly to affect the lives
of millions of human beings yet unborn. Coleridge
once said, with as fair an approximation to truth as is
likely to be reached in such sweeping statements, that
in philosophy all men must be Aristotelians or Pla-
tonists. So it may be said that in American politics
all men must be disciples either of Jefferson or of
Hamilton. But these two statesmen represented prin-
ciples that go beyond the limits of American history,
principles that have found their application in the his-
tory of all countries and will continue to doso. Some-
times a broad comparison helps our understanding of
particular cases. Indeed, our understanding of par-
ticular cases cannot fail to be helped by a broad com-
parison, if it is correctly made. Suppose, then, we
compare for a moment the general drift of American
history with that of British history. We are tolerably
familiar with the differences between Liberals and
Tories in the mother country. Let us see if we can
compare the two great American parties with these,
and decide which are the Liberals and which the

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER I71I

Tories; and in doing this, let us divest ourselves for
the moment of any prejudices which we may be in the
habit of cherishing against either Liberals or Tories.
In England the chief characteristic of the Tory
party has been its support of measures which tend
to strengthen the crown and the aristocracy, and to
enlarge and tighten the control’ exercised by the
community over its individual members. The chief.
characteristic of the Liberal party has been its sup-
port of measures which tend to weaken the crown
and the aristocracy, and to diminish and relax the
control exercised by the community over its individ-
ual members. In all times and countries there has
been such a division between parties, and in the
nature of things it is the only sound and abiding
principle of division. Ephemeral parties rise and
fall over special questions of temporary importance,
but this grand division endureth forever. Where-
ever there are communities of men, a certain por-
tion of the community is marked off, in one way
or another, to exercise authority over the whole
and perform the various functions of government.
The question always is how much authority shall,
this governing portion of the community be allowed
to exercise, to how great an extent shall it be per-
mitted to interfere with private affairs, to take
people’s money in the shape of taxes, whether direct
or indirect, and in other ways to curb or restrict
the freedom of individuals. All people agree that
government must have some such powers, or else
human society would be resolved into a chaos in
which every man’s hand would be raised against
every other man. The political question is as to how

172 THOMAS JEFFERSON

much power government shall be permitted to exer-
cise. Where shall the line be drawn beyond which
the governing body shall not be allowed to go?
This has been the fundamental question among all
peoples in all lands, and it is the various answers
to this question that have made all the differences in
the success or the failure of different phases of civil-
ization, — all the differences between the American
citizen and the Asiatic coolie. We might thus take
any nation that has ever existed for comparison with
the United States, but we choose to take England,
because there the will of the people has in all ages
been able to assert itself. In countries where the
voice of the people has been for a long time silenced,
as in France under the old régime and in Russia,
we naturally find parties coming up, like the Jacobins ©
and the Anarchists, who would fain destroy all gov-
ernment and send us back to savagery; for in politics
as well as in physics it may be said that action and
reaction are equal and in opposite directions. But
in England, just because the people have always been
able to find their voice and use it, things have pro-
ceeded normally, in a quiet and slow development,
like the unfolding of a flower; and so the differences
between parties have never assumed a radically ex-
plosive form, but have taken the shape with which we
are familiar as the differences between Liberals and
Tories. ;

Now if we compare parties in America with parties
in England, unquestionably the Jeffersonians corre-
spond to the Liberals and the Hamiltonians to the
Tories. It is, on the whole, the former who wish to
restrict, and the latter who wish to enlarge, the powers

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 173

of government. But this is an incomplete view of the
matter. In England, for the last three centuries, politi-
cal progress has consisted in limiting more and more
the power of the crown and in admitting a larger and
larger proportion of the people to a share in the gov-
ernment, and as the Tories have generally resisted
these progressive measures, they have come to be
somewhat discredited in the eyes of Americans. It
is not my purpose, however, to attach any stigma to
the followers of Hamilton, to the Federalists of 1800,
to the Whigs of 1840, or to the Republicans of 1880,
in comparing them to the Tories. Not only has Tory-
ism its uses in all ages of English history, but there
was once a time when it was desirable to strengthen
the crown, to increase the powers of the central gov-
ernment, and to subordinate the local governments as
represented by the great vassals. That was the time
when the English nationality was in process of forma-
tion, when the chief desideratum was to get a united
and orderly England. In the eleventh and twelfth
centuries it was a good thing to have such masterful
kings as William the Conqueror, and Henry I., and
Henry II. Even so late as the fifteenth century there
was a very good side to the overthrow of the old
baronage and the tightening of the grip of govern-
ment under Henry VII. National unity is something
that no people can afford to dispense with, for the
alternative is chaos.

Now during the past hundred years the American
nationality has been in process of formation, and it
has been desirable to keep the central government
strong enough to preserve the Union. That has, in-
deed, been the paramount necessity, and therefore

174 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the Hamiltonian theory of strong government has
been of great value. We could not have got along
without it. But it is a theory that needs to be applied
with care and held in check with a curb rein. Other-
wise it is sure to end in class legislation and plutoc-
racy, and the reaction shows itself in labour agitation,
strikes, and anarchical doctrines among the classes of
people that feel themselves in some way deprived of
their fair share in the good things of life.

In 1798 the Tory character of Hamiltonian federal-
ism showed itself with crude frankness in the alien
and sedition acts. At that time, as an indirect result
of the feud between Hamilton and Adams, Jefferson
had become Vice-president under a Federalist Presi-
dent. His protest against the abominable alien and
sedition acts was uttered in the famous resolutions of
Kentucky and Virginia, which seemed to tread danger-
ously near the confines of nullification. To avoid
repetition I shall reserve what I have to say about
these resolutions for my lecture on Madison.’ By
1800 the lines between the party which could enact
the alien and sedition laws and the party which could
approve the Virginia resolutions had become so
sharply drawn that the presidential canvass was as
fierce as in 1860, or in 1876, or in 1884. Just as a
good many people believed some years ago that the
election of Mr. Cleveland meant the assumption of
the rebel war debt, the undoing of the work of recon-
struction, the instantaneous overthrow of the tariff,

1 Tn this affair both the Hamiltonian and the Jeffersonian parties showed
their weak sides. Against the excesses of a federalism which had lost
its temper, the protest of republicanism was so energetic as to savour, for
the moment, of political disintegration.

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 175

and all manner of vague horror, so in 1800 the Feder-
alists believed that the election of Mr. Jefferson meant
the dissolution of the Union and the importation into
America of all the monstrous notions of French
Jacobinism. And just as after the election of 1876
some good people were so afraid of what Mr. Tilden
might do that they were ready to sanction the shabby
trick that kept him out of the place to which he had’
been chosen, so after the election of 1800 there were
worthy people whose ideas of right and wrong became
so confused that, rather than see the great and pure
statesman, Thomas Jefferson, in the White House, they
were ready to surrender the government to the tender
mercies of such a scoundrel as Aaron Burr. It is
wonderful how men lose their heads at such times.
One would suppose that they were electing, not a con-
stitutional magistrate, but, shall we say, a Russian
Czar? No, for not even a czar can go far in working
changes in government at his own sweet will. They
seem rather to argue as if a President were like the
king ina fairy tale, with unlimited capacity for evil.
New England clergymen entertained a grotesque con-
ception of Jefferson as a French atheist, and I have
heard my grandmother tell how old ladies in Connecti-
cut, at the news of his election, hid their family Bibles
because it was supposed that his very first official act,
perhaps even before announcing his cabinet, would be
to issue a wkase ordering all copies of the sacred
volume throughout the country to be seized and
burned.

When people get into such a state of mind the
only thing that can cure them is an object lesson.
Mr. Cleveland’s administration, human and fallible,

176 THOMAS JEFFERSON

but upright and able, has lately furnished us with
such an object lesson. In the first eight years of this
century the presence of Mr. Jefferson at the head of
the government educated the American people in
a similar way, but far more potently in that especially
plastic and formative time. As a political leader we
have hardly seen his equal. He had not the kind
of lofty pugnacity which enabled Hutchinson to win
victories in the teeth of popular prejudice and clamour,
but he had that sympathetic insight into the thoughts
and wishes of plain common people which Samuel
Adams had, and for the want of which Hutchinson’s
career, in spite of his great powers and his noble
character, was ruined.

A man of such sympathetic insight into the popu-
lar mind —a faculty in which Hamilton was almost
as lacking as Hutchinson—was just the man that
was needed at the head of our government in_ the
first decade of the nineteenth century. Jefferson was
needed at the helm in 1800 as much as Hamilton
was needed in 1790. He never could have done the
work of Hamilton or of Madison. They were men
of rare constructive genius; he was not. But when
the first work of construction had been done and the
government fairly set to work, Jefferson was just the
man to carry it along quietly and smoothly until its
success passed into a tradition and was thus assured.
If he had been the French inconoclast that the
Federalists supposed him to be, he could not have
achieved any such results. But his career in the
presidency, like his earlier career, shows him, not as
a Danton, but as a Walpole. Instead of the general
overturning which the Federalists had dreaded, the

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 177

administration quietly followed the lines which Ham-
ilton had laid down. In other words, it was in the
hands of a constitutional magistrate who acquiesced
in the decision of such questions by the will of the
people. Moreover, as now wielding the administra-
tion and feeling the practical merits of Hamilton’s
measures, Jefferson was no longer so ready to con-
demn them. In the most important act of his presi- —
dency he deserted his strict constructionist theories
and ventured upon an exercise of power as bold as
Hamilton’s assumption of state debts. Napoleon had
lately acquired from Spain the vast territory between
the Mississippi River and the crest of the Rocky
Mountains; on the eve of war with England, he knew
that this territory was an extremely vulnerable spot in
his empire, and he was very glad to surrender it for
hard cash. Accordingly President Jefferson bought
it, and thus at a cost of $15,000,000 more than
doubled the area of the United States and, gave to
our nation its imperial dimensions. The Constitution
had not provided for any such startling exercise of
power. Probably the federal convention had not
so much as thought of such a thing. What is more,
this acquisition of territory reopened the question as
to slavery, which the framers of the Constitution
thought they had closed by their compromises. By
and by the question was to arise as to what was to be
done about slavery in states formed from the Louisi-
ana territory,—a question to be settled only by civil
war and the abolition of slavery altogether. In Jeffer-
son's time no such result was dreamed of. The de-
sirableness of ousting European influence from the

mouth of the Mississippi River was very great, and
N

178 THOMAS JEFFERSON

the purchase was so generally approved that Jefferson
abandoned his half-formed purpose of asking Congress
to propose a constitutional amendment to justify him.
Perhaps it was not needed. A quarter of a century
later Chief Justice Marshall laid down the doctrine -
that “the Constitution conferred absolutely on the
government of the Union the power of making war
_and of making treaties; consequently that government
possesses the power of acquiring territory either by
conquest or by treaty.”* In the time of Jefferson’s
presidency this would have been called loose construc-
tion. To the general approval of the Louisiana pur-
chase there was one exception. In New England
some people feared that in so huge a nation as this
portended, their own corner of the country would be
reduced to insignificance. The uneasiness continued
until after the second war with England. In 1811
Josiah Quincy, afterward president of Harvard, de-
clared in a fervent speech in the House of Repre-
sentatives, that if the state of Louisiana, the first
beyond the great river, should be admitted into the
Union, it would be high time for the New England
states to secede and form a separate confederacy. —
With Jefferson’s strong faith in the teachableness
of the great mass of people we naturally associate
universal suffrage, for his influence went largely in this
direction. We often hear, people say that the experi-
ment of universal suffrage is a failure, that it simply

1 Extract from the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall, p. 542,
I Peters (Sup. Court U. S.) Rep., The American Ins. Co. et al. v. Carter,
January term, 1828. The case was argued by Mr. Ogden for appellants,
Mr. Whipple and Mr. Webster for Carter. This is all that appears in the
decision touching the power to acquire territory.

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 179

results in the sway of demagogues who marshal at the
polls their hordes of bribed or petted followers. This
is no doubt very bad. It is a serious danger against
which we must provide. But do these objectors ever
stop to think how much worse it would be if the
demagogue, instead of marshalling his creatures at
the polls, were able to stand up and inflame their pas-
sions with the cry that in this country they have no —
vote, no share in making the laws, that they are kept
out of their just dues by an upper class of rich men
who can make the laws? If your hod-carrier was
sulking for the want of a vote, he would be ten times
more dangerous than any so-called friend of labour
can now make him. As it is, his vote does not teach
him much, because of his dull mind and narrow experi-
ence, but after all, it gives him the feeling that he is of
some account in the world, that his individuality is to
some extent respected; and this is unquestionably one
of the most powerful and conservative safeguards of
American civilization. In point of fact, our political
freedom and our social welfare are to-day in infinitely
greater peril from Pennsylvania’s iron-masters and the
owners of silver mines in Nevada than from all the
ignorant foreigners that have flocked to us from
Europe. Our legacy of danger for this generation
was bequeathed us by Hamilton, not by Jefferson.
The American people took Jefferson into their
hearts as they have never taken any other statesman
until Lincoln in these latter days. His influence en-
dured in his green old age at Monticello, the favoured
spot where in the early days, when American inde-
pendence had hardly been thought of, he used to sit
under the trees with his brilliant young friend and

180 THOMAS JEFFERSON

brother-in-law, Dabney Carr, and chat and dream over
theories of government and power over men and the
ways in which it asserted itself. The first term of his
presidency was serene, because England and France
were just at that moment at peace, and we were not .
called upon to take part in their quarrel. As candi-
date for a second term he simply swept the country.
There was no one in 1804 who dreaded Jefferson. In
the election of that year he had 162 electoral votes,
while his Federalist opponent, Cotesworth Pinckney,
had only 14. Jefferson’s influence had become so
great because he had absorbed all the strength of his
adversary. He had not approved of Hamilton’s acts,
but he knew how to adopt them and appropriate
them, just as Hamilton had adopted and appropriated
Madison’s theory of the Constitution. Here again —
if I may say it once more— we see, not the Frents
iconoclast, but the English squire.

Jefferson died on the 4th of July, 1826, at Mon-
ticello, just half a century after the promulgation of
that Declaration of Independence which he had
written, and John Adams had most powerfully de-
fended in the Continental Congress. In the bitter
political strife between 1795 and 1800 Jefferson and
Adams had become enemies; but in later years the
enmity had subsided as old party strife had subsided.
Jefferson had carried the day. He had lived long
enough to see the fruition of his work, to see the
American people in full sympathy with him, and to
win back the esteem of the great statesman, John
Adams, from whom he had been so long divided. Could
there have been a nobler triumph for this strong
and sweet nature? On the 4th of July,+1826, at one

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMER 181

o'clock midday, he quietly passed away, serene in death
as in all his life. Three hours before on that same
day, at his home in Massachusetts, John Adams died,
and just before the last breath left him the memories
of the grand old times when Massachusetts and Vir-
ginia stood together and built up this Union flitted
across his mind, and he murmured, “ Thomas Jeffer-
son still lives.”

MES MADISON

r

JA

\

+“

CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN

y

le

V

JAMES MADISON

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN

In the work of constructing our national govern-
ment and putting it into operation there were five men
distinguished above all others. In an especial sense
‘they deserve to be called the five founders of the
American Union. Naming them chronologically, in
the order of the times at which the influence of each
was most powerfully felt, they come as follows: George
Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton,
- Thomas Jefferson, and John Marshall. But for Wash-
ington it is very doubtful if independence would have
been won, and it is probable that the federal Consti-
tution would not have been adopted. The fact that
_ the experiment of the new government could be tried
under his guidance made quite enough votes for it to
turn the scales in its favour. His weight of authority
was also needed to secure the adoption of Hamilton’s
-measures and to prevent the half-formed nation from
being drawn into the vortex of European war. As for
Madison, he was the constructive thinker who played >
the foremost part among the men who made the Con-
stitution, besides contributing powerfully with tongue
and pen to the arguments which secured its ratifica-
tion. In this work of advocacy Hamilton reénforced
and surpassed Madison, and then in the work of prac-
185

186 JAMES MADISON

tical construction, of setting the new government into
operation, Hamilton, with his financial measures, took
the lead. But the boldness of Hamilton’s policy
alarmed many people. There was a widespread fear
that the government would develop into some kind
of a despotism, and this dread seemed presently to be ~
justified by the alien and sedition laws. Other people
were equally afraid of democracy, because in France
democracy was overturning society and setting up the
guillotine. There was such a sad want of public con-
fidence among the American people between 1790 and .
1800, that an outbreak of civil war at the end of that
period would not have been at all strange. To create
the needed confidence, to show the doubters and
scoffers on the one hand that the new government was
really a government of the people, by the people, and
for the people, and on the other hand that such a gov-
ernment can be as orderly and conservative as any
other, — this was the noble work of Jefferson, and it
was in his presidency that the sentiment of loyalty to
the Union may be said to have taken root in the
hearts of the people. One thing more was needed,
and that was a large, coherent body of judicial deci-
sions establishing the scope and purport of the Con-
stitution, so as to give adequate powers to the national »
government, while still protecting state rights. It was
that prince of jurists, John Marshall, who, as chief jus-
tice of the United States for one-third of a century,
thus finished the glorious work.

Of these five great men the names of Madison and
Marshall are much less often upon people’s lips than
the others’. The work in which they excelled was not
of a kind that appeals to the popular imagination, and

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 187

personally they were less picturesque figures than the
other three. Especially is this true of Madison.
There are many people who do not realize the impor-
tance of his career or the greatness of his powers.
Mr. Goldwin Smith, some time ago, in an article in the
Nineteenth Century spoke of Madison as a respecta-
ble gentleman of moderate ability, whose most memo-
rable act was allowing himself to be bullied and badgered
into making war against Great Britain contrary to his
own better judgment. This is very much as if one
should say of Sir Isaac Newton that he was a corpu-
lent old gentleman, remembered chiefly for having been
master of the mint and author of a rather absurd book
on the prophecies of the Old Testament. Mr. Smith
evidently did not realize that he was speaking of a
political philosopher worthy to be ranked with Montes-
—quieu and Locke. -

Some of the reasons for this partial eclipse of
Madison’s reputation will appear as we proceed. At
present we may call attention to the prevailing tendency
to associate historic events with some one command-
ing personality, and to forget all the rest. This is a
labour-saving process, but it distorts our view of his-
tory. Hamilton was a much more picturesque person-
age than Madison, and so there has been an unconscious
disposition to accredit him with Madison’s work as well
as hisown. There are people who know enough about |
some things to write respectable books, and still know
so little about American history as to suppose that our
federal Constitution was substantially the work of
Hamilton. One often sees remarks in print in which
this gross error is implied, if not asserted. In point
of fact Hamilton had almost nothing to do with the

188 JAMES MADISON

actual work of making the Constitution. If you con-
sult a set of Hamilton’s writings, you observe that one
volume is the “ Federalist.” That is quite nght, but
it need not make us forget that one-third of the volume
was written by Madison. The work of Hamilton was
in itself so great that there is no need for a Hamilton ©
legend in which the attributes and achievements of
other heroes are added to his own. Let us now pass
in review some points in Madison’s career.

His earliest paternal ancestor in Virginia seems to
have been John Madison, who in 1653 took out a
patent for land between the North and York rivers on
Chesapeake Bay. There was a Captain Isaac Madison
in Virginia as early as 1623, but his relationship to
John is matter of doubt. John’s grandson, Ambrose
Madison, married Frances Taylor, one of whose
brothers, named Zachary, was grandfather of President
Zachary VYaylor. The eldest child of Ambrose and
Frances was James Madison, who was married in
1749 to Nelly Conway, of Port Conway. Their eldest
child, James, was born at Port Conway on the 16th of
March, 1751, so that he was eight years younger than
Jefferson and six years older than Hamilton. He was ©
the first of twelve children. His ancestors, as he says
himself in a note furnished to my old friend Dr. Lyman
Draper in 1834, “were not among the most wealthy
of the country, but in independent and comfortable
circumstances.” Their position and training were
those of the well-educated and liberal country squire.
James’s education was begun at an excellent school
kept by a Scotchman named Donald Robertson, and
his studies preparatory for college were completed at
home under the care of the clergyman of the parish.

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 189

His father was colonel of the county militia, like
Jefferson’s father in the next county, and James could
always remember the misery which followed upon
_ Braddock’s defeat, though he was only four years old
at the time. His intimacy with Thomas Jefferson
began at an early age, and led to a beautiful friendship
which lasted through life. There was probably no
other man for whom Jefferson felt such profound .
respect as for Madison, and the feeling was fully recip- ,
rocated. There were many points of resemblance
between the two, such as the sweetness and purity of
nature, the benevolence, the liberality of mind, -the
tireless industry, the intense thirst for knowledge;
but nothing could have been more striking than the
contrast in outward appearance between the colossal,
athletic Jefferson, rosy and fresh as a boy until late in
life, and the prim, little, weazen Madison, looking old
before he was grown up. The excessive mental labour
which the stronger man, aided by his horse and gun,
could endure with impunity, made the other ill. When
in college and afterward, Madison had to struggle
against poor health. He was graduated at Princeton
in 1772, and remained there another year, devoting
himself to the study of Hebrew. On returning home
he occupied himself with history, law, and theology,
while teaching his brothers and sisters. Of the details
of his youthful studies little is known, but his industry
must have been very great; for in spite of the early
age at which he became absorbed in the duties of
public life, the range and solidity of his acquirements
were extraordinary. For minute and thorough know-
ledge of ancient and modern history and of con-
stitutional law, he was quite unequalled among the

190 JAMES MADISON

Americans of the Revolutionary period; only Hamil-
ton, Ellsworth, and Marshall approached him even at
a distance. The early maturity of his power was not
so astonishing as in Hamilton’s case, but it was re-
markable, and, like Washington, he was distinguished
in youth for soundness of judgment and keenness of ~
perception. Along with these admirable qualities, his
lofty integrity and his warm interest in public affairs
were well known to the people of Orange County, so
that when, in the autumn of 1774, it was thought neces-
sary to appoint a committee of safety, Madison was its
youngest member. Early in 1776 he was chosen a
delegate to the state convention, which met at
Williamsburg in May. The first business of the con-
vention was to instruct the Virginia delegation in the
Continental Congress with regard to an immediate
declaration of independence. Next came the work of
making a constitution for the state, and Madison was
one of the special committee appointed to deal with
this problem. Here one of his first acts was highly
characteristic. Religious liberty was a matter that
strongly enlisted his feelings. When it was proposed
that, under the new constitution, “all men should
enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience,” Madison
pointed out that this provision did not go to the root
of the matter. The free exercise of religion, according
to the dictates of conscience, is something which every
man may demand as a right, not something for which
he must ask as a privilege. To grant to the state the
power of tolerating is implicitly to grant to it the
power of prohibiting, whereas Madison would deny to
it any jurisdiction whatever in the matter of religion.

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN IgI

The clause in the bill of rights, as finally adopted at
his suggestion, accordingly declares that “all men are
equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, accord-.
ing to the dictates of conscience.’ The incident illus-
trates not only Madison’s liberality of spirit, but also
his precision and forethought in so drawing up an
instrument as to make it mean all that it was intended
to mean. In his later career these qualities were —
especially brilliant and useful.

Madison was elected a member of the first legisla-
ture under the new state constitution, but he failed
of reélection because he refused to solicit votes or
to furnish whiskey for thirsty voters. The new
legislature then elected him a member of the govern-
or’s council, and in 1780 he was sent as delegate to
the Continental Congress. The high consideration
in which he was held showed itself in the number
of important committees to which he was appointed.
As chairman of a committee for drawing up instruc-
tions for John Jay, then minister at the court of
Madrid, he insisted that in making a treaty with
Spain our right to the free navigation of the Missis-
sippi River should on no account be surrendered.
Mr. Jay was instructed accordingly, but toward the
end of 1780 the pressure of the war upon the Southern
states increased the desire for an alliance with Spain
to such a point that they seemed ready to purchase
it at any price. Virginia therefore proposed that the
surrender of our rights upon the Mississippi should
be offered to Spain as the condition of an offensive
and defensive alliance. Such a proposal was no
doubt ill advised. Since Spain was already, on her
own account and to the best of her ability, waging

192 JAMES MADISON

war upon Great Britain in the West Indies and
Florida, to say nothing of Gibraltar, it is doubtful
if she could have done much more for the United
States, even if we had offered her the whole Missis-
sippi Valley. The offer of a permanent and invaluable
right in exchange for a temporary and questionable
advantage seemed to Mr. Madison very unwise;
but as it was then generally held that in such matters
representatives must be bound by the wishes of their
constituents, he yielded, though under protest. But
hardly had the fresh instructions been despatched to
Mr. Jay when the overthrow of Cornwallis again turned
the scale, and Spain was informed that, as concerned
the Mississippi question, Congress was immovable.
The foresight and sound judgment shown by Mr. Madi-
son in this discussion added much to his reputation.
His next prominent action related to the impost
law proposed in 1783. This was, in some respects,
the most important question of the day. The chief
source of the weakness of the United States during
the Revolutionary War had been the impossibility of
raising money by means of federal taxation. As long
as money could be raised only through requisitions
upon the state governments, and the different states
could not be brought to agree upon any method of
enforcing the requisitions, the state governments
were sure to prove delinquent. Finding it impossible
to obtain money for carrying on the war, Congress
had resorted to the issue of large quantities of incon-
vertible paper, with the natural results. There had
been a rapid inflation of values, followed by sudden
bankruptcy and the prostration of national credit. In
1783 it had become difficult to obtain foreign loans,

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 193

and at home the government could not raise nearly
enough money to defray its current expenses. To
remedy the evil, a tariff of five per cent upon sundry
imports, with a specific duty upon others, was _pro-
posed in Congress and offered to the several states
for approval. To weaken as much as possible the
objections to such a law, its operation was limited
to twenty-five years. Even in this mild form, how-
ever, it was impossible to persuade the several states
to submit to federal taxation. Virginia at first
assented to the impost law, but afterward revoked
her action. On this occasion Mr. Madison, feeling
that the very existence of the nation was at stake,
refused to be controlled by the action of his constitu-
ents. He persisted in urging the necessity of such
an impost law, and eventually had the satisfaction of
seeing Virginia adopt his view of the matter. _

The discussion of the impost law in Congress re-
vealed the antagonism between the slave states and
those states which had emancipated their slaves. In
endeavouring to apportion the quotas of revenue to
be required of the several states, it was observed that,
if taxation were to be distributed according to popu-
lation, it made a great difference whether slaves were
to be counted as population or not. If slaves were
to be counted, the Southern states would have to pay
more than their equitable share into the federal
treasury ; if slaves were not to be counted, it was
argued at the North that they would be paying less
than their equitable share. Consequently at that
time the North was inclined to maintain that the
slaves were population, while the South preferred to
regard them as chattels. The question was settled

oO

194 JAMES MADISON

by a compromise proposed by Mr. Madison: the
slaves were rated as population, but in such wise
that five of them were counted as three persons.

In 1784 Mr. Madison was again elected to the Vir-
ginia legislature, an office then scarcely inferior in
dignity, and superior in influence, to that of delegate
to the Continental Congress. His efforts were stead-
fastly devoted to the preparation and advancing of
measures calculated to increase the strength of the
federal government. He supported the proposed
amendment to the Articles of Confederation, giving
to Congress control over the foreign trade of the
states; and pending the adoption of such a measure
he secured the passage of a port bill restricting the
entry of foreign ships to certain specified ports. The
purpose of this was to facilitate the collection of reve-
nue, but it was partially defeated in its operation by
successive amendments increasing the number of ports.
While the weakness of the general government and
the need for strengthening it were daily growing more
apparent, the question of religious liberty was the sub-
ject of earnest discussion in the Virginia legislature.
An attempt was made to lay a tax upon all the people
“for the support of teachers of the Christian religion.”
At first Madison was almost the only one to see
clearly the serious danger lurking in such a tax; that
it would be likely to erect a State Church and curtail
men’s freedom of belief and worship. Madison’s posi-
tion here well illustrated the remark that intelligent
persistence is capable of making one person a majority.
His energetic opposition resulted at first in postpon-
ing the measure. Then he wrote a “ Memorial and
Remonstrance,” setting forth its dangerous charac-

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 195

ter with wonderful clearness and cogency. He sent
this paper all over the state for signatures, and in the
course of a twelvemonth had so educated the people
that in the election of 1785 the question of religious
freedom was made a test question; and in the ensuing
session the dangerous bill was defeated, and in place
thereof it was enacted “that no man shall be com-
pelled to frequent or support any religious worship, .
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or
goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his
religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be
free to profess, and by argument maintain, their opin-
ions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in
no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capaci-
ties.” In thus abolishing religious tests, Virginia came
to the front among all the American states, as Massa-
chusetts had come to the front in the abolition of
negro slavery. Nearly all the states still imposed
religious tests upon civil office holders, from simply
declaring a general belief in the infallibleness of the
Bible, to accepting the doctrine of the Trinity. Madi-
son’s “ Religious Freedom Act” was translated into
French and Italian, and was widely read and com-
mented upon in Europe. In our own history it set a
most valuable precedent for other states to follow.
The attitude of Mr. Madison with regard to paper
money was also very important. The several states
had then the power of issuing promissory notes and
making them a legal tender, and many of them shame-
fully abused this power. The year 1786 witnessed
perhaps the most virulent craze for paper money that
has ever attacked the American people. In Virginia

196 JAMES MADISON

the masterly reasoning and the resolute attitude of a
few great political leaders saved the state from yield-
ing to the deiusion, and among these leaders Madison
was foremost. But his most important work in the
Virginia legislature was that which led directly to the
Annapolis convention, and thus ultimately to the fram-
ing of the Constitution of the United States. The
source from which such vast results were to flow was
the necessity of an agreement between Maryland and
Virginia with regard to the navigation of the Potomac
River and the collection of duties at ports on its banks.
Commissioners, appointed by the two states to discuss
this question, met early in 1785, and recommended
that a uniform tariff should be adopted and. enforced -
upon both banks. But a further question, also closely
connected with the navigation of the Potomac, now
came up for discussion. The tide of westward migra-
tion had for some time been pouring over the Alle-
ghanies, and, owing to complications with the Spanish
power in the Mississippi Valley, there was some dan-
ger that the United States might not be able to keep
its hold upon the new settlements. It was necessary
to strengthen the commercial ties between East and
West, and to this end the Potomac Company was
formed for the purpose of improving the navigation
of the upper waters of the Potomac and connecting
them by good roads and canals with the upper waters
of the Ohio at Pittsburg—an enterprise which in
due course of time resulted in the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal. The first president of the Potomac
Company was George Washington, who well under-
stood that the undertaking was quite as important in -
its political as in its commercial bearings. At the

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 197

same time it was proposed to connect the Potomac
and Delaware rivers with a canal, and a company was
organized for this purpose. This made it desirable
that the four states — Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
and Pennsylvania —should agree upon the laws for
regulating interstate traffic through this system of
waterways. But from this it was but a short step
to the conclusion that, since the whole commercial .
system of the United States confessedly needed over-
hauling, it might perhaps be as well for all the thir-
teen states to hold a convention for considering the
matter. When such a suggestion was communicated
from the legislature of Maryland to that of Virginia,
it afforded Madison the opportunity for which he had
been eagerly waiting. Some time before he had pre-
pared a resolution for the appointment of commission-
ers to confer with commissioners from the other
states concerning the trade of the country and the
advisableness of intrusting its regulation to the fed-
eral government. This resolution Madison left to be
offered to the assembly by some one less conspicu-
ously identified with Federalist opinions than himself;
and it was accordingly presented by John Tyler,
father of the future President of that name. The
motion was unfavourably received and was laid upon
the table; but when the message came from Maryland
the matter was reconsidered and the resolution passed.
Annapolis was selected as the place for the conven-
tion, which assembled September 11, 1786. Only five
states — Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jer-
sey, and New York —were represented at the meeting.
Maryland, which had first suggested the convention,
had seen the appointed time arrive without even taking

198 JAMES MADISON

the trouble to select commissioners. As the repre-
sentation was so inadequate, the convention thought
it best to defer action, and accordingly adjourned after
adopting an address to the states, which was pre-
pared by Alexander Hamilton. The address incorpo-
rated a suggestion from New Jersey, which indefinitely
enlarged the business to be treated by such a conven-
tion; it was to deal not only with the regulation of
commerce, but with “other important matters.” Act-
ing upon this cautious hint, the address recommended
the calling of a second convention, to be held at Phila-
delphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. Mr.
Madison was one of the commissioners at Annapolis,
and was very soon appointed a delegate to the new
convention, along with Washington, Randolph, Mason,
and others. The avowed purpose of the new con-
vention was to “devise such provisions as shall appear
necessary to render the Constitution of the federal
government adequate to the exigencies of the Union,
and to report to Congress such an act as, when agreed
to by them, and confirmed by the legislatures of every
state, would effectually provide for the same.” The
report of the Annapolis commissioners was brought
before Congress in October, in the hope that Congress
would earnestly recommend to the several states the
course of action therein suggested. At first the objec-
tions to the plan prevailed in Congress, but the events
of the winter went far toward persuading men in all
parts of the country that the only hope of escaping
anarchy lay in a thorough revision of the imperfect
scheme of government under which we were then
living. The paper money craze in so many of the
states, the violent proceedings in the Rhode Island

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 199

legislature, the riots in Vermont and New Hampshire,
the Shays rebellion in Massachusetts, the dispute with
Spain about the navigation of the Mississippi, and the
consequent imminent danger of separation between
North and South, had all come together; and now the
last ounce was laid upon the camel’s back in the fail-
ure of the impost amendment. In February, 1787,
just as Mr. Madison, who had been chosen a delegate
to Congress, arrived in New York, the legislature of
that state refused its assent to the amendment, which
was thus defeated. Thus, only three months before
the time designated for the meeting of the Philadel-
phia convention, Congress was decisively informed
that it would not be allowed to take any effectual
measures for raising a revenue. This accumulation
of difficulties made Congress much more ready to
listen to the weighty arguments of Mr. Madison, and
presently Congress itself proposed a convention at
Philadelphia identical with the one recommended by
the Annapolis commissioners, and thus in its own way
sanctioned their action. |

The assembling of the convention at Philadelphia
was an event to which Madison, by persistent energy
and skill, had contributed more than any other man in
the country, with the possible exception of Hamilton.
It was in the convention that Madison did the greatest
work of his life. Before the convention met he had
laid before his colleagues of the Virginia delegation
the outlines of the scheme that was presented to the
convention as the “ Virginia plan.” Of the delegates
Edmund Randolph was then governor of Virginia,
and it was he that presented the plan and made the
opening speech in defence of it; but its chief author

200 JAMES MADISON

was Madison. This “ Virginia plan” struck directly
at the root of the evils from which our federal govern-
ment had suffered under the articles of confederation.
The weakness of that government had consisted in
the fact that it operated only upon states, and not upon
individuals. Only states, not individuals, were repre- ©
sented in the Continental Congress, which accordingly
resembled a European congress rather than an English
parliament. According to the ideas entertained at
the time of the Revolution, the legislative assembly of
each state was its House of Commons; in one state,
North Carolina, it was called by that name. Con-
gresses were extraordinary meetings of delegates held
on occasions when the several states felt it necessary
to consult with each other, just as sometimes happens
in Europe. There was a Congress at Albany in 1754,
and one at New York in 1765, and one at Philadelphia
in 1774; the advent of war and revolution had made
this last one permanent, and it was the only body that
represented the United States as a whole. Yet the
delegates were much more like envoys from sovereign
states than like members of a legislative body. They
might deliberate and advise, but had no means of en-
forcing their will upon the several state governments ;
and hence they could neither raise a revenue nor pre-
serve order. Now the cure for this difficulty, devised
by Madison and first suggested in the “ Virginia plan,”
lay in transforming the Congress into a parliament,
in making it a national legislature elected by the whole
American people and having the same authority over
them that each state legislature was wont to exercise
over the people of its own state. It was really throw-
ing Congress overboard and creating a parliament

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 201

instead, only it would not do to call it so, because
Americans at that time were not fond of the name.
The new House of Representatives could of course
tax the people because it represented them. For the
same reason it could make laws, and to enable it to
enforce them there was to be a federal executive and
a federal judiciary. To the familiar state governments
under which people lived Madison thus superadded
another government, complete in all its branches and
likewise coming into direct contact with the people.
And yet this new government was not to override the
old ones; state governors are not subordinate to the
President, or state legislatures to Congress; each is
sovereign within its own sphere. This was the supreme
act of creative statesmanship that made our country
what it is; transforming it, as the Germans say, from
a Staatesnbund into a Bundesstaat, or, as I may trans-
‘late these terms, from a Band-of-States into a Banded-
State. All this seems natural enough now, but the
men who could thus think out the problem a century
ago must be ranked as high among constructive states-
men as Newton among scientific discoverers. It is to
Madison that we owe this grand and luminous concep-
tion of the two coexisting and harmonious spheres of
government, although the Constitution, as actually
framed, was the result of skilful compromises by which
the Virginia plan was modified and improved in many
important points. In its original shape that plan went
farther toward national consolidation than the Consti-
tution as adopted. It contemplated a national legisla-
ture to be composed of two houses, but both the upper
and the lower house were to represent population in-
stead of states. Here it encountered fierce opposition

202 JAMES MADISON

from the smaller states, under the lead of New Jersey,
until the matter was settled by the famous Connecticut
compromise; according to which the upper house was
to represent states, while the lower house represented
population. Madison’s original scheme, moreover,
would have allowed the national legislature to set aside -
at discretion such state laws as it might deem uncon-
stitutional. It may seem strange to find Madison,
who afterward drafted the Virginia resolutions of 1798,
now suggesting and defending a provision so destruc-
tive of state nghts. It shows how strongly he was
influenced at the time by the desire to put an end to
the prevailing anarchy. The discussion of this matter
in the convention, as we read it to-day, brings out in
a very strong light the excellence of the arrangement
finally adopted, by which the constitutionality of state
laws is left to be determined through the decision of
the federal Supreme Court.

In all the discussions in the federal convention,
Madison naturally took a leading part. Besides the
work of cardinal importance which he achieved as
principal author of the Virginia plan, especial mention
must be made of the famous compromise that adjusted
the distribution of representatives between the North-
ern and the Southern states. We have seen that in
the Congress of 1783, when it was a question of taxa-
tion, the South was inclined to regard slaves as chat-
tels, while the North preferred to regard them as
population. Now, when it had come to be a question
of the apportionment of representation, the case was re-
versed; it was the South that wished to count slaves
as population, while the North insisted that they
should be classed as chattels. Here Mr. Madison

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 203

proposed the same compromise that had succeeded in
Congress four years before; and Mr. Rutledge, of
South Carolina, who had supported him on the former
occasion, could hardly do otherwise than come again
to his side. It was agreed that in counting population,
whether for direct taxation or for representation in the
lower house of Congress, five slaves should be reckoned
as three individuals. In the history of the formation
of our federal Union, this compromise was of cardinal
importance. Without it the Union would undoubt-
edly have gone to pieces at the outset, and it was for
this reason that the northern Abolitionists, Gouverneur
Morris and Rufus King, joined with Washington and
Madison, and with the pro-slavery Pinckneys, in sub-
scribing to it. Some of the evils resulting from this
compromise have led historians, writing from the Abo-
litionist point of view, to condemn it utterly. Nothing
can be clearer, however, than that, in order to secure °
the adoption of the Constitution, it was absolutely
necessary to satisfy South Carolina. This was proved
by the course of events in 1788, when there was a
strong party in Virginia in favour of a separate con-
federacy of Southern states. By South Carolina’s
prompt ratification of the Constitution, this scheme
was completely defeated, and a most formidable ob-
stacle to the formation of a more perfect union was
removed. Of all the compromises in American his- -
tory, this of the so-called “three-fifths rule” was prob-
ably the most important; until the beginning of the
Civil War, there was hardly a political movement of
any consequence that was not affected by it.

Mr. Madison’s services in connection with the
founding of our federal government were thus, up to

204 JAMES MADISON

this point, of the most transcendent kind. We have
seen that he played a leading part in the difficult work
of getting a’convention to assemble; the merit of this
he shares with other eminent men, and notably with
Washington and Hamilton. Then he was chief author

of the most fundamental features in the Constitution, -

those which transformed our government from a loose
and feeble confederacy of states into a strong federal

nation; and to him is due the principal credit for the -

compromise that made the adoption of the Constitution
possible for all the states. After the adjournment of
the convention his services did not cease. Among
those whose influence in bringing about the ratifica-
tion of the Constitution was felt all over the country,
he shares with Hamilton the foremost place. Accord-
ing to his own memorandum he was the author of
twenty-nine of the essays in the “Federalist,” while
fifty-one were written by Hamilton and five by Jay.
Some of the essays, however, seem to have been writ-
ten by Madison and Hamilton jointly, and as to others
there has been more or less dispute. The question is
not of great importance. Very likely Madison would
have had a larger share in the work had he not been
obliged, in March, 1788, to return to Virginia, in order
to take part in the state convention for deciding upon
the ratification of the Constitution. Here the task
before him, though not so arduous as that of Hamilton
in the New York convention, was arduous enough.
Unlike his friend Jefferson, who could hardly speak in
public, Madison was one of the most formidable par-
liamentary debaters that ever lived. Without a par-
ticle of eloquence or of what is called personal
magnetism, with a dry style and a mild, unimpassioned

a

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 205

delivery, he would nevertheless have been a fair match
for Charles Fox or the younger Pitt. His vast know-
ledge was always at command, his ideas were always
clear and his grasp of the situation perfect, and al-
though he was so modest that the colour came and
went upon his cheeks as upon a young girl’s, he was
never. flurried or thrown off his guard. He repre-
sented pure intelligence, which is doubtless one reason
why his popular fame has not been equal to his merit.
There is nothing especially picturesque about pure
intelligence, but it is a great power nevertheless. The
opposition in Virginia was strong and well organized,
and had for leaders such eminent patriots as Patrick
Henry and Richard Henry Lee. The alliance between
South Carolina and the New England states, which in
exchange for a prolongation of the foreign slave-trade
for twenty years gave to Congress the power of regu-
lating commerce by a simple majority vote, had
alarmed Virginia. It was feared that it would enable
the Northern states to enter upon a commercial policy
in which: the interests of Virginia would be disre-
garded. There was also a party from the Kentucky
district, which was disgusted at the Northern indiffer-
ence to the free navigation of the Mississippi River,
and thought that the interests of all that part of the
country could best be secured by a separate Southern
confederacy. As just observed, South Carolina had_
already defeated this dangerous scheme by ratifying
the Constitution. Nevertheless, when the Virginia
convention met, the opponents of the Constitution
were doubtless in the majority. The debates lasted
nearly a month, and for a considerable part of this
time the outlook was not promising. The discussion

206 JAMES MADISON

was conducted mainly between Madison and Henry,
the former being chiefly assisted by Randolph, Wythe,
Marshall, Pendleton, and young Henry Lee; the latter
by Mason, Monroe, Harrison, and Tyler. To Madi-
son, more than to any one else, it was due that the
Constitution was at length ratified, while the narrow-
ness of the majority —eighty-nine to seventy-nine —
bore witness to the severity of the contest. It did not
appear that the people of Virginia were even yet con-
vinced by the arguments that had prevailed in the con-
vention. The assembly that met in the following -
October showed a heavy majority of Anti-federalists, and
under Henry’s leadership it called upon Congress for a
second national convention, to reconsider the work
done by the first. Senators were now to be chosen
for the first United States Senate, and Henry, in
naming Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson,
both Anti-federalists, as the two men who ought to be
chosen, took pains to mention James Madison as the
one man who on no account whatever ought to be
elected senator. Henry was successful in carrying
this point. The next thing was to keep Madison out
of Congress, and Henry’s friends sought to accom-
plish this by means of the device afterward known as
“ gerrymandering ”; but the attempt failed, and Madi-
son was elected to the first national House of Repre-
sentatives. His great knowledge, and the part he had
played in building up the framework of the govern-
ment, made him from the outset the leading member
of the House. His first motion was one for raising
a revenue by tariff and tonnage duties. He offered
the resolutions for creating the executive departments
of foreign affairs, of the treasury, and of war. He

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 207

proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution, in
order to meet the objection, urged in many quarters,
that that instrument did not contain a bill of rights.
The first ten of these amendments were adopted, and
became part of the Constitution in 1791.

The first division of political parties under the Con-
stitution began to show itself in the debates upon
Hamilton’s financial measures as Secretary of the .
Treasury, and in this division we see Madison acting
as leader of the opposition. By many writers this
has been regarded as indicating a radical change of
attitude on his part, and sundry explanations have
been offered to account for the presumed inconsist-
ency. He has been supposed to have succumbed to
the personal influence of Jefferson, and to have yielded
his own convictions to the desires and prejudices of
his constituents. Such explanations are hardly borne
out by what we know of Madison’s career up to this
point; and, moreover, they are uncalled for. If we
consider carefully the circumstances of the time, the
presumed inconsistency in his conduct disappears.
The new Republican party, of which he soon became
one of the leaders, was something quite different in its
attitude from the Anti-federalist party of 1787-1790.
There was ample room in it for men who, in those
critical years, had been stanch Federalists, and as time
passed this came to be more and more the case, until,
after a quarter of a century, the entire Federalist party,
with the exception of a few inflexible men in New
England, had been absorbed by the Republican party.
In 17990, since the federal Constitution had been actually
adopted and was going into operation, and since the
extent of power that it granted to the general govern-

208 JAMES MADISON

ment: must be gradually tested by the discussion of
specific measures, it followed that the only natural and
healthful division of parties must be the division be-
tween strict and loose constructionists. It was to be
expected that Anti-federalists would become strict con-
structionists, and so most of them did, though examples
were not wanting of such men swinging to the oppo-
site extreme of politics and advocating an extension
of the powers of the federal government. This was
the case with Patrick Henry. But there was no
reason in the world why a Federalist of 1787-1790
must thereafter, in order to preserve his consistency,
become a loose constructionist. It was entirely con-
sistent for a statesman to advocate the adoption of the
Constitution, while convinced that the powers specifi-
cally granted therein to the general government were
ample and that great care should be taken not to add
indefinitely to such powers through rash and loose
methods of interpretation. Not only is such an atti-
tude perfectly reasonable in itself, but it is, in particu-
lar, the one that a principal author of the Constitution
would have been very likely to take; and no doubt it
was just this attitude that Mr. Madison took in the
early sessions of Congress. The occasions on which
he assumed it were, moreover, eminently proper, and
afford an admirable illustration of the difference in |
temper and mental habit between himself and Hamil-
ton. The latter had always more faith in the heroic
treatment of political questions than Madison. The
restoration of American credit in 1790 was a task
that demanded heroic measures, and it was fortunate
that we had sucha man as Hamilton to undertake it.
But undoubtedly the assumption of state debts by the

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 209

federal government, however admirably it met the
emergency of the moment, was such a measure as
might easily create a dangerous precedent, ‘and there
was certainly nothing strange or inconsistent in Madi-
son’s opposition to it. A similar explanation will
cover his opposition to Hamilton’s national bank;
and indeed, with the considerations here given as a
clew, there is little or nothing in Mr. Madison’s career
in Congress that is not thoroughly intelligible. | At
the time, however, the Federalists, disappointed at los-
ing a man of so much power, misunderstood his acts
and misrepresented his motives, and the old friendship
between him and Hamilton gave way to mutual dis-
trust and dislike. In the political agitation caused
by the French Revolution, Mr. Madison sympathized
with the revolutionists, though he did not go so far in
this direction as Jefferson. In the debates upon Jay’s
treaty with Great Britain, he led the opposition, and
earnestly supported the resolution asking President
Washington to submit to the House of Representa-
tives copies of the papers_relating to the negotiation.
After three weeks of debate the resolution was passed,
but Washington refused the request on the ground
that the making of treaties was intrusted by the Con-
stitution to the President and the Senate, and that the
lower house was not entitled to meddle with their
work,

At the close of Washington’s second administration,
Mr. Madison retired for a brief season from public
life. During this difficult period the country had
been fortunate in having, as leader of the opposition
in Congress, a man so wise in counsel, so temperate in
spirit, and so courteous in demeanour. Whatever else

P

210 JAMES MADISON

might be said of Madison’s conduct in opposition, it
could never be called factious; it was calm, generous,
and disinterested. About two years before the close
of his career in Congress, he married Mrs. Dolly
Payne Todd, a beautiful widow, much younger than
himself; and about this time he seems to have built
the house at Montpelier which was to be his home
during his later years. But retirement from public
life, in any real sense of the phrase, was not yet possi-
ble for such a man. The wrath of the French govern-
ment over Jay’s treaty led to depredations upon .
American shipping, to the sending of commissions to
Paris, and to the blackmailing attempts of Talleyrand,
as shown up in the X. Y. Z.despatches. In the fierce
outburst of indignation that in America greeted these
disclosures, in the sudden desire for war with France,
which went so far as to vent itself in actual fighting on
the sea, though war was never declared, the Federalist
party believed itself to be so strong that it proceeded
at once to make one of the greatest blunders ever
made by a political party, in passing the alien and sedi-
tion acts. This high-handed legislation caused a sud-
den revulsion of feeling in favour of the Republicans,
and called forth vigorous remonstrance. Party feeling
has perhaps never in this country been so bitter, ex-
cept just before the Civil War. A series of resolutions,
drawn up by Madison, was adopted in 1798 by the
legislature of Virginia; while a similar series, still
more pronounced, drawn up by Jefferson, was adopted
in the same year by the legislature of Kentucky. The
Virginia resolutions asserted with truth that, in adopt-
ing the federal Constitution, the states had surrendered
only a limited portion of their powers; and went on to

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 211

declare that, whenever the federal government should
exceed its constitutional authority, it was the business of
the state governments to interfere and pronounce such
action unconstitutional. Accordingly, Virginia de-
clared the alien and sedition laws unconstitutional,
and invited the other states to join in the declaration.
Not meeting with a favourable response, Virginia re-
newed these resolutions the next year. There was
nothing necessarily seditious, or tending toward seces-
sion, in the Virginia resolutions; but the attitude
assumed in them was uncalled for on the part of any
state, inasmuch as there existed, in the federal Supreme
Court, a tribunal competent to decide upon the consti-
tutionality of acts of Congress. The Kentucky reso-
Jutions went farther. They declared that our federal
Constitution was a compact, to which the several
states were the one party and the federal government
was the other, and each party must decide for itself as
to when the compact was infringed, and as to the
proper remedy to be adopted. When the resolutions
were repeated, in 1799, a.clause was added, which
went still further and mentioned “nullification” as the
suitable remedy, and one that any state might employ.
In the Virginia resolutions there was neither mention
nor intention of nullification as a remedy. Mr. Madi-
son lived to witness South Carolina’s attempt at nulli-
fication in 1832, and in a very able paper, written in |
the last year of his life, he conclusively refuted the
idea that his resolutions of 1798 afforded any justifica-
tion for such an attempt, and showed that what they
really contemplated was a protest on the part of all the
state governments in common. Doubtless such a
remedy was clumsy and impracticable, and the sugges-

212 JAMES MADISON

tion of it does not deserve to be ranked along with
Mr. Madison’s best work in constructive states-
manship; but it certainly contained no _ logical
basis for what its author unsparingly denounced
as the “twin heresies” of nullification and _ seces-
sion.

With regard to the Kentucky resolutions the case is
different. They certainly furnished a method of stat-
ing the case, as to the relations between the states and
the federal government, of which Calhoun afterward
made use in developing his theory of nullification. .
There has been much interesting discussion as to how
far Jefferson is to be held responsible for this view,
But this discussion has generally proceeded upon the
tacit and perhaps unconscious assumption that in
1798 such an idea as that of nullification was a novel
heresy, and that in lending countenance to it, even in
the slightest degree, Jefferson figured as in some sense
the inventor of a notion which bore fruit in the seces-
sion movement of 1861 and the great Civil War. A
dispassionate student of history can have no wish to
absolve Jefferson or any one else from the proper
responsibility for his political acts. But the way in
which this case is usually stated, and still more the
mood in which it is apt to be stated, is not strictly
historical. It would be more instructive to bear in
mind that, in 1798, before Marshall’s career as chief
justice had begun, the functions of the Supreme Court
and its efficiency in checking usurpations of power
were as yet mere matter of theory and very imperfectly
realized by the people; that the new government was
as yet an experiment believed by half the people to
be a very hazardous experiment; that thus far its

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 213

administration had been monopolized by one party,
the measures of which, even when most beneficial, had
been regarded with widespread distrust and dread;
and that this distrust now seemed all at once to be
justified by the passage of laws that were certainly the
most atrocious in all our history except the Fugitive
Slave Law. If under these circumstances there were
some who believed that a confederacy in which such
laws might be nullified was preferable to a Union in
which men might be sent to jail, as under the Stuart
kings, for expressing their honest opinions in the
newspapers, we ought not to blame them. Such a
Union would not have been worth the efforts that it
cost to frame it. Taught by experience, we can now
see that the fears expressed or implied in the Ken-
tucky resolutions were really groundless. But that
they were so, that the people were relieved of such fears
and the public confidence restored, so that the Union
began for the first time to be really loved and cherished
- with a sentiment of loyalty, was due chiefly to Jeffer-
son’s election as President_in 1800 and the conservative
policy which he thereafter pursued. When the gov-
ernment passed out of the hands of the party which
had enacted the alien and sedition laws, the dread
subsided, and the vitality of the Kentucky resolutions
was suspended until Calhoun revived it thirty years
later. When that new crisis came, the exigency was
such that, if Calhoun had not found the letter of
these resolutions ready to hand, the sentiment never-
theless existed, out of which he would have made his
doctrines.

In 1799 Madison was again elected a member of
the Virginia legislature, and in 1801, at Jefferson’s

214 JAMES MADISON

urgent desire, he became Secretary of State. In accept-
ing this appointment, he entered upon a new career, in
many respects different from that which he had hitherto
followed. His work as a constructive statesman —
which was so great as to place him in the foremost
rank among the men that have built up nations — was -
by this time substantially completed. During the
next few years the constitutional questions that had
hitherto occupied him played a part subordinate to
that played by questions of foreign policy, and in this
new sphere Mr. Madison was not, by nature or train- —
ing, fitted to exercise such a controlling influence as
he had formerly brought to bear in the framing of our
federal government. As Secretary of State, he was an
able lieutenant to Mr. Jefferson, but his genius was
not that of an executive officer so much as that of a
lawgiver. He brought his great historical and legal
learning to bear in a paper entitled “ An Examination of
the British Doctrine which subjects to Capture a Neu-
tral Trade not Open in the Time of Peace.” But the
troubled period that followed the rupture of the treaty
of Amiens was not one in which legal arguments,
however masterly, counted for much in bringing angry
and insolent combatants to terms. In the gigantic
struggle between England and Napoleon, the com-
merce of the United States was ground to pieces as
between the upper and the nether millstone; and in
some respects there is no chapter in American history
more painful for an American citizen to read. The
outrageous affair of the Leofard and the Chesapeake
was but the most flagrant of a series of wrongs
and insults, against which Jefferson’s embargo was
doubtless an absurd and feeble protest, but perhaps at

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 215

the same time pardonable as the only weapon left us
‘in that period of national weakness.

Affairs were drawing slowly toward some kind of
crisis when, at the expiration of Jefferson’s second
term, Mr. Madison was elected President of the
United States by 122 electoral votes against 47 for
Cotesworth Pinckney and 6 for George Clinton, who
received 113 votes for the vice-presidency, and was
elected to that office. The opposition of the New
England states to the embargo had by this time
brought about its repeal and the substitution for it of
the act declaring non-intercourse with England and
France. By this time, many of the most intelligent
Federalists, including John Quincy Adams, had gone
over to the Republicans. In 1810 Congress repealed
the non-intercourse act, which as a measure of intimi-
dation had proved ineffectual. Congress now sought
to use the threat of non-intercourse as a kind of bribe,
and informed England and France that if either
nation would repeal its obnoxious edicts, the non-inter-
course act would be revived against the other. Napo-
leon took prompt advantage of this, and informed Mr.
Madison’s government that he revoked his Berlin and
Milan decrees as far as American ships were con-
cerned; but at the same time he gave secret orders
by which the decrees were to be practically enforced
as harshly as ever. The lie served its purpose, and
Congress revived the non-intercourse act as against
Great Britain alone. In 1811 hostilities began on
sea and land, in the affair of Tippecanoe and of
the President and Little Belt. The growing desire
for war was shown in the choice of Henry Clay for
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Mr.

216 JAMES MADISON

Madison was nominated for a second term, on condi-
tion of adopting the war policy.

The New England Federalists at once accused him
here of proving recreant to his own convictions, and
the charge has since been often reiterated by Federal-
ist writers. Perhaps it would be more correct to say:
that, as to the question of the advisableness of declar-
ing war against England, he did not share in the
decided convictions of Clay and Calhoun on the one
hand or of the New England leaders on the other.
His mind was more evenly balanced, and his natural
inclinations led him to shrink from war so long as any
other policy was available. As to the entire justice
of the war, on our side, there could of course be no
doubt. No one called it in question except a few
superannuated Federalists in New England. The
only question was as to whether a war policy was prac-
ticable at that moment, and on this point, in yielding
to the arguments of Clay and Calhoun, if Mr. Madi-
son sacrificed convictions, they were certainly not
convictions that were deeply rooted. He did not
approach such questions in the mood of an Andrew
Jackson, but in the mood of a philosopher, who hesi-
tates and acts sometimes in a yielding to pressure
of argument that is akin to weakness. On June 18,
1812, war was declared, and -before the autumn elec-
tion a series of remarkable naval victories had made
it popular. Mr. Madison was reélected by 128 elec-
toral votes, against 89 for De Witt Clinton of New
York. The one absorbing event, which filled the
greater part of his second term, was the war with
Great Britain, which was marked by some brilliant
victories and some grave disasters, including the cap-

THE CONSTRUCTIVE STATESMAN 217

ture of Washington by British troops and the flight
of the government from the national capital. What-
ever opinion may be held as to the character of the
war and its results, there is a general agreement that
its management, on the part of the United States, was
feeble. Mr. Madison was essentially a man of peace,
and as the manager of a great war he was conspicu-
ously out of his element. The history of that war
plays a great part in the biographies of the military
and naval heroes that figured in it; it is a cardinal
event in the career of Andrew Jackson or Isaac
Hull. In the biography of Madison it is an episode,
which may be passed over briefly. The greatest part
of his career was finished before he held the highest
offices; his immortal renown will rest chiefly or en-
tirely upon what he did before the beginning of the
nineteenth century.

After the close of his second term, in 1817, Mr.
Madison retired to his estate at Montpelier, where he
spent nearly twenty happy years with books and friends.
This sweet and tranquil old age he had well earned by
services to his fellow-creatures such as it is given to
but few men to render. Among intelligent students
of history, there is no one now who would dispute his
claim to be ranked beside Washington, Hamilton, Jef-
ferson, and Marshall in the founding of our nation.
But his part was peculiar. Of all these great men,
he was preéminently the modest scholar and the
profound thinker. There was just one moment at
which he was the greatest of all, and that was the mo-
ment when his grand path-breaking idea was presented
to the federal convention in the shape of the Vir-
ginia plan. The idea of the twofold government, so

218 JAMES MADISON

simple now, so abstruse then, was Madison’s. idea.
And it was the central idea, the fruitful idea, something
which every one else would have missed, that we owe
to this quiet, unassuming, unpicturesque little man,
—this acute thinker and rare constructive genius, —
James Madison.

.

‘a _ ANDREW JACKSON

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER Mie

VI

ANDREW JACKSON

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER —

In one of the debates on the Oregon question in the
United States Senate, about five and fifty years ago,
Senator McDuffe of South Carolina laughed to scorn
the idea that such a remote country as Oregon could
ever be of the slightest use to us. Just imagine a state,
_ said he, the representatives from which would require the
whole of the year to get to Washington and back! — It
_was because of this short-sightedness, which was shared
by all our Eastern statesmen, that we consented to
divide the disputed territory with Great Britain. If
our government could only then have followed the
wise and’ bold advice ofthe far-sighted Benton, the
whole of that magnificent country now known as Brit-
ish Columbia might have been ours, and in all prob-
ability without a war.

But if those statesmen who thought the northern
Pacific coast not worth fighting for seem narrow-
minded, what shall be said of the views expressed by -
Gouverneur Morris in the convention that framed the
Constitution of the United States? Morris was not
only one of the most brilliant men in that wonderful
convention, but as far as the original thirteen states
were concerned he was inclined to broad and liberal
views. But when it came to the imperial domain com-

22I

222 ANDREW JACKSON

prised between the Alleghany Mountains and the Mis-
sissippi River, the country which the superb diplomacy
of Adams and Jay had secured for us in the treaty of
1783, that was for Gouverneur Morris nothing but back-
woods. He wanted to have the Constitution so framed
that this region should forever be kept subordinate to
the Atlantic States. It would never do, he said, to
intrust too much legislative power to illiterate back-
country people; it needed the wisdom that is found in
cities and-in polite society to hold them in check and
prevent them from filling the statute book with absurd -
and dangerous laws. It was gravely to be feared that
the population of the Mississippi Valley might by and
by come to exceed that of the Atlantic coast; and ac-
cordingly this descendant of New York patroons desired
that some provision should be made by which in such
an event the minority might rule. It does not seem
to have occurred to him that, when the dreaded day
should arrive, this back-country people would occupy
a central position and have great cities and polite
society of their own, with views as much entitled to
consideration as anybody’s.

These suggestions of Gouverneur Morris were too
impracticable to meet with much favour in the con-
vention, but the feeling which prompted them was
common enough at that time and is not yet quite
extinct. It is only by slow degrees that the American
people have outgrown this old aristocratic notion that
political power ought to be confined to certain groups —
or classes of persons who, for one reason or another,
are supposed to be best fitted to exercise it. The
Americans of 1787 were not so very unlike their Brit-
ish cousins in their way of looking at such matters,

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 223

and this was especially true of the Federalist leaders,
such as Hamilton, John Adams, Pickering, the Pinck-
neys, and to some extent even Washington. But for
the wholesome counter-influence of such men as Jef-
ferson and Gallatin, the political structure reared in
1787 would have rested upon too narrow a basis. For
the thorough development of American democracy,
however, a second struggle with the wilderness seems
to have been needed. The pure American spirit first
came to maturity in the breasts of that rugged popula-
tion that since the days of Daniel Boone and James
Robertson had been pouring down the western slope
of the Alleghanies and making the beginnings of the
two great commonwealths, Kentucky and Tennessee.
These were states that from the outset owed no alle-
giance to a sovereign power beyond the ocean. Their
affairs were never administered by British officials,
and from the first moment of their existence as organ-
ized communities, Great Britain was to them a foreign
country. The importance of this new development
for a long time passed unnoticed by the older commu-
nities on the Atlantic coast, and especially by the New
England states, which were the most remote from it
alike in geographical position and in social structure,
For a long time there was a feeling about the Western
country and its inhabitants not unlike that to which
Gouverneur Morris gave expression. There was an

ignorant superciliousness, such as some Englishmen >
are still found to entertain toward the United States
asa whole. This feeling has been apt to colour the
books on American history written by Eastern men.
With the best of intentions, and without the least sus-
picion of the narrowness of their views, such writers,

224 ANDREW JACKSON

while freely admitting the vastness and strength of the
~ Western country, and the picturesqueness of its annals,
have utterly failed to comprehend the importance of
its share in the political development of the American
nation. There could be no better illustration of this
than the crudeness of the opinions current in our liter-
ature and taught in our text-books concerning the
career of Andrew Jackson, the first American citizen
who crossed the Alleghanies to take his seat in the
White House.

In studying the life of this great man, we must first.
observe the characteristics of the people among whom
his earlier years were spent, and of whom he was to
such a marked degree the representative and leader.
So much has been said about the great influence of
New England in determining the character of the
West that we must be careful not to forget that in
point of time that influence has been distinctly second-
ary. It was Virginia, together with the mountain dis-
tricts of Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, that first
determined the character of the West. Before the
overflow of population from New England could
make much impression upon the Western territory, it
had a great work to do in occupying rural New York.
While people in Connecticut were still speaking of
Syracuse and Rochester as “out West,” the pioneers
‘from Virginia and North Carolina had built their log
cabins on bluffs overlooking the Mississippi. A little
later this powerful Southern swarm passed on into
Missouri and Arkansas, and even invaded the North-
western Territory, where its influence was seen in
repéated attempts, on the part of the inhabitants of
_the regions since known as Indiana and Illinois, to

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 225

persuade Congress to repeal the antislavery clause of
the Ordinance of 1787. In this Southern stream of
westward migration three distinct currents were dis-
cernible. There were, first, the representatives of old
Virginia families moving on parallels of latitude across
Kentucky and into Missouri, as fine a race of men as
can be found in the world, and always fruitful in able
and gallant leaders. In the second place, there were
the poor whites, or descendants of the outlaws and
indented white servants of the seventeenth century in
Virginia; we find them moving across Tennessee into
southern Missouri and Arkansas, while some of them
made their way into Indiana and the Egyptian dis-
trict of Illinois. For the most part these men were
an unprogressive, thriftless, and turbulent element in
society. Thirdly, the men who, perhaps more than
any others, gave to the young West its character were
the hardy mountaineers of the Alleghany region. If
one were required to give a recipe for compounding
the most masterful race of men that can be imagined,
one could: hardly do better than say, “ To a very lib-
eral admixture of Scotch and Scotch-Irish with Eng-
lish stock, with a considerable infusion of Huguenot,
add a trace of Swiss and Welsh, and set the whole
to work for half a century hewing down the forest and
waging an exterminating warfare with Indians.” From
their forefathers in the highlands of Britain these sturdy |
pioneers inherited an appreciation of the virtues of
mountain dew, and the westward march of American
civilization has been at all times heralded by the rude
temples of that freakish spirit, until the placid German
has followed in his turn, with the milder rites of Gam-
brinus. In religion these men were, for’the most
Q

226 ANDREW JACKSON

part, Puritan. There cannot be a greater error than
to speak of American Puritanism as peculiar to New
England. © That which was peculiar to the New Eng-
land colonies was not the simple fact of Puritanism,
but the manner in which that Puritanism dominated
their social structure and determined their political
attitude. Their origin dates from the time when the
Puritan idea was seeking to incarnate itself in a theo-
cratic form of government. That is what has given
to New England its distinctive character. As for
Puritanism, regarded as an affair of temperament, .
belief, and mental habit, it has always been widely
diffused throughout English-speaking America. There
was a rather strong infusion of it in Maryland, and a
very strong one in South Carolina; and nowhere do
we find the Puritan spirit, with its virtues and its
faults, its intensity and its narrowness, more conspicu-
ously manifested than in those children of English
dissenters and Scottish covenanters and Huguenot
refugees that went forth from the Alleghanies to colo-
nize the Mississippi Valley. Originally their theology
was Calvinistic, but during the latter part of the eigh-
teenth century a great wave of Wesleyanism swept
over this part of the country, and Baptist preachers
also made many converts.

Devout religious sentiment, in this pioneer society,
did not succeed in preventing a great deal of turbu-
lence; and herein we find a contrast with early New
England, which has in later times left its traces far and
wide uponthe habits and manners of different parts
of the United States. Where the early settler of
Connecticut or Massachusetts would seek redress for
an injury by appealing to a court of justice, the early

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 227

settler of Tennessee or Kentucky would be very likely
to take the law into his own hands. From this have
come the vendettas, the street fighting, the lynch law,
so conspicuous in the history of the nineteenth cen-
tury. Iam inclined to think that a chief cause of this
difference between New England and the Southwest is
to be found in a difference in the methods by which
the two regions were settled. Rarely, if ever, in New
England did individuals or families advance singly
into the forest to make new homes for themselves.
The migration was always a migration of organized
communities. Town budded from town, as in ancient
Greece; and the outermost town in the skirts of the
wilderness carried with it, not only the strict disci-
pline of church and schoolhouse, but also the whole
apparatus of courts and judges, jails and constables,
complete and efficient. This was the peculiar fea-
ture of the settlement of New England that saved
it from the turbulence usually characteristic of frontier
communities. When people can obtain justice, with
reasonable: certainty and promptness, at the hands of
the law, they are not likely to be tempted to take the
law into their own hands. The turbulence among
our Western pioneers was only an ordinary instance
of what happens on frontiers where for a time the
bonds that hold together the complicated framework
of society are somewhat loosened.

This hardy population, which thrust itself into all
parts of the West, from the prairies of Illinois to the
highlands of northern Alabama, was intensely Ameri-
can and intensely national in its feelings. These
people differed from the planters of South Carolina or
Louisiana almost as much as from the merchants and

228 ANDREW JACKSON

yeomanry of New England and New York, and when
by and by the stress of civil war came, they were the
stout ligament that held the Union together. They
were, in a certain measure, set free from the excessive -
attachment to a state government which was so liable
to mislead the dweller in the older communities. The
governments of the seaboard states were older than
the federal Union; but the states west of the Alle-
ghanies were created by the federal Union, and their
people felt toward it a strong sense of allegiance.
It was sufficient in 1861 to keep Missouri and Ken-.
tucky, with portions of Tennessee and Virginia, from
joining the Southern Confederacy, which was thus
seriously truncated and lamed at the very start.

These considerations will help us to understand the
remarkable career of Andrew Jackson. His personal
characteristics were 1n large measure the characteristics
of the community in which he lived. There was the
intense Americanism, the contempt for things foreign,
the love for the Union, the iron tenacity of purpose,
the promptness in redressing his own grievances, the
earnest Puritan spirit. Some of these characteristics
in Jackson, as in his neighbours, came naturally by
inheritance. Of all the pugnacious and masterful,
single-minded, conscientious, and obstinate Puritans
that have ever lived in any country, the first place
must doubtless be assigned to those Scotchmen and
Yorkshiremen who went over to Ulster and settled
there in the reign of James I. Perhaps it was the
constant knocking against Irish Catholicism that
hammered them out so hard. A good many of them
came to America in the course of the eighteenth cen-
tury, and among these was Andrew Jackson of Car-

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 229

rickfergus, son of Hugh Jackson, linen-draper. An-
drew’s wife was Elizabeth Hutchinson, and her family
were linen-weavers. They came to America in 1765,
the year of the Stamp Act, and before two years had
passed Andrew Jackson died, only a few days before
_ the birth of his famous son. | 3

The log cabin in which the future President was
born, on the 15th of March, 1767, was situated within
a quarter of a mile of the boundary between the two
Carolinas, and the people of the neighbourhood do not
seem to have had a clear idea as to which province it
belonged. Inaletter of the 24th of December, 1830, in
the proclamation addressed to the nullifiers in 1832,
and again in his will, General Jackson speaks of him-
self as a native of South Carolina; but the evidence
adduced by Parton seems to show that the birthplace
may have been north of the border. Three weeks
after the birth of her son, Mrs. Jackson moved to the
house of her brother-in-law, Mr. Crawford, just over
the border in South Carolina, near the Waxhaw Creek,
and there Andrew’s early years were passed. His
education, obtained in an “old-field school,” consisted —
of little more than the “three R’s,” and even in that
limited sphere his attainments were but scanty. His
career as a fighter began early. In the spring and
summer of 1780, after the disastrous surrender of —
Lincoln’s army at Charleston, the whole of South
Carolina was overrun by the British. On the 6th
of August Jackson was present at Hanging Rock,
when Sumter surprised and destroyed a British regi-
ment. Two of his brothers, as well as his mother,
died from hardships sustained in the war. In after
years he could remember how he had been carried as

230 ANDREW JACKSON

prisoner to Camden and nearly starved there, and how
a brutal officer had cut him with a sword because he
refused to clean his boots; these reminiscences kept
alive his hatred for the British, and doubtless gave
unction to the tremendous blow that he dealt them at
New Orleans. In 1781, left quite alone in the world,-
he was apprenticed for a while to a saddler. At one
time he is said to have done a little teaching in an
“old-field school.” At the age of eighteen he entered
the law office of Spruce McCay in Salisbury. While
there he was said to have been “the most roaring, —
rollicking, game-cocking, horse-racing, card-playing,
mischievous fellow” that had ever been seen in that
town. Many and plentiful were the wild-oat crops
sown at that time; and in such sort of agriculture
young Jackson seems to have been more proficient
than in the study of jurisprudence. But .in that
frontier society a small amount of legal knowledge
went a good way, and in 1788 he was appointed. public
prosecutor for the western district of North. Carolina,
the district since erected into the state of Tennessee.
The emigrant wagon train in which Jackson journeyed
to Nashville carried news of the ratification of the
federal Constitution by the requisite two-thirds of the
states. He seems soon to have found business enough.
In the April term of 1790, out of 192 cases-on the
dockets of the county court at Nashville, Jackson was
employed as counsel in 42. In the year 1794, out of
397 cases he acted as counsel in 228, while at the
same time he was practising his profession in the
courts of other counties. The great numberof these
cases is an indication of their trivial character. As a
general rule they were either actions growing out of

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 231

disputed land claims, or simple cases of assault and
battery. Court day was a great occasion in that wild
community, bringing crowds of men into the county
town to exchange gossip, discuss politics, drink
whiskey, and break heads. Probably each court day
produced as many new cases as it settled. Amid such
a turbulent population the public prosecutor must
needs be a man of nerve and resource. Jackson
proved himself quite equal to the task of introducing
law and order, in so far as it depended on him. “Just
inform Mr. Jackson,’ said Governor Blount, when
sundry malfeasances were reported to him; “he will be
sure to do his duty, and the offenders will be punished.”
Besides the lawlessness of the white pioneer popula-
tion, there was the enmity of the Indians to be reckoned
with. In the immediate neighbourhood of Nashville
the Indians murdered on the average one person every
ten days. From 1788 to 1795 Jackson performed the
_ journey of nearly two hundred miles between Nash-
ville and Jonesboro twenty-two times; and on these
occasions there were many alarms from Indians which
sometimes grew into quite a forest campaign. In one
of these affairs, having nearly lost his life in an adven-
turous feat, Jackson is said to have made the-charac-
teristic remark, “ A miss is as good as a mile; you see
how near a man can graze danger.” It was this wild
experience that prepared the way for Jackson’s emi-
nence as an Indian fighter. In the autumn of 1794
the Cherokees were so thoroughly punished by General
Robertson’s famous Nickajack expedition that hence-
forth they thought it best to leave the Tennessee
settlements in peace. With the rapid increase of the
white population which soon followed, the community

232 ANDREW JACKSON

became more prosperous and more orderly; and in
the general prosperity Jackson had an ample share,
partly through the diligent practice of his profession,
partly through judicious purchase and sales of land.
With most men marriage is the most important
event of life; in Jackson’s career his marriage was:
peculiarly important. Rachel Donelson was a native
of North Carolina, daughter of Colonel John Donel-
son, a Virginia surveyor in good circumstances, who
in 1780 migrated to the neighbourhood of Nashville in»
a very remarkable boat journey of two thousand miles, ~
down the Holston and Tennessee rivers, and up the
Cumberland. During an expedition to Kentucky
some time afterward, the blooming Rachel was —
wooed and won by Captain Lewis Robards. She was
a sprightly girl, the best horsewoman and best dancer
in that country; she was, moreover, a person of strong
character, excellent heart, and most sincere piety; her
husband was a young man of tyrannical and unreason-
ably jealous disposition. In Kentucky they lived with
Mrs. Robards, the husband’s mother; and, as was
common in a new society where houses were too few
and far between, there were other boarders in the
family, — among them Judge Overton of Tennessee
and a Mr. Stone. Presently Robards made complaints
against his wife, in which he implicated Stone. He
was even so abusive that his wife became an object of
sympathy to the whole neighbourhood, and every one,
including Captain Robards’s own mother, condemned
his behaviour. He had already quarrelled with his
wife and sent her home to Nashville before Jackson
became acquainted with her. Presently there was a
reconciliation, and Robards came to live in Nashville.

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 233

The next object of his jealousy was Jackson. There
is superabundant testimony that the conduct of the
latter was quite above reproach. One of the most
winsome features in Jackson’s character was his sin-
cere and chivalrous respect for women. He was also
peculiarly susceptible to the feeling of keen sympathy
for persons in distress. Robards presently left his
wife and went to Kentucky, threatening by and by to
return and make her life miserable. His temper was
so ugly and his threats so atrocious that. Mrs. Robards
was frightened, and in order to get quite out of his
way, she made up her mind to visit some friends at
distant Natchez. In pursuance of this plan, with
which the whole neighbourhood seems to have con-
curred, she went down the river in company with the
venerable Colonel Stark and his family. As the Ind-
ians were just then on the war-path, Jackson accom-
panied the party with an armed escort, returning to
Nashville as soon as he had seen his friends safely
deposited at Natchez. While these things were going
on, the proceedings of Captain Robards were charac-
terized by a sort of Machiavellian astuteness. In 1791
Kentucky was still a part of Virginia, and according
to the code of the Old Dominion, if a husband wished
_ to obtain a divorce, he must procure an act of the
legislature empowering him to bring his case before a
jury, and authorizing a divorce conditionally upon the .
jury's finding the proper verdict. Early in 1791 Rob-
ards obtained the preliminary act of the legislature
upon his declaration that his wife had run away with
Jackson. He then deferred further action for more
than two years. Meanwhile it was reported and be-
lieved in the West that a divorce had been granted;

234 — ANDREW JACKSON

probably Robards himself helped spread the report.
Acting upon this information, Jackson, whose chival-
rous interest in Mrs. Robards’s misfortunes had ripened
into sincere affection, went in the summer of 1791 to
Natchez and married her there, and brought her to
his home at Nashville. In the autumn of 1793 Cap-
tain Robards, on the strength of the facts which unde-
niably existed since the act of the Virginia legislature,
brought his case into court and obtained the verdict
completing the divorce. On hearing of this, to his
intense surprise, in December, Jackson concluded that .
the best method of preventing future cavil was to pro-
cure a new license and have the marriage ceremony
performed again; and this was done in January. Jack-
son was doubtless to blame for not taking more care
to ascertain the import of the act of the Virginia legis-
lature. It was a carelessness peculiarly striking in a
lawyer. The irregularity of the marriage was indeed
atoned by forty years of honourable and happy wed-
lock, ending only with Mrs. Jackson’s death in Decem- ©
ber, 1828; and no blame was ever attached to the
parties in Nashville, where all the circumstances
were well known. But the story, half-understood,
maliciously warped, and embellished with gratuitous
fictions, grew into scandal as it was passed about
among Jackson’s personal enemies or political oppo-
nents; and herein some of the bitterest of his many
quarrels had their source. His devotion to Mrs. Jack-
son was intense, and his loaded pistol was always kept
ready for the rash man who should dare to speak of
her slightingly.

In January, 1796, we find Jackson sitting in the
convention assembled at Knoxville for making a con-

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 235

stitution for Tennessee, and tradition has it that he
proposed the name of the great crooked river as the
name for the new state. Among the rules adopted by
the convention, one is quaintly significant: “He that
digresseth from the subject to fall on the person of
any member shall be suppressed by the Speaker.”
The admission of Tennessee to the Union was effected
in June, 1796, in spite of vehement opposition from
the Federalists, and in the autumn Jackson was chosen
as the single representative in Congress. Thus at the
age of twenty-nine he received substantial proof of
the high esteem in which he was ‘held by his fellow-
citizens. When the House had assembled, he heard
President Washington deliver in person his last mes-
sage to Congress. His first act as a representative
was characteristic and prophetic; he was one of the
twelve extreme Republicans who voted against the
adoption of the address to Washington in approval of
his administration. Jackson’s two great objections to
Washington’s government were directed against Jay’s
treaty with Great Britain and Hamilton’s national
bank. His feeling toward the Jay treaty was that of
a man who could not bear to see anything but blows.
dealt to Great Britain, and it was entirely in harmony
with the fierce spirit of Americanism growing up
behind the Alleghanies, which was by and by to drive
the country into war. When one remembers the .
insolence of the British government in those years, in
refusing to fulfil treaty obligations and surrender the
northwestern fortresses, in trying to cut off our trade
with the West Indies, in impressing our seamen, and
in neglecting to send a minister to the United States,
one thoroughly sympathizes with Jackson’s feeling.

236 ANDREW JACKSON

At the same time it is perfectly clear that Washington
was right in insisting upon the ratification of the Jay
treaty. It did not give us much satisfaction, but at
that moment, and until our new government should
have become firmly established, anything was better
than war. A good commentary on the soundness of 7
Washington’s conduct was to be found in the fact that
the British were almost as much disgusted with the
treaty as we were. When war was at length declared,
in 1812, Lord Sheffield said they would now be
revenged upon the Yankees for the concessions
extorted by Jay. That it did not turn out so was
partly due to the valour of the young man who now
sat chafing at Washington’s moderation. Jackson’s
other objection shows that even at that early day he
felt that banking is not a part of the legitimate busi-
ness of government. The year 1797 was a season of
financial depression, and the general paralysis of busi-
ness was ascribed — perhaps too exclusively —to the
overissue of notes by the national bank. Jackson’s
antipathy to that institution was nourished by what he
saw and heard at Philadelphia. Of his other votes in
this Congress, one was for an appropriation to defray
the expenses of Sevier’s expedition against the Chero-
kees, which was carried; three others were eminently
wise and characteristic of the man: —

1. For finishing the three frigates then building,
and destined to such imperishable renown, the Cozszz-
tution, Constellation, and United States.

2. Against the further payment of blackmail to
Algiers.

3. Against removing “the restriction which con-

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 237

fined the expenditure of public money to the specific
objects for which each sum was appropriated.”

Three such votes as that, in one Congress, make a
noble record. Another vote, foolish in itself, was
characteristic of a representative from the backwoods.
It was against the presumed extravagance of appro-
priating $14,000 to buy furniture for the newly built
White House. Jackson’s course throughout. was
warmly approved by his constituents, and in the fol-
lowing summer he was chosen to fill a vacancy in the
federal Senate. Of his conduct as senator little is
known beyond the remark made by Jefferson in 1824
to Daniel Webster, that he had often, when presiding
in the Senate, seen the passionate Jackson get up
to speak and then choke with rage so that he could
not utter a word. One need not wonder at this if one
remembers what was the subject most frequently
brought up for discussion in the Senate during the
winter of 1797-1798. The outrageous insolence of the
French Directory was enough to arouse the wrath of
a far tamer and less patriotic spirit than Jackson’s.
It is almost enough to make one choke with rage now,
in reading about it after one hundred years. At any
rate it is enough to make one rejoice that, although
war was never declared, the gallant Truxton did, pres-
ently, in two well-fought naval battles, inflict crush-
ing and galling defeat upon the haughty tricolour.
Those were the days when the new nation in America
was deemed so weak that anybody might insult it
with impunity, and France and England vied with
each other in bullying and teasing us. Under such
treatment it was hard to maintain prudence. Wash-

238 ANDREW JACKSON

ington seriously risked his popularity by averting a
quarrel with England in 1794; Adams sacrificed his
chances for*reélection by refusing to go to war with
France in 1799. The effect of all this must be borne
in mind if we would appreciate the immense and well-
earned popularity which Jackson acquired when the ~
time had come to strike back.

In April, 1798, Jackson resigned his seat in the
Senate, and was appointed judge in the Supreme Court
of Tennessee. He retained this position for six years,
but nothing is known of his decisions, as the practice
of recording decisions began only with his successor,
Judge Overton. During this period he was much
harassed by business troubles arising from the decline
in the value of land consequent upon the financial
crisis of 1798. At length, in 1804, he resigned his
judgeship in order to devote his attention exclusively
to his private affairs. He paid up all his debts and
engaged extensively both in planting and in trade.
He was noted for fair and honourable dealing, his
credit was always excellent, and a note with his name
on it was considered as good as gold. He had a clear
head for business, and was never led astray by the
delusions about paper money by which American
communities have so often been infested. His planta-
tion was well managed, and his slaves were always
kindly and considerately treated.

But while genial and kind in disposition, he was by
no means a person with whom it was safe to take
liberties. In 1795 he fought a duel with Avery, an
opposing counsel, over some hasty words that had
passed in the court-room. Next year he quarrelled
with John Sevier, the famous governor of Tennessee,

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 239

and came near shooting him “at sight.” Sevier had
alluded to the circumstances of his marriage. Ten
years afterward, for a similar offence, though compli-
cated with other matters in the course of a long
quarrel, he fought a duel with Charles Dickinson, a
young lawyer of Nashville. The circumstances were
such as to show Jackson’s wonderful nerve and rare
skill in grazing danger. Each man meant to kill the
other, and Dickinson was called the most unerring
marksman in all that country. It is said that on the
way to the place of meeting, as Dickinson and his
friends stopped at a tavern for lunch, he amused him-
self by severing a string with his bullet, and pointing
to the hanging remnant, said to the landlord as he
rode away, “If Andrew Jackson comes along this
road, show him that!” It was in much more serious
mood that Jackson, as he made the journey, discussed
- with Overton, his second, the proper course to pursue.
It was decided that, as Dickinson would surely have
the advantage in a quick shot, it would be best to let
him fire first, and then take deliberate aim at him.
When all had arrived upon the ground, at the given
signal Dickinson instantly fired. It has been thought
that his aim may have been slightly misled by Jack-
son's extreme slenderness and the loose fit of his coat.
Instead of piercing his heart, the ball broke the rib
close by and made an ugly wound, which, however,
no one observed. It was a moment of sore astonish-
ment for Dickinson when he saw his grim adversary
still standing before him. Jackson’s trigger had
stopped at half cock, but he skilfully raised it into
position again, and at his fire Dickinson fell mortally
wounded. It was not until they had gone more than

240 ANDREW JACKSON

a hundred yards away from the spot that Jackson
opened his coat and disclosed his wound, whereat
Overton expressed the greatest surprise that, after
such a hurt, he should have been able to remain stand-
ing and return his adversary’s fire. In Jackson’s reply
there was a touch of hyperbole. “ By the Eternal,” -
said he, “I would have killed him if he had shot me
through the brain.” The unfortunate Dickinson died
that night, cursing his fate and unspeakably chagrined
by the belief that he had not hit his enemy. Perhaps
it would have consoled him somewhat if he could have
known that, after nearly forty years and in a ripe old
age, the death of Andrew Jackson was to be caused
by the wound received that morning. Such incidents
are far from pleasant to tell; indeed, they are revolting
in the extreme. But perhaps nothing could better
illustrate the unconquerable spirit that carried Jack-
son through every kind of vicissitude.

About this time Jackson was visited by Aaron Burr,
who was then preparing his mysterious Southwestern
expedition. Since 1801 Jackson had been commander-
in-chief of the Tennessee militia, and Burr seems to
have wished, if possible, to make use of his influence
in raising troops, but without indicating the purpose
for which they were wanted. In this he was unsuccess-
ful. Jackson was not the man to be used as a cat’s
paw, but he seems to have regarded the charge of
treason afterward brought against Burr as ill-founded.
At Richmond, while Burr’s trial was going on, Jack-
son made a speech reflecting upon Jefferson, and thus
made himself obnoxious to Madison, who was then
Secretary of State. Afterward, in 1808, he declared his
preference for Monroe over Madison as candidate for

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 241

the presidency. He was considered unfriendly to Madi-
son’s administration, but this did not prevent him from
_ offering his services, with those of twenty-five hundred
men, as soon as war was declared against Great Britain
in 1812. Late in that year, after the disasters in the
Northwest, it was feared that the British might make
an attempt upon New Orleans, and Jackson was ordered
down to Natchez at the head of two thousand men. He
went in high spirits, promising to plant the American
eagle upon the ramparts of Mobile, Pensacola, and St.
Augustine, if so directed. On the 6th of February, as it
had become evident that the British were not meditat-
ing a southward expedition, the new Secretary of War
Armstrong sent word to Jackson to disband his troops.
This stupid order reached the general at Natchez
toward the end of March, and inflamed his wrath.
He took upon himself the responsibility of marching
his men home in a body, an act in which the govern-
ment afterward acquiesced, and reimbursed Jackson for
the expense involved. During this march Jackson
became the idol of his troops, and his sturdiness won
him the nickname of “ Old Hickory,’ by which he was
affectionately known among his friends and followers
for the rest of his life. —

It was early in September, 1813, shortly after his
return to Nashville, that the affray occurred with
Thomas Benton, growing out of an unusually silly |
duel in which Jackson, with more good nature than
discretion, had acted as second to the antagonist of
Benton’s brother. The case was one which a few
calm words of personal explanation might easily have
adjusted. But the facts got misrepresented, and both
men lost their tempers before arriving at correct views

R

242 ANDREW JACKSON

of the matter. In a tavern at Nashville Jackson
undertook to horsewhip Benton, and in the ensuing
scuffle the latter was pitched downstairs, while Jackson
got a bullet in the left shoulder which he carried for
more than twenty years. Jackson and Benton had
been warm friends. After this affair they did not -
meet again until 1823, when both were in the United
States Senate. They were both as frank and gener-
ous as they were impulsive, and soon became fast
friends again. There is an amusing side to the primi-
tive Homeric boisterousness of such scenes among
grown-up men of high station in life. In the early
part of this century, though quite characteristic of the
Southwest, it was not confined to that part of the
country. It was not so many years since two con-
gressmen, Matthew Lyon of Vermont and Roger
Griswold of Connecticut, had rolled on the floor of
the House of Representatives, cuffing and pounding
each other like angry schoolboys.
The war with Great Britain was complicated with
an Indian war which could not in any case have been
avoided. The westward progress of the white settlers
toward the Mississippi River was gradually driving
the red man from his hunting-grounds; and the cele-
brated Tecumseh had formed a scheme, quite similar
to that of Pontiac fifty years earlier, of uniting all the
tribes between Florida and the Great Lakes in a grand
attempt to drive back the white men. This scheme
was partially frustrated in the autumn of 1811, while
Tecumseh was preaching his crusade among the Chero-
kees, Creeks, and Seminoles. During his absence his
brother, known as the Prophet, attacked General Har-
rison at Tippecanoe and was overwhelmingly defeated.

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 243

The war with Great Britain renewed Tecumseh’s op-
portunity, and his services to the enemy were extremely
_ valuable until his death in the battle of the Thames.
Tecumseh’s principal ally in the South was a half-breed
Creek chieftain named Weathersford. On the shore
of Lake Tensaw, in the southern part of what is now
Alabama, was a stockaded fortress known as Fort
Mimms; there many of the settlers had taken refuge.
On the 3oth of August, 1813, this stronghold was
surprised by Weathersford at the head of one thousand
Creek warriors, and more than four hundred men,
women, and children were most atrociously massacred.
The news of this dreadful affair aroused the people of
the Southwest to vengeance; men and money were
raised by the state of Tennessee; and, before he had
fully recovered from the wound received in the Benton
_affray, Jackson took the field at the head of twenty-five
hundred men. Now for the first time he had a chance
to show his wonderful military capacity, his sleepless
vigilance, untiring patience, and unrivalled talent as a
leader of men. The difficulties encountered were for-
midable in the extreme. In that frontier wilderness the
business of the commissariat was naturally ill managed,
and the men, who-under the most favourable circum-
stances had little idea of military subordination, were
part of the time mutinous from hunger. More than
once Jackson was obliged to use one-half of his army |
to keep the other half from disbanding. In view of
these difficulties the celerity of his movements and the
force with which he struck the enemy were truly mar-
vellous. The Indians were badly defeated at Tallasa-
hatchee and Talladega. At length, on the 27th of
March, 1814, having been reénforced by a regiment

244 ANDREW JACKSON

of United States infantry, Jackson struck the decisive
blow at Tohopeka, otherwise known as the Horseshoe
Bend of the Tallapoosa River. In this bloody battle
no quarter was given, and the strength of the Creek
nation was finally broken. Jackson pursued the rem-
nant to their place of refuge, called the Holy Ground, ~
upon which the medicine men had declared that no
white man could set foot and live. Such of the Creek
chieftains as had not fled to Florida now surrendered.
The American soldiers were ready to kill Weathers-
ford in revenge for Fort Mimms, but the magnanimous
Jackson spared his life and treated him so well that
henceforth he and his people remained on good terms
with the white men. Among the officers who served
under Jackson in this remarkable campaign were the
two picturesque men who in later years played such
an important part in the history of the Southwest, —
Samuel Houston and David Crockett. The Creek
War was one of critical importance. It was the last
occasion on which the red men could put forth suff-
cient power to embarrass the United States govern-
ment. More than any other single battle, that of
Tohopeka marks the downfall of Indian power on
this continent. Its immediate effects upon the war
with Great Britain were very great. By destroying
the only hostile power within the Southwestern terri-
tory, it made it possible to concentrate the military
force of the border states upon any point, however
remote, that might be threatened by the British. More
specifically, it made possible the great victory at New
Orleans. Throughout the whole of this campaign, in
which Jackson showed such indomitable energy, he
was suffering from illness such as would have kept

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 245

any ordinary man groaning in bed, besides that for
most of the time his left arm had to be supported in
a sling. His pluck was equalled by his thoroughness.
Many generals after victory are inclined to relax their
efforts ; not so Jackson, who followed up every success
with furious persistence, and whose admirable maxim
was that in war “until all is done nothing is done.”

On the 31st of May, 1814, Jackson was made major-
general in the regular army, and was appointed to
command the Department of the South. It was then a
matter of dispute whether Mobile belonged to Spain
or to the United States. In August Jackson occupied
the town and made his headquarters there. With the
consent of Spain the British were using Florida as a
base of operations, and had established themselves at
Pensacola. Jackson wrote to Washington for per-
_ mission to attack them there, but the government was
loath to sanction an invasion of Spanish territory
until the complicity of Spain with our enemy should
be proved beyond cavil. The letter from Secretary
Armstrong to this effect-did not reach Jackson. The
capture of Washington by the British prevented his
receiving orders and left him to act upon his own re-
sponsibility, a kind of situation from which he was never
known to flinch. On September 14 the British advanced
against Mobile, but in their attack upon the outwork,
Fort Bowyer, they met with a disastrous repulse. They
retreated to Pensacola, whither Jackson followed them
with three thousand men. On the 7th of November he
stormed that town. His next move would have been
against Fort Barrancas, six miles distant, at the mouth
of the harbour.

By capturing this post he would have entrapped the

246 ANDREW JACKSON

British fleet and might have compelled it to surrender ;
but the enemy forestalled him by blowing up the fort
and beating a precipitate retreat. For thus driving
the British from Florida, a most necessary and useful
act, Jackson was stupidly and maliciously blamed by
the Federalist newspapers. After clearing the enemy ~
away from this quarter, he found himself free to devote
all his energies to the task of defending New Orleans;
and there, after an arduous journey, he arrived on the
2d of December. The British expedition directed
against that city was much more formidable than any
other that we had to encounter during that war; and,
moreover, its purpose was much more deadly. In the
North the British warfare had been directed chiefly
toward defending Canada and gaining such a foothold
upon our frontier as might be useful in making terms
at the end of the war. The burning of Washington
was an exasperating insult, but its military importance
was very slight. But the expedition against New
Orleans was intended to make a permanent conquest
of the lower Mississippi, and to secure for Great Britain
in perpetuity the western bank of the river. Napoleon
had sold us the vast Louisiana territory in order to
keep Great Britain from seizing it. As part of his
empire it was a vulnerable spot which the mistress of
the seas could strike with impunity so far as he was
concerned. He preferred to put it into the hands of
a power which was at that time hostile toward Great
Britain. But the latter power felt quite competent to
take it away from Napoleon’s ally, and as the emperor
had just been dethroned and sent to Elba, the whole
strength of England, if needed, could be put forth against
the United States. The war had now lasted more than

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 247

two years, and in spite of our glorious naval victories,
the American arms upon land had made but little
headway as against the British. For constructive
statesmanship Mr. Madison’s abilities were of the high-
est order, but as President he had shown himself un-
equal to the task of conducting a war. At the outset
the Americans had entertained hopes of conquering
Canada, but we had begun with serious defeats and
losses, and at length, after several brilliant victories, had
done little more than to ward off invasion at the two
gateways of Niagara and Lake Champlain. In New
England the British had seized and held the wilder-
ness east of the Penobscot, creating quite a panic
throughout that part of the country. The leaders of
_ the old Federalist party in New England were factious
and disloyal, and in this very month of December, 1814,
_ there was assembled at Hartford a convention which
adopted measures looking toward a possible dissolution
of the Union. The national finances were in a state
of collapse, and nearly all the banks in the Middle and
Southern:states had suspended specie payments. The
British government assumed a tone of more than ordi-
nary arrogance. It was going to demand a high price
for peace: the eastern half of Maine, at any rate, and
the Michigan territory, and perhaps yet more of the
Northwest; and the Americans must promise not to
keep any more armed vessels upon the lakes, which.
must have sounded queer to Perry and Macdonough.
Then, with the western bank of the Mississippi secured,
Great Britain could hem in the United States, as
France had once hemmed in the colonies ; Canada and
Louisiana could be made to join hands again. In
order to effect all this, it seemed necessary to inflict

248 ANDREW JACKSON

upon the Americans one crushing and humiliating de-
feat, —such a defeat, for instance, as the French had
lately suffered at Vitoria. That this could be done
few Englishmen doubted, and so confident was the
expectation of victory that governors and comman-
dants for the towns along the Mississippi River were —
actually appointed and sent out in the fleet! The
situation, so far as British intentions went, was thus
extremely threatening. Even had nothing of all this
been accomplished beyond the conquest of New
Orleans, when we remember what annoyance so weak
a nation as Spain had been able to inflict upon us dur-
ing the twenty years preceding 1803, we can imagine
how insufferable it would have been had the mouth of
the Mississippi passed under the control of the greatest
naval power in the world.

When Jackson rode into New Orleans on the 2d of
December, 1814, he was so worn out by disease and so
jaded by his long journey in the saddle that the fittest
place for him was the hospital, and almost any other
man would have gone there. But in the hawklike
glare of his eye there shone forth a spirit as indomi-
table as ever dwelt in human frame. His activity dur-
ing the following weeks was well-nigh incredible.
There was one time when he is said to have gone five
days and four nights without sleep. Before his arrival »
there was dire confusion and consternation, but his
energy soon restored order, and there was something
in his manner that inspired confidence. He never
for a moment admitted the possibility of defeat, he
never doubted, fumbled, or hesitated, but always saw
at a glance the end to be reached, and went straight
toward it without losing a moment. At first it rather

*

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 249

took people’s breath away when upon his own respon-

sibility he put the city under martial law. But an

autocrat upon whom so much reliance was placed
found ready obedience, and the strictest discipline was
maintained. Women are apt to be quick in recogniz-
ing the true hero, and from the outset all the women
of New Orleans had faith in Jackson. His stately
demeanour and graceful politeness were much admired.
On the day of his arrival Edward Livingston, who was
now to be his aide-de-camp, invited him home to dinner.
The beautiful Mrs. Livingston was then the leader of
fashionable society in New Orleans. That day she
had a dozen young ladies to dinner, and just as they
were about to sit down there came the startling news

that General Jackson was on his way to join the party.

There was anxious curiosity as to how the uncouth
queller of Indians would look and behave. When he

entered the room, tall and stately in his uniform of blue

cloth and yellow buckskin, all were amazed at his
courtly manners. and it was not long before all were
charmed with his pleasant and kindly talk. After
dinner he had no sooner left the house than the young
ladies in chorus exclaimed to Mrs. Livingston: “Is
this your backwoodsman? Why, madam, he is a
prince!”* Many years afterward Josiah Quincy, mem-
ber of a committee for receiving President Jackson on
his visit to Boston, was in like manner astonished at
his urbanity and grace. He had the dignity that goes —
with entire simplicity of nature, and the ease that
comes from unconsciousness of self.

One of Jackson’s latest biographers observes that in
this campaign everything fell out favourably for him,

1 Parton, II. 31.

250 ANDREW JACKSON

“as if by magic.”* But if there was any magic in the
case, it lay in the bold initiative by which he got the
game into his own hands and kept it there. As soon
as he heard of the landing of the British, he went forth
to attack them, rightly believing that their ignorance

of the country might be set off against their superb.

discipline. He made a spirited night attack upon
their camp, while from the river the heavy guns of the
schooner Carolzna raked them with distressing charges
of grape. The effect was to check the enemy’s prog-
ress and give Jackson time to complete his intrench-

ments in a very strong position which he had chosen, ~

near the Bienvenue and Chalmette plantations, on the
east side of the river. On the farther side he placed
the militia of Kentucky and Louisiana, under General
Morgan. The British numbered twelve thousand men
under command of Wellington’s brother-in-law, the
gallant Sir Edward Pakenham. To oppose these vet-
erans of the Spanish peninsula, Jackson had six thou-
sand of that sturdy race whose fathers had vanquished
Ferguson at King’s Mountain, and whose children so

nearly vanquished Grant at Shiloh. On the 8th of »

January Pakenham was unwise enough to try to over-
whelm his adversary by a direct assault all along the
line. It was repeating Bunker Hill and anticipating
Cold Harbor. On the west bank, indeed, the British
weight of numbers prevailed, pushed the militia out of
the way, and seemed to open a chance for turning
Jackson’s position. But all this was rendered futile
by the stupendous catastrophe on the eastern bank.
“Don’t waste any shots, boys,” said Jackson, as the
long lines of redcoats were seen approaching, “make

1 Sumner, 39.

- FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 251

every shot tell; we must finish this business to-day,
you know.” We may well believe that these faultless
marksmen, who thought nothing of bringing down a
squirrel from the top of the tallest tree, wasted very few
shots indeed. In just twenty-five minutes the British
were in full retreat, leaving twenty-six hundred of
their number killed and wounded. “ The field,” said an
officer, “ was so thickly strewn with the dead, that from
the American ditch you could have walked forward
for a quarter of a mile on the bodies.” “In some places
whole platoons lay together, as if killed by the same
discharge.”* Without a sound of exultation the
Americans looked on the dreadful scene in melan-
choly silence, and presently detachments of them were
busy in assuaging the thirst and bathing the wounds
of those in whom life was left. Among the slain was
Pakenham himself. The American loss was only
eight killed and thirteen wounded, because the enemy
were mown down too quickly to return an effective
fire. Never, perhaps, in the history of the world, has
a battle been fought between armies of civilized men
with so great a disparity of loss. It was also the most
complete and overwhelming defeat that any English
army has ever experienced. It outdid even Bannock-
burn. News travelled so slowly then that this great
victory, like the three last naval victories of the war,
occurred after peace had been made by the commis- |
sioners at Ghent. Nevertheless, no American can
regret that the battle was fought. Not only the inso-
lence and rapacity of Great Britain had richly deserved
such castigation, but if she had once gained a foothold
in the Mississippi Valley, it might have taken an armed

1 Parton, II. 209.

252 ANDREW JACKSON

force to dislodge her, in spite of the treaty; for in the
matter of the western frontier posts after 1783 she had
by no means acted in good faith. Jackson’s victory de-
cided that henceforth the Mississippi Valley belonged
indisputably to the people of the United States. It
was the recollection of that victory, along with the
exploits of Hull and Decatur, Perry and Macdonough,
which caused the Holy Alliance to look upon the
Monroe Doctrine as something more than an idle
threat. All over the United States the immediate
effect of the news was electric; and it was enhanced ~
by the news of: peace which arrived a few days later.
By this “almost incredible victory,” as the Vatzonal
Intelligencer called it, the credit of the American arms,
upon land, was fully restored. Not only did the ad-
ministration glory in it, as was natural, but the opposi-
tion lauded it for a different reason, as an example of
what American military heroism could do in spite of
inadequate support from government. Thus praised
by all parties, Jackson, who before the Creek War had
been little known outside of Tennessee, became at
once the foremost man in the United States. People
in the North, while throwing up their hats for him,
were sometimes heard to ask: “ Who is this General
Jackson? To what state does he belong?” Hence-
forth, until the Civil War, he occupied the most promi-
nent place in the popular mind.

After his victory Jackson remained three months
in New Orleans, in some conflict with the civil au-
thorities of the town, which he found it necessary to
hold under martial law. In April he returned to
Nashville, still retaining his military command of the
Southwest. He soon became involved in a quarrel

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 253

with Mr. Crawford, the Secretary of War, who had
undertaken to modify some provisions in his treaty
with the Creeks. Jackson was also justly incensed by
the occasional issue of orders from the War Department
directly to his subordinate officers; such orders some-
times stupidly thwarted his plans. The usual course
for a commanding general thus annoyed would be to
make a private representation to the government. But
here, as ordinarily, while quite right in his position,
Jackson was violent and overbearing in his methods.
He published, April 22, 1817, an order forbidding
his subordinate officers to pay heed to any order from
the War Department unless issued through him. Mr.
Calhoun, who in October succeeded Crawford as Sec-
retary of War, gracefully yielded the point, but the
public had meanwhile been somewhat scandalized by
the collision of authorities. In private conversation
General Scott had alluded to Jackson’s conduct as
savouring of mutiny. This led to an angry corre-
spondence between the two generals, ending in a chal-
lenge from Jackson, which Scott declined on the
ground that duelling 1s a wicked and unchristian
custom.

Affairs in Florida now demanded attention. That
country had become a nest of outlaws, and chaos
reigned supreme there. Many of the defeated Creeks
had found a refuge in Florida; and runaway negroes
from the plantations of Georgia and South Carolina
were continually escaping thither. During the late
war British officers and adventurers, acting on their
own responsibility upon this neutral soil, committed
many acts which their government would never have
sanctioned. They stirred up Indians and negroes to

254 ANDREW JACKSON

commit atrocities on the United States frontier. The
Spanish government was at that time engaged in war-
fare with its revolted colonies in South America, and
the coasts of Florida became a haunt for contraband
traders, privateers, and filibusters. One adventurer
would announce his intention to make Florida a free’
republic; another would go about committing robbery
on his own account; a third would set up an agency
for kidnapping negroes on speculation. The disorder
was hideous. On the Apalachicola River the British
had built a fort, and amply stocked it with arms and |
ammunition, to serve as a base of operations against
the United States. On the departure of the British,
the fort was seized and held by negroes. This
alarmed the people of Georgia, and in July, 1816,
United States troops, with permission from the Span-
ish authorities, marched in and bombarded the negro
fort. A hot shot found its way into the magazine,
three hundred negroes were blown into fragments,
and the fort was demolished. In this case the Span-
iards were ready to leave to United States troops a
disagreeable work for which their own force was
incompetent. Every day made it plainer that Spain
was quite unable to preserve order in Florida, and for
this reason the United States entered upon negotia-
tions for the purchase of that country. Meanwhile
the turmoil increased. White men were murdered by
Indians, and United States troops under Colonel
Twiggs captured and burned a considerable Seminole
village known as Fowltown. The Indians retaliated
by a wholesale massacre of fifty people who were
ascending the Apalachicola River in boats; some of
the victims were tortured with firebrands. Jackson

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 255

was now ordered to the frontier. He wrote at once
to President Monroe, “Let it be signified to me
through any channel (say Mr. John Rhea) that the
possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the
United States, and in sixty days it will be accom-
plished.” Mr. Rhea was a representative from Ten-
nessee, a confidential friend of both Jackson and
Monroe. The President was ill when Jackson’s letter
reached him, and does not seem to have given it due
consideration. On referring to it a year later he could
not remember that he had ever seen it before. Rhea,
however, seems to have written a letter to Jackson,
telling him that the President approved of his sugges-
tion. As to this point the united testimony of Jack-
son, Rhea, and Judge Overton seems conclusive.
Afterward Mr. Monroe, through Rhea, seems to have
requested Jackson to burn this letter, and an entry on
- the general’s letter-book shows that it was accordingly
burnt, April 12, 1819. There can be no doubt that,
whatever the President’s intention may have been, or
how far it may have been correctly interpreted by
Rhea, the general honestly considered himself author-
ized to take possession of Florida on the ground that
the Spanish government had shown itself incompetent
to prevent the denizens of that country from engaging
in hostilities against the United States. Jackson
acted upon this belief with his accustomed prompt-
ness. He raised troops in Tennessee and neighbour-
ing states, invaded Florida in March, 1818, captured
St. Mark’s, and pushed on to the Seminole headquar-
ters on the Suwanee River. In less than three
months from this time he had overthrown the Indians
and brought order out of chaos. His measures were

256 ANDREW JACKSON

praised by his friends as vigorous, while his enemies
stigmatized them as high-handed. In one instance
his conduct was certainly open to question. At St.
Mark’s his troops captured an aged Scotch trader and
friend of the Indians, named Alexander Arbuthnot;
near Suwanee, some time afterward, they seized Rob- -
ert Ambrister, a young English lieutenant of marines,
nephew of the governor of New Providence. Jackson
believed that these men had incited the Indians to
make war upon the United States and were now en-
gaged in aiding and abetting them in their hostilities.
They were tried by a court-martial at St. Mark’s. On
evidence which surely does not to-day seem fully con-
clusive, Arbuthnot was found guilty and sentenced to
be hanged. Appearances were more strongly against
Ambrister. He did not make it clear what his busi-
ness was in Florida, and threw himself upon the mercy
of the court, which at first condemned him to be shot,
but on further consideration commuted the sentence to
fifty lashes and a year’s imprisonment. Jackson arbi-
trarily revived the first sentence, and Ambrister was
accordingly shot. A few minutes afterward Arbuth-
not was hanged from the yard-arm of his own ship,
declaring with his last breath that his country would
avenge him. In this affair Jackson unquestionably
acted from a stern sense of duty; as he himself said,
“ My God would not have smiled on me had I pun-
ished only the poor, ignorant savages, and spared the
white men who set them on.” Here, as on some other
occasions, however, when under the influence of strong
feeling, it may be doubted if he was to the full extent
capable of estimating evidence. It is, however, very
probable that the men were guilty.

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 257

On his way home, hearing that some Indians had
sought refuge in Pensacola, Jackson captured the
town, turned out the Spanish governor, and left a
garrison of his own there. He had now virtually
conquered Florida, but he had moved rather too fast
for the government at Washington. He had gone
further, perhaps, than was permissible in trespassing
upon neutral territory; and his summary execution of
two British subjects aroused furious excitement in
England. For amoment we seemed on the verge of
war with Great Britain and Spain at once. Whatever
authority President Monroe may have _ intended,
through the Rhea letter, to confer upon Jackson, he
certainly felt that the general had gone too far. With
one exception all his cabinet agreed with him that it
would be best to disavow Jackson’s acts and make
reparation for them. But John Quincy Adams, Secre-
tary of State, was in point of boldness not unlike Jack-
son. He felt equal to the task of dealing with the
two foreign powers, and upon his advice the adminis-
tration decided to assume the responsibility for what
Jackson had done. Pensacola and St. Mark’s were
restored to Spain, and an order of Jackson’s for the
seizing of St. Augustine was countermanded by the
President. But Adams represented to Spain that
the American general, in his invasion of Florida, was
virtually assisting the Spanish government in main-
taining order there; and to Great Britain he justified
the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister on the
ground that their conduct had been such that they
had forfeited their allegiance and become virtual out-
laws. Spain and Great Britain accepted the explana-
tions; had either nation felt in the mood for war with

S

258 ANDREW JACKSON

the United States, it might have been otherwise. As
soon as the administration had adopted Jackson’s
measures, they were for that reason attacked in Con-
gress by Clay, whose opposition was at this time
factious, and this was the beginning of the bitter and
lifelong feud between Jackson and Clay. In 1819 the’
purchase of Florida from Spain was effected, and in
1821 Jackson was appointed governor of that territory.

The victorious general was now in his fifty-fifth
year. Until the age of forty-five he had been little
known outside of Tennessee. It was then that the .
Creek War gave him his opportunity, and revealed
the fact that there was a great general among us.
Since the battle of New Orleans he had come to be
as much a hero in America as Wellington in Eng-
land. The Iron Duke was never once defeated in
battle, but if he had ever come to blows with Old
Hickory, I do not feel absolutely sure that the record
might not have been broken. Jackson’s boldness and
tenacity were combined with a fertility in resources
that made him, like Boots in the fairy tales, every-
where invincible. Alike in war and in politics we
already begin to see him always carrying the day.
One can see that the election of such a man to the
presidency would be likely to mark an era in Ameri-
can history. One sees in Jackson a representative
man. His virtues and his faults were largely those of
the frontier society that in those days lived west of the
Alleghanies. His election to the presidency was the
first great political triumph of that Western country |
which Gouverneur Morris wished to see always kept
in leading-strings. The significance of this triumph I
shall try to point out in my next paper.

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 259

Note. AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER OF ANDREW JACKSON,

Through the courtesy of the late Colonel Thomas Tasker Gantt
of St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Fiske’s attention was directed to an un-
published letter of Jackson’s, written by the general in 1818 to his
friend, the Hon. G. W. Campbell, minister to Russia, concerning
affairs in Florida. Dr. Fiske made an exact copy, which is given
below, an interesting example, not only of the writer’s virility of
expression, but of his well-known peculiarities of spelling. Of
these peculiarities General Jackson was himself well aware. That
he was also drolly indifferent to all conventional rules of orthog-
raphy appears from an extract of correspondence between Colonel
Gantt and Mrs. Elizabeth B. Lee, daughter of the distinguished
Virginian, Francis P. Blair, and sister to Montgomery Blair of
Lincoln’s cabinet. From the lifelong intimacy of the Blairs and
the Jacksons, Mrs. Lee was often, as a girl, a guest at “‘ The
- Hermitage” and at the White House. “Once,” she writes,
‘‘when copying a letter for him I protested against his spelling
which three different ways on one page and wanted him to alter
_ it, but he would not, and said laughingly that he could make him-
self understood, and that as I was a copyist, I had better spell it
as I found it; then he added, more seriously, that at the age when
most young people learn to spell he was working for his living and
_ helping the best of mothers.”

Chekesaw Nation Treaty Ground,
Oct" 5™ 1818.
D’ Sir
I know you will be astonished at receiving an answer to your

i very friendly letter of the 22° July last at this distant day and from

this place. Your letter came to hand by due course of mail, but
found me sick in bed —that I could not comply with your request .
or my own wishes by giving it a speedy answer. It was some
time before I recovered so as to use a pen, and when I did, I
found myself surrounded by letters and communications relative
to my official duties that occupied my whole time that I was able
to attend to business untill the arrival of Governor Shelby of
Kentucky with whom I was joined in commission to hold a treaty
with this nation for a surrender of their right to all lands within

260 ANDREW JACKSON

the states of Tennessee and Kentucky. We arrived here on the
29" ult. and found everything wrong: an agent unacquainted
with Indians, the geography of the country, or even what was the
wishes of the government, and not half the nation notified of the
time or place of meeting. Runners have gone to all parts of
the nation to collect them: we are waiting their arrival and I am
thereby afforded a leisure moment to answer your friendly letter.

It affords me much pleasure to see the polite attention of the
eastern people towards you. This shows a spirit of harmony
towards the southern and western people that I hope will grow
into permanent harmony between the two interests, and that vio-
lence of party spirit and bickering will cease to exist in our happy
country.

On the subject of my taking Pensacola I regret that the Govern-
ment had not furnished you with a copy of my report from Fts
Gadsden and Montgomery. This would have given you a full
view of the whole ground. You are advised of the situation of
our southern frontier when I was ordered to take the field and put
a speedy end to the conflict with the Seminoles, &c., &c. Our
frontier when I reached it was reeking with the blood of our
women and children and the masacre of Lt. Scott. When I
reached Ft. Scott I found it out of supplies and no alternative left
me but to abandon the campaign, or to force my way to the bay
of Appalachicola and risque meeting supplies I had ordered from
N. Orleans. I chose the latter—and succeeded. Having ob-
tained eight days rations for my men I immediately marched on
Muckasookey, where the strength of the enemy was collected, first
apprising the Governor of Pensacola why I had entered the
Floridas, to wit, not as the enemy but as the friend of Spain; as
Spain had acknowledged her incapacity, through her weakness to
control the Indians within her terrritory and keep them at peace
with the United States, self-defence justified our entering her
territory and doing that for her which she had bound herself to
do by solem treaty—that as I was engaged fighting the battles
of Spain I had a right and did calculate on receiving all the facili-
ties in the power of the agents of Spain that would aid me in put-
ting a speedy end to the war; advising the Governor in the same
letter that I had ordered supplies up the for my army to
Ft Crawford, which I trusted would be permitted to pass unmolested

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 261

without any delay occasioned by the agents of Spain, but should
I be disappointed in my expectation of the friendly dispositions
of the agents of Spain, or should my supplies be interrupted by
them, I SHOULD VIEW IT AS AN ACT OF WAR AND TREAT IT ACCORD-
INGLY. I received in answer to this friendly letter a positive
declaration that my provisions should not pass; the supplies were
by the Governor seized at Pensacola under a demand of transit
duties, and my whole army thereby made subject to starvation,
and which I never got until I entered Pensacola. I proceeded
against Muckasookey, routed and dispersed the enemy, taking
some prisoners from whom I learned that the Indians received all
their supplies of ammunition from Ft Marks thirty miles distant,
and that the noted and notorious Francis the prophet and his
party had retired to St. Marks with all his booty taken from Ft
Scott; and Inchqueen and his party had retired there also— that
the ballance of the Indians had fled to the negroes on the Sewan-
ney [Suwanee] river. I was also informed by the Governor of
~ Pensacola, through captains Call and Gordon, that he expected
Ft Marks was in the hands of the Indians and negroes, as they
had made demand of large supplies which the commander was not
- able to comply with, and he was unable to defend the fort. As
soon as I had collected the corn and cattle for the supply of my
troops, I marched on Ft Marks— when I reached there I found
that Francis and party had been in the fort, that the garrison
had been supplied with the cattle stolen from our frontier, that our
public stores were the granaries of our enemy, and that the Indians
had been supplied with all of munitions of war by the comman-
dant — and that the notorious Arbuthnot was then in the garrison.
I demanded possession of the garrison to be possessed by my
troops during the war, and untill Spain could reinforce it with as
many troops as would insure the safety of our frontier and a ful-
fillment of the treaty with the U States on the part of Spain. This
was refused me. I saw across St. Marks river the smoke of my
enemy ; delay was out of the question. I seized Arbuthnot in the
garrison and took possession of it. The noted Francis, who had
just returned with a brigadier general’s commission, a good rifle
and snuff-box presented by the Prince Regent, had been captured
the day before with four of his followers by Capt. McKeever whose
vessell they had visitted, mistaking it for a vessell expected from

262 ANDREW JACKSON

England with supplies for the Indians, as he stated. I ordered
him this principle chief to be hung, and marched the next day for
Sewanney, where I routed the Indians and negroes, took Ambrister,
a British officer who headed the negroes, Arbuthnot’s schooner
with all their papers, which led to the conviction and execution of
Arbuthnot and Capt. Ambrister, both of whom was executed under
sentence of a court-martial at Ft. Marks. I returned to Ft Gads--
den, where preparing to disband the militia force I rec* informa-
tion that four hundred and fifty Indians had collected in Pensacola,
was fed by the Governor, and a party furnished by the governor
had issued forth and in one night slaughtered eighteen of our
citizens, and that another party had, with the knowledge of the
governor, and being furnished by him, went out publickly, mur-
dered a Mr. Stokes and family, and had in open day returned to
Pensacola and sold the booty, amongst which was the clothing
of Mr. Stokes. This statement was corroborated by a report of
Gov. Bibb. I was also informed that the provisions I had ordered
for the supply of Ft Crawford and my army on board the U. States
schooner Amelia was seized and detained at Pensacola with a
small detachment of regulars and six hundred Tennesseans. I
marched for Pensacola; whilst on my march thither I was met
by a protest of the governor of Pensacola, ordering me out of the
Floridas, or he would oppose force to force and drive me out of
the territory of Spain. This bold measure of the governor, who
had alleged weakness as the cause of his non-fulfillment of the
treaty with the U. States, when united with the facts stated, of
which I then had positive proof — that at that time a large number
of the hostile Indians were then in Pensacola, who I had dispersed
east of the Appalachicola— unmasked the duplicity of the gov-
ernor and his having aided and abetted the Indians in the war
against us. I hastened my steps, entered Pensacola, took posses-
sion of my supplies. The governor had fled from the city to the
Barancas, where he had strongly fortified himself. I demanded
possession of the garrison to be held by American troops until a
guarantee should be given for the fulfillment of the treaty and the
safety of the frontier. This was denyed. I approached the Bar-
ancas with one 9g” piece and 5,8, inch howitzer. They opencd
their batteries upon me. It was returned spiritedly and with two
pieces against forty odd mounted of 24 [pounders ?] the white flag

FRONTIERSMAN AND SOLDIER 263

went up in the evening and the. capitulation entered into, which
you have seen. It is true I had my ladders ready to go over the
wall which I believe the garrison discovered and was afraid of
a night attack and surrendered. When the flag was hoisted the [y]
had three hundred effectives in the garrison—this number of .
Americans would have kept it from combined Urope [Europe].
There was one Indian wounded in the garrison and the others
were sent out in the night across the bay before I got possession.
Thus Sir I have given you a concise statement of the facts and all
I regret is that I had not stormed the works, captured the gov-
ernor, put him on his trial for the murder of Stokes and his family,
and hung him for the deed. I could adopt no other way to “ put
an end to the war” but by possessing myself of the stronghold
that was an asylum to the enemy and afforded them the means of
offence. The officers of Spain having by their acts identified
themselves with our enemy, became such, and by the law of na-
tions subjected themselves to be treated as such. Self defence
justified me in every act I did. I will stand justified before God
and all Urope, and I regret that our government has extended
the courtesy to Spain of withdrawing the troops from Pensacola
- before Spain gave a guarantee for the fulfilment of the treaty and
the safety of our frontier. It was an act of courtesy that nothing
but the insignificance and weakness of Spain can excuse, but it is
not my province to find fault with the acts of the government, but
it may have reason to repent of her clemency.

Make a tender to your lady of my sincere respects and best wishes
for her happiness and receive Sir for yourself an expression of my
unfeigned frendship and esteem — and — [I] remain respectfully

Yr. mo. ob. serv.

ANDREW JACKSON.
P.S. My eyes are weak and my

hand trembles I am still weak and
much debilitated Nothing but the
hope of being serviceable to the
wishes of my government and inter-
est of the state of Tennessee could
have induced me to have undertaken
the journey. A. J.
The Honble
G. W. Campbell
Minister at Russia

264 ANDREW JACKSON

Endorsed by Mr. Campbell — ‘“‘ Gen. Andrew Jackson, Chicka-
saw Nation, 5 Oct. 1818

Giving an account of the taking possession of Pensacola.”
ans 8. Sept. 1819.

This letter was given by Major Campbell Brown of Spring Hill,
Tennessee (a grandson, I think, of G. W. Campbell), to Colonel
Gantt; and Colonel Gantt gave it to the Mercantile Library of
St. Louis, where it is to be found. —Joun Fiske.

VII

ANDREW JACKSON

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO

VII

ANDREW JACKSON

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO

THE period comprised between the years 1815 and
1860 — between our second war with England and our
great Civil War — was the period in which American
society was more provincial in character than at any
time before or since. By provincialism I mean the
opposite of cosmopolitanism; I refer to the state of
things in which the people of a community know very
little about other communities and care very little for
foreign ideas and foreign affairs. I do not mean to
imply that the community thus affected with provin-
cialism is necessarily backward in its civilization. Pro-
vincialism is, indeed, one-of the marks of backwardness,
but it is a mark that is often found in the foremost
communities. No one doubts that England and France
stand in the front rank among civilized nations; but
when a Frenchman in good society thinks that the
people of the United States talk Spanish, or when a
college-bred man in England imagines Indians in,
feathers and war-paint prowling in the backwoods near
Boston, none can doubt that they are chargeable with
provincialism in a very gross form indeed. This sort
of dense ignorance is apt to underlie national antipa-
thies,and when manifested between the different parts
of a common country it is accountable for what we

267

268 ANDREW JACKSON

call sectional prejudice. Such antipathies are usually
ill founded. That human nature which we all possess
in common is very far from perfect, but after all it is
encouraging to find, as a general rule, that the better
we understand people the more we like them. If all
the bitterness, all the quarrels and bloodshed, that have ~
come from sheer downright ignorance were to be elimi-
nated from the annals of mankind, those annals would
greatly shrink in volume. It is, therefore, devoutly to
be wished that provincialism may by and by perish,
and every encouragement should be given to the
agencies which are gradually destroying it, such as
literature, commerce, and travel, enabling the people
of different countries to exchange ideas and learn
something about each other’s characters.

American provincialism sixty years ago, however,
had something about it that was wholesome. A great
many bad things have their good sides, and in looking
back upon evils that we have got rid of, we can some-
times see that they did something toward checking
other evils. An exceedingly foolish and barbarous
custom was duelling; but it doubtless served some-
what to restrain that graceless impudence which some-
times seems threatening in turn to become a national
misfortune. So with provincialism; it had its good
side in so far as it was a reaction against the old colo-
nial spirit which kept our minds in thraldom to Eu-
rope, and especially to England, long after we had by
force of arms achieved political independence. Before
the Revolutionary War we were kept perpetually re-
minded of England. Most of the colonial governors
and revenue officers, and many of the judges, received
their appointments from London. Every change of

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 269

ministry was fraught with possibilities affecting our
welfare. Our seaports were familiar with the sight of
_ British officials. We depended upon England for fine
arts and fashions, as well as for a great many of the
manufactured articles in common use. We read Brit-
ish historians and essayists, quoted British poets, and
taught our children out of British text-books. We felt
that the centre of things was in Europe, while we were -
comparatively raw communities on the edge of :a vast
continent, much of which was still unexplored and the
greater part of it a wilderness possessed by horrid sav-
ages. This state of feeling lasted for some time after
the Revolution. For a quarter of a century our politi-
cal contests related quite as much to foreign as to
domestic questions. The horrors of the French Revo-
lution made the Federalists an English party; they
looked upon England as the guardian of law and order
in Europe. The Republicans, on the other hand, ap-
plauded the overthrow of a miserable despotism and
sympathized with the ideas of revolutionary France.
They accused the Federalists of leanings toward mon-
archy; they called them aristocrats and snobs, and
thought it very mean in them to turn a cold shoulder
to the people who had helped us win our independence.
But it was not merely a question of our sympathies ;
we were really forced into taking sides. During nearly
the whole of this period France and England were at
war with each other, and in accordance with the bar-
baric system then prevalent, their privateers preyed
upon the shipping of neutral nations. As we had not
then discovered how to protect ships out of existence,
we did a very large and profitable carrying trade. Our
ships were the best in the world, and no other neutral

270 ANDREW JACKSON

nation, unless it may have been Holland, had so many
on the ocean. This fact kept foreign politics in the
foreground until the culmination of the long quarrel
was reached in the War of 1812-1815. That war has
been called, with much propriety, our second war of
independence. It taught other nations that we were ~
not to be insulted with impunity, and it set our politics
free from European complications. The year 1815
marks an epoch on both sides of the Atlantic. It was
the beginning of thirty years of peace, during which,
in America as in England, attention could be devoted
to political and social reforms. Great and exciting
questions of domestic politics soon came up to occupy
the attention of Americans, and their thoughts were
much less intimately concerned with what people were
saying and doing on the other side of the ocean. We
also paid less attention to European manners and
fashions. Our statesmen of the Revolutionary period
dressed very much like Englishmen, and since the
Civil War it is so again.. But in the intermediate
period, between 1815 and 1860, we had the bright blue
coat with brass buttons and the buff waistcoat, such as
Daniel Webster used to wear when he made those im-
mortal speeches that did so much to enkindle a pas-
sionate love for the Union and make it strong enough
to endure the shock of war. That blue dress-coat with
brass buttons was the visible symbol of the period of
narrow, boastful, provincial, but wholesome and much-
needed, Americanism.

Now, this feeling of Americanism grew up more
rapidly and acquired greater intensity in the new
states west of the mountains than in the old states
on the seaboard. Observe the surprising rapidity

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 271

with which these new states were formed, as the
obstacles to migration were removed. The chief
obstacles had been the hostility of the Indians, and
the difficulty of getting from place to place. During
the late war the Indian power had been broken by
Harrison in the North and by Jackson! in the South.
In 1807 Robert Fulton had invented the steamboat.
In 1811 a steamboat was launched on the Ohio River |
at Pittsburg, and presently such nimble craft were
plying on all the Western rivers, carrying settlers and
traders, farm produce and household utensils. This
gave an immense impetus to the Western migration.
After Ohio had been admitted to the Union in 1802,
ten years had elapsed before the next state, Louisiana,
was added. But in six years after the war a new
state was added every year: Indiana in 1816, Missis-
sippi in 1817, Illinois in 1818, Alabama in 1819, Maine
in 1820, Missouri in 1821; all but one of them west of
the Alleghanies, one of them west of the Mississippi.
In President Monroe’s second term, while there were
thirty senators from the Atlantic states, there were al-
ready eighteen from the West. It was evident that
the political centre of gravity was moving westward
at a very rapid rate.

In the new Southern states thus created below the
thirty-sixth parallel the South Carolinian type of
society prevailed. In all the others there was an ex-
tensive and complicated mixing of people from dif-
ferent Atlantic states. Toward 1840, after Ericsson’s

1“ Jt has been pleasant too to revise many of my ideas and opinions:
for my youthful memories go back to the days when Jackson was like a
bogy to frighten naughty children! Boston was a place of one dea then.”
Extract from a letter of Mr. James Day to Dr. Fiske.

272 ANDREW JACKSON

invention of the screw propeller had set up the new
migration of foreigners from Europe, and after the
great stream of New Englanders had begun to pour
into the Northwest, the mixing became still more
complicated. The effect of this was excellent in
shaking men’s ideas out of the old ruts, in bringing -
together people of somewhat various habits and
associations, in breaking down artificial social dis-
tinctions, in broadening the range of sympathy, and
in adding to the heartiness and cordiality of manner.
This new society was much more completely demo-
cratic than that of the Atlantic states, and it soon
began powerfully to react upon the latter. During
the period of which I am speaking most of the states
remodelled or amended their constitutions in such
wise as to make them more democratic. There was
an extension of the suffrage, a shortening of terms
of office, and a disposition to make all offices elective.
There was much that was wholesome in this demo-
cratic movement, but there was also some crudeness,
and now and then a lamentable mistake was made.
Perhaps the worst instance was that of electing judges
for limited terms instead of having them appointed
for life or during good behaviour. In particular cases”
the system may work fairly well, but its general ten-
dency is demoralizing to bench and bar alike, and I
believe it to be one of the most crying abominations
by which our country is afflicted. Taken in connec-
tion with the disposition to seek violent redress for
injuries, and with the mawkish humanitarianism of
which criminals are so quick to take advantage, it
has done much to diminish the security of life and
property and to furnish a valid excuse for the rough

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 273

and ready methods of Judge Lynch. It is encourag-
ing to observe at the present time some symptoms
of a disposition to return to the older and sounder
method of making judges. Good sense is so strongly
developed among our people that we may reasonably
calculate upon their profiting by hard experience and
correcting their own errors in the long run. It is
far better that popular errors should be corrected in
this way than by some beneficent autocratic power,
or by some set of people supposed to be wiser than
others; and this, I believe, is the true theory of de-
mocracy. This is the vital point which Jefferson
understood so much more clearly than Hamilton and
the Federalists.
But in the period of which I am speaking, the
theory of democracy was not usually taken so moder-
ately as this. There was a kind of democratic fanati-
cism in the air. A kind of metaphysical entity called
the People (spelled with a capital) was set up for men
to worship. Its voice was the voice of God; and, like
the king, it could do no-wrong. It had lately been
enthroned in America, and was going shortly to
renovate the world. People began to forget all about
the slow growth of our constitutional liberty through
ages of struggle in England and Scotland. They be-
gan to forget all about our own colonial period, with
its strongly marked characters and its political lessons |
of such profound significance. A habit grew up,
which has not yet been outgrown, of talking about
American history as if it began in 1776, an error as
fatal to all correct understanding of the subject as that
which Englishmen used to make in ignoring their
own history prior to the Norman Conquest. We

yt

274 ANDREW JACKSON

began to look upon our federal Constitution as if it
had been suddenly created by an act of miraculous
wisdom, and had no roots in European soil. It was
telt that our institutions were hedged about by a kind
of divinity, and that by means of them we had become
better than other nations; and, in our implicit reliance
upon the infallible wisdom of the. people, we went to
work at legislation and at constitution-making in a
much less sober spirit than to-day. As for Europe,
we exaggerated its political shortcomings most egre-
giously, and failed to see that it could have any political .
lessons for us. The expressions most commonly heard
about Europe were “ pauper labor” and “effete dy-
nasties.” People seldom crossed the ocean to look at
things over there with their own eyes. The feeling
with which children then grew up found expression
a little later in such questions as, “ What do we care
for abroad?” A gentleman who has been speaker of
the House of Representatives and major-general in
the army once said in a public speech that too much
time was spent in studying the history of England,
we had much better study that of the North American
Indians ; it was quite enough to know something about
the continent we live on, the rest of the world was
hardly worth knowing. At one time even the pronun-
ciation of the word European seemed in danger of
being forgotten; it was quite commonly pronounced
Europian. |

Those were the days of spread-eagle oratory on the
Fourth of July, and whenever people were assembled
in public, the days when ministers in the pulpit used
to thank Heaven that “in spite of all temptations to
belong to other nations” we had been born Americans.

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 275

They were the days when Elijah Pagram could silence
all cavillers by reminding them that “our bright home
is in the settin’ sun.” More summary were the meth-
ods of Mr. Hannibal Chollop. “Do you see this
pistol?” said he to Martin Chuzzlewit. ‘I shot a man
down with it the other day in the state of Illinois. I
shot him for asserting in the Spartan Portico, a tri-
weekly journal, that the ancient Athenians went ahead
of the present locofoco ticket.” Very few eminent
persons from England visited the United States in
those days, and it was quite natural that those who did
should feel called upon, after going home, to write
books recording their impressions of the country and
the people. Such books, even when written in a
_ friendly spirit, were sure to give mortal offence to the
Americans, simply because it was impossible for the
writers, without making themselves ridiculous, to
pile up superlatives enough to satisfy our national
vanity. When one reads Dickens’s “ American Notes,”
in which he treats us seriously, one finds it hard to
understand the storm of indignation which it aroused,
except that he did indeed touch upon one very sensi-
tive spot, the incongruity between negro slavery and
our fine talk about the rights of man. In “ Martin
Chuzzlewit ” he made fun of us; but the good-natured
banter which enraged our fathers only makes us laugh
to-day. Dickens was friendly, Mrs. Trollope was not. |
“To speak plainly,’ said she, “I do not like the
Americans.” The poor woman had entered our
country by what was then one of its back doors. She
had landed at New Orleans and gone up by river
to Cincinnati, where circumstances obliged her to live
for more than a year in the old times when countless

276 ANDREW JACKSON

pigs ran wild in the unpaved streets of the frontier
town. Any one who wishes to understand American
democracy sixty years ago should read her book. It
is evidently a truthful account of a state of society in ~
which very few of us would find it pleasant to live, and
it is amusing to see the zazveté with which the writer’s
expressions become mollified as on her homeward
journey she reaches Philadelphia and New York. It
is noticeable that the examples of Americanism quoted
by English travellers of that day were almost always
taken from the West. They had very little to say.
about Boston because it was too much like an Eng-
lish town. They camein search of novelty and found
it in the valley of the Mississippi, as they now find it
in the Rocky Mountains.

No such novelty, however, can the European trav-
eller find anywhere in the United States to-day as
that which so astonished him half a century ago.
The period of provincialism which I have sought to
describe came to an end with our Civil War. The
overthrow of slavery removed one barrier to the sym-
pathy between America and western Europe. The
sacrifices we had to make in order to save our coun-
try intensified our love for it, but diminished our
boastfulness. In a chastened spirit we were enabled
to see that even in American institutions there might
be elements of weakness, that perhaps the experience
of other nations might have lessons worthy of our
study, and that the whole world is none too wide a
field wherefrom to gather wisdom. Moreover, the
railroad and telegraph, two of the mightiest agencies
yet devised for hastening the millennium, have already
wrought a marvellous transformation, which is but the

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 277

harbinger of greater transformations, in the opinions
and sentiments and mental habits of men and women
in all civilized countries. Nowhere have the compli-
cated effects been more potent or more marked than
in the United States. Every part of our vast domain
has been brought into easy contact with all four quar-
ters of the globe. Australia and Zululand are less
remote from us to-day than England was in Jackson’s
time. We go back and forth across the Atlantic in
crowds, and we exchange ideas with the whole world.
We are becoming daily more and more cosmopolitan,
and are, perhaps, as much in the centre of things as
any people.

However, as I said a moment ago, the old provin-
cial spirit of Americanism was in its day eminently
useful and wholesome. The swagger and tall talk

was simply the bubbling forth that accompanied the
fermentation of a vigorous and hopeful national spirit,
but for which we might long before this have been
broken up into a group of little spiteful, squabbling
republics, with custom-houses and sentinels in uni-
form scattered along every state line. The second
war with England was the first emphatic assertion of
this national spirit. Before that time the sentiment
of union was weak. In 1786 nearly all the states
were, for various reasons, snarling and showing their
teeth. In 1799 Kentucky uttered a growl in which
something was heard that sounded like nullification.
In 1804 Timothy Pickering dallied with a scheme, to
which it was hoped that Aaron Burr might lend assist-
ance, for a Northern confederacy of New England and
New York, with the possible addition of New Jersey
and Pennsylvania. In 1808 some of the New Eng-

278 ANDREW JACKSON

land Federalists, enraged at Jefferson’s embargo, enter-
tained thoughts of secession, and in 1814 there was
mischief brewing at Hartford. It was the result of
the war with Great Britain that dealt the first stagger-
ing blow to these separatist tendencies. In that grand
result, so far as the naval victories were concerned, the
chief credit was won by New England, and it went far
toward setting the popular sentiment in that part of
the country out of gear with the schemes of the moss-
back Federalist leaders. But as regarded the land
victories and the whole political situation, the chief .
credit accrued to the West. It was the much-loved
statesman, “ Harry of the West,” the eloquent Henry
Clay, that had prevailed upon the country to appeal
to arms, in spite of the wrath of the New Englanders
and the misgivings of President Madison. It was the
invincible soldier of Tennessee that crowned the work
with a prodigious victory. Had the war ended simply
with the treaty of Ghent, which did not give us quite
so much as we wanted, the discontent of New Eng-
land would probably have continued. It was the battle
of New Orleans that killed New England federalism.
It struck a chord of patriotic feeling to which the peo-
ple of New England responded promptly. The Fed-
eralist leaders were at once discredited, and not a man
that had gone to the Hartford convention but had
hard work, for the rest of his life, to regain the full
confidence of his fellow-citizens. In the presidential
election of 1816 the Federalists still contrived to get
thirty-four electoral votes for Rufus King. In 1820
they did not put forward any candidate; their party
was dead and buried. All but one of the electoral
votes were given to James Monroe. One elector cast

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 279

his vote for John Quincy Adams, just as a matter of
form, in order that no President after Washington
might be chosen by an absolutely unanimous vote.
This was what we called the “era of good feeling.”
The war had disposed of the old issues, and the new
ones had not yet shaped themselves. As all the can-
didates for the election of 1824 were called Republi-
cans, the issues between them seemed to be purely of
a personal nature. There was a genuine political
force at work, however, and a very strong one. This
was the spirit of reaction against European ideas, the
bumptious and boisterous democratic Americanism of
the young West. The backwoodsmen and Mississippi
traders were to be represented in the White House, in
spite of Virginia planters and Harvard professors.
There was a wish to put an end to what some people
called the “ Virginia dynasty” of Presidents; and it
_ was with this in view that Clay kept up, during Mon-
roe’s administration, an opposition that was sometimes
factious. It was, for instance, partly because Monroe
had sanctioned Jackson’s measures in Florida, that
Clay and his friends felt bound to attack them, thus
laying the foundations of the lifelong feud between
Clay and Jackson. In 1823, when the latter resigned
the governorship of Florida and took his seat in the
United States Senate, he had already been nominated
by the legislature of Tennessee as the candidate of
that state for the presidency. Some of his friends,
under the lead of William Lewis, had even two years
earlier conceived the idea of making him President.
At first General Jackson cast ridicule upon the idea.
“Do they suppose,” said he, “ that I am such a d—d
fool as to think myself fit for President of the United

280 ANDREW JACKSON

States? No, sir. I know what I am fit for. I can

command a body of men ina rough way; but I am
not fit to be President.” Such is the anecdote told by
H. M. Brackenridge, who was Jackson’s secretary in
Florida (Parton, II. 354). At this time the general
felt old and weak, and had made up his mind to spend
the remainder of his days in peace on his farm. Of
personal ambition, as ordinarily understood, Jackson
seems to have had much less than many other men.
But he was, like most men, susceptible to flattery, and
the discovery of his immense popularity no doubt
went far to persuade him that he might do credit to
himself as President.’ On the 4th of March, 1824, he

1JACKSON, CRAWFORD, AND ADAMS IN 1824
(Extract from a manuscript letter of John A. Dix, dated Washington, 22d February,
1824)

“Mr. Calhoun’s chances of success depended on the course of Pennsyl-
vania. This state, it appears, will support the hero of New Orleans, and
Mr. Calhoun’s fate is sealed. My opinion is that the West will renounce
Mr. Clay’s persuasion, and will very generally support Gen. Jackson. Mr.
A., Mr. Crawford, and Gen. J. therefore remain the strong competitors.
Between these three I have certainly a very decided choice. Mr. Craw-
ford’s connection with the Radical party, his doubtful principles and disin-
genuous course in the administration forbid me to desire his elevation.
Mr. A. has extraordinary merits. His extensive acquirements, incorrupti-
ble morals, and devotion to his country’s service furnish him with the
strongest and most indisputable claims. But he is, I fear, little fitted for
popular government. No man would administer an absolute system bet-
ter, because he would never prostitute the possession of power to corrupt
or tyrannical ends. But I am apprehensive that he will be found to pos-
sess very little talent for managing men, which is the most important of all
qualities under a government where the people have so immediate a par-
ticipation, as under ours, in the business of administration. I fear, there-
fore, should he be elected, that his administration will be disturbed by
dangerous and distracting feuds. Swayed by apprehensions like these,
. . . | am strongly inclined to wish for Gen. Jackson’s success. The
character of this great man is not at all understood. He has been induced
to adopt violent measures for the attainment of useful ends, but I am con-
vinced by what I have seen this winter, that he is a good man, and that he

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 281

was nominated ina frenzy of enthusiasm by a conven-
tion at Harrisburg, in Pennsylvania. The regular
nominee of the congressional caucus was W. H. Craw-
ford of Georgia. The other candidates were Henry
Clay and John Quincy Adams. For the Vice-presi-
dent there was a general agreement upon Calhoun.
There was no opposition between the Northern and
the Southern states. Such an issue had been raised -
fora moment in 1820, but the Missouri Compromise
had settled it so effectually that it was not to be heard
of again for several years, and the credit of this had been
largely due to Clay. All the four candidates belonged
nominally to the Republican party, but in their attitude
toward the Constitution Adams and Clay were loose
constructionists, while Crawford and Jackson were
strict constructionists, and in this difference was fore-
shadowed a new division of parties. At the election
in November, 1824, Mr. Crawford, who stood for the
“Virginia dynasty” in a certain sense, received the
entire electoral votes of Georgia and Virginia, with 5
votes from New York,.2 from Delaware, and 1 from
Maryland. Mr. Adams had all the New England
votes, with 26 from New York, 1 from Delaware, 3
from Maryland, 1 from Illinois, 2 from Louisiana.
Mr. Clay had the entire vote of Missouri, Kentucky,
and Ohio, with 4 from New York. General Jackson
received the entire votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

knows how to govern his passions. . . .__It is a principal object with the
sound politicians of the country to abolish party distinctions and to elevate
talent wherever it is found. But as Mr. Adams has been a Federalist, the
least inclination towards federal men or federal measures would excite
alarm and disturb his popularity. Gen. Jackson, having always been a
violent Democrat, might avail himself of the talents of the Federal party
without danger, and no one believes that he would be a party man.”

282 ANDREW JACKSON

both Carolinas, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Indiana, with 7 from Maryland, 1 from New York, 3
from Louisiana, and 2 from Illinois. All of Craw-
ford’s 41 electoral votes were from the original sea-
board states. Of Adams’s 84 votes, all but 3 were
from the same quarter. Of Clay’s 37, all but 4 were
from the West. To Jackson’s 99 the West contributed
29, the East 70. If Jackson could have had Clay’s
Western vote in addition to his own, it would have
made 132, which was one more than the number nec-
essary for a choice. The power of the West was thus
distinctly shown for the first time in a national elec-
tion. As none of the candidates had a majority, it
was left for the House of Representatives to choose a
President from the three names highest on the list, in
accordance with the twelfth amendment to the Consti-
tution. Clay was thus rendered ineligible, and there
was naturally some scheming among the friends of the
other candidates to secure his. powerful codperation.
Clay’s feeling toward Adams had for some time been
unfriendly, but on the other hand there was no love
lost between Jackson and Clay, and the latter was of
course sincere in his opinion that Adams was a states-
man and Jackson nothing but a soldier. It was not in
the least strange, under the circumstances, that Clay
should throw his influence in favour of Adams. It
would have been strange if he had not done so. The
result was that when in the House the vote was taken
by states, there were 13 for Adams, 7 for Jackson, and
4 for Crawford. Adams thus became President, and
Jackson’s friends, in their bitter disappointment, hun-
gered for a “grievance” upon which they might vent
their displeasure, and which might serve as a “ rally-

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 283

ing cry” for the next campaign. Benton went so far
as to maintain that because Jackson had a greater
number of electoral votes than any other candidate,
the House was virtually “defying the will of the peo-
ple” in choosing any name but his. To this it was
_ easily answered that in any case our electoral college,
which was one of the most deliberately framed devices
of the Constitution, gives but a very indirect and par- -
tial expression of the “will of the people”; and
furthermore, if Benton’s arguments were sound, why
should the Constitution have provided for an election
by Congress, instead of allowing a simple plurality in
the college to decide the election? The extravagance
of Benton’s objection, coming from so able a source, is
an index to the bitter disappointment of Jackson’s fol-
lowers. The needed “ grievance” was furnished when
Adams selected Clay as his Secretary of State. Many
of Jackson’s friends interpreted this appointment as
the result of a bargain whereby Clay had made Adams
President in consideration of obtaining the first place
in the cabinet, carrying with it, according to the notion
then prevalent, a fair prospect of the succession to the
presidency. It was natural enough for the friends of
a disappointed candidate to make such a charge. It
was to Benton’s credit that he always scouted the idea
of a corrupt bargain between Adams and Clay. Many
people, however, believed it. In Congress, John Ran-
dolph’s famous allusion to the “coalition between
Blifil and Black George —the Puritan and the black-
leg—” led to a duel between Randolph and Clay,
which served to impress the matter upon the popular
mind without enlightening it; the pistol is of small
value as an agent of enlightenment. The charge was

284 ANDREW JACKSON

utterly without support and in every way improbable.
The excellence of the appointment of Clay was beyond
cavil, and ‘the sternly upright Adams was less influ-
enced by what people might think of his actions than
any other President since Washington. But in this
case he was perhaps too independent. The appoint-
ment was no doubt ill-considered. It made it neces-
sary for Clay, in many a public speech, to defend him-
self against the imputation. To mention the charge to
Jackson, whose course in Florida had been censured
by Clay, was enough to make him believe it; and he
did so to his dying day.

It is not likely that the use made of this “ griev-
ance” had any decisive effect in securing victory for
Jackson in 1828. Doubtless it helped him, but the
causes of his success lay far deeper. The stream of
democratic tendency was swelling rapidly. Hereto-
fore our Presidents had been men of aristocratic type,
with advantages of wealth or education or social train-
ing. In a marked degree all these advantages were
united in John Quincy Adams, He was the most
learned of all our Presidents. He had been a Har-
vard professor. He was a trained diplomatist, and
had lived much in Europe. He was an able admin-
istrative officer. In his character there was real
grandeur. For bulldog courage and tenacity he
was much like Jackson, but in other respects a
stronger contrast than the two men afforded cannot
well be imagined. Curiously enough, in point of
politeness and grace of manner, the backwoodsman
far surpassed the diplomatist. A man with less
training in statesmanship than Jackson would have
been hard to find. In his defects he represented

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 285

average humanity, while his excellences were such
as the most illiterate citizen could appreciate. In
such a man the ploughboy and the blacksmith could
feel that in some essential respects they had for Presi-
dent one of their own sort. Above all, he was the
great military hero of the day, and as such he came
to the presidency as naturally as Taylor and Grant
in later days, as naturally as his contemporary Wel-
lington, without any training in statesmanship, be-
came prime minister of England. A man far more
politic and complaisant than Adams could not have
won the election of 1828 against such odds. He
obtained 83 electoral votes against 178 for Jackson.
Calhoun was reélected Vice-president. In this elec-
tion the votes of New York and Maryland were
divided almost equally between the two candidates.
Jackson got one electoral vote from Maine. All the
rest of New England, with New Jersey and Dela-
ware, went for Adams. Jackson carried Pennsy]l-
vania, Virginia, both Carolinas, and Georgia, and
everything west of the Alleghanies, from the Lakes
to the Gulf. There were many Western districts in
which Adams did not get a single vote. After this
sweeping victory Jackson came to the presidency
with a feeling that he had at length succeeded in
making good his claim to a violated right, and this
feeling had its influence upon his conduct.

In Jackson’s cabinet, as first constituted, Martin
Van Buren of New York was Secretary of State;
S. D. Ingham of Pennsylvania Secretary of the
Treasury; J. H. Eaton of Tennessee Secretary of
War; John Branch of North Carolina Secretary of
the Navy; J. M. Berrien of Georgia Attorney-gen-

286 ANDREW JACKSON

eral; W. T. Barry of Kentucky Postmaster-general.
With the exception of Van Buren, as compared with
members of earlier cabinets, — not merely with such
men as Hamilton, Madison, or Gallatin, but with
such as Pickering, Wolcott, Monroe, or even Craw-
ford,— these were obscure names. The innovation
in the personal character of the cabinet was even
more marked than the innovation in the presidency.
The autocratic Jackson employed his secretaries as
clerks. His confidential advisers were a few intimate
friends who held no important offices. These men .-
—W. B. Lewis, Amos Kendall, Duff Green, and
Isaac Hill—came to be known as the “kitchen
cabinet.” Major Lewis was an old friend who had
much to do with bringing Jackson forward for the
presidency. The other three were editors of parti-
san newspapers. Kendall was a man of considerable
ability and many good qualities, including a plentiful
supply of those virtuous intentions wherewith a cer-
tain part of the universe is said to be paved. He
was what would now be called a “machine politician.”
On many occasions he was the ruling spirit of the
administration, and the cause of some of its worst
mistakes. Jackson’s career cannot be fully under-
stood without taking into account the agency of
Kendall; yet it is not always easy to assign the
character and extent of the influence which he
exerted.

A yet more notable innovation was Jackson’s treat-
ment of the civil service. This was the great blunder
and scandal of his administration, and because we are
still suffering from its effects it is in the minds of the
present generation more closely associated with Jack-

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 287

son’s name than all his good work. The abominable
slough of debauchery in which our civil service has
wallowed for half a century is not only a disgrace to
the American people, but it is probably the most
serious of all the dangers that threaten the continu-
ance of American freedom. Its foul but subtle miasma
poisons and benumbs the whole body politic. The
virus runs through everything, and helps to sustain all -
manner of abominations, from grasping monopolies
and civic jobbery down to political rum-shops. And
for a crowning evil, so long as it stays with us, it is
next to impossible to get great political questions cor-
rectly stated and argued on their merits.

Under all the administrations previous to Jackson’s
our civil service had been conducted with ability and
purity, and might have been compared favourably with
that of any other country in the world. The earlier
Presidents proceeded upon the theory that public office
is a public trust, and cannot, without base dishonour,
be treated as a reward for partisan services. They
conducted the business of government upon sound
business principles, and as long as a postmaster showed
himself efficient in distributing the mail, they did not
turn him out because of his vote. From the first,
however, there were well-meaning people who could
not comprehend the wisdom of such a policy. When
Jefferson’s election brought with it a change of party
at the seat of government, there were some who
thought it should also bring with it a wholesale change
of office-holders. But such was not Jefferson’s view
of the case. The name of “ Jeffersonian Democrat,”
as applied to a certain class of hungry place-hunters in
our time, is an atrocious libel upon that great man.

288 ANDREW JACKSON

Such people would have gone hungry a great while
before he would have fed them from the public crib.
It was strongly urged upon him once that he should
make room in the custom-house for some persons,
who, as it was alleged, in helping to elect him Presi-
dent, had virtually saved the country. “Indeed,” re-
plied Jefferson, “I have heard that the city of Rome
was once saved by geese; but I never heard that these
geese were made revenue officers.” During the forty
years between April 30, 1789, and March 4, 1829, the
total number of removals from office was seventy-four, .
and out of this number five were defaulters. During
the first year of Jackson’s administration the number of
changes made in the civil service was about two thou-
sand. Such was the sudden and abrupt inauguration
upon a national scale of the so-called “spoils system.”
The phrase originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York,
who in a speech in the Senate in 1831 declared that
“to the victors belong the spoils.” The man who said
this of course did not realize that he was making one of
the most infamous remarks recorded in history. There
was, however, much aptness in his phrase, inasmuch as
it was a confession that the business of American pol-
itics was about to be conducted upon principles fit
only for the warfare of barbarians. The senator from
New York had been reared in a poisonous atmosphere.
The “spoils system” was first gradually brought to
perfection in the state politics of New York and Penn-
sylvania, and it was inevitable that it should sooner or
later be introduced into the sphere of national politics.
There can hardly be a doubt that if Jackson had never
been President, similar results would have followed at
about the same time. If Adams had been reélected, the

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 289

catastrophe would have been deferred for four years,
but it was bound to come soon. This in no wise
alters or qualifies Jackson’s responsibility for the mis-
chief, but it helps us to comprehend it in its true rela-
tions. At that time the notion had firmly planted
itself in men’s minds that there is something especially
democratic, and therefore meritorious, about “rotation
in office.” It was argued, with that looseness of anal- ~
ogy so common in men’s reasonings about history and
politics, that permanency of tenure tends to create an
“aristocracy of office,” and is therefore contrary to the
“spirit of American institutions.” It was, as I said
before, an age of crude, unintelligent experiments in
democracy; and as soon as this notion had once ‘got
into men’s heads, it was inevitable that the experiment
of the “spoils system” must be tried, just as the exper-
iment of an elective judiciary had to be tried. The
way was prepared in 1820 by Crawford, when he suc-
ceeded in getting the law enacted that limits the
tenure of office to four years. This dangerous meas-
ure excited very little discussion at the time. People
could not understand the evil until taught by hard ex-
perience. The honest Jackson would have been
astonished if he had been told that he was laying the
foundations of a gigantic system of corruption. He
was very ready to believe ill of political opponents,
and to make generalizations from extremely inadequate
data. Democratic newspapers, while the campaign
frenzy was on them, were full of windy declamation
about the wholesale corruption introduced into all
parts of the government by Adams and Clay. In
point of fact there has never been a cleaner adminis-
tration in all our history than that of Quincy Adams,

U

290 ANDREW JACKSON

but nothing was too bad for Jackson to believe of
these two men. It was quite like him to take all the
campaign lies about them as literally true; and when
Tobias Watkins, the fourth auditor of the treasury,
was found to be delinquent in his accounts, it was easy
to suppose that many others were, in one way or
another, just as bad. In his wholesale removals,
Jackson doubtless supposed he was doing the country
a service by “turning the rascals out.” The imme-
diate consequence of this demoralizing policy was a
struggle for control of the patronage between Calhoun .
and Van Buren, who were rival aspirants for the suc-
cession to the presidency.

A curious affair now came in to influence Jackson’s
personal relations to these men. Early in 1829, John
Eaton, Secretary of War, married a Mrs. Timberlake,
with whose reputation gossip had been busy. It would
seem that this ill repute was deserved, but Jackson
was always slow to believe charges against a woman.
His own wife, who had been outrageously maligned by
the Whig newspapers during the campaign, had lately
died. My venerable friend, Colonel Edward Butler, of
St. Louis, the oldest living graduate of West Point,
was Jackson’s ward, and more familiar with his private
life for forty years than any other man. He cherishes
Jackson’s memory with a feeling akin to idolatry, and
I only wish I could begin to remember all the interest-
ing things he has told me about him. They tried to
keep newspaper lies from coming to Mrs. Jackson’s
ears, but of course in vain. Many a time Colonel
Butler, coming suddenly into the room, would find the
poor old lady sitting absorbed in grief, with her great
quarto Bible in her lap and tears stealing down her

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 291

cheeks. She was one of the best women that ever
lived, says Colonel Butler, and there can be little doubt
that she died of a broken heart. Whig editors had
killed her as much as if they had taken guns and shot
her. Soon after her death Mrs. Eaton came one day
to the President, and throwing herself at his feet, told
him with many sobs and tears how she was ill used and
persecuted. Could nothing be done, she implored, to
mend matters? Jackson was haggard with grief, and
fiercely vindictive. He knew that his wife had been
wickedly slandered; he took it for granted that the
case must be the same with Mrs. Eaton. In this he
was doubtless mistaken, but his letters on the subject
are written in a noble temper and fully reveal the
spirit which made him take Mrs. Eaton’s part with
more than his customary vehemence. Mrs. Calhoun
and the wives of the secretaries would not recognize
Mrs. Eaton. Mrs. Donelson, wife of the President’s
nephew, and now mistress of ceremonies at the White
House, took a similar stand. Jackson scolded his
secretaries and sent Mrs:Donelson home to Tennessee,
but all in vain. He found that vanquishing Welling-
ton’s veterans was a light task compared with that of
contending against the ladies in an affair of this sort.
Foremost among those who frowned Mrs. Eaton out
of society was Mrs. Calhoun. On the other hand,
Van. Buren, a widower, found himself able to be some-.
what more complaisant, and accordingly rose in Jack-
son’s esteem. The fires were fanned by Lewis and
Kendall, who saw in Van Buren a more eligible ally
than Calhoun. Presently intelligence was obtained
from Crawford, who hated Calhoun, to the effect that
the latter, as member of Monroe’s cabinet, had disap-

292 ANDREW JACKSON

proved of Jackson’s conduct in Florida. This was
quite true, but Calhoun had discreetly yielded his
judgment to that of the cabinet, led by Adams, and
thus had officially sanctioned Jackson’s conduct.
These facts, as handled by Eaton and Lewis, led Jack-
son to suspect Calhoun of treacherous double-dealing,
and the result was a quarrel which broke up the
cabinet. In order to get Calhoun’s friends, Ingham,
Branch, and Berrien, out of the cabinet, the other
secretaries began by resigning. This device did not
succeed, and the ousting of the three secretaries en-
tailed further quarrelling, in the course of which the
Eaton affair and the Florida business were beaten
threadbare in the newspapers and evoked sundry
challenges to deadly combat.’ In the spring and

1Mrs. LEE TO COLONEL GANTT

[Apropos of General Jackson’s relations with Mrs. Eaton and Mr. Calhoun. The
original letter from which these extracts are taken is dated Silver Spring, May 23,
1889, and is preserved among Dr. Fiske’s papers. ]

“. . . I shall relate chiefly what I heard when General Jackson visited
my Parents or when his guest. I was eleven years old when I first met
him, and twenty-three at our last parting. When my Parents removed
from Kentucky to Washington my brothers did not accompany us, conse-
quently I was more than ever their constant companion, being their only
daughter, and Mother my teacher. . . . The first time I ever heard Mrs.
Eaton’s name mentioned was in a conversation between Mother and the
President, where he spoke of the annoyance given him by Mrs. Donelson’s
refusal to be civil to Mrs. Eaton when she called at the White House; he
thought Mrs. Eaton, as the wife of his friend and a member of the Cabinet,
ought to be politely received, but ‘Emily’ is influenced by her husband
who is under ‘ Calhoun’s thraldom.’ This was the purport of his complaint,
and out of this domestic disagreement arose the gossip which was well
known to have been kept up by Mrs. Eaton, who enjoyed notoriety even at
the expense of her own reputation and of the truth. . .. Soon after
Major and Mrs. Donelson went to Tennessee for a short time. I after-
wards heard from my Parents that they repented of their position, and Mrs.

7 ‘ . ta
1

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 293

summer of 1831, the new cabinet was formed, consist-
ing of Edward Livingston, Secretary of State; Louis

_ Eaton was received as a visitor, but to my positive conviction never to stay

even fora day. ... Nothing strikes me more in reviewing the past than
the liberties taken with the General by those who formed his family circle,
and the gentleness with which he submitted to impositions, especially of
servants and children. But if it touched a point of duty he was firm,
though always amiable and kind. ... I was frequently at the White
House in childhood and as a young lady. ... I never met Mrs. Eaton
there. When she went she did so as any other acquaintance, and from
what I have heard was received with but scant courtesy by Mrs. Donelson.
The White House has never since been graced with a more beautiful,
refined, gentle woman [Mrs. D.],— except perhaps she may have been
excelled by Mrs. Cleveland, who had greater modern educational advan-
tages and the rare gift of tact. . . . I heard General Jackson comment but
once on Mrs. Eaton . . . during my visit to the Hermitage in 1842. . . .
“Mrs. Eaton’s daughter, Virginia Timberlake, was my school-mate at
Mm*. Sigoigne’s; she was a brilliant woman in mind, appearance, and
accomplishments, who in spite of her want of veracity attracted me very
much, but my mother forbade any intimacy as she did not approve of Miss
Timberlake or visit Mrs. Eaton. But Virginia was so amusing that I fear
I would have been very disobedient but for my dear friend and monitor,
Isabella Cass, who had the same instructions from home, for I know that
neither the Cass nor the Woodbury families, with whom I have had a life-
long intimacy, visited Mrs. Eaton, though Judge Woodbury and Governor
Cass were members of the Jackson Cabinet. After we left school, by hard
begging, I.sometimes got permission to go td see Virginia, which calls she
never returned. Still when in trouble she would write for me to come to
her. At that time, she was engaged to be married to Barton Key, to which
both families objected bitterly. Mrs. Eaton’s treatment of her daughter
amounted to cruelty. Virginia escaped from some of it by deceiving her
mother. I told the General of this episode. . . . He had always felt sorry
for ‘The Timberlake children,’ knowing that their ‘ Mother's lack of truth
would be fatal to them.’ He had known their grandparents, the O’Neils,
when he was Senator from Tennessee and Mrs. O’Neil had been very kind
to his wife, Mrs. Jackson, when ill; and General Jackson, when consulted
by his ‘friend Eaton’ about his marriage, advised him to marry ‘the Widow
Timberlake’ and promised to stand by him. . . ._ I am convinced, and
with much reason, that Mme. Sampayo, alias Virginia Timberlake, has
inspired these French romances about her mother and General Jackson:
she disliked and spoke bitterly of both, and several times in the past thirty
years, I have seen and heard of . . . different articles on this subject in
Paris paper. She always changes her history and gets coarser as she grows

294 ANDREW JACKSON

McLane, Treasury ; Lewis Cass, War; Levi Woodbury,
Navy; R. B. Taney, Attorney-general; in post-office,

older. I suppose she may need money, or craves notoriety which it may
bring her... .

““ When my Parents bought their home opposite the War Department it
needed extensive repairs, and we went to live there before it was free from
the smell of paint. The President when he called insisted that I stay at
the White House (as the paint made me ill) until the odour was gone. I
went, and it was quite six weeks before he and I thought it safe for me to
return home. I never had a happier visit. He did smoke his pipe after
dinner, and I have filled his fresh, clean clay pipes, with long cane stems,
many times for him; but he rarely used a pipe more than one day, and
there was a bundle of canes brought along with the new pipes. ... I
thus became informed about some very important matters. The removal
of the Government funds from the Bank of the United States which was
then in progress was one of them. The President sent several friends to
New York to obtain reliable information from commercial monied men
about banks or institutions to which it might be safe to transfer the
Government Deposits. Mr. Kendall, from his letter, must have been one
of them, and wrote in the most discouraging tone, to which the President
replied ; and I either copied his letter or he dictated it, for I remember dis-
tinctly that he warned Mr. Kendall not to be misled by the emissaries of
Nicholas Biddle (‘who is now a desperate man’) and ‘who is nagging the
footsteps of every prominent official, because nothing but the Public
Deposit concealed the fact that Biddle’s Bank was at that moment ‘ bank-
rupt.’ That was the year your class graduated at West Point... .

“Blair mentioned to me that Mr. Fiske does not believe that General
Jackson threatened to hang Mr. Calhoun. I think he is mistaken... .
I am certain that the main import of the story was (as I heard it) true, —
which was, upon the first ‘overt act’ at Charleston, he would have Mr.
Calhoun and the other leading Conspirators arrested and tried for treason,
of which they would undoubtedly be found guilty, when he would hang
every one of them. I heard Mr. Crittenden and Father talk about this
matter; both laughed very heartily at the way in which Governor Letcher
described the effect on Mr. Calhoun of this threat, when Governor Letcher
reported to him the conversation with General Jackson in which the threat
was made, Governor Letcher saying to Mr. Calhoun that he came directly
from the White House to inform him of his peril. In 1842, when at the
Hermitage, Gerieral Jackson expressed his opinion to me very freely of Mr.
Calhoun, whose intellect he said was of the highest order, but he knew him
to be heartless, selfish, and a physical coward. Mr. Clay was his personal
enemy and had done him wrongs Mr. Calhoun dared not do, but Mr. Clay
was a brave man, and a pains who loved, and would have gladly given
his life te serve his country.”

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 295

no change. On Van Buren’s resignation, Jackson at
once appointed him minister to England, but there
was a warm dispute in the Senate over his confirmation,
and it was defeated at length by the casting vote of
Calhoun. This check only strengthened Jackson’s
determination to have Van Buren for his successor in
the presidency. The progress of this quarrel entailed
a break in the “kitchen cabinet,” in which Duff
Green, editor of the Zelegraph and friend of Calhoun,
was thrown out. His place was taken by Francis
Preston Blair of Kentucky, aman of eminent ability
and earnest patriotism. To him and his sons, as
energetic opponents of nullification and secession,
our country owes a debt of gratitude which can
hardly be overstated. Blair's indignant attitude
toward nullification brought him at once into ear-
nest sympathy with Jackson. In December, 1830,
Blair began publishing the G/ode, the organ hence-
forth of Jackson’s party. For a period of ten years,
until the defeat of the Democrats in 1840, Blair
and Kendall were the ruling spirits in the adminis-
tration. Their policy was to reélect Jackson to the
presidency in 1832, and make Van Buren his suc-
cessor in 1836.

During Jackson’s administration there came about
a new division of parties. The strict constructionists,
opposing internal improvements, protective tariff, and
national bank, retained the name of Democrats, which
had long been applied to members of the old Republi-
can party. The term Repudiican fell into disuse. The
loose constructionists, under the lead of Clay, took the
name of Whigs, as it suited their purposes to describe
Jackson as a kind of tyrant; and they tried to dis-

296 ANDREW JACKSON

credit their antagonists by calling them Tories, but
the device found little favour. On strict construc-
tionist grounds Jackson in 1829 vetoed the bill for a
government subscription to the stock of the Mays-
ville turnpike in Kentucky; and two other similar
bills he disposed of by a new method which the
Whigs indignantly dubbed a “pocket veto.” The
struggle over the tariff was especially important as
bringing out a clear expression of the doctrine of nul-
lification on the part of South Carolina. Practically,
however, nullification was first attempted by Georgia
in the case of the disputes with the Cherokee Indians.
Under treaties with the federal government these
Indians occupied lands which were coveted by the
white people. Adams had made himself very unpopt-
lar in Georgia by resolutely defending the treaty
rights of these Indians. Immediately upon Jackson’s
election the state government assumed _ jurisdiction
over their lands, and proceeded to legislate for them,
passing laws that discriminated against them. Dis-
putes at once arose, in the course of which Georgia
twice refused to obey the Supreme Court of the United
States. At the request of the governor of Georgia,
Jackson withdrew the federal troops from the Cherokee
country and refused to enforce the rights which had ©
been guaranteed to the Indians by the United States.
His feelings toward Indians were those of a frontier
fighter, and he asked, with telling force, whether an
Eastern state, such as New York, would endure the
nuisance of an independent Indian state within her
own boundaries. In his sympathy with the people of
Georgia on the particular question at issue, he seemed
for the moment to be conniving at the dangerous prin-

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 297

ciple of nullification. These events were carefully
noted by the politicians of South Carolina. The pro-
tectionist policy which since the peace of 1815 had
been growing in favour at the North had culminated
in 1828 in the so-called “tariff of abominations.”
This tariff, the result of a wild, helter-skelter scramble
of rival interests, deserved its name on many accounts.
It discriminated, with especial unfairness, against the -
Southern people, who were very naturally and properly
enraged by it. A new tariff, passed in 1832, modified
some of the most objectionable features of the old one,
but still failed of justice to the Southerners. Jackson
was opposed to the principle of protective tariffs, and
from his course with Georgia it might be argued that he
would not interfere with extreme measures on the part
of the South. During the whole of Jackson’s first term
there was more or less vague talk about nullification.
The subject had a way of obtruding itself upon all sorts
of discussions, as in the famous debates on Foote’s reso-
lutions which lasted over five months in 1830 and called
forth Webster’s wonderful speech in reply to Hayne.
A few weeks after this speech, at a public dinner in
commemoration of Jefferson’s birthday, after sundry
regular toasts had seemed to indicate a drift of senti-
ment in approval of nullification, Jackson suddenly
arose with a volunteer toast, “Our Federal Union: it
must be preserved.” It was like a bombshell. Cal-
houn was prompt to reply with a toast and speech in
behalf of “ Liberty, dearer than the Union,” but the
nullifiers were bitterly disappointed and chagrined.
In spite of this warning, South Carolina held a con-
vention November 19, 1832, and declared the tariffs
of 1828 and 1832 to be null and void in South Caro-

298 ANDREW JACKSON

lina; all state officers and jurors were required to take
an oath of obedience to this edict; appeals to the
federal Supreme Court were prohibited under penal-
ties; and the federal government was warned that
an attempt on its part to enforce the revenue laws
would immediately provoke South Carolina to secede
from the Union. The ordinance of nullification
was to take effect on the 1st of February, 1833, and
preparations for war were begun at once. On the
16th December the President issued a proclamation
in which he declared that he should enforce the laws
in spite of any and all resistance that might be
made; and he showed that he was in earnest by
forthwith sending Lieutenant David Farragut with
a naval force to Charleston harbour and ordering
General Scott to have troops ready to enter South
Carolina if necessary. In the proclamation, which
was written by Livingston, the President thus de-
fined his position:* “I consider the power to annul
a law of the United States, assumed by one state,
incompatible with the existence of the Union, con-
tradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution,
unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every
principle on which it was founded, and destructive of
the great object for which it was formed.” Governor —
Hayne of South Carolina issued a counter-proclama-
tion, and a few days afterward Calhoun resigned the
vice-presidency and was chosen to succeed Hayne in
the senate. Jackson’s resolute attitude was approved

1Mrs. Elizabeth B. Lee in her letter to Colonel Gantt, quoted on
pages 292-294, wrote, “« My Father said to me that the Nullification Procla-
mation as first drafted by General Jackson was a far more able paper
than the polished substitute based on it and written by Mr. Livingston
and adopted by the President.”

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 299

by public opinion throughout the country. By the
Southern people generally the action of South Caro-
lina was regarded as precipitate and unconstitutional.
Even in that state a Union convention met at Colum-
bia and announced its intention of supporting the
President. In January Calhoun declared in the Sen-
ate that his state was not hostile to the Union and had
not meditated an armed resistance; a “ peaceable se- .
cession,’ to be accomplished by threats, was probably
the ultimatum really contemplated. In spite of Jack-
son’s warning, the nullifiers were surprised by his
unflinching attitude, and complained of it as inconsist-
ent with his treatment of Georgia. When the first of
February came the nullifiers deferred action. In the
course of that month a bill for enforcing the tariff
passed both houses of Congress, and at the same time
Clay’s compromise tariff was adopted, providing for the
gradual reduction of the duties until 1842, after which
all duties were to be kept at twenty per cent. This
compromise was well-meant but pernicious, for it en-
abled the nullifiers to claim a victory and retreat from
their position with colours flying. Calhoun, indeed,
afterward pointed to the issue of the contest as con-
clusively proving the beneficent character of his theory
of nullification. Here, he said, by merely threatening
to nullify an obnoxious, and as he maintained uncon-
stitutional, act of federal legislation, South Carolina
had.secured its repeal, and all was pleasant and peace-
ful! It was not Jackson, however, but Clay, that Cal-
houn had to thank for the compromise, nor were the
nullifiers by any means as well satisfied as he tried to
believe.

The nullifiers, indeed, had made a great mistake

300 ANDREW JACKSON

when they inferred from Jackson’s attitude toward
Georgia that they could count upon his aid or conni-
vance in the case of South Carolina. The insubordi-
nation of Georgia was shown in refusing to obey a
decree of the Supreme Court, and Jackson had no
fondness for the Supreme Court. He is said to have
exclaimed, somewhat maliciously, “ John Marshall has
made his decision; now let him enforce it!” But the
nullification act of South Carolina was a direct chal-
lenge to the executive head of the United States gov-
ernment. He could see its bearings in an instant,
and it aroused all the combativeness that was in his
nature.

During this nullification controversy Jackson kept
up the attacks upon the United States Bank which he
had begun in his first annual message to Congress in
1829. His antipathy to such a bank, in which the
federal government was a shareholder and virtually to
some extent a director, had been shown as long ago
as Washington’s administration, when the bank was
first established. For two reasons it was especially
obnoxious to the people of the South and the South-
west, and to the Democratic party generally. In the
first place, the question as to the constitutional author-
ity of Congress to establish such an institution was
preéminently the test question between strict con-
structionists and loose constructionists. In the great
fight between them it played the same part that Little
Round Top played in the battle of Gettysburg. Once
let the enemy carry that point and the whole field was
lost. The contest over the assumption of state debts
had faded out of sight before Jackson’s presidency ; it
had become what the Germans call an “wberwundene

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 301

standpunkt.” The contest over protective tariffs, on
the other hand, had only lately become severe. But
there the bank had been standing for nearly forty
years, a perpetual menace to the theory of strict con-
struction. President Madison had reluctantly signed
the bill for its recharter in 1816, apparently because
he could think of no practical alternative. The new
charter was to expire in 1836, and President Jackson,
in his determination that it should not again be re-
newed, was restrained by no such practical considera-
tions.

In the second place, the bank was hated as the most
prominent visible symbol of Hamilton’s plan for an
alliance between the federal government and the mon-
eyed classes of society. In this feeling there was no
doubt something of the sheer prejudice which ignorant
people are apt to entertain against capitalists and cor-
porations. But the feeling was in the main whole-
some. There was really very good reason for fearing
that a great financial institution, so intimately related
to the government, might be made a most formidable
engine of political corruption. The final result of the
struggle, in Tyler’s presidency, showed that Jackson
was supported by the sound common sense of the
American people.

Jackson’s suggestions with reference to the bank
in his first message met with little favour, especially as.
he coupled them with suggestions for the distribution
of the surplus revenue among the states. He returned
to the attack in his two following messages, until, in
1832, the bank felt obliged in self-defence to apply,
somewhat prematurely, for a renewal of its charter on
the expiration of its term. Charges brought against

302 ANDREW JACKSON

the bank by Democratic representatives were investi-
gated by a committee, which returned a majority report
in favour of the bank. A minority report sustained
the charges. After prolonged discussion the bill to
renew the charter passed both houses and July 10, —
1832, was vetoed by the President. An attempt to
pass the bill over the veto failed of the requisite two-
thirds majority.

Circumstances had already given a flavour of per-
sonal contest to Jackson’s assaults upon the bank.
There was no man whom he hated so fiercely as Clay,
who was at the same time his chief political rival.
Clay made the mistake of forcing the bank question
into the foreground, in the belief that it was an issue
upon which he was likely to win in the coming presi-
dential campaign. . Clay’s movement was an invitation
to the people to defeat Jackson in order to save the
bank; and this naturally aroused all the combative-
ness in Jackson’s nature. His determined stand im-
pressed upon the popular imagination the picture of a
dauntless “tribune of the people” fighting against the
“monster monopoly.” Clay unwisely attacked the
veto power of the President, and thus gave Benton an
opportunity to defend it by analogies drawn from the
veto power of the ancient Roman tribune, which in
point of fact it does not at all resemble. The discus-
sion helped Jackson more than Clay. It was also a
mistake on the part of the Whig leader to risk the
permanence of such an institution as the United
States Bank upon the fortunes of a presidential cam-
paign. It dragged the bank into politics in spite of
itself, and by thus affording justification for the fears
to which Jackson had appealed, played directly into

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 303

his hands. In this campaign all the candidates were
for the first time nominated in national conventions.
There were three conventions, all held at Baltimore.
In September, 1831, the anti-masons nominated Will-
iam Wirt of Virginia, in the hope of getting the
National Republicans or Whigs to unite with them,
but the latter, in December, nominated Clay. In the
following March the Democrats nominated Jackson,
with Van Buren for Vice-president. During the
year 1832 the action of Congress and President, with
regard to the bank charter, was virtually a part of the
campaign. In the election South Carolina voted for
candidates of her own, John Floyd of Virginia and
Henry Lee of Massachusetts. There were 219 elec-
toral votes for Jackson, 49 for Clay, 11 for Floyd, and
7 for Wirt. Besides his own state, Clay carried Mary-
land and Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts. All the rest of the country, including
half of New England, went for Jackson. He inter-
preted this overwhelming victory as a popular con-
demnation of the bank and approval of all his actions
as President. The enthusiastic applause from all
quarters which now greeted his rebuke of the nulli-
fiers served still further to strengthen his belief in
himself as a “saviour of society” and champion of
“the people.” Men were getting into a state of mind
in which questions of public policy were no longer
argued upon their merits, but all discussion was
drowned in cheers for Jackson. Such a state of
things was not calculated to check his natural vehe-
mence and disposition to override all obstacles in
carrying his point. He now felt it to be his sacred
duty to demolish the bank. In his next message to

304 ANDREW JACKSON

Congress he created some alarm by expressing doubts
as to the bank’s solvency, and recommending an inves-
tigation to see if the deposits of public money were
safe. In some parts of the country there were indica-
tions of a run upon the branches of the bank. The
Committee on Ways and Means investigated the matter
and reported the bank as safe and sound, but a minor-
ity report threw doubt upon these conclusions, so that
the public uneasiness was not allayed. The conclu-
sions of the members of the committee, indeed, bore
little reference to the evidence before them, and were
determined purely by political partisanship. Jackson
made up his mind that the deposits must be removed
from the bank. The act of 1816, which created that
institution, provided that the public funds might be
removed from it by order of the Secretary of the
Treasury, who must, however, inform Congress of his
reasons for the removal. As Congress resolved, by
heavy majorities, that the deposits were safe in the
bank, the spring of 1833 was hardly a time when a Sec-
retary of the Treasury would feel himself warranted,
in accordance with the provisions of the act, to order
their removal. Secretary McLane was accordingly
unwilling to issue such an order. In what followed,
Jackson had the zealous codperation of Kendall and
Blair. In May McLane was transferred to the State
Department, and was succeeded in the treasury by
W. J. Duane of Pennsylvania. The new secretary,
however, was convinced that the removal was neither
necessary nor wise, and in spite of the President’s
utmost efforts refused either to issue the order or to
resign his office. In September, accordingly, Duane .
was removed and R. B. Taney of Maryland appointed

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 305

in his place. Taney at once ordered that after the
1st of October the public revenues should no longer
be deposited with the national bank, but with sundry
state banks, which soon came to be known as the “pet
banks.” Jackson alleged, as one chief reason for this
proceeding, that if the bank were to continue to re-
ceive public revenues on deposit, it would unscrupu-
lously use them in buying up all the members of
Congress, and thus securing an indefinite renewal of
its charter. This, he thought, would be a death-blow
to free government in America. His action caused
intense excitement and some commercial distress, and
prepared the way for further disturbance. In the
next session of the Senate Clay introduced a resolu-
tion of censure, which was carried after a debate which
lasted all winter. It contained a declaration that the
President had assumed “authority and power not
conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in deroga-
tion of both.” Jackson protested against the resolu-
tion, but the Senate refused to receive his protest.
Many of his appointments were rejected by the Sen-
ate, especially those of the directors of the bank and
of Taney as Secretary of the Treasury. An attempt
- was made to curtail the President’s appointing power.
On the other hand, many of the President’s friends
declaimed against the Senate as an aristocratic insti-
tution which ought to be abolished. Benton was
Jackson’s most powerful and steadfast ally in the Sen-
ate. Benton was determined that the resolution of
censure should be expunged from the records of that
body, and his motion continued to be the subject of
acrimonious debate for two years. The contest was

carried into the state elections, and some senators
x

306 ANDREW JACKSON

resigned in consequence of instructions received from
their state legislatures. At length, January 16, 1837,
a few weeks before Jackson’s retirement from office,
Benton’s persistency triumphed and the resolution of
censure was expunged. It has been customary with ~
Whig writers to laugh at Benton for this, and to call
his conduct spiteful, boyish, and silly. It would be
more instructive, however, to observe that his conduct
was the natural outgrowth of the extreme theory of
popular government which he held. He looked upon
Jackson as a disinterested tribune of the people, who
for carrying out the popular will and ridding the
country of an exceedingly dangerous institution, at
the cost of some slight disregard of red tape, had
incurred unmerited censure; and it seemed to him an
important matter, and not a mere idle punctilio, that
such a wrongful verdict should be reversed. There
was a good deal of truth, as well as some error, in this
view. If pushed to extremes it would result in un-
bridled democracy, which in the hands of a powerful
and unscrupulous leader is lable to pass into Czesar-
ism. Webster and the Whigs, in opposing this ex-
treme view of popular government, in contending for
the necessity of constitutional checks in such a coun-
try as ours, and in blaming Jackson for his autocratic
manner of overriding such checks, were quite right.
At the same time there can be little doubt that Jack-
son was purely disinterested, and that in this particu-
lar case he did fully represent the will of the people
in overthrowing a dangerous institution. The com-
mercial panic which followed in 1837 was by most
people attributed to his removal of the deposits. I
shall endeavour to show, in my next lecture, on “ Tip-

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 307

pecanoe and Tyler too,” that this notion was entirely
incorrect, and the causes of the great panic lay much
deeper than was supposed at the time. The belief
that it was due to Jackson’s policy was a chief cause
of the Whig victory in 1840; but as soon as the im-
mediate effects of the panic were over, there was a
general acquiescence in the final death-blow dealt to the
bank by President Tyler, and since then nobody. has
had the hardihood to ask that it should be restored.
In foreign affairs Jackson’s administration won great
credit through its enforcement of the French spoliation
claims. European nations which had claims for
damages against France, on account of spoliations
committed by French cruisers during the Napoleonic
wars, had found no difficulty after the peace of 1815
in obtaining payment; but the claims of the United
States had been superciliously neglected. In 1831,
after much fruitless. negotiation, a treaty was made by
which France agreed to pay the United States five
million dollars in six annual instalments. The first
payment was due Febuary 2, 1833. A draft for the
amount was presented to the French minister of finance,
and payment was refused on the ground that no appro-
priation for that purpose had been made by the Cham-
bers. Louis Philippe brought the matter before the
Chambers, but no appropriation was made. Jackson |
was not the man to be trifled with in this way. In his
message of December, 1834, he gravely recommended
to Congress that a law be passed authorizing the cap-
ture of French vessels enough to make up the amount
due. The French government was enraged, and
threatened war unless the President should apologize,
—not a hopeful sort of demand to make of Andrew

308 ANDREW JACKSON

Jackson. Here Great Britain interposed with good
advice to France, which led to the payment of the
claim without further delay. The effect of Jackson’s
attitude was not lost upon European governments,
while at home the hurrahs for “Old Hickory” were ~
louder than ever. The days when foreign powers
could safely insult us were evidently gone by.

In the election of 1836 Jackson’s wishes were ful-
filled in the victory of Van Buren, with 170 electoral
votes against 124 forall other candidates. The remain-
der of Jackson’s life was spent in his Tennessee home, —
known as the Hermitage. About the time of his
election to the presidency the ugly wound received in
the duel with Dickinson in 1806, which had never prop-
erly healed, broke out afresh and became more and
more troublesome, until his most intimate friends were
inclined to attribute to it his death, which occurred on
the 3d of June, 1845. Throughout his extraordinary
career he had been devoutly religious, and one cannot
fully comprehend him without taking into account the
element of the Puritan person thatwas so strong in him.
There probably never lived a man more strictly conscien-
tious, according to his own somewhat narrow lights, than
Andrew Jackson. Whether he ever felt moved to for-
give his enemies may be doubted, for it never occurred
to him that he was not in the right. A contrite spirit
he can hardly have had, but after all his warfare he
sank peacefully to rest. His remarkable influence
over the common people had not ceased with his
presidency, and it survived his death until it ended in
a kind of Barbarossa legend quite rare among such a
people as ours. To this day, we are told, there is
some happy valley in western Pennsylvania, the precise

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 309

locality of which is not too strictly indicated, where
old men every fourth year, in the month of November,
still hobble to the polls and drop into the ballot-box
their loyal vote for Andrew Jackson !

The period of Jackson’s presidency was one of
the most remarkable in the history of the world,
and nowhere more remarkable than in the United
States. It was signalized by the introduction and
rapid development of railroads, of ocean navigation, of
agricultural machines, anthracite coal, and friction
matches, of the modern type of daily newspaper, of
the beginnings of such cities as Chicago, of the steady
immigration from Europe, of the rise of the Abolition-
ists and other reformers, and of the blooming of
American literature, when, to the names of Bryant,
Cooper, and Irving, were added those of Longfellow,
‘Whittier, Prescott, Holmes, and Hawthorne. The
rapid expansion of the country, and the extensive
changes in ideas and modes of living, brought to the
surface much crudeness of thought and action. As
the typical popular hero of such a period, Andrew
Jackson must always remain one of the most pictu-
resque and interesting figures in American history.
The crudeness of some of his methods, and the evils
that have followed from some of his measures, are
obvious enough, and have often been remarked upon.
But when it is said that he was utterly ignorant of the ©
true principles of statesmanship, and conducted him-
self in his presidency like a bull in a china shop;
when it is urged that his election to the presidency
was a thing to be lamented, and that we ought never
to have had any kind of man for chief magistrate
except the kind represented by our first six Presidents,

310 ANDREW JACKSON

— one can hardly yield unqualified assent to such propo-
sitions. It is a source of legitimate pride that we live
in a country where a man may rise from the humblest
origins to the most exalted position in which his fel-
low-countrymen can place him. If it be true that mere _
chance may bring about such a rise of fortune, it is at
least very seldom that such can be the case. Usually
it must require such rare qualities of mind and char-
acter, such richness of experience and such knowledge
of men, as to be more than equivalent to a great deal
that is conventionally classed as training and scholar-
ship. No man in his senses will for a moment
imagine that the scholarly Sumner could ever have
performed the herculean task allotted to Abraham
Lincoln. Now in the case of Andrew Jackson, while
he was not versed in the history and philosophy of
government, it is far from correct to say that there
was nothing of the statesman about him. On the
contrary, it may be maintained that in nearly all his
most important public acts, except those that dealt
with the civil service, Jackson was right. His theory
of the situation was not reached by scientific methods,
but it was sound, and it was much needed. Among
the ablest books on government that have ever been
written — books that ought to be carefully read and
deeply pondered by every intelligent American man
and woman — are the three works of Herbert Spencer,
entitled “Social Statics,” “The Study of Sociology,”
and “ Man and the State.” The theory cf government
set forth in these books is that of the most clear-
headed and powerful thinker now living in the world,
a man who, moreover, is thinking the thoughts of
to-morrow as well as of to-day. In spirit it is most

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 3II

profoundly American, but not in the sense in which
that word was understood by Clay and the Whigs.
It was Jackson whose sounder instincts prompted him
to a course of action quite in harmony with the high-
est political philosophy. During the administration
of John Quincy Adams there was fast growing up a
tendency toward the mollycoddling, old granny theory
of government, according to which the ruling powers
are to take care of the people, build their roads’ for
them, do their banking for them, rob Peter to pay
Paul for carrying on a losing business, and tinker and
_ bemuddle things generally. It was, of course, beyond
the power of any man to override a tendency of this
sort, but Jackson did much to check it; and still more
would have come from his initiative if the questions of
slavery and secession had not so soon come up to
absorb men’s minds and divert attention from every-
thing else. The protective theory of government has
too much life in it yet; but without Jackson it would
no doubt have been worse. His destruction of the
bank was brought about in a way that one cannot
wish to see often repeated; but there can be little
doubt that it has saved us from a great deal of trouble
and danger. By this time the bank, if it had lasted,
_ would probably have become a most formidable engine
of corruption.

Herein Jackson was powerfully prompted and aided .
by Van Buren, who stood in somewhat the same rela-
tion to him as Hamilton to Washington. Unques-
tionably Van Buren had a more philosophical and
luminous view of the proper sphere and functions of
government, in its relations to the people, than any
other American statesman since Jefferson. The mantle

312 ANDREW JACKSON

of Jefferson fell upon Van Buren, and it was to Jack-
son’s credit that he took that statesman into his
innermost counsels. The soldier-President, though
doubtless at first actuated by personal motives, soon
found the soundest kind of support. ,

But it is upon his attitude toward the nullifiers that —
Jackson’s most conspicuous claim to our gratitude is
based. The question as to whether the federal Con-
stitution created a nation or not was never really set-
tled until it was settled by war. Previous to Jackson’s
presidency, people’s ideas on the subject were very ~
hazy, and when single states, or sections of the country,
grumbled and threatened, nobody knew exactly what
ought to be done about it. It was significant that
Webster's great speech and Jackson’s decisive action
should have come so near together. Webster’s speech
was not only a most masterly summing up of the situ-
ation, but for sublime eloquence we must go back to
the time of Demosthenes to find its equal. Among the
forces that have held the Union together, the intelli-
gent response of the popular mind to that speech, and
the strong emotions it awakened, must be assigned a
very high place. But, after all, it was only Mr. Web-
ster’s speech; it did not create a precedent for action;
it was something which a federal executive might see
fit to follow, or might not. But from the moment
when President Jackson said in substance to the nulli-
fiers, “ Gentlemen, if you attempt to put your scheme
into practice, I shall consider it an act of war and shall
treat it accordingly,” from that moment there was no
mistaking the significance of the action. It created a
precedent which, in the hour of supreme danger, even
the puzzled, reluctant, hesitating Buchanan could not

AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SEVENTY YEARS AGO 313

venture to disregard. The recollection of it had much
to do with setting men’s faces in the right direction in
the early days of 1861; and those who lived through
that doubting, anxious time will remember how people’s
thoughts went back to the grim, gaunt figure, long
since at peace in the grave, and from many and many
a mouth was heard the prayer, O for one hour of
Andrew Jackson!

VIll

HARRISON, TYLER

AND THE WHIG COALITION

VUul
HARRISON, TYLER

AND THE WHIG COALITION

It would be hard to find in the whole field of history
a subject more interesting in its details or more richly
suggestive in its illustrations of broad philosophical
principles than the development of political parties in
the United States since the adoption of our federal
Constitution. It is the story of the rapid expansion
of principles and methods of government long prac-
tised on a small scale in the townships of New Eng-
land and the parishes and counties of the Southern
states, until they have become adapted to the manage-
ment of an imperial dominion extending from ocean
to ocean. Population has grown with unexampled
rapidity, the arts and sciences have achieved such con-
quests as our grandfathers would have deemed incred-
ible, the growing complexity of modern industry has
quite changed the aspect of society, commercial prob-
lems have taken on dimensions difficult to grasp,
strangers from all parts of the earth come thronging
in to share our advantages, while too often they need
to be taught the very rudiments of our political
methods, vast tracts of wilderness have been subdued,
rude villages springing up on distant prairies change
as by magic into noble cities, new states endowed with
ample liberty of self-government are added to our
federal commonwealth, till the constellation is about

317

318 HARRISON, TYLER

to number more than forty stars; yet amid all this
huge development of human activity the political
structure reared a century ago has increased in elastic
strength. In spite of all shortcomings, it has shown
itself in grave emergencies equal to the situation, -
and it has fulfilled with supreme efficiency the first
duty of government, the duty of preserving order and
inspiring confidence. While it has once been called
upon to deal with a convulsion as formidable as ever
threatened the existence of a nation, its success in
overcoming the evil has been such as to convince us _
more than ever of its invincible strength; and our
trust in it reaches sublimity when shown in the pro-
found quiet which attends upon a presidential election
in which eleven million votes are cast and the admin-
istration of affairs passes from one party to another.
People in the Old World often allude to American
things as if bigness were their only noticeable attribute.
But in the physical dimensions of the facts here cited
there is deep moral significance. They furnish unim-
peachable testimony to the essential soundness of Ameri-
can political Jife,and justify us in looking forward with
hope to the future. Without for a moment underrating
the perils that beset us, or the serious obstacles to right
living that are yet to be overcome, we feel that the
success already achieved is such that we may confront
these dangers and hindrances with cheerful courage.
If the partisan view of American politics were cor-
rect, no such sound development of national life would
have been possible in this country. According to the
partisan theory, which we may find daily expounded
in the newspapers and which makes every fourth year
the occasion for so much vapid rhetoric and so many

AND THE WHIG COALITION 319

shameless lies, — according to this theory, all the politi-
cal intelligence, all the public virtue, all the patriotism,
in the United States are confined to one-half of the
people, while the other half are not only unintelligent
and unscrupulous, but actuated by an unaccountable
preference for foreign over American interests. Ac-
cording to this theory American party strife is a phase
of the everlasting struggle between Ormuzd and Ahri-
man, and all means, fair or foul, must be called into
requisition in order to suppress the evil spirit and
keep him in outer darkness. Under the influence of
such a theory men’s consciences are often at election
time reconciled to tricks which in more sober moments
they would promptly condemn. Yet in the main the
good sense of the American people has kept them
from acting upon such a one-sided view of the case;
and it is for this reason that our political history has
not been, like that of the old Italian republics, a dis-
mal record of wholesale proscriptions and reversals of
policy, culminating in the loss of authority on the part
of the government and of-liberty on the part of the
citizens. To insure the stability of a civilized state, it
is necessary that the liberty of individuals and the
authority of the community should be alike sustained ;
and to this end nature seems to have made provision
that in a free society, where people’s thoughts and
wishes can find ready expression, a fair balance shall
be preserved between the votes that would extend the
powers of government and those that would limit
them. Says the sentry in “ Iolanthe,”

* T often think it comical,
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal,

320 HARRISON, TYLER

That’s born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.”

If we were to take a hint from mathematical physics
we might regard this curious fact as a case under the ~
general law of deviations from an average. Out of a
thousand shots fired at a target the deviations in the
one direction will very nearly counterbalance those in
the other. So in a political society, where free aim
can be taken toward the course of action most bene-
ficial to the community, the distribution of opinions
will be found to follow the same law. The line of
average deviation will be swayed now a little to one
side, now a little to the other, and the resultant course
will be remarkably steady; it will express itself in
what we call a conservative and moderate policy.
For this reason there is no form of political society so
strong, so peaceful, so adaptable, so likely to endure,
as an intelligent democracy. It is repression that
calls forth radicalism. It is in the unwholesome soil
of despotism that anarchist weeds spring up. When
the states general are not assembled for nearly two
centuries, and class legislation meanwhile goes on
briskly, it is time to look out for a reign of terror.

In. American history the revolutions which have
been dreaded by many good people, when there has
occurred a change of party supremacy, as in 1801,
in 1829, and in 1885, have in general not happened.
In the single instance in which a violent convulsion
has resulted, in 1861, the exception was of the. kind
that proves the rule, for the trouble was caused by the
existence of negro slavery, an institution utterly incom-
patible with the spirit of true democracy. In the other

AND THE WHIG COALITION 321

instances moderation has prevailed for two reasons:
first, the winning party has usually owed its victory to
the transfer of relatively independent votes from the
opposite party, and such transferred votes are likely to
act as a potent conservative influence with the win-
ning party; secondly, there are certain instincts which
govern the party in power as a responsible agent,
and certain other instincts which govern the party
in opposition as an irresponsible critic; and when
the party in opposition becomes the party in power,
it passes under the sway of the former group of
instincts, and any tendency to push matters to ex-
tremes is thus powerfully checked. These points
were illustrated in the administration of Jefferson.
The Republican victory of 1800 was won partly by the
aid of Federalist votes that in 1796 had been given to
Adams. The strong Federalist measures of Hamil-
ton had now been for several years in successful
operation; they had become part of our system of
government, and to have laid violent hands upon them
would have been to transfer thousands of votes back
to the Federalists in 1804. Moreover, when Jeffer-
son came to be responsible for the conduct of affairs,
he could feel the usefulness of many features in the
Federalist scheme which he had formerly opposed.
As a Republican and a strict constructionist Jefferson
had no right to double, and more than double, the area
of the United States by the purchase of Louisiana.
So we see him becoming a most hardy loose con-
structionist for the occasion, and pushing the doctrine
of “implied powers” to an extreme from which the
Federalists shrink back in horror. For the next dozen

years we see the Republician party absorbing and
Y

322 HARRISON, TYLER

appropriating what was best in Federalism, and becom- .
ing more and more the national party, while the Fed-
eralists, losing their hold upon the people, sink into the
position of a sectional party and at length dwindle
into a faction. First it was John Quincy Adams, .
prince and protagonist of mugwumps, who upheld
Jefferson in the embargo; then it was Daniel Webster,
who refused to lend countenance to the Hartford con-
vention ; and so the great party of Washington and
Hamilton went to pieces until, in 1820, the victors
could afford to be magnanimous, and Rufus King was
reélected to the United States Senate through the aid
of Martin Van Buren. As Federalist candidate for
the presidency in 1816, King had received the electoral
votes of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware. In
1820 there was no candidate to take the field against
Monroe. In 1824 the four candidates were so-called
Republicans. In 1828 the election of Jackson over
Adams was the victory of the West over the East, of
the backwoodsman over the Harvard professor, of the
so-called “man of the people” over the so-called “ aris-
tocrat,” rather than the victory of one definite and
avowed scheme of public policy over another. Never-
theless, by 1828, the old issues having disappeared,
new issues had arisen, and were really, though perhaps
not distinctly, involved in the election. The ad-
ministration of Adams had raised such new issues.
The rapid settlement of the Western country was re-
vealing the urgent need of better means of com-
munication. The genius of George Stephenson had
already devised the means of dealing with such a
problem, and private enterprise, laying thousands of
miles of iron rails, was soon to supply the need most

AND THE WHIG COALITION 323

effectually. But meanwhile it was quite natural that
President Adams should take his cue from the
wonderful roads and bridges and aqueducts built by
the ancient Romans with money raised by taxation,.
and insist that Americans might well do likewise and
thus bring together the distant sections of their vast
country. This was the policy of “internal improve-
ments.” The end aimed at was a broad, a national, a
noble end. It was only the method of attaining it
that was questionable. There were some who deemed
it a method more in harmony with the political ideas
of ancient Romans than with those of modern Amer-
icans; but before the question could be settled by
political argument the immense capabilities of private
enterprise had been so clearly demonstrated that, for
the most part, the policy of “internal improvements ”
‘has had to stand upon the defensive.

This was one of the leading issues raised during
the administration of John Quincy Adams. Closely
connected with it was the question of the tariff.
Since the War of 1812 had made it difficult to obtain
manufactured goods from abroad, the scarcity had
served as a stimulus to sundry American manufac-
tures, and the protectionist theory had begun to make
powerful converts, among them Henry Clay. Mr.
Clay advocated the policy of raising by protective
duties more revenue than was needed for the ordi- |
nary expenses of administration, in order that there
might be a surplus to be spent in building roads and
dredging rivers; and he recommended this policy to
many people by baptizing it “the American system.”
Then there was the question as to the continuance
of the national bank, in which the government was

324 HARRISON, TYLER

itself a stockholder. This did not become a burning
question until late in Jackson’s first term. The
extent to which old Federalist ideas had been adopted
or acquiesced in by the Republicans was well shown
in the fact that the bill for rechartering the bank in -
1816 was signed by President Madison. But Mad-
ison’s acquiescence was largely due to the want of
any definite alternative policy; and there were many
who regarded the bank rather as a temporary make-
shift, to be endured for the moment, than as a
beneficent institution to be fastened permanently
upon the country.

Upon these three great questions of internal im-
provements, tariff, and bank, the all-embracing Re-
publican party became divided between 1824 and
1832. The followers of Adams and Clay came to
be distinguished as National Republicans, and this
title indicated their strong point. Their policy com-
mended itself, not only to those who believed it to
be economically sound, but to many more who felt it
desirable that above all things the national govern-
ment should be strong. Such people inherited the
tendencies of the original Federalists. They were
inclined to construe liberally the implied powers of
the Constitution, because they felt that the govern-
ment needed such implied powers, in order to ward
off the dangers of nullification and secession which
were then looming upon the horizon. This was the
strong point of the National Republicans. It was
this that gave them the powerful support of Mr.
Webster, who was by no means blind to the economic
unsoundness of the so-called American system. On
the other hand, those who now began acting in

AND THE WHIG COALITION 325

opposition to the National Republicans at length
accepted the name of Democrats, which had formerly
been applied to Jefferson’s followers by their oppo-
nents as a term of disparagement. In the days when
Jefferson led the opposition, and the guillotine was
at work in Paris, the word democracy seemed to
smack of Jacobinism; but in the days when Andrew
Jackson stood for government by the people, it had
a pleasant sound. The Democrats were right in
thinking themselves the genuine followers of Jef-
ferson, and they saw clearly the weak side of the
National Republicans, whose doctrines of tariff, bank,
and improvements opened the door for limitless. job-
_bery and iniquitous class legislation, and might easily
become fraught with serious danger to government
by the people and for the people.

_ The new division between parties in Jackson’s first
term was not accomplished in a moment. People
did not at once array themselves in opposite ranks.
There was doubt and hesitation. General principles
were then, as now, complicated and obscured by
real or fancied local interests. But by 1832 the
Democrats had become solidly welded together into
a party with a rational and well-defined policy, and
with leaders of great ability and influence, as variously
exemplified in Jackson, Benton, Van Buren, and

Blair. They were opposed to the. theory of paternal —
government which formulated itself in internal im-
provements, tariff, and bank; and in order to sustain
their position, they were inclined to construe the
Constitution strictly, and maintain that its implied
powers did not extend so far as to justify such a
theory.

326 HARRISON, TYLER

Our survey of the political situation in 1832 is,
however, not’ yet complete. We have not yet taken
into the account the peculiar relations. of the people
of the Southern states toward the two new parties, as
it was affected, whether directly or indirectly, whether
avowedly or tacitly, by the existence of their peculiar
institution, negro slavery. From the outset Southern
politicians were quick in perceiving that the security
of their system of slavery depended upon that inter-
pretation of the Constitution which should restrict as
far as possible the implied powers to be exercised by
the federal government. Herein, as strict construc-
tionists, they might seem to have been in harmony
with the Jackson Democrats as against the National
Republicans. But there was no such harmony. When
South Carolina in 1832 flung into the political arena
the gauntlet of nullification, she found Jackson and
his Democrats even more stanch in defence of the
Union than Clay and his National Republicans. At
that supreme moment Daniel Webster, whose political
existence was identified with defence of the Union,
was in alliance with Jackson, while Clay was dally-
ing and temporizing with Calhoun. In order to
explain this we must take our start from the South,
and see how the political situation in 1832 presented
itself to the Southern people. We know what was the
attitude of Calhoun and of South Carolina. They
represented the impulse which thirty years later drove
the Southern people into rebellion. But there was
also in the Southern states a mass of political beliefs
and sentiments which, without agreeing with Calhoun
and with South Carolina, agreed still less with Jack-
son and Webster and the North. If we would, under-

AND THE WHIG COALITION 327

stand the course of events that led to the overthrow of
the Democrats in 1840, we must look for a moment
into the history of this current of Southern opinion
that was loath to go with Calhoun, but felt itself in
honour bound to make protest against coercion as
threatened by President Jackson. It was the same
current of opinion and sentiment that in 1861 was
loath to go with Jefferson Davis, but felt itself in
honour bound to resist coercion as exercised by
President Lincoln, There was much of this feeling
in the South, and it was especially strong in the
border states. It would never take the lead in a
movement toward secession, but might easily be
driven into such a movement as a choice between
conflicting alternatives. Nowhere was this feeling
stronger than in Virginia, and in no public man
was it more completely exemplified than in John
Tyler, tenth President of the United States. For
studying the sources and the growth of this feeling,

there is no better text-book than the “ Letters and
Times of the Tylers,”—two stout octavos published
at Richmond in 1884 and 1885, edited by one of the
President’s younger sons, Mr. Lyon Gardiner Tyler,
_ president of William and Mary College. This inter- .
esting book gives us a sketch of the political history
of the United States for a hundred years, as viewed by
the intelligent and public-spirited members of one
of the leading families of Virginia. The elder John
Tyler, born in 1747, was associated with Madison in
1785 in the resolution which secured a conference of
delegates at Annapolis in the following year, and thus
led the way toward the federal Convention. When
the federal Constitution was laid before the people,

328 HARRISON, TYLER

however, Mr. Tyler was one of those who thought
that it encroached too much upon state rights, and
in the state convention of 1788 he was conspicuous
among the opponents of ratification. He was one
of those, moreover, who believed that the assent of
Virginia to the Constitution could not have been
secured but for the belief of many of the delegates
that the right of the state to withdraw peaceably from
the Union, in case it should ever see fit to do so, was
not really surrendered. For the twenty years from
1788 to 1808 Mr. Tyler was judge of the general
court of Virginia, from 1808 to 1811 he was gov-
ernor of Virginia, and from 1811 until his death in
1813 he was judge of the United States district court
for Virginia. His son, the future President, was born
at the homestead at Greenway, on the 29th of March,
1790. In early boyhood he attended the small school
kept by a Mr. McMurdo, who was so diligent in his
use of the birch that in later years President Tyler
said ‘‘it was a wonder he did not whip all the sense
out of his scholars.” At the age of eleven young
Tyler was one of the ringleaders in a rebellion in
which the despotic McMurdo was overpowered by
numbers, tied hand and foot, and left locked up in
the schoolhouse until late at night, when a passing
traveller effected an entrance and released him. On
complaining to Judge Tyler, the indignant school-
master was met with the apt reply, “Sze semper ty-
rannis!” The future President was graduated at
William and Mary in 1807. At college he showed
a strong interest in ancient history. He was also
fond of poetry and music, and, like Thomas Jeffer-
son, was a skilful performer on the violin. In 1809

AND THE WHIG COALITION 329

he was admitted to the bar, and had already begun
to obtain a good practice when he was elected to the
legislature, and took his seat in that body in Decem-
ber, 1811. He was here a firm supporter of Mr.
Madison’s administration, and the war with Great
Britain, which soon followed, afforded him an oppor-
tunity to become conspicuous as a forcible and per-
suasive orator. One of his earliest public acts is
especially interesting in view of the famous struggle
with the Whigs, which in later years he conducted
as President. The charter of the first bank of the
United States, established in 1791, was to expire in
twenty years, and in 1811 the question of renewing
the charter came before Congress. The bank was
very unpopular in Virginia, and the assembly of that
state, by a vote of 125 to 35, instructed its senators.
at Washington, Richard Brent and William E. Giles,
to vote against a recharter. The instructions de-
nounced the bank as an institution, in the founding
of which Congress had exceeded its powers and
grossly violated state rights. Yet there were many
in Congress who, without approving the principle
upon which the bank was founded, thought the eve
of war an inopportune season for making a radical
change in the financial system of the nation. Of
the two Virginia senators, Brent voted in favour of
the recharter, and Giles spoke on the same side,
and although, in obedience to instructions, he voted
contrary to his own opinion, he did so under pro-
test. On January 14, 1812, Mr. Tyler, in the Vir-
ginia legislature, introduced resolutions of censure,
in which the senators were taken to task, while the
Virginia doctrines, as to the unconstitutional char-

330 HARRISON, TYLER

acter of the bank and the binding force of instruc-
tions, were. formally asserted.

Mr. Tyler was reélected to the legislature annually,
until in November, 1816, he was chosen to fill a va-
cancy in the United States House of Representatives.
In the regular election to the next Congress, out of
two hundred votes given in his native county, he re-
ceived all but one. As a member of Congress he soon
made himself conspicuous as the most rigid of strict
constructionists. When Mr. Calhoun introduced his
bill in favour of internal improvements, Mr. Tyler voted ©
against it. He also voted against the proposal for a
national bankrupt act. He condemned, as arbitrary
and insubordinate, the course of General Jackson in
Florida, and contributed an able speech to the long
debate over the question as to censuring that gallant
commander. He was a member of a committee for
inquiring into the affairs of the national bank, and his
most elaborate speech was in favour of Mr. Trimble’s
motion to issue a sczve factas against that institution.
On all these points Mr. Tyler’s course seems to have
pleased his constituents; in the spring election of 1819
he did not consider it necessary to issue the usual cir-
cular address, or in any way to engage in a personal
canvass. He simply distributed copies of his speech
against the bank, and was reélected to Congress
unanimously.

The most important peOne that came before
the sixteenth Congress related to the: admission of
Missouri to the Union. In the debates over this
question, Mr. Tyler took extreme ground against the
imposition of any restrictions upon the extension of
slavery. At the same time he declared himself on

AND THE WHIG COALITION 331

principle opposed to the perpetuation of slavery, and
he sought to reconcile these positions by the argument
that in diffusing the slave population over a wide area
the evils of the institution would be diminished and
the prospects of ultimate emancipation increased.
“ Slavery,” said he, “has been represented on all hands
as a dark cloud, and the candour of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Whitman) drove him to the
admission that it would be well to disperse this cloud.
In this sentiment I entirely concur with him. How
can you otherwise disarm it? Will you suffer it to
increase in its darkness over one particular portion of
this land, till its horrors shall burst upon it? Will you
permit the lightnings of its wrath to break upon the
South, when by the interposition of a wise system of
legislation you may reduce it to a summer’s cloud ?”
New York and Pennsylvania, he argued, had been
_ able to emancipate their slaves only because they were
so few. Dispersion, moreover, would be likely to
ameliorate the condition of the black man, for by
making his labour scarce in each particular locality, it
would increase the demand for it, and would thus
make it the interest of the master to deal fairly and
generously with his. slaves. To the obvious objection
that the increase of the slave population would fully
keep up with its territorial expansion, he replied by
denying that such would be the case. His next argu-
ment was that if an old state, such as Virginia, could
have slaves, while a newstate, such as Missouri, was
to be prevented by federal authority from having them,
then the old and new states would at once be placed
upon a different footing, which was contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution. If Congress could thus

332 HARRISON, TYLER

impose one restriction upon a state, where was the
exercise of such a power to end? Once grant sucha
power, and what was to prevent a slaveholding ma-
jority in Congress from forcing slavery upon some
territory where it was not wanted? Mr. Tyler pursued .
the argument so far as to deny “that Congress, under
its constitutional authority to establish rules and regu-
lations for the territories, had any control whatever
over slavery in the territorial domain.” He was un-
questionably foremost among the members of Congress
in occupying this extreme position. When the ~
Missouri Compromise bill was adopted by a vote of 134
to 42, all but 5 of the nays were from the South, and
from Virginia alone there were 17, of which Mr. Tyler’s
vote was one. The Azchmond Enguirer of March 7,
1820, in denouncing the compromise, observed, in
language of prophetic interest, that the Southern and
Western representatives now “owe it to themselves to
keep their eyes firmly fixed on Texas; if we are cooped
up on the north, we must have elbow-room to the
west.” -

Mr. Tyler’s further action in this Congress related
chiefly to the question of a protective tariff, of which
he was an unflinching opponent. In 1821, finding
his health seriously impaired, he declined a reélection,
and returned to private life. His retirement, however,
was of short duration, for in 1823 he was again elected
to the Virginia legislature. Here, as a friend to the
candidacy of Mr. Crawford for the presidency, he dis-
approved the attacks upon the congressional caucus
begun by the legislature of Tennessee in the interests
of Andrew Jackson. The next year he was nominated
to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate, but

AND THE WHIG COALITION 333

Littleton Tazewell was elected over him. He opposed
an attempt which was made about this time to remove
William and Mary College to Richmond, and was
afterward made successively rector and chancellor of
the college, which prospered signally under his
management. In December, 1825, he was chosen by
the legislature to the governorship of Virginia, and in
the following year he was reélected by a unanimous
vote. As the strict constructionists were now becom-
ing gradually united in opposition to the policy of
President Adams, many members of Crawford’s party,
under the lead of John Randolph, went to swell the
ranks of the Jacksonians, while others, among whom
Mr. Tyler was one of the most distinguished, main-
tained a certain independence in opposition. It is to
be set down to Mr. Tyler’s credit that he never attached
any importance to the malicious story, believed by so
many Jacksonians, of a corrupt bargain between
Adams and Clay. A slander of somewhat similar
character was soon to be aimed at himself. Soon after
the meeting of the Virginia legislature, in December,
1826, the friends of Clay and Adams combined with
the members of the opposite party who could no
longer endure Randolph’s crazy freaks, and thus Gov-
ernor Tyler was elected to the United States Senate
by the narrow majority of 115 votes to 110. Some
indiscreet friends of Jackson now sought to show that
there must have been some secret and reprehensible
understanding between Tyler and Clay, but the at-
tempt failed utterly. It is very interesting, however,
to observe that Tyler owed his seat in the Senate to
the followers of the man with whom he was hereafter
to enter into such an extraordinary alliance.

334 HARRISON, TYLER

In the Senate Mr. Tyler took a conspicuous stand
against the. so-called “tariff of abominations,” which
even Benton and Van Buren, who were not yet in 1828
quite clear as to their proper attitude, were induced to
support. There was thus some ground for Tyler’s -
opinion, expressed at this time, that the Jacksonians
were not really orthodox defenders of strict construc-
tion. It was on the occasion of Jackson’s famous veto
of the Maysville turnpike bill, May 27, 1830, that
this most rigorous stickler for constitutional propriety
found himself for the moment drawn toward the Presi-
dent. It was quite proper and characteristic for him
to attack the irregularity of Jackson’s appointment of
commissioners to negotiate a commercial treaty with
Turkey, without duly informing the Senate; but at the
same time he showed good will toward the President
by voting in favour of confirming the appointment of
Van Buren as minister to Great Britain. In the presi-
dential election of 1832 he supported Jackson, but only
as a less objectionable candidate than Clay, Wirt, or
Floyd. The preference accorded to Jackson over
Floyd would indicate that the President’s immortal
Union toast had not seriously alarmed Mr. Tyler, who
disapproved of nullification and condemned the course
of South Carolina as rash and ill-considered. Herein
Tyler was wiser than Calhoun. On the question of the
tariff the South had really a strong case, and to throw
the gauntlet of nullification into the arena was simply
to offer the chances of victory to the North: But when
it came to suppressing nullification with the strong
hand, Mr. Tyler’s attitude was curiously significant.
He was emphatic in his opposition to President Jack-
son’s proclamation. He denounced it as a “tremen-

AND THE WHIG COALITION 335

dous engine of federalism,” tending toward the “con-
solidation”’ of the states into a single political body.
His attitude in 1833 was substantially the same as in
1861, when secession had become a grim reality. In the
earlier crisis, as in the later, he tried to stand upon the
ground that while secession might be wrong, coercion
was a greater wrong. This was the mental attitude
that in 1861 led Virginia to join the Southern Confed-
eracy and made Mr. Tyler in the last year of his life a
~ member of the Confederate Congress. And as in 1861
the secession of Virginia was preceded by the assem-
bling of a peace convention of border states, with Tyler
for its president, so now in 1833 he undertook to play
the part of mediator between Clay and Calhoun, and
in that capacity earnestly supported the compromise
tariff bill introduced by the former in the Senate on
‘the 12th of February. In this measure, which was op-
posed by Mr. Webster as an ill-timed and mischievous
concession to the threats of South Carolina, we may
see a premonitory symptom of that alliance between
the followers of Tyler and Clay which soon resulted
in the formation of the Whig party. At the same time
occurred the sudden and decisive break between Tyler
and Jackson. In a special message to Congress, the
President asked for full and explicit authority to use
the army and navy, if need be, for the purpose of
suppressing armed insurrection. Congress readily re- -
sponded with the so-called “ Force Bill,’ and here Mr.
Tyler showed that he had the courage of his convic-
tions. When the bill was put to vote in the Senate, on
the 20th of February, some of its Southern opponents
were conveniently absent, others got up and went out
in order to avoid putting themselves on record. The

336 HARRISON, TYLER

vote, as then taken, stood: Yeas, thirty-two; Vay, one,
to wit, John: Tyler.

It was thus on the question of the right of the fed-
eral government to use force in suppressing nullifica-
tion that the Southern strict constructionists discovered .
that there was no room for them within the Democratic
party as then constituted under the lead of Jackson,
Van Buren, Benton, and Blair. In this conclusion
the peculiar features of Jackson’s attack upon the
United States Bank only confirmed them. When it
came to the removal of the deposits, Mr. Tyler’s break
with the administration was thorough and final. As
we have seen, he was no friend to the bank; he had
fought against it on every fitting occasion, since the
beginning of his public career. And now, in 1834, he
declared emphatically, “I believe the bank to be the
original sin against the Constitution, which, in the
progress of our history, has called into existence a
numerous progeny of usurpations. Shall I permit
this serpent, however bright.its scales or erect its
mien, to exist by and through my vote?” Neverthe-
less, strongly as he disapproved of the bank, Mr. Tyler
disapproved still more strongly of the methods by
which President Jackson assailed it. There seemed
at that time to be growing up in the United States a
spirit of extreme unbridled democracy quite foreign -
to the spirit in which our constitutional government,
with its carefully arranged checks and limitations, was
founded. It was a spirit that prompted mere majori-
ties to insist upon having their way, even at the cost
of overriding all constitutional checks and _ limits.
This wild spirit possessed many members of Jack-
son’s party, and it found expression in what Mr. Ben-

AND THE WHIG COALITION 337

ton grotesquely called the “demos Krateo” principle.
A good illustration of it was to be seen in Benton’s
argument, after the election of 1824, that Jackson,
having received a plurality of electoral votes, ought to
be declared President, and that the House of Repre-
sentatives, in choosing Adams, was really “defying
the will of the people.” In similar wise President
Jackson, after his triumphant reélection in 1832, was
inclined to interpret his huge majorities as mean-
ing that the people were ready to uphold him in any
course that he might see fit to pursue. This feeling
no doubt strengthened him in his determined attitude
toward the nullifiers, and it certainly contributed to
his arbitrary and overbearing method of dealing with
the bank, culminating, in 1833, in his removal of the
deposits. There was ground for maintaining that in
‘this act the President exceeded his powers, and it
seemed to illustrate the tendency of unbridled democ-
racy toward practical despotism, under the leadership
of a headstrong and popular chief. Mr. Tyler saw in
it such a tendency, and he believed that the only safe-
guard for constitutional government, whether against
the arbitrariness of Jackson or the latitudinarianism
of the Whigs, lay in a most rigid adherence to strict
constructionist doctrines. Accordingly, in his speech
of the 24th of February, 1834, he proposed to go
directly to the root of the matter and submit the ques- |
tion of a national bank to the people in the shape of
a constitutional amendment, either expressly forbid-
ding or expressly allowing Congress to create such an
institution. According to his own account, he found
Clay and Webster ready to coéperate with him in this
course, while Calhoun held aloof. Nothing came of

Z

338 HARRISON, TYLER

the project; but it was now easy to see the alliance
fast maturing between the Northern National Repub-
licans and those Southerners who agreed with Tyler.
In December, 1834, as member of a committee for in-
vestigating the management of the bank, Mr. Tyler -
brought in an elaborate report which seems to have
been a very fair statement of the case. It did not sus-
tain Jackson’s charges of mismanagement, and was
accordingly attacked by Benton as a partisan defence
of the bank. This doubtless served to confuse the
minds of people as to Tyler’s real attitude. Before
the smoke of the battle had cleared away, people
would not distinguish between disapproval of Jack-
son’s methods and approval of the bank; they would
consider the one as equivalent to the other, and so
they did. An incident which occurred the next year
served to confirm this view. On Mr. Clay’s famous
resolution to censure the President for the removal of
the deposits, Tyler had voted, along with Webster, in
the affirmative. While Benton’s resolutions for ex-
punging the vote of censure were before the Senate,
the Democratic legislature of Virginia instructed the
two senators from that state to vote in the affirmative.
As to the binding force of such instructions Mr. Tyler
had long ago, in the case of Giles and Brent above
mentioned, placed himself unmistakably upon record.
His colleague, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, was known
to entertain similar views. On receiving the instruc-
tions, both senators refused to obey them. Both voted
against the expunging resolution, but Leigh kept his
seat, while the rigidly consistent Tyler resigned and
went home. The result of this for Leigh was to be
retirement to private life; for Tyler it was to be eleva-
tion to the presidency.

AND THE WHIG COALITION 339

He had already been recommended for the vice-
presidency by the legislatures of several Southern
states. During the year 1834 the Whig party came
into existence. At the North the National Republicans,
the party of Clay and Webster, were beginning to
call themselves Whigs; while the Southern strict con-
structionists gladly took the name of “State Rights
Whigs.” Between these two wings of the new party
there was no bond of union whatever except their
common hostility to the Jackson Demoerats. Their -
alliance was as unnatural as that of Fox and North
against Lord Shelburne in 1783, or as that of John
Bright with Lord Salisbury against Mr. Gladstone
scarcely adecadeago. The protective theory of govern-
ment, with its tariff, bank, and internal improvements,
which was the fetich of the Northern Whigs, was to the
- Southern Whigs a device of Belial. Even in their com-
mon hatred of Jackson they did not stand upon common
ground; for the Northern Whigs hated him for his
stanch opposition to paternal government, while the
Southern Whigs hated hint for the severity with which
he frowned upon nullification. The nearest approach
to real sympathy between the two discordant allies
was furnished by Tyler and Webster, in so far as
they were agreed for the moment in condemning the
violence of Jackson’s proceedings in the particular
case of the bank. And it was in this one point of |
sympathy that the name “ Whig” had its origin.
They called themselves Whigs because they saw fit
to represent Jackson as a sort of unconstitutional
tyrant, like George III., and for a moment they tried
to stigmatize Jackson’s followers as “ Tories,” but
this device was unsuccessful.

340 HARRISON, TYLER

The alliance was so unnatural that it took some
time to complete it. In 1836 there was no agreement
upon a candidate for the presidency. The “State
Rights” Whigs nominated Hugh Lawson White of
Tennessee for President, and John Tyler for Vice-
president. The Northern Whigs, in the hope of
gathering votes from as many quarters as possible,
thought it best to put forward some more colourless
candidate than their real leader, Mr. Clay, and ac-
cordingly they nominated General William Henry

Harrison. This gentleman was born in Berkeley,
Virginia, February 9, 1773. His father, Benjamin
Harrison, was one of the signers of the Declaration
of Independence, was twice elected governor of Vir-
ginia, and in the state convention of 1788 was allied
with the elder Tyler in opposing the adoption of the
federal Constitution. _ William Henry Harrison was
educated at Hampden Sidney College, Virginia, but
broke off his studies in 1791 to take a commission
in the army on the Western frontier, commanded by
Anthony Wayne. Having distinguished himself for
gallantry and for executive ability, he was in 1800
appointed superintendent of Indian affairs and gov-
ernor of the Indiana territory, comprising the present
states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
He held that office for several years, and when the
Indian War broke out prematurely, in 1811, he de-
feated Tecumseh’s brother, the Prophet, on the. 7th
of November of that year, in a bloody and decisive
battle at Tippecanoe, on the upper Wabash. In the
autumn of 1812 he was appointed to the chief com-
mand of the United States forces in the Northwest,
and on October 5, 1813, he won the battle of the

AND THE WHIG COALITION ‘ 34I

Thames over the allied British and Indians com-
manded by General Proctor and Tecumseh. This
battle, in which Tecumseh was killed and nearly the
whole British force surrendered, was decisive of the
war in the Northwest, and the two victories gave
General Harrison a military reputation second only
to Jackson’s. In 1816-1819 he was a member of
Congress. In 1819 he was chosen to the senate of
Ohio, and in 1822 was again a candidate for Congress,
but was defeated because of his vote against the
admission of Missouri to the Union as a free state.
In 1824 he was chosen to the United States Senate,
in 1828 President Adams sent him out as minister
to the United States of Colombia, and in the follow-
ing year he was recalled by President Jackson, and
retired to his farm at North Bend, near Cincinnati.
He was a good soldier and a thoroughly upright and
trustworthy man. Upon the political questions that
were dividing Whigs from Democrats in 1836, he had
done little or nothing to commit himself, and in nomi-
nating him for the presidency the Whigs sought to
turn to their own uses the same kind of popular
enthusiasm by which Jackson had profited. But the
ill-organized opposition had no chance of winning a
victory over the solid Democratic column. Many
votes were thrown away. South Carolina, still fight-
ing: her own battle, voted for Person Mangum, a >
State Rights Whig. Massachusetts voted for Daniel
Webster. Mr. White obtained the 11 votes of Georgia
and the 15 of Tennessee, for the latter state, in spite
of her reverence for Jackson, did not approve his
policy of coercion and could not be induced to sup-
port Van Buren. General Harrison carried Vermont,

‘

342 HARRISON, TYLER

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio,
and Indiana,—=in all 73 votes. The opposition had
hoped that, with so many candidates in the field,
there would be enough bolting and scattering to
prevent a choice by the people, and throw the election
into the House of Representatives. But Mr. Van
Buren won an easy victory. He received 170 electoral
votes, a majority of 46 over the other candidates taken
together. The result of the canvass for the vice-
presidency was curious. Colonel Richard Johnson,
the Democratic candidate, obtained exactly half the
number of votes in the electoral college, so that there
was no choice. For the only time in our history the’
election devolved upon the Senate, which proceeded
to choose Colonel Johnson. What more especially
concerns us here is the vote for Mr. Tyler. He
failed to carry his own state, for Virginia was now
firmly Democratic, and remained so until 1860; but
he ran ahead of his fellow-candidate, Mr. White, and,
besides Tennessee and Georgia, he received the votes
of Maryland and South Carolina.

The result of this election left Mr. Tyler for the next
two years in retirement, but one opinion of his, very
clearly pronounced at this time, is worth quoting as
an illustration of the independence of judgment which
he sometimes manifested. The followers of Calhoun
were bringing forward in Congress what was known
as the “gag resolution” against all petitions and mo-
tions relating in any way to the abolition of slavery.
Mr. Tyler condemned this measure as impolitic on the
part of the slaveholders, because it yoked together the
question as to the right of petition and the question
as to slavery, and thus, by presenting the slave power

AND THE WHIG COALITION 343

as hostile to free speech, gave a distinct moral advan-
tage to the Abolitionists. The spirit of slavery, how-
ever, was true to its own barbarous instincts when it
rejected this prudent counsel.

In the spring of 1838 Mr. Tyler was returned to
the Virginia legislature, and in the following winter
his friends put him forward for reélection to the United
States Senate. Inthe memorable contest that ensued,
in which William Rives was his principal competitor,
the result was a complete deadlock, so that the legis-
lature adjourned without making a choice.

Meanwhile the financial crisis of 1837——the most
severe that has ever been known in this country — had
wrecked the administration of President Van Buren.
It was believed at the time that this frightful tempest
in the commercial world was wholly or chiefly due to
Jackson’s assaults upon the United States Bank, and
this opinion has been so confidently stated as a fact,

and so often reiterated, that it has come to be one of

the commonplaces of history. Yet, like many other
commonplace assertions ihistory, it is only partially
true. The causes of the panic of 1837 lay deeper than
any acts of any administration. The seeds of distress
had been so plentifully sown that an abundant crop
must have been garnered about that time, no matter
whether a Whig or a Democrat were occupant of the
White House, no matter whether the public funds were .
deposited in one great bank or in fifty small ones.
Since 1820 the increase of the country in wealth and —
population, and the rapidity of expansion westward,
had been wonderful. Tennessee had nearly doubled
in population, Ohio had more than doubled, Indiana
had more than trebled, Mississippi had increased four-

344 HARRISON, TYLER

fold, Missouri fivefold, Illinois sevenfold, Michigan
twentyfold. .A transformation was going on in the
cities. In 1820 New York and Philadelphia, with
populations a little over 100,000, had hardly ceased to
look like country towns; by 1835 the former had passed
250,000 and the latter 200,000, so that they were begin-
ning to take on the appearance of large cities. In 1820
the national debt was $90,000,000; by 1835 every
cent of it was paid and there was a surplus in the
treasury, a fact which powerfully impressed people’s
imaginations, both here and in Europe. This pros-
perity was the cause of endless self-glorification, and
it was apt to be ascribed to American institutions in
a greater degree than to the natural resources of the
country. It began to seem as if nothing were impos-
sible to American enterprise, and confidence grew into
recklessness. it was an era of road-building. In
1820 it cost $88 to carry a ton of freight from Buffalo
to Albany; in 1825 the Erie Canal was finished, and
that ton could be carried that distance for $21.50;
in 1835 it could be carried for $6.50. That single fact
gave an unprecedented stimulus to the growth alike of
New York and of the West. In 1830 there were 23
miles of railroad in the United States; in 1836 there
were 1273 miles. During the same six years the
steamboat tonnage on our Western rivers increased
nearly sixfold, and the cotton crop in the Southwestern
states was doubled, while the price of raw cotton rose
from ten to twenty cents a pound. Such sudden and
surprising changes quite disturbed people’s conceptions
of value and bewildered them in their calculations.
The great West began to seem an El Dorado, and
so long as desired land was in some new region, it

AND THE WHIG COALITION 345

acquired an imaginary value, without much reference
to its real relations to the development of the country,
which, of course, time alone could disclose. The valu-
ation of real estate in Mobile in 1831 was little more
than a million dollars; in 1837 it was more than 27
millions; in 1846 it had shrunk to less than g millions.
Assuming that the increase from a million in 1831 to
nearly g millions in 1846 represents real growth, we
may regard the greater part of the intervening figure of
27 millions as representing the heated fancies of men
in the Atlantic states and in Europe anxious to invest
their money where it could make them suddenly rich.
The extent of the mania in Europe was indicated by
the striking fact that although between 1830 and 1837
we bought from foreign countries $140,000,000 worth
of merchandise in excess of what we sold to them, we
received from them at the same time $45,000,000 in
specie in excess of what we paid to them. The ac-
count was balanced by the shares taken by European
capitalists in American enterprises.

This rage for speculation-led to immense purchases
of Western public lands. At that time any one who
chose could buy these lands at the fixed price of $1.25
per acre, whether he intended to settle upon them or
not. Speculators began buying extensive tracts in
order to sell them at a greatly advanced price. Be-
tween 1820 and 1829 the annual sales of public lands
by the United States government averaged about
$1,300,000. Between 1830 and 1834 they averaged
from 3 to 5 millions. In 1835 they leaped up to 15
millions, and in 1836 to 25 millions. The money
spent in buying these remote unimproved lands, and
in taking stock in railroads projected for reaching

346 HARRISON, TYLER

them, was thus abstracted from the ordinary and safe
occupations: of industry and commerce. There was a
great demand for ready money, and in the prevailing
spirit of boundless confidence it was met by an enor-
mous increase of banks and bank credits. Between |
1830 and 1836 the banking capital of the United
States rose from 60 to 250 millions, the loans and dis-
counts from 200 to 450 millions, and the note circula-
tion from 60 to 140 millions. Thus the elements of a
prodigious commercial crisis were all at hand. There
was the wholesale dealing in property that had only ©
fictitious values; there was the wholesale creation of
indebtedness, and the attempt to pay it, Micawber-
like, with paper promises to pay. Perhaps Jackson’s
withdrawal of the government deposits from the
United States Bank, and distribution of them among
fifty state banks, may have helped to increase the mania
for speculation ; but it is now apparent that the madness
was already beyond control and fast hurrying to a crisis.

A far worse measure, for which both parties in Con-
gress were responsible, and which Jackson ought to
have vetoed, was the distribution of the surplus. The
extinction of the national debt came to diminish the
outgo just as the great sales of public lands came to
swell the income; and so in 1836 there was a surplus
of $37,000,000, which Congress decided to divide
among the states and pay over in four quarterly instal-
ments, beginning on New Year's of 1837. The pros-
pect of this largess simply added to the general craze.

By the summer of 1836 the bubble had been blown
to such dimensions as perhaps had not been seen since
the celebrated South Sea bubble of 1720. To prick
and explode such airy nothings, it is only necessary

AND THE WHIG COALITION 347

that a few purchasers should begin to awake to their
delusion and a few creditors should begin to ask for
hard cash. By 1836 there were others than Martin
Chuzzlewit who had learned to their cost that Alad-
din’s lamp was not to be found in malarial swamps on
the Mississippi. Just then there was a creditor who
made demands, and that creditor was the United
States government. On the 11th of July the Secretary
of the Treasury issued the famous “specie circular,”
requiring payments for public lands to be made in
specie. Stringency of the money market had already
begun to be felt, because the issue of paper had not
kept pace with the feverish demand. Now the strin-
gency increased with fearful rapidity. The crash
began to come when the first quarter of the surplus
was paid out by the deposit banks in January. So
large a sum of money could not be moved without
calling in loans and awakening apprehension. West-
ern banks began calling for specie to pay their debts
to the government; confidence died out in Europe,
and gold began flowing thither to balance accounts.
Prices had become so inflated, and money so hard to
get, that mobs in the city of New York shouted for
cheap food, and with true mob logic proceeded to de-
stroy a great flour warehouse by way of making flour
cheaper. In the course of the spring there was a col-
lapse of prices and a collapse of credit. All over the
country the banks suspended payment; great houses
and little houses became alike insolvent; widows and
orphans who had taken stock in railroads leading to
Eden were reduced to live upon charity; coin disap-
peared, and there was a partial return to barter; a pair
of shoes would be paid for in soup tickets or chips

348 HARRISON, TYLER

a
receivable for drinks of whiskey; in some places men
found it hard to get work on any terms. —

Such in its main outlines was the crisis of 1837. A
masterly account of it may be found in Shepard’s “ Van
Buren,” a little book which seems to me the ablest in .
all that excellent series of American Statesmen. We
have had greater, more brilliant, more interesting
Presidents than Mr. Van Buren; but we have never
had one with a more thorough grasp of the principles
of political economy, or a more adequate and lucid
conception of the proper sphere and duties of govern-
ment. When Mr. Shepard calls his message to Con-
gress on the occasion of the panic one of the greatest
of American state papers, his words are not at all too
strong. It was natural that the President should be
made the scapegoat for the sins of the people. The
Whigs had predicted mischief from the overthrow of
the national bank. People now attributed the panic
to that cause and to the issue of the specie circular.
The mischief, they said, was the work of government,
and now government must cure it. A few strokes of
President Jackson’s pen had wrought all the evil, and
it must be undone by a few strokes from President
Van Buren’s. A new bank must be chartered, the
specie circular rescinded, and plenty of paper issued.
If Van Buren had yielded to this popular clamour, the
crisis would very likely have proved as obstinate as
that of 1873, the length of which can plainly be traced
to inconvertible paper. In commerce as in medicine,
acute mania is easier to deal with than chronic melan-
cholia. Van Buren understood that the disease was
not one which government could cure, and he set this
forth with admirable courage and force in his message.

AND THE WHIG COALITION 349

So far from advocating a recharter of the bank, he led
in the establishment of the present subtreasury system,
by which the government is completely divorced from
banking. This was the great achievement of his
administration. But the Whigs had naturally taken
advantage of the troubles to raise a cry for paternal
government, and for the moment they found willing
listeners everywhere. There was a general revolt
against the hard-hearted administration which had
done nothing to relieve the distress of the people.
For the single purpose of defeating Mr. Van Buren, all
differences of policy were subordinated. In the Whig
convention at Harrisburg, which met on the 4th of
- December, 1839, almost a year before the election, no
platform of principles was adopted. The unformu-
lated platform was, “ Anything to beat Van Buren.”'!
It was now the turn of the Whigs to appeal to the
frontier prejudices of the West against the aristocratic
East by renominating General Harrison, who in the
days of Tecumseh and Tippecanoe had lived in a log
cabin and had on his table none of your French cham-
pagne, but good hard cider. Naturally Mr. Tyler, as
a leader of the Southern or State Rights Whigs, was
nominated for the vice-presidency. In the uproarious
campaign that followed there was less appeal to sober
reason and a more prodigal use of claptrap than in any
other presidential contest in our history. The chief

1A newspaper clipping, preserved by Dr. Fiske, commenting on the
heavy shower that fell upon “ Bunker Hill Day,” tells of a more notable
shower that drenched the procession of September 17th, 1840, “the big-
“gest procession up to that date seen in Boston,” wetting the Whigs, the
correspondent says, “from one end of the line to the other”; but Stephen
C. Phillips went into Faneuil Hall the same night and gave the sentiment,
“ Any rain but the reign of Van Buren.”

350 HARRISON, TYLER

features were long processions in which log cabins
mounted on-wheels were dragged about and kegs of
hard cider were broached, while in stump speeches the
heartless Van Buren was accused of having a silver ser-
vice on his table and otherwise aping British manners.
A kind of lilliburlero was sung, with its chorus : —

“ For Tippecanoe and Tyler too — Tippecanoe and Tyler too ;
And with them we’ll beat little Van, Van.
Van is a used-up man ;
And with them we'll beat little Van.”

Thus borne upon a wave of popular excitement,
“Tippecanoe and Tyler too” were carried to the White
House. There were 234 electoral votes for Harrison
and 60 for Van Buren. But a glance at the figures
of the popular vote shows that then, as always in
American politics, the approach to equilibrium was
too close for a party to presume too much upon the tri-
umph of the moment. Harrison’s vote was 1,275,016;
Van Buren’s was 1,129,102; and there was a third
candidate, James Birney, who obtained only about
7000 votes, and carried no state. He stood for the
abolition of negro slavery, and at that moment counted
for little.

The inauguration of the new government in March,
1841, brought with it some surprises. Perhaps the
only distinct pledge to the people during the clamorous
canvass had been the promise of civil service reform.
That promise had been definite enough to induce some
Democrats to vote for the Whig candidates, but it
now appeared that the Whig idea of reform agreed
substantially with Jackson’s; it was summed up in
“turning the rascals out.” The pressure of office-

AND THE WHIG COALITION 351

seekers at the White House was so great that some
good people thought the worry and turmoil enough to
account for President Harrison’s death. However that
may be, the true cause was pneumonia. He died on
the 4th of April, just one month after his inaugura-
tion, without having had time to indicate his policy.
Among the Northern Whigs, however, there was little
doubt as to what that policy ought to be. Mr. Clay
was their real leader, and they regarded General Har-
rison as a mere figurehead candidate, selected for what
is called, in political slang, availability. Doubtless most
people at the North who voted for Harrison did so in
the belief that his election meant the victory of Clay’s
theory of government in the reéstablishment of the
national bank and the increase of tariff duties. Mr.
Clay’s own course, immediately after the inauguration,
‘showed so plainly that he regarded the election as his
own victory, that General Harrison felt called upon °
to administer a rebuke. “ You seem to forget, sir,”
said he, “that it is I who am President.” Harrison
offered Clay the Secretaryship of State, and when Clay
refused it because he preferred to stay in the Senate,
it was given to Daniel Webster.

But whatever President Harrison’s policy might
have been, there could be no doubt that his sudden
death, in raising Mr. Tyler to the presidency, created
an unlooked-for situation, which was likely to rob »
Mr. Clay and his friends of the fruits of their victory.
It has been the habit of Whig writers to speak of
Mr. Tyler as a renegade, and to slur over the circum-
stances of his candidacy by declaring that at the time
of his nomination his views on public questions, and
in particular on the bank, were little known. But the

352 HARRISON, TYLER

sketch of his career here given is enough to show that
there was no man in the United States in 1840 whose
opinions had been more clearly or more boldly de-
clared; and if the Whigs had sinned in nominating
him, they certainly had sinned with their eyes open. |
In the ill-yoked alliance of which the Whig party was
born, the elements of a fierce quarrel were scarcely
concealed, and the removal of President Harrison was
all that was needed to kindle the flames of strife.
“Tyler dares not resist,” said Clay; “I'll drive him
before me.” On the other hand, the new President
declared, “I pray you to believe that my back is to the
wall, and that, while I shall deplore the assaults, I
shall, if practicable, beat back the assailants;” and he
was as good as his word. Congress met. in extra ses-
sion, May 31, 1841, the Senate standing 28 Whigs to
22 Democrats, the House 133 Whigs to 108 Demo-
crats. In his opening message President Tyler briefly
recounted the recent history of the United States Bank,
the subtreasury system, and other financial schemes,
and ended with the significant words, “I shall be ready
to concur with you in the adoption of such system
as you may propose, reserving to myself the ultimate
power of rejecting any measure which may, in my view
of it, conflict with the Constitution, or otherwise jeop-
ard the prosperity of the country; a power which I
could not part with, even if I would, but which I will
not believe any act of yours will call into requisition.”
The challenge was promptly accepted by Congress.
The ground was cleared for action by a bill for abol-
ishing Van Buren’s subtreasury system, which passed
both houses and was signed by the President. But
an amendment offered by Mr. Clay for the repeal of

AND THE WHIG COALITION 353

the law of 1836 regulating the deposits in the state
banks was defeated by the votes of a small party, led by
William C. Rives. The great question then came up.
On constitutional grounds, Mr. Tyler’s objection to
the United States Bank had always been that Con-
gress had no power to create such a corporation within
the limits of a state without the consent of the state,
ascertained beforehand. He did not deny, however,
the power of Congress to establish a district bank for
the District of Columbia, and, provided the several
states should consent, there seemed to be no reason
why this district bank should not set up its branch
offices all over the country. Mr. Clay’s so-called “ fis-
cal bank” bill of 1841 did not make proper provision
for securing the assent of the states, and on that ground
Mr. Rives proposed an amendment, substituting a
clause of a bill suggested by Thomas Ewing, Secretary
of the Treasury, to the effect that such assent should
be formally secured. Mr. Rives’s amendment was
supported not only by several so-called “State Rights
Whigs,” but also by Senators Richard H. Bayard and
Rufus Choate, and other friends of Mr. Webster. If
adopted, its effect would have been conciliatory, and it
might perhaps have averted for a moment the rupture
between the ill-yoked allies. The Democrats, well
aware of this, voted against the amendment, and it was
lost. The bill incorporating the Fiscal Bank of the
United States was then passed by both houses, and
on the 16th of August was vetoed by the President.
An attempt to pass the bill over the veto failed of
the requisite two-thirds majority.
The Whig leaders had already shown a disposi-
tion to entrap the President. Before the passage of
2A

354 HARRISON, TYLER

Mr. Clay’s bill, John Minor Botts was sent to the White
House with a private suggestion for a compromise.
Mr. Tyler refused to listen to the suggestion except
with the understanding that, should it meet with his
disapproval, he should not hear from it again. The.
suggestion turned out to be a proposal that Congress
should authorize the establishment of branches of the
district bank in any state of which the legislature at
its very next session should not expressly refuse its
consent to any such proceeding; and that, moreover,
in case the interests of the public should seem to |
require it, even such express refusal] might be disre-
garded and overridden. By this means the obnoxious
institution might first be established in the Whig
states, and then forced upon the Democratic states
in spite of themselves. The President indignantly
rejected the suggestion as “a contemptible subterfuge,
behind which he would not skulk.” The device
nevertheless became incorporated in Mr. Clay’s bill,
and:an impression got abroad that it was put there in
order to smooth the way for the President to adopt the
measure, but that in his unreasonable obstinacy he
refused to avail himself of the opportunity. After his
veto of August 16 these tortuous methods were
renewed. Messengers went to and fro between the
President and members of his cabinet on the one hand
and leading Whig members of Congress on the other,
conditional assurances were translated into the indica-
tive mood, whispered messages were magnified and
distorted, and presently appeared upon the scene an
outline of a bill that it was assumed the President
would sign. This new measure was known as the
“fiscal corporation ” bill. Like the fiscal bank bill, it

AND THE WHIG COALITION 355

created a bank in the District of Columbia, with
branches throughout the states, and it made no proper
provision for the consent of the states. The President
had admitted that a “fiscal agency” of the United
States government, established in Washington for the
purpose of collecting, keeping, and disbursing the
public revenue, was desirable if not indispensable; a
regular bank of discount, engaged in commercial trans-
actions throughout the states, and having the United
States government as its principal shareholder and
federal officers exerting a controlling influence upon
its directorship, was an entirely different affair, some-
thing in his opinion neither desirable nor permissible.
In the “fiscal corporation” bill an attempt was made
to hoodwink the President and the public bya pretence
of forbidding discounts and loans, and limiting the
operations of the fiscal agency exclusively to exchanges.
While this project was maturing, the Whig newspapers
fulminated with threats against the President in case
he should persist in his course; private letters warned
him of plots to assassinate him; and Mr. Clay in the
Senate referred to his resignation in 1836,and asked
why, if constitutional scruples again hindered him
from obeying the will of the people, did he not now
resign his lofty position and leave it for those who
could be more compliant? Tothis it was aptly replied
by Mr. Rives that “the President was an independent
branch of the government as well as Congress, and was
not called upon to resign because he differed in opinion
with them.” Some of the Whigs seem really to have
hoped that such a storm could be raised as would
browbeat the President into resigning, whereby the
government would be temporarily left in the hands of

356 HARRISON, TYLER

William L. Southard, then president pro cempore of the
Senate. But Mr. Tyler was neither to be hoodwinked
nor bullied. The “fiscal corporation” bill was passed
by the Senate on Saturday, September 4, 1841; on
Thursday, the gth, the President’s veto message was.
received; on Saturday, the 11th, Thomas Ewing,
Secretary of the Treasury, John Bell, Secretary of War,
George E. Badger, Secretary of the Navy, John J.
Crittenden, Attorney-general, and Francis Granger,
Postmaster-general,resigned their places. The adjourn-
ment of Congress had been fixed for Monday, the 13th, —
and it was hoped that, suddenly confronted by a unani-
mous resignation of the cabinet and confused by want
of time in which to appoint a new cabinet, the Presi-
dent would give up the game. But the resignation
was not unanimous, for Daniel Webster, Secretary of
State, remained at his post; and on Monday morning
the President offered to the Senate for confirmation the
names of Walter Forward of Pennsylvania for Secre-
tary of the Treasury; John McLean of Ohio for
Secretary of War, Abel P. Upshur of Virginia for
Secretary of the Navy, Hugh S. Legaré of South
Carolina for Attorney-general, and Charles A. Wick-
liffe of Kentucky for Postmaster-general. These ex-
cellent appointments were duly confirmed.

Whether the defection of Mr. Webster at this
moment would have been so fatal to the President as
some of the Whigs were inclined to believe may well
be doubted; but there can be no doubt that his adhe-
rence to the President was of great value. By remain-
ing in the cabinet Mr. Webster showed himself too
clear-sighted to contribute to a victory of which the
whole profit would be reaped by his rival, Mr. Clay;

AND THE WHIG COALITION 357

and the President was glad to retain his hold upon so
strong an element in the North as that which Mr.
Webster represented. Some of the leading Whig
members of Congress now issued addresses to the
people, in which they loudly condemned the conduct
of the President and declared that “all political connec-
tion between them and John Tyler was at an end from
that day forth.” It was open war between the two
departments of government. Only a few members of
Congress, commonly known as “ the corporal’s guard,”
really recognized Mr. Tyler as their leader; but the
Democratic members came to his support as an ally
against the Whigs. The state elections of 1841
showed some symptoms of a reaction in favour of the
President’s views, for in general the Whigs lost ground
in them. As the spectre of the crisis of 1837 faded
away in the distance, the people began to recover from
the sudden and overmastering impulse that had swept
the country in 1840, and the popular enthusiasm for
the bank soon died away. Mr. Tyler had really won
a victory of the first magnitude, as was conclusively
shown in 1844, when the presidential platform of the
Whigs was careful to make no allusion whatever to
the bank. On this crucial question the doctrines of
paternal government had received a crushing and per-
manent defeat. In the next session of Congress the
strife with the President was renewed, but it was now
tariff, not bank, that furnished the subject of discus-
sion. The lowering of duties by the compromise
tariff of 1833 had now diminished the revenue until
it was insufficient to meet the expenses of government.
The Whigs accordingly carried through Congress a
bill continuing the protective duties of 1833, and pro-

358 HARRISON, TYLER

viding that the surplus revenue, which was thus sure
soon to accumulate, should be distributed among the
states. But the compromise act of 1833, in which Mr.
Tyler had played an important part, had provided that
the protective policy should come to an end in 1842. .
Both on this ground, and because of the provisions
for distributing the surplus, the President vetoed the
new bill. Congress then devised and passed another
bill, providing for a tariff “for revenue, with incidental
protection,” but still contemplating a distribution of
the surplus if there should be any. The President
vetoed this bill. Congress received the veto message
with indignation, and on the motion of John Quincy
Adams it was referred to a committee, which con-
demned it as an unwarrantable assumption of power,
and after a caustic summary of Mr. Tyler’s acts since
his accession to office, concluded with a reference to
impeachment. This report called forth from the Pres-
ident a formal protest; but the victory was already
his.- The Whigs were afraid to go before the country
in the autumn elections with the tariff question unset-
tled, and the bill was accordingly passed by both houses
without the distributing clause, and was at once signed
by the President. As a parting menace, the distribut-
ing clause was then passed in a separate bill, but a
“pocket veto” sufficed to dispose of it. Congress
adjourned August 31, 1842, and in the autumn elections
the Whig majority of 25 in the House of Representa-
tives gave place to a Democratic majority of 61.

Here our story must for the present stop, with the
total overthrow of the Whig doctrines of paternal gov-
ernment. As the net result of twenty years of politi-
cal experience, since the election of John Quincy

AND THE WHIG COALITION 359

Adams had raised new political issues, we find the
Whig theory everywhere discomfited. The bank was
too completely dead to find any mourners. The pro-
tective tariff was reduced to such a point that we were
abreast with England in the march toward free trade,
and our foreign commerce was beginning to rival that
of England, when the Civil War and its war taxes set
us back for a while. At the same time the policy of
internal improvements remained, as it still remains, on
the defensive. Viewed in its large relations, it was a
noble victory for the sound Democratic doctrine of
“government of the people, by the people, and for the
people.” The four eminent men who represented this
doctrine were Jackson, Van Buren, Benton, and Blair.
They also stood for the Union, against all separatist
schemes, as strongly and devotedly as Webster and
Clay. As for Tyler, while we cannot call him a
great man, while for breadth of view and sound grasp
of fundamental principles he is immeasurably below
Van Buren, at the same time he is not so trivial a
personage as his detractors would have us believe.
~He was honest and courageous, and in the defeat of
Mr. Clay’s theory of government he played an impor-
tant and useful part. If he is small as compared with
Jackson and Van Buren, he is great as compared with
Pierce and Buchanan. |

We cannot here consider the close of Mr. Tyler’s
presidency, because that would introduce a new set of
considerations, and our time is now at an end. When
the question of the annexation of Texas came into the
foreground, the lines were speedily drawn between
North and South, as they had not been drawn since
1820. Mr. Tyler and his State Rights Whigs had

360 HARRISON, TYLER

already broken with the Northern Whigs. Now on the
Texas question they allied themselves with the Demo-
crats, thus following Calhoun, who had already, in 1838,
after Jackson was out of the way, thought it safest to
ally himself with that party. It was natural that all
those who wished to defer the solution of the slavery
question should sooner or later come to join the party
that construed the Constitution as it had been con-
strued by the elder Tyler and the elder Harrison in
the convention of 1788. It was this that took the
Tyler men over to the Democrats in 1844. In thus”
going over, they altered for the worse the character
of the Democratic party. In 1844 Mr. Van Buren
would naturally have been the Democratic candidate
for the presidency, but because he bravely opposed the
annexation of Texas as a reénforcement to the slave
power, he was unable to secure the nomination. This
was because Mr. Tyler’s State Rights Whigs had joined
the Democrats. As Lord Dundreary would say, the
tail had now become able to wag the dog. From
1844 the Democratic party, led by Mr. Polk, the first
“dark horse,” came to be more and more a Southern
party. The Northern Whigs, having seen all their
economic principles defeated by Mr. Tyler, soon came
to have nothing in common save the disposition to
save the Union by concessions to the South; and on
this plan of campaign they met with their final defeat
in 1852. At the same time the Democrats became
more and more dependent upon Southern support as
they lost their Northern leaders. In 1848 we see Mr.
Van Buren a candidate for the presidency upon a
free-soil platform. By 1856 we see Benton dubious
and Blair a Republican. Between 1850 and 1860

AND THE WHIG COALITION 361

many of the best and most vigorous elements in the
old Democratic party of Jackson and Van Buren had
gone over to the new Republican party; just as since
1876 we have seen many of the most characteristic
elements of the old Republican party of Lincoln and
Sumner going over to the Democrats. Whatever may
be the merits of the Republican party of to-day, it is
no more the party of Lincoln and Sumner than the
Federalist party of 1812 was the party of Hamilton
and John Adams. Just so with the Democratic party
forty years ago. By the subtraction of its original
leaders, the Democratic party of Pierce and Buchanan
came to be something quite different from the Demo-
cratic party of Jackson and Van Buren. It came to
be a mere servant of the slave power. The danger
which menaces the Republican party to-day is the
danger that it may fall under the control of monopo-
lists. Should it turn out to be so, the history of
_ American politics points to the probable result. That
history shows with clearness how moderately the evo-
lution of society goes on where the popular will finds
unhampered expression. When political parties go in
quest of strange gods we cast them forth into outer
darkness, and go on our way rejoicing. It is well that
this is so, for so long as this can be done, we may be
sure that we are a free people.

~

DANIEL WEBSTER

r *

| AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION

IX

DANIEL WEBSTER

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION

WueEN the little town of Hampton, on the coast be-
tween the Merrimac and Piscataqua rivers, was settled
in 1639 by Antinomians who had found cold welcome
at Boston, among the company was one Thomas Web-
ster, concerning whom little is known. A hundred
years later we find his family living a few miles inland,
at Kingston, and there Ebenezer Webster was born
in 1739. Late in the Seven Years’ War, Ebenezer
Webster enlisted in the partisan troop celebrated as
_ Rogers’s “ Rangers,” and after some hard service and
wild adventure returned home at the peace of 1763
with the rank of captain. _He was soon after married,
and with a company of friends and neighbours went
to found the town of Salisbury, deep in the wilderness
by the upper waters of the Merrimac and in the shadow
of Kearsarge Mountain. Captain Webster’s log house
was built on a hill at the northern end of the township,
and between that hill and Montreal, two hundred miles
distant, there was nothing but the unbroken pine for-
est, with its prowling Indians and wolves. In 1775
the neighbourhood had become more populous, so
that when the stout captain went to join the Conti-
nental army he took with him two hundred men. He
served in almost every campaign of the Revolutionary
War, and rose to the rank of colonel. At Bennington

365

366 DANIEL WEBSTER

he was one of the foremost in storming the Ger-
man intrenchments; at West Point, on the night of
the dreadful day which saw Benedict Arnold’s flight
to the Vulture, when doubt and misgiving were every-
where, he was placed in command of the guard at
headquarters, and Washington said to him, “Colonel
Webster, I believe I can trust you.” In 1783 this
veteran of two wars became owner of the Elms Farm
in Salisbury, and lived there until his death, in 1806.
He served as representative and senator in the New.
Hampshire legislature, and as judge in the Court of
Common Pleas. In 1788 he was member of the state
convention which ratified the federal Constitution.
At the first meeting of that convention, which
adjourned without a vote, he was bound, like the
majority of the delegates, by instructions from his
townsmen, to oppose the adoption of the Constitution.
Before the second meeting he sought and obtained
permission to act according to his own judgment;
and when the vote was about to be taken he made
the following brief but conclusive speech: “ Mr. .
President, I have listened to the arguments for and
against the Constitution. I am convinced such a gov-
ernment as that Constitution will establish, if adopted
—a government acting directly on the people of the
states — is necessary for the common defence and the
common welfare. It is the only government which
will enable us to pay off the national debt —the debt
which we owe for the Revolution, and which we are
bound in honour fully and fairly to discharge. Be-
sides, I have followed the lead of Washington through
seven years of war, and I have never been misled.
His name is subscribed to this Constitution. He

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 367

will not mislead us now. I shall vote for its adop-
tion” (Curtis, I. 10).

Colonel Webster was noted for manly beauty and
noble bearing, for tireless industry, broad intelligence,
and tenacious memory, and for most devoted and self-
sacrificing love for his childrers Of these there were
five by the first wife, who died in 1774; and five by
the second wife, Abigail Eastman, a lady of rare intel-
ligence and strength of character. The youngest son,
Daniel, was born on the 18th of January, 1782, so puny
and sickly a babe that it was thought he could not
live to grow up. Asa lad he was considered too deli-
cate for hard work on the farm, and was accordingly
allowed a great deal of time for play. Much of this
leisure he spent in fishing and hunting, or in roaming
about the woods, the rest in reading. He never could
remember when he learned to read. His thirst for
_knowledge was insatiable; he read every book that
came within reach, and conned his favourite authors
till he knew them by heart. In May, 1796, he was
sent to Exeter Academy, where he made rapid prog-
ress with his studies, but was so overcome by shyness
that he found it impossible to stand up and “speak
pieces” before his schoolmates. When he saw so
many eyes turned toward him, the words would not
come, the master’s encouraging remarks only added to
his confusion, and he would go away and cry from
vexation. But despite this timidity, his natural gifts
as an orator had already begun to show themselves.
His great, dark, lustrous eyes and rich voice, with its
musical inflections, were already exerting fascination
upon all who came within their range. Passing team-
sters would stop their horses, farmers at work in

368 DANIEL WEBSTER

the field would pause, sickle in hand, to hear him
recite verses from the Bible, Dr. Watts’s hymns, or
passages from Addison or Pope. Although Ebenezer
Webster found it difficult, by unremitting labour and
strictest economy, to support his numerous family, he
saw such signs of promise in Daniel as to convince
him that it was worth while, at whatever cost, to send
him to college. Accordingly, in February, 1797, he
took him from school, in order to hasten his prepara-
tory studies by the aid of a private tutor, the Rev..
Samuel Wood of Boscawen. It was on the sleigh-
ride to that town, as they were toiling up a mountain-
ous road through drifted snow, that Colonel Webster
informed Daniel of his plans. The sensitive, warm-
hearted boy, who had hardly dared hope for such good
fortune and keenly felt the sacrifice it involved, laid
his head upon his father’s shoulder and burst into
tears. After six months with his tutor, he had learned
enough to fulfil the slender requirements of those
days for admission to Dartmouth College, where he
was duly graduated in 1801. He did not take rank at
the head of his class, but it was observed that he was
capable of great industry, that he seized an idea with
surprising quickness, that his memory was prodigious,
and his power of lucid statement unrivalled. Along
with these enviable gifts he possessed that supreme
poetic quality that defies analysis but is at once recog-
nized as genius. He was naturally, therefore, consid-
ered by tutors and fellow-students the most remarkable
man in the college, and the position of superiority thus
early gained was easily maintained through life and
wherever he was placed. While at college he con-
quered or outgrew his boyish shyness, so as to take

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 369

pleasure in public speaking, and his eloquence soon
attracted so much notice that in 1800 the townspeople
of Hanover selected this undergraduate to deliver the
Fourth of July oration. There he began to preach that
love for the Constitution and the Union which was to
form his chief theme throughout life. After leaving
college he went into a lawyer’s office in Salisbury, and
began studying law; but he had made up his mind to
help his elder brother Ezekiel, of whom he was devot-
edly fond, to go through college, and this made it nec-
essary for him to earn money by teaching in a country
school. In July, 1804, he came to Boston in search of
employment in some office where he might complete
his studies. He was so fortunate as to find favour in
the eyes of Christopher Gore, just returned from his
mission to England. In Mr. Gore’s office, as student
and clerk, he could see some of the most eminent men
in New England. In 1805 he went to Boscawen, and
in two years’ time had acquired a good country prac-
tice, which. he turned over.to his brother Ezekiel. He
now removed to Portsmouth, where his reputation
grew rapidly, so that he was soon considered a worthy
antagonist to Jeremiah Mason, one of the greatest
_ lawyers this country has ever produced. In June,
1808, he married Miss Grace Fletcher, of Hopkinton,
New Hampshire. |

His first important political pamphlet, published
that year, was a criticism on the embargo.’ In 1812,

1TIn connection with the Embargo that aroused such wide controversy in
New England, a correspondent called Dr. Fiske’s attention to a jingle that was
passed from one to another of the wits of that generation, and was attributed
by some to Lucius Manlius Sargent. It ran as follows: —

“Take nothing from nothing and nothing remains ;
Who votes for the Embargo is a fool for his pains.”

2B

370 DANIEL WEBSTER

in a speech before the Washington Benevolent Society
_ at Portsmouth, he summarized the objections of the
New England people to the war just declared against
Great Britain. He was immediately afterward chosen
delegate to a convention of the people of Rockingham
County, and drew up the so-called “Rockingham
Memorial,” addressed to President Madison, which
contained a formal protest against the war. In the
following autumn he was elected to Congress, and on
taking his seat, in May, 1813, he was placed on the
Committee on Foreign Relations. His first step in
Congress was the introduction of a series of resolutions
aimed at the President, and calling for a statement
of the time and manner in which Napoleon’s pretended
revocation of his decrees against American shipping
had been announced to the United States. His first
great speech, January 14, 1814, was in opposition to the
bill for encouraging enlistments, and at the close of
that year he opposed Secretary Monroe’s measures for
enforcing what was known as the “draft of 1814.”
But while Mr. Webster’s attitude toward the adminis-
tration was that of the Federalist party to which he
belonged, he did not go so far as the leaders of that
party in New England. He condemned the embargo
as more harmful to ourselves than to the enemy, as
there is no doubt it was; he disapproved the policy of
invading Canada, and maintained that our wisest
course was to increase the strength of the navy; and
on these points history will. probably judge him to
have been correct. But in his opinion that the war
itself was unnecessary and injurious to the country, he
was probably, like most New Englanders of that time,
mistaken. Could he have foreseen and taken into the

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 371

account the rapid and powerful development of national
feeling in the United States which the war called forth,
it would have modified his view; for it is clear that the
war party, represented by Henry Clay and his friends,
was at that moment the truly national party, and Mr.
Webster’s sympathies were then, as always, in favour of
the broadest nationalism, and entirely opposed to every
sort of sectional or particularist policy. This broad
national spirit, which was strong enough in the two
Adamses to sever their connection with the Federalists
of New England, led Mr. Webster to use his influence
successfully to keep New Hampshire out of the Hart-
ford convention. In the 13th Congress, however, we
find him voting r91 times on the same side with
Timothy Pickering, and only 4 times on the opposite
side. Other questions were discussed besides those
relating to the war. In this and the next Congress
the most important work done by Mr. Webster was
concerned with the questions of currency and a
national bank. He did-good service in killing the
pernicious scheme for a bank endowed with the power
of issuing irredeemable notes and obliged to lend
money to the government. He was even disposed to
condemn outright the policy of allowing the govern-
ment to take any part whatever in the management of
the bank. He also opposed a protective tariff, but by _
supporting Mr. Calhoun’s bill for internal improve-
ments he put himself on record as a loose construc-
tionist. In the light of subsequent events it seems
odd to find Mr. Calhoun defending the policy of inter-
nal improvements on the ground of its tendency to
consolidate the Union, and it seems odd to find Mr.
Webster in cordial alliance with the great South

372 DANIEL WEBSTER

Carolinian upon this or any other question. But it is
to be borne-in mind that, owing to the concessions
made to slavery in the federal Constitution, South
Carolina was at first strongly Federalist in her politics,
and but for her attitude in this regard it is not at all -
likely that the Constitution would ever have been
ratified. It was the prompt action of South Carolina
in 1788 that killed the promising scheme of the Anti-
federalists of Virginia, headed by Patrick Henry, for a
separate Southern confederacy. It was not until after
1820 that South Carolina started upon the opposite
course, which in less than ten years was to carry her
to the verge of secession. It was the strength of the
Northern opposition to the admission of Missouri as a
slave state that first alarmed South Carolina; and her
political alliance with New England was broken when
the latter section of the country began to declare itself
in favour of high tariffs. But in 1816 it was quite
natural that, on a question concerning the general
powers of the federal government, Mr. Calhoun and
Mr. Webster should be found on the same side. In
the course of this session of Congress the cantankerous
Randolph saw fit to defy Mr. Webster to mortal com-
bat for words spoken in debate; but the challenge was
declined with grim humour. Mr. Webster said that he
did not feel called upon to expose his life at the request
of any other-man who might be willing to risk his
own; but he should always “be prepared to repel in a
suitable manner the aggression of any man” who
should venture to “presume upon such a refusal.”
Mr. Randolph had thus no alternative but to ignore
this very significant hint, and gracefully declare his
nice sense of honour quite satisfied.

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 373

At the expiration of his second term in Congress,
Mr. Webster retired for a while to private life. He
was in great need of money, and, moving from Ports-
mouth to Boston about this time, he soon found him-
self earning in his profession not less than $20,000 a
year. One of the first cases upon which he was now
engaged was the famous Dartmouth College affair.
While Mr. Webster’s management of this case went
far toward placing him at the head of the American
bar, the political significance of its decision was such
as to make it an important event in the history of the
United States. It shows Mr. Webster not only as a
great constitutional lawyer and consummate advocate,
but also as a powerful champion of federalism. In
its origin Dartmouth College was a missionary school
for Indians, founded in 1754 by the Rev. Eleazar
- Wheelock, at Lebanon, Connecticut. After a few
years, funds were raised by private subscription for
the purpose of enlarging the school into a college,
and as the Earl of Dartmouth had been one of the
chief contributors, Dr. Wheelock appointed him and
other persons trustees of the property. The site of
the college was fixed in New Hampshire, and a royal
charter in 1769 created it a perpetual corporation.
The charter recognized Wheelock as founder, and
appointed him president, with power to name his suc-
cessor, subject to confirmation by the trustees. Dr. .
Wheelock devised the presidency to his son John
Wheelock, who accordingly became his successor.
The charter, in expressly forbidding the exclusion of
any person on account of his religious belief, reflected
the broad and tolerant disposition of Dr. Wheelock,
who was a liberal Presbyterian, and as such had been

374 DANIEL WEBSTER

engaged in prolonged controversy with that famous
representative of the strictest Congregationalism, Dr.
Joseph Bellamy. In 1793, Bellamy’s pupil, Nathaniel
Niles, became a trustee of Dartmouth, and between
him and John Wheelock the old controversy was_
‘revived and kept up with increasing bitterness for
several years, dividing the board of trustees into two
hostile parties. At length, in 1809, the party opposed
to President Wheelock gained a majority in the board,
and thus became enabled in various ways to balk and
harass the president, until in 1815 the quarrel broke
forth into a war of pamphlets and editorial articles that
convulsed the whole state of New Hampshire. The
Congregational Church was at that time the estab-
lished church in New Hampshire, supported by taxa-
tion, and the Federalist party found its strongest
adherents among the members of that church. Natu-
rally, therefore, the members of other churches, and
persons opposed on general principles to the estab-
lishment of a state church, were inclined to take sides
with the Republicans. In 1815 President Wheelock
petitioned the legislature for a committee to investi-
gate the conduct of the trustees, whom he accused of
various offences, from intolerance in matters of reli-
gion to improper management of the funds. Thus the
affair soon became a party question, in which the
Federalists upheld the trustees, while the Republi-
cans sympathized with the president. The legisla-
ture granted the petition for a committee, but the
trustees forthwith, in a somewhat too rash spirit of
defiance, deposed Mr. Wheelock and chose a new
president, the Rev. Francis Brown. In the ensuing
state election Mr. Wheelock and his sympathizers

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 375

went over to the Republicans, who thus succeeded in
electing their candidate for governor, with a majority
of the legislature. In June, 1816, the new legislature
passed an act reorganizing the college, and a new
board of trustees was at once appointed by the gov-
ernor. Judge Woodward, secretary of the old board,
went over to the new board and became its secretary,
taking with him the college seal. The new board pro-
ceeded to expel the old board, which forthwith brought
suit against Judge Woodward in an action of trover
for the college seal. The case was tried in May, 1817,
with those two great lawyers, Jeremiah Mason and
Jeremiah Smith, as counsel for the plaintiffs. It was
then postponed till September, when Mr. Webster was
secured by the plaintiffs as an additional counsel. The
plaintiffs contended that in the case of a corporation
chartered for private uses, any alleged misconduct of
the trustees was properly a question for the courts,
and not for the legislature, which in meddling with
such a question plainly transcended its powers. Their
chief reliance was upon this point, but they contended
that the act of legislature reorganizing the college was
an act impairing the obligation of a contract, and
therefore violated the Constitution of the United
States. Nothing is more interesting or more signifi-
cant in the history of the case than the fact that
neither of the three great lawyers who represented the
plaintiffs at first attached much importance to this
second point, which to-day seems so obvious that we
only wonder how any one could ever for a moment
have hesitated about urging it. One could hardly
find anywhere a more forcible illustration of the
change which seventy years have wrought in our

376 DANIEL WEBSTER

conception of the sphere and duties of the federal
government; and one of the most potent factors in
that change was the decision of the Supreme Court in
this very case of Dartmouth College. The state court
at Exeter decided against the plaintiffs, and the deci-
sion would have been final had it not been for the
point which at first they had approached so gingerly,
but which now enabled them to carry up their case to
the Supreme Court of the United States.

It now remained to be seen whether the federal
tribunal would admit the position of the plaintiffs, -
or dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. As the elder
counsel were unable to go to Washington, it fell to
Mr. Webster to conduct the case, which was tried in
March, 1818. He argued that the charter of Dart-
mouth College created a private corporation for ad-
ministering a charity; that in the administration of
such uses the trustees have a recognized right of
property ; that the grant of such a charter is a contract
between the sovereign power and the grantees, and
descends to their successors, and that therefore the
act of the New Hampshire legislature, in taking away
the government from one board of trustees and con-
ferring it upon another, was a violation of contract,
and as such an infringement of the federal Constitu-
tion. These legal points were argued by Mr. Web-
ster with masterful cogency, and reénforced by
illustrations and allusions well calculated to appeal
to the Federalist sympathies of Chief Justice Marshall.
For, besides the legal interpretation, there was an
important political side to the question which recom-
mended it to the earnest consideration of the great
judge, who, in building up a new system of federal

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 377

jurisprudence. in accordance with the spirit of Eng-
lish precedents, was often to some extent obliged to
make law as well as declare it. Should the legislative
action of a state upon its own citizens be final, so that
there should be no secure shelter for vested rights
against the unchecked caprice of a mere majority
swayed by some momentary impulse; or was the
authority of the federal government competent to
insure that the state, in dealing with individuals or
with private corporations, should recognize certain
fundamental principles of law as sacred and unassail-
able? The latter alternative was, of course, the one
for which our federal Constitution was designed to
provide, but incalculable consequences depended upon
the extent of jurisdiction which, in accordance with
that instrument, might be claimed by the federal courts.
Here was a question that touched the master chord
in the natures alike of the mighty advocate and of
the mighty judge, and as the one spoke and the other
listened, it must have been, indeed, a memorable
scene. Mr. Webster possessed in the highest degree
the art of so presenting a case that the mere statement
seemed equivalent to demonstration ;and never perhaps
did he exhibit that art in greater perfection or use it to
better purpose than in this argument, in which the
political aspect of the case was plainly seen and felt,
but never allowed to intrude upon the foreground,
where the purely legal considerations were mustered.
The concluding sentences have often been remarked
as bold and consummate in their art, in suddenly
abandoning argument and appealing to emotion. But
the art in it was doubtless that best kind of art that
nature makes. Mr. Webster was a man of intense

378 DANIEL WEBSTER

feelings. He was not merely defending a great prin-
ciple of constitutional government, but he was pleading
the cause of the little college where, by dint of hard
work and many sacrifices, his brother Ezekiel and him-
self had obtained their education. Instead of describ-
ing in general terms what would happen if American
colleges were liable to be drawn into the political
arena and their government made the sport of contend-
ing parties, he closed his speech with these few sim-
ple words: “ This, sir, is my case. It is the case not
merely of that humble institution, it is the case of
every college in our land. ... Sir, you may destroy
this little institution ; it is weak, it is in your hands!
I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary
horizon of our country. You may put it out. But if
you do so, you must carry through your work! You
must extinguish one after another those greater lights
of science which for more than a century have thrown
their radiance over our land. It is, sir, as I have said,
a small college. And yet, there are those who love
it.” Here Mr. Webster’s voice trembled and his eyes
were wet with tears. Coming from this grand and
stately man, who for five hours had held judges and
audience spellbound by power of reasoning and beauty
of phrase, the effect of this natural burst of feeling
was extraordinary. Leaning forward in breathless
silence, with eyes suffused and with beating hearts,
judges and audience forgot all else in eager watching
of every movement of the speaker's face, when recover-
ing himself he said inhis most solemn tones, addressing
the chief justice: “Sir, I know not how others may
feel [glancing at the opponents of the college before
him], but for myself, when I see my Alma Mater sur-

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 379

rounded, like Czesar in the senate-house, by those who
are reiterating stab after stab, I would not for this
right hand have her turn to me and say, Z¢ ¢u guogue,
mt fill! And thou too, my son!” As he sat down,
said a gentleman who was present, “there was a death-
like stillness throughout the room for some moments;
every one seemed to be slowly recovering himself, and
coming gradually back to his ordinary range of thought
and feeling.” The decision of the court, rendered in
the following autumn, sustained Mr. Webster and set
aside the act of the legislature as unconstitutional. It
was one of those far-reaching decisions in which the
Supreme Court, under Marshall, fixed the interpretation
of the Constitution in such wise as to add greatly to
its potency as a fundamental instrument of government.
It was a case in which a contrary decision would
have altered the whole future of American law, and
would have modified our political and social develop-
ment in many ways. . The clause of our Constitution
prohibiting state legislation-in impairment of contracts,
like most such general provisions, stood in need of
judicial decisions to determine its scope. By bringing
under the protection of this clause every charter
granted by a state, the decision in the Dartmouth
College case went farther perhaps than any other in
our history toward limiting state sovereignty and
extending the federal jurisdiction.

This extension of federal power was, moreover,
entirely in the right direction. It was conservative,
pacific, and just in its tendencies. It is no part of the
legitimate business of government to help people in
business, whether under pretence of fostering domestic
industry, or what not; but it is the legitimate business

380 DANIEL WEBSTER

of government to preserve order and punish criminals,
to see that: contracts are fulfilled, that charters are kept
inviolate, and the foundations of human confidence not
rudely or wantonly disturbed, for only thus does the com-
munity insure for its members a fair field and no favour.

In the Dartmouth College case we may see one
chapter in Mr. Webster’s great life-work of strength-
ening the federal government and tightening the
bonds of pacific union among the states.

In the Massachusetts convention of 1820 for revis-"
ing the state constitution, he next played an impor-
tant part. He advocated with success the abolition
of religious tests for office-holders, and in a speech
in support of the feature of property representation
in the senate he examined the theory and practice of
bicameral legislation. His discussion of that subject
is well worthy of study. In the same year, at the
celebration of the second centennial of the landing of
the Pilgrims, his commemorative oration was one of
the noblest ever delivered. In 1825, on the laying
of the corner-stone of Bunker Hill monument, he
attained still higher perfection of eloquence; and one
year later, on the deaths of Adams and Jefferson, his
eulogy upon those statesmen completed a trio of his-
torical addresses unsurpassed in splendour. The
spirit which animates these orations is that of the
broadest patriotism, enlightened by a clear perception
of the fundamental importance of the federal union
between the states, and an ever present consciousness
of the mighty future of our country and its moral
significance in the history of the world. Such topics
have often been treated as commonplaces, and made
the theme of vapid rhetoric; but under Daniel

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 381

Webster’s treatment they acquired a_ philosophical
value, and were fraught with most serious and earnest
meaning. These orations were conceived in a spirit
of religious devotion to the Union, and contributed
powerfully toward awakening such a sentiment in
those who read them afterward, while upon those who
heard them from the lips of the majestic speaker the
impression was such as could never be effaced. The
historian must assign to them a high place among
the literary influences that aroused in the American
people a sentiment of union strong enough to endure
the shock of war.

In 1822 Mr. Webster was elected to Congress from
the Boston district, and was twice reélected by a popu-
lar vote that was almost unanimous. As chairman of
the Judiciary Committee of the House, he prepared
and carried the “crimes act,’ in which the criminal
‘jurisprudence of the federal courts was thoroughly
remodelled. The preparation of this bill showed in
a high degree his constructive genius as a legislator,
while in carrying it through Congress his parliamen-
tary skill and persuasiveness in debate were equally
conspicuous. Of his two most celebrated speeches in
Congress during this period, the first related to the
revolution in Greece. In January, 1824, Mr. Webster
brought forward a resolution in favour of making
provision for a commissioner to Greece, should Presi-
dent Monroe see fit to appoint one. In his speech on
this occasion, he set forth the hostility of the American
people to the principles, motives, and methods of the
Holy Alliance, and their sympathy with such struggles
for self-government as that in which the Greeks were
engaged. The resolution was not adopted, but the

382 DANIEL WEBSTER

speech gave its author a European reputation. It
was translated into almost all the languages of
Europe, from Gibraltar to the Volga, and called forth
much lively comment.

The other great speech, delivered in April, 1824;
was what is commonly called Mr. Webster’s “free
trade speech.” A bill had been introduced for revis-
ing the tariff in such a way as to extend the operation
of the protective system. In this speech Mr. Web-
ster found fault with the phrase “ American policy,” as
applied by Mr. Clay to the system of high protective
duties. “If names are thought necessary,” said Mr.
Webster, “it would be well enough, one would think,
that the name should be in some measure descriptive
of the thing; and since Mr. Speaker denominates the
policy which he recommends a ‘new policy in this
country’; since he speaks of the present measure as a
new era in our legislation; since he professes to invite
us to depart from our accustomed course, to instruct
ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the
policy of the most distinguished foreign states, — one
is a little curious to know with what propriety ‘of
speech this imitation of other nations is denominated
an ‘American policy, while, on the contrary, a prefer-
ence for our own established system, as it now actually
exists and always has existed, is called a ‘foreign
policy. This favourite American policy is what
America. has never tried; and this odious foreign
policy is what, as we are told, foreign states have never
pursued. Sir, that is the truest American policy
which shall most usefully employ American capital
and American labour.” After this exordium, Mr. Web-
ster went on to give a masterly exposition of. some of

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 383

the elementary theorems of political economy, and a
survey, at once comprehensive and accurate, of the
condition of American industry at the time. He not
only attacked Mr. Clay’s policy on broad national
grounds, but also showed more specifically that it was
likely to prove injurious to the maritime commerce in
which the New England states had so long taken the
lead; and he concluded by characterizing that policy
as “so burdensome and so dangerous to that interest
which has steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and
proudly distinguished us, that nothing can prevail
upon me to give it my support.” Upon this last clause
of his speech he was afterward enabled to rest a partial
justification of his change of attitude toward the tariff.

In politics Mr. Webster occupied at this time quite
an independent position. The old Federalist party,
to which he had formerly belonged, was completely
broken down, and the new National Republican party,
with its inheritance of many of the principles, motives,
and methods of the federalists, was just beginning to
take shape under the leadership of Adams and Clay.
Between these eminent statesmen and Mr. Webster,
the state of feeling was not such as to insure cordial
_ cooperation; but in their views of government there
was similarity enough to bring them together in oppo-
sition to the new Democratic party represented by
Jackson, Benton, and Van Buren. With the extreme
Southern views of Crawford and Calhoun it was im-
possible that he should sympathize, although his per-
sonal relations with those leaders were quite friendly,
and after the death of Calhoun the noblest eulogium
upon his character and motives was made by Mr.
Webster. Coleridge once said that every man is born

384 DANIEL WEBSTER

either an Aristotelian or a Platonist. There is a sense
in which all American statesmen may be said to
be intellectually the descendants and disciples, either
of Jefferson or of Hamilton, and as a representative
follower of Hamilton, Mr. Webster was sure to be’
drawn rather toward Clay than toward Jackson. The
course of industrial events in New England was such as
to involve changes of opinion in that part of the country,
which were soon reflected in a complete reversal of Mr.
Webster’s attitude toward the tariff. In 1827 he was
elected to the United States Senate. In that year an
agitation was begun by the woollen manufacturers,
which soon developed into a promiscuous scramble
among different industries for aid from government,
and finally resulted in the tariff of 1828. That act,
which was generally known at the time as “the tariff
of abominations,” was the first extreme application of
the protective system in our federal legislation. When
the bill was pending before the Senate in April, 1828,
Mr. Webster made a memorable speech, in which he
completely abandoned the position he had held in 1824,
and from this time forth he was a supporter of the
policy of Mr. Clay and the protectionists. For this
change of attitude he was naturally praised by his new
allies, who were glad to interpret it as a powerful argu-
ment in favour of their views. By every one else he
was blamed, and this speech has often been cited, to-
gether with that of March 7, 1850, as proving that Mr.
Webster was governed by unworthy motives and want-
ing in political principle. The two cases, as we shall
see, are in many respects parallel. In neither case did
Mr. Webster attempt to conceal or disguise his real
motives. In 1828 he frankly admitted that the policy

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 385

of protection to manufacturers, by means of tariff duties,
was a policy of which he had disapproved, whether as
a political economist or as a representative of the inter-
ests of New England. Against his own opposition
and that of New England the act of 1824 had passed.
“ What, then, was New England todo? ... Was she
to hold out forever against the course of the govern-
ment, and see herself losing on one side and yet make
no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
Nothing was left for New England but to conform her-
self to the will of others. Nothing was left to her but
to consider that the government had fixed and deter-
mined its own policy; and that policy was protection.”
In other words, the tariff policy adopted at Washing-
ton, while threatening the commercial interests’ of
New England, had favoured the investment of capital
in manufactures there, and it was not becoming ina
_ representative of New England to take part in disturb-
ing the new arrangement of things. This argument,
if pushed far enough, would_end in the doctrine — now
apparently obsolete, though it has often been attacked
and defended —that a senator is simply the ambas-
sador of his state in Congress. With Mr. Webster it
went so far as to modify essentially his expressions of
opinion as to the constitutionality of protective legis-
lation. He had formerly been inclined to interpret
the Constitution strictly upon this point, but in 1828
and afterward his position was that of the loose con-
structionists. From the economic point of view he
would doubtless have been a safer guide for New Eng-
land had he insisted upon acting up to the full meas-
ure of his convictions. He was too honest a thinker
to be able to conceal the real workings of his mind,
2C

386 DANIEL WEBSTER

and his speeches in defence of the high tariff policy
never once had the ring of true metal. Other men
might be fooled by the sophistry of protectionism, but
he was not. It would be unfair, however, to charge
him with conscious dereliction to principle in this
matter. It would be more just and more correct to
say that, amid the complication of conflicting interests,
he felt it necessary to subordinate one question to an-
other that was at that time clearly more important.
His conduct was far more the result of his strong Fed-
eralist bias than of the temperament which has some-
times been called “ opportunism.”

This tariff of 1828 soon furnished an occasion for
the display of his strong Federalist spirit in a way that
was most serviceable for his country and has earned
for him undying fame as an orator and statesman. It
led to the distinct announcement of the principles of
nullification by the public men of South Carolina, with
Mr. Calhoun at their head. During President Jack-
son's first term the question as to nullification seemed
to occupy everybody’s thoughts, and had a way of
intruding upon the discussion of all other questions.
In December, 1829, Samuel A. Foote of Connecticut
presented to the Senate a resolution inquiring into
the expediency of limiting the sales of the public lands
to those already in the market, besides suspending the
surveys of the public lands and abolishing the office
of Surveyor-general. The resolution was quite natu-
rally resented by the Western senators, as having a
tendency to check the growth of their section of the
country. The debate was opened by Mr. Benton, and
lasted several weeks, with increasing bitterness. The
belief in the hostility of the New England states toward

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 387

the West was shared by many Southern senators, who
desired to unite South and West in opposition to the
tariff. On the 19th of January, 1830, Robert Y. Hayne
of South Carolina attacked the New England states,
accusing them of aiming by their protective policy at
agerandizing themselves at the expense of all the rest
of the Union. On the next day Mr. Webster deliv-
ered his “first speech on Foote’s resolution,” in which
he took up Mr. Hayne’s accusations and answered them
with great power. This retort provoked a long and
able reply from Mr. Hayne, in which he not only
assailed Mr. Webster and Massachusetts and New
England, but set forth quite ingeniously and elabo-
rately the doctrines of nullification. In view of the
political agitation then going on in South Carolina, it
was felt that this speech would work practical mischief
unless it should meet with instant refutation. It was
finished on the 25th of January, and on the next two
days Mr. Webster delivered his “second speech on
Foote’s resolution,” better known in history. as the
“Reply to Hayne.” The debate had now lasted so
long that people had come from different parts of the
country to Washington to hear it, and on the 26th of
January the crowd not only filled the galleries and
invaded the floor of the senate-chamber, but occupied
all the lobbies and entries within hearing and even
beyond. In the first part of his speech Mr. Webster »
replied to the aspersions upon himself and New Eng-
land; in the second part he attacked with weighty
argument and keen-edged sarcasm the doctrine of nulli-
fication. He did not undertake to deny the right of
revolution, as a last resort in cases with which legal
and constitutional methods are found inadequate to

388 DANIEL WEBSTER

deal; but he assailed the theory of the Constitution
maintained .by Calhoun and his followers, according
to which nullification was a right the exercise of which
was compatible with loyal adherence to the Constitu-
tion. His course of argument was twofold: he sought -
to show, first, that the theory of the Constitution as a
terminable league or compact between sovereign states
was unsupported by the history of its origin, and sec-
ondly, that the attempt, on the part of any state, to act
upon that theory must necessarily entail civil war or
the disruption of the Union. As to the sufficiency
of his historical argument, there has been much differ-
ence of opinion. The question is difficult to deal with
in such a way as to reach an unassailable conclusion,
and the difficulty is largely due to the fact that in the
various ratifying conventions of 1787-1789 the men
who advocated the adoption of the Constitution did
not all hold the same opinions as to the significance of
what they were doing. There was great divergence
of opinion, and plenty of room for antagonisms of
interpretation to grow up as irreconcilable as those
of Webster and Calhoun. If the South Carolina doc-
trine distorted history in one direction, that of Mr. Web-
ster certainly departed somewhat from the record in
the other; but the latter was fully in harmony with the
actual course of our national development and with
the increased and increasing strength of the sentiment
of union at the time when it was propounded with
such powerful reasoning and such magnificent elo-
quence in the “Reply to Hayne.” As an appeal to
the common sense of the American people, nothing
could be more masterly than Mr. Webster’s demon-
stration that nullification practically meant revolution ;

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 389

and their unalterable opinion of the soundness of his
argument was amply illustrated when at length the
crisis came, which he deprecated with such intensity
of emotion in his concluding sentences. To some of
the senators who listened to the speech, as for instance
Thomas H. Benton, it seemed as if the passionate elo-
quence of its close concerned itself with imaginary
dangers never likely to be realized; but the event
showed that Mr. Webster estimated correctly the
perilousness of the doctrine against which he was con-
tending. For genuine oratorical power, the “ Reply
to Hayne” is probably the greatest speech that has
been delivered since the oration of Demosthenes on
the crown. The comparison is natural, as there are
points in the American orator that forcibly remind
one of the Athenian. There is the fine sense of pro-
‘portion and fitness, the massive weight of argument
due to transparent clearness and matchless symmetry
of statement, and along with the rest a truly Attic sim-
plicity of diction. Mr. Webster never indulged in mere
rhetorical flights; his sentences, simple in structure
and weighted with meaning, went straight to the
mark; and his arguments were so skilfully framed that,
while his most learned and critical hearers were im-
pressed with a sense of their conclusiveness, no man
of ordinary intelligence could fail to understand them.
To these high qualifications of the orator was added .
such a physical presence as but few men have been
endowed with. I believe it was Carlyle who said of
him, “I wonder if any man can possibly be as great as
he looks!”' Mr. Webster’s appearance was indeed

1In his paper on Andrew Jackson and American Democracy, page 270 of this
volume, Dr. Fiske refers to the bright blue coat with brass buttons and buff waist-
coat as worn by Daniel Webster, which came to be a symbol of Americanism. In

390 DANIEL WEBSTER

one of unequalled dignity and power, his voice was
rich and musical, and the impressiveness of his deliv-
ery was enhanced by the depth of genuine manly feel-
ing with which he spoke. Yet while his great speeches
owed so much of their overpowering effect to the look .
and manner of the man, they were at the same time
masterpieces of literature. Like the speeches of De-
mosthenes, they were capable of swaying the reader as
well as the hearer, and their effects went far beyond
the audience and far beyond the occasion of their
delivery.

In all these respects the “ Reply to Hayne” marks
the culmination of Mr. Webster’s power as an orator.
Of all the occasions of his life, this encounter with the

discussing “ the provincialism of ane bellum days,” the late Mr. Justin Winsor wrote
Dr. Fiske, February 3, 1892, as follows: “.. . the blue coat and brass buttons,
which so grandly set off the figure of Webster —I remember him in them often.
He wore them when he made that speech at Marshfield, in which he showed
his bitter disappointment that the Whigs had not nominated him rather than
Taylor, and I was close to him during the whole of it. But I never supposed that
it was solely because it gave brilliancy to a dignified carriage that he clung to
that costume; but rather because it showed the Whig colours of blue and yellow,
which Fox and his fellows had made common in precisely the same way in Eng-
land during the early years of the century; and indeed I think George IV. when
Regent wore it, when not in state. Certainly it was not an uncommon dress in
Europe at a later period. When I was there in the early fifties, I had a dress
coat of blue, with brass buttons, made in Paris, and I was not by any means
singular in wearing it in company in Paris and Heidelberg.”

A note on Dr. Boott, “ Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” 2d edition, page
294, throws further light on this point: “ Francis Boott (born 1792, died 1863)

was ... well known in connection with the Linnzan Society.... Heis
destined (in a biographical sketch published in the. Gardener’s Chronicle, 1864)
as having been one of the first physicians in London who gave up the customary
black coat, knee breeches, and silk stockings, and adopted the ordinary dress of
the period, a blue coat with brass buttons and a buff waistcoat, a costume which
he continued to wear to the last.”

Though the blue-tailed coat was indeed an ordinary gentleman’s costume in
England, it stood, as may be seen from coloured prints of the day, rather for quiet
and dignity than for “smartness” and fashion. In the United States it certainly
developed independently into what Daniel Webster made it—a symbol of
Americanism.

*

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 39I

doctrine of nullification on its first bold announcement
in the Senate was certainly the greatest; and the
speech was equal to the occasion. It struck a chord
in the heart of the American people which had not
ceased to vibrate when the crisis came thirty years
later. It gave articulate expression to a sentiment of
loyalty to the Union that went on growing until the
American citizen was as prompt to fight for the Union
as the Mussulman for his Prophet or the Cavalier for
his king. It furnished, moreover, a clear and compre-
hensive statement of the theory by which that senti-
ment of loyalty was justified. Of the men who in
after years gave up their lives for the Union, doubt-
less the greater number had as schoolboys declaimed
passages from this immortal speech and caught some
inspiration from its fervid patriotism. Probably no
other ‘speech ever made in Congress has found so
many readers or exerted so much influence in giving
_ shape to men’s thoughts.

Three years afterward Mr. Webster returned to the
struggle with nullification, being now pitted against
the master of that doctrine instead of the disciple.
In the interval South Carolina had attempted to put
the doctrine into practice, and had been resolutely
‘met by President Jackson with his proclamation of
the roth of December, 1832. In response to a spe-
cial message from the President, early in January,
1833, the so-called “force bill,’ empowering the
President to use the army and navy, if necessary, for
enforcing the revenue laws in South Carolina, was
reported in the Senate. The bill was opposed by
Democrats who did not go so far as to approve of
nullification, but the defection of these senators was

392 DANIEL WEBSTER

more than balanced by the accession of Mr. Webster, —
who upon this measure came promptly to the support
of the administration. For this, says Benton, “his
motives ... were attacked, and he was accused of
subserviency to the President for the sake of future
favour. At the same time, all the support which he
gave to these measures was the regular result of the
principles which he laid down against nullification in
the debate with Mr. Hayne, and he could not have
done less without being derelict to his own principles
then avowed. It was a proud era in his life, support-’
ing with transcendent ability the cause of the Consti-
tution and of the country, in the person of a chief
magistrate to whom he was politically opposed, bursting
the bonds of party at the call of duty, and display-
ing a patriotism worthy of admiration and imitation.
General Jackson felt the debt of gratitude and admira-
tion which he owed him; the country, without distinc-
tion of party, felt the same. . .. He was the colossal
figure on the political stage during that eventful time;
and his labours, splendid in their day, survive for the
benefit of distant posterity” (“ Thirty Years’ View,”
I. 334). The support of the President’s policy by Mr.
Webster, and its enthusiastic approval by nearly all
the Northern and a great many of the Southern peo-
ple, seems to have alarmed Mr. Calhoun, probably not
so much for his personal safety as for the welfare of
his nullification schemes. The story that he was
frightened by the rumour that Jackson had threatened
to begin by arresting him on a charge of treason is
now generally discredited. He had seen enough,
however, to convince him that the theory of peace-
ful nullification was not now likely to be realized. It

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 393

was not his aim to provoke an armed collision, and
accordingly a momentary alliance was made between
himself and Mr. Clay, resulting in the compromise
tariff bill of the 12th of February, 1833. Only four
days elapsed between Mr. Webster’s announcement of
his intention to support the President and the intro-
duction of this compromise measure. Mr. Webster
at once opposed the compromise, both as unsound
economically and as an unwise and dangerous conces-
sion to the threats of the nullifiers. At this point the
force bill was brought forward, and Mr. Calhoun
made his great speech, February 15 and 16, in
support of the resolutions he had introduced on the
22d of January, affirming the doctrine of nullifica-
tion. To this Mr. Webster replied, February 16,
with his speech entitled “The Constitution not a
Compact between Sovereign States,” in which he sup-
plemented and reénforced the argument of the “ Reply
to Hayne.” Mr. Calhoun’s answer, February 26, was
perhaps the most powerful speech he ever delivered,
and Mr. Webster did not reply to it at length. The
burden of the discussion was, what the American peo-
ple really did when they adopted the federal Consti-
tution. Did they simply create a league between
‘sovereign states, or did they create a national govern-
ment, which operates immediately upon individuals,
and, without superseding the state governments, stands
superior to them and claims a prior allegiance from
all citizens? It is now plain to be seen that in point
of fact they did create such a national government ;
but how far they realized at the outset what they were
doing is quite another question. Mr. Webster’s main
conclusion was sustained with colossal strength; but

394 DANIEL WEBSTER

his historical argument was in some places weak, and
the weakness is unconsciously betrayed in a disposi-
tion toward wire-drawn subtlety, from which Mr.
Webster was usually quite free. His ingenious rea-
soning upon the meaning of such words as “compact”
and “accede” was easily demolished by Mr. Calhoun,
who was, however, more successful in hitting upon his
adversary’s vulnerable points than in making good his
own case. In fact, the historical’ question was not
really so simple as it presented itself to the minds of
those two great statesmen. But in whatever way it:
was to be settled, the force of Mr. Webster’s practical
conclusions remained, as he declared in the brief re-
joinder with which he ended the discussion, — “ Mr.
President, turn this question over and present it as
we will—argue it as we may—exhaust upon it all
the fountains of metaphysics — stretch over it all the
meshes of logical or political subtlety — it still-comes
to this, Shall we have a general government? Shall
we continue the union of the states under a govern-
ment instead of a league? This is the upshot of the
whole matter; because, if we are to have a govern-
ment, that government must act like other govern-
ments, by majorities; it must have this power, like
other governments, of enforcing its own laws and its
own decisions; clothed with authority by the people
and always responsible to the people, it must be able
to hold its course unchecked by external interposition.
According to the gentleman’s views of the matter, the
Constitution is a “ague; according to mine, it is a
regular popular government. This vital and all-impor-
tant question the people will decide, and in deciding
it they will determine whether, by ratifying the pres-

, AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 395

ent Constitution and Frame of Government, they
meant to do nothing more than to amend the articles
of the old confederation.” As the immediate result of
the debates, both the force bill and the compromise
tariff bill were adopted, and this enabled Mr. Calhoun
to maintain that the useful and conservative character
of nullification had been demonstrated, since the action
of South Carolina had, without leading to violence,
led to such modifications of the tariff as she desired.
But the abiding result was, that Mr. Webster had set
forth the theory upon which the Union was to be
preserved, and that the administration, in acting upon
that theory, had established a precedent for the next
administration that should be called upon to confront
a similar crisis.

The alliance between Mr. Webster and President
Jackson extended only to the question of maintaining
the Union. Asan advocate of the"policy of a national
bank, a protective tariff, and internal improvements,
Mr. Webster’s natural place was by the side of Mr.
Clay in the Whig party, which was now in the process
of formation. He was also at one with both the
Northern and the Southern sections of the Whig party
in opposition to what Mr. Benton called the “demos
_krateo” principle, according to which the President,
in order to carry out the “will of the people,” might
feel himself authorized to override the constitutional
limitations upon his power. This was not precisely
what Mr. Benton meant by his principle, but it was
the way in which it was practically illustrated in Jack-
son’s war against the bank. In the course of this
struggle, Mr. Webster made more than sixty speeches,
remarkable for their wide and accurate knowledge of ©

396 DANIEL WEBSTER

finance. His consummate mastery of statement is
nowhere more thoroughly exemplified than in these
speeches. Constitutional questions were brought up by
Mr. Clay’s resolutions censuring the President for the
removal of the deposits and for dismissing William J.
Duane, Secretary of the Treasury. In reply to the
resolutions, President Jackson sent to the Senate his
remarkable “ Protest,” in which he maintained that
in the mere discussion of such resolutions that body
transcended its constitutional prerogatives, and that
the President is the “direct representative of the
American people,” charged with the duty, if need be,
of protecting them against the usurpations of Con-
gress. The Whigs maintained, with much truth, that
this doctrine, if carried out in all its implications,
would push democracy to the point where it merges
in Czesarism. It was now that the opposition began
to call themselves Whigs, and tried unsuccessfully
to stigmatize the President’s supporters as “ Tories.”
Mr. Webster’s speech on the President’s protest, |
May 7, 1834, was one of great importance, and should
be read by every student of our constitutional history.
In another elaborate speech, February 16, 1835, he
tried to show that under a proper interpretation of
the Constitution the power of removal, like the power
of appointment, was vested in the President and Sen-
ate conjointly, and that “the decision of Congress in
1789, which separated the power of removal from the
power of appointment, was founded on an erroneous
construction of the Constitution.” But subsequent
opinion has upheld the decision of 1789, leaving the
speech to serve as an illustration of the way in which,
under the stress of a particular contest, the Whigs

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 397

were as ready to strain the Constitution in one direc-
tion as the Democrats were inclined to bend it in
another. An instance of the latter kind was Mr. Ben-
ton’s expunging resolution, against which Mr. Webster
emphatically protested.

About this time Mr. Webster was entertaining
thoughts of retiring, for a while at least, from public
life. As he said in a letter to a friend, he had not for
fourteen years had leisure to attend to his private
affairs or to become acquainted by travel with his
own country. This period had not, however, been
entirely free from professional work. It was seldom
that Mr. Webster took part in criminal trials, but in
this department of legal practice he showed himself
qualified to take rank with the greatest advocates that
have ever addressed a jury. His speech for the prose-
-cution, on the trial of the murderers of Captain Joseph
White, at Salem, in August, 1830, has been pro-
nounced equal to the finest speeches of Lord Erskine.
In the autumn of 1824, while driving in a chaise with
his wife from Sandwich to Boston, he stopped at the
beautiful farm of Captain John Thomas, by the sea-
shore at Marshfield. For the next seven years his
family passed their summers at this place as guests
of Captain Thomas; and as the latter was growing old
and willing to be eased of the care of the farm, Mr.
Webster bought it of him in the autumn of 1831. |
Captain Thomas continued to live there, until his
death in 1837, as Mr. Webster’s guest. For the latter
it became the favourite home whither he retired in the
intervals of public life. It was a place, he said, where
he “could go out every day in the year and see some-
thing new.” Mr. Webster was very fond of the sea.

398 DANIEL WEBSTER

He had also a passion for country life, for all the sights
and sounds of the farm, for the raising of fine animals,
as well as for hunting and fishing. The earlier years
of Mr. Webster’s residence at Marshfield, and of his
service in the United States Senate, witnessed some’
serious events in his domestic life. Death removed
his wife, January 21, 1828, and his brother Ezekiel,
April 10, 1829. In December, 1829, he married Miss
Caroline Le Roy, daughter of a wealthy merchant in
New York. Immediately after this second marriage .
came the “Reply to Hayne.” The beginning of a
new era in his private life coincided with the begin-
ning of a new era in his career as a statesman. After
1830 Mr. Webster was recognized as one of the great-
est powers in the nation, and it seemed natural that
the presidency should be offered to sucha man. His
talents, however, were not those of a party leader.
He was always too independent. The earliest elec-
tion at which he could have been a candidate for the
presidency was that of 1832, and then there could be
no doubt that Mr. Clay represented much more com-
pletely than Mr. Webster the doctrines of paternal
government opposed by President Jackson. In the
helter-skelter scramble of 1836 the legislature of Mas-
sachusetts nominated Mr. Webster, and he received
the electoral vote of that state alone. The newly
formed Whig party was inclined to withhold its true
leaders and put forward a western soldier, General
Harrison, in the hope of turning to their own uses
the same kind of unreflecting popular enthusiasm
which had carried General Jackson to the White
House. In this policy, aided by the commercial dis-
tress which began in 1837, they succeeded in 1840.

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 399

Mr. Webster then accepted the office of Secretary of
State in the Harrison-Tyler administration, and soon
showed himself as able in diplomacy as in other de-
partments of statesmanship. A complication of diffi-
culties with Great Britain seemed to be bringing us
to the verge of war. There was the long-standing
dispute about the northeastern boundary, which had
not been adequately defined by the treaty of 1783, and
along with the renewal of this controversy there came
up the cases of McLeod and the steamer Caroline, the
slave-ship Cyveole, and all the manifold complications
which these cases involved. The Oregon question,
too, was looming in the background. In disen-
tangling these difficulties, Mr. Webster showed rare
tact and discretion. He was fortunately helped by
the change of ministry in England, which transferred
‘the management of foreign affairs from the hands of
Lord Palmerston to those of Lord Aberdeen. Ed-
ward Everett was then in London, and Mr. Webster
secured his appointment as minister to Great Britain.
In response to this appointment, Lord Ashburton,
whose friendly feeling toward the United States was
known to every one, was sent over on a special mis-
sion to confer with Mr. Webster; and the result was
the Ashburton treaty of 1842, by which an arbitrary
and conventional line was adopted for the northeastern
boundary, while the loss thereby suffered by the states |
of Maine and Massachusetts was to be indemnified
by the United States. It was also agreed that Great
Britain and the United States should each keep its
own squadron to watch the coast of Africa for the
suppression of the slave-trade, and that in this good
work each nation should separately enforce its own

400 DANIEL WEBSTER

laws. This clause of the treaty was known as the
“cruising convention.” The old grievance of the
impressment of seamen, which had been practically
abolished by the glorious victories of American frig-
ates in the War of 1812-1815, was now formally.
ended by Mr. Webster’s declaration to Lord Ashbur-
ton that henceforth American vessels would not sub-
mit themselves to be searched. Henceforth the
enforcement of the so-called “right of search” bya
British ship would be regarded by the United States
as a casus belli. When all the circumstances are con-
sidered, this Ashburton treaty shows that Mr. Web-
ster’s powers as a diplomatist were of a high order.
In the hands of an ordinary statesman, the affair
might easily have ended in a war; but his manage-
ment was so dexterous that, as we now look back
upon the negotiation, we find it hard to realize that
there was any real danger. Perhaps there could be
no more conclusive proof, or more satisfactory meas-
ure, of his success.

While these important negotiations were going on,
great changes had come over the political horizon.
There had been a quarrel between the Northern and
Southern sections of the Whig party, and on the 11th
of September, 1841, all the members of President Ty-
ler’s cabinet, except Mr. Webster, resigned. It seems
to have been believed by many of the Whigs that a
unanimous resignation on the part of the cabinet
would force President Tyler to resign. The idea
came from a misunderstanding of the British custom
in similar cases, and it is an incident of great interest
to the student of American history; but there was
not the slightest chance that it should be realized.

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 401

Had there been any such chance, Mr. Webster de-
feated it by staying at his post in order to finish the
treaty with Great Britain. The Whigs were inclined
to attribute his conduct to unworthy motives, and no
sooner had the treaty been signed, on August 9, 1842,
than the newspapers began calling upon him to re-
sign. The treaty was ratified in the Senate by a vote
of thirty-nine to nine, but it had still to be adopted
by Parliament, and much needless excitement was
occasioned on both sides of the ocean by the discov-
ery of an old map in Paris, sustaining the British
view of the northeastern boundary, and another in
London, sustaining the American view. Mr. Web-
ster remained at his post in spite of popular clam-
our, until he knew the treaty to be quite safe. In the
hope of driving him from the cabinet, the Whigs in
Massachusetts held a convention and declared that
President Tyler was no longer a member of their
party. On a visit to Boston, Mr. Webster made a
noble speech in Faneuil Hall, September 30, 1842,
in the course of which he declared that he was neither
to be coaxed nor driven into an action which in his
own judgment was not conducive to the best interests
_of the country. He knew very well that by such
independence he was likely to injure his chances for
nomination to the presidency. He knew that a move-
ment in favour of Mr. Clay had begun in Massachu-
setts, and that his own course was adding greatly to
the impetus of that movement. But his patriotism
rose superior to all personal considerations. In May,
1843, having seen the treaty firmly established, he
resigned the secretaryship and returned to the prac-
tice of his profession in Boston. In the canvass of

2D

402 DANIEL WEBSTER

1844 he supported Mr. Clay in a series of able
speeches. .On Mr. Choate’s resignation, early in 1845,
Mr. Webster was reélected to the Senate. The two
principal questions of Mr. Polk’s administration re-
lated to the partition of Oregon and the difficulties
which led to the war with Mexico. The Democrats
declared that we must have the whole of Oregon up to
the parallel of 50° 40’, although the 4gth parallel had
already been suggested asa compromise line. Ina very
able speech at Faneuil Hall, Mr. Webster advocated
the adoption of this compromise. The speech was
widely read in England and on the continent of Europe,
and Mr. Webster followed it up with a private letter
to Mr. Macgregor of Glasgow, expressing a wish that
the British government might see fit to offer the 49th
parallel as a boundary line. The letter was shown
to Lord Aberdeen, who adopted the suggestion, and
the dispute accordingly ended in the partition of
Oregon between the United States and Great Britain.

During the operations on the Texas frontier, which
brought on war with Mexico, Mr. Webster was absent
from Washington. Inthe summer of 1847 he travelled
through the Southern states, and was everywhere re-
ceived with much enthusiasm. He opposed the prose-
cution of the war for the sake of acquiring more
territory, because he foresaw that such a policy must
speedily lead to a dangerous agitation of the slavery
question. The war brought General Zachary Taylor
into the foreground as a candidate for the presidency,
and some of the Whig managers actually proposed to
nominate Mr. Webster as Vice-president on the same
ticket with General Taylor. He indignantly refused
to accept such a proposal; but Mr. Clay’s defeat in

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 403

1844 had made many Whigs afraid to take him again
as a candidate, Mr. Webster was thought to be al-
together too independent, and there was a feeling
that General Taylor was the most available candidate
and the only one who could supplant Mr. Clay. These
circumstances led to Taylor’s nomination, which Mr.
Webster at first declined to support. He disapproved
of soldiers as Presidents, and characterized the nomi-
nation as “one not fit to be made.” At the same time
he was far from ready to support Mr. Van Buren and
the Free-soil party, yet in his situation some decided
action was necessary. Accordingly, in his speech at
Marshfield, September 1, 1848, he declared that, as
the choice was really between General Taylor and
General Cass, he should support the former. It has
been contended that in this Mr. Webster made a
great mistake, and that his true place in this canvass
would have been with the Free-soil party. He had
always been opposed to the further extension of
slavery; but it is to be borne in mind that he looked
with dread upon the rise of an antislavery party that
should be supported only in the Northern states.
Whatever tended to array the North and the South in
opposition to each other, Mr. Webster wished espe-
cially to avoid. The ruling purpose of his life was to
do what he could to prevent the outbreak of a con-
flict that might end in the disruption of the Union; |
and it may well have seemed that there was more
safety in sustaining the Whig party in electing its
candidate by the aid of Southern votes, than in help-
ing into life a new party that should be purely sectional.
At the same time, this cautious policy soon came to
involve an amount of concession to Southern demands

404. DANIEL WEBSTER

far greater than the rapidly growing antislavery senti-
ment in the Northern states would readily tolerate.
No doubt Mr. Webster’s policy in 1848 pointed logi-
cally toward his last great speech, March 7, 1850, in
which he supported Mr. Clay’s elaborate compromises:
for disposing of the difficulties which had grown out
of the vast extension of territory consequent upon the
Mexican War. This speech aroused intense indigna-
tion at the North, and especially in Massachusetts. It
was regarded by many people as a deliberate sacrifice

of principle to policy. In order to secure the admis-—
sion of California to the Union as a free state, it had
been thought necessary to make some grave conces-
sions to the Southerners, and among these concessions
was the fugitive slave law, to which Mr. Webster, out
of his overmastering desire to serve the Union and
avoid Civil War, felt himself obliged to yield a reluc-
tant consent. It was the saddest moment in his
career, and covered him with obloquy such as has
sufficed in many minds to dim and obscure his great
fame. For ordinary men to succumb under the stress
of Southern bluster and dictation might seem pardon-
able; but it was felt that Daniel Webster should have
been capable of better things. The swelling tide of
popular sentiment in Massachusetts found expression
in the pathetic but terrible sermon of Theodore
Parker, preached just after Webster’s death. Let us
listen, after these fifty years, to the words of the
preacher. “Do men now mourn for him, the great
man eloquent? I put on sackcloth long ago. I
mourned when he spoke the speech of the Seventh
of March. I mourned for him when the fugitive
slave bill passed Congress, . . . when the kidnap-

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 405

pers first came to Boston, . . . when Ellen Craft fled
to my house for shelter and for succour, and for the
first time in all my life I armed this hand.... |
mourned when the court-house was hung in chains;
when Thomas Sims, from his dungeon, sent out his
petition for prayers, and the churches did not dare
to pray. I mourned when that poor outcast in yonder
dungeon sent for me to visit him, and when I took
him by the hand which Daniel Webster was chaining
in that hour. I mourned for Webster when we prayed
our prayer and sang our psalm on Long Wharf in the
morning’s gray. I mourned then; I shall not cease
tomourn. The flags will be removed from the streets,
the cannon will sound their other notes of joy; but for
me, I shall go mourning all my days. I shall refuse
to be comforted. O Webster! Webster! would God _
_ that I had died for thee!”

There is no sense in which these words of the great
scholar and preacher find a ready response in the
hearts of all of us to-day. When we look only at the
simple fact that the demon of slavery had conjured
American politics into such a hopeless coil that a head
so clear and a heart so kind as Daniel Webster’s could
for a moment be beguiled into making terms with it,
our feeling is likely to be that which Parker expressed
with such intensity. But is such a feeling really just
to Webster? Is it the kind of feeling which the his- .
torian ought to entertain toward him? I think not.
When Mr. Parker published his sermon, a few months
afterward, he said in his preface that he was not so
vain as to fancy that he had never been mistaken in
his judgments upon Mr. Webster's actions or motives;
the next generation would be better able to judge that

406 DANIEL WEBSTER

statesman than his own contemporaries. And curi-
ously enough, Mr. Parker added, by way of illustration,
“Thomas Hutchinson and John Adams are better
known now than at the day of their death; five and
twenty years hence they will both be better known.
than at present.” Of course the maker of this
prophecy could not have dreamed of such a revolution
as has since overtaken Hutchinson’s reputation in the
eyes of enlightened critics. The grand old Tory gov-
ernor we no longer scout as a turncoat and traitor,
but we honour him for the conscientious steadfastness ~
with which he pursued a policy which we nevertheless
pronounce mistaken. In Webster’s case I believe we
may go farther, and call his Seventh of March speech
not only brave and honest, but statesmanlike and
sound. When political passion finds free vent, it is
apt to ascribe to men the lowest of motives. So Mr.
Webster was accused of sacrificing his convictions and
truckling to the South, in order to obtain Southern
support for the presidency. But a comprehensive
survey of his political career renders such an interpre-
tation highly improbable. His conduct in remaining
in Mr. Tyler’s cabinet was one of the capital instances
of moral courage to be found in American history;
and his habitual independence of party was not the
sort of thing that is wont to characterize timid seekers
after the presidency. That Mr. Webster strongly
wished to be President is not to be denied; but his
mental attitude was the proud one that rather claimed
it as a right than asked it as a favour. It was like the
feeling of the soldier whose unexampled services have
earned the right to assume the weightiest responsibility
in the widest field of action. I do not believe that

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 407

Mr. Webster ever sacrificed his convictions to selfish
or unworthy motives. That he now and then sacri-
ficed certain convictions to certain other convictions,
when he felt himself driven to such a bitter alternative,

_ I would freely admit; but that is a very different thing.

In 1850 he subordinated his feelings about slavery,
just as in 1828 he had subordinated his views on the
tariff to the paramount necessity of saving the Union.
In the later instance, as in the earlier, there was immi-
nent danger of nullification or secession on the part of
South Carolina; and in 1850 there was added danger
that the Gulf states might follow the lead of their im-
placable sister. Compromise seemed necessary. We
have seen that, as in 1833, Mr. Webster did not always
approve of compromises; but there was a special
reason for supporting those of Mr. Clay in 1850. They
‘seemed to Mr. Webster a conclusive settlement of the
slavery question. The whole territory of the United
States, as he said, was now covered with compromises,
and the future destiny of every part, so far as the legal
introduction of slavery was concerned, seemed to be
decided. As for the regions to the west of Texas, he
believed that slavery was ruled out by natural condi-
tions of soil and climate, so that it was not necessary
to protect them by a Wilmot proviso. As for the
fugitive slave law, it was simply a provision for carry-
ing into effect a clause of the Constitution, without |
which that instrument could never have been adopted
and in the frequent infraction of which Mr. Webster
saw a serious danger to the continuance of the Union.
He therefore accepted the fugitive slave law as one
feature in the proposed system of compromises ; but in
accepting it he offered amendments which, if they had

408 DANIEL WEBSTER

been adopted, would have gone far toward depriving it
of its most obnoxious and irritating features. By
adopting these measures of compromise, Mr. Webster
believed that the extension of slavery would have been
given its final limit, that the North would by reason
of its free labour increase in preponderance over the
South, and that by and by the institution of slavery,
hemmed in and denied further expansion, would die a
natural death. That these views were mistaken, the
events of the next ten years showed only too plainly;
but how easy it is to be wise after the event, and how’
completely the result of a great struggle, such as our
Civil War, casts into shadow the thoughts and motives
of men whose lives were ended before it began, can
only be well understood by the student whose view is
accustomed to range far and wide over the field of
history. In order to understand Mr. Webster’s posi-
tion, we must put ourselves back, in imagination, to
that time when the doing away with that relic of bar-
barism, negro slavery, seemed as far off as the doing
away with its twin sister, protectionism, seems to many
of us to-day. Looking at Mr. Webster’s acts in such
a spirit, there can be no doubt that the compromises
which he sustained had their practical value in post-
poning the inevitable conflict for ten years, during
which the relative strength of the North was increasing,
and a younger generation was growing up less tolerant
of slavery and more ready to discard palliatives and
achieve a radical cure. So far as Mr. Webster’s moral
attitude was concerned, although he was not prepared
for the bitter hostility that his speech provoked in
many quarters, he must nevertheless have known that
it was quite as likely to injure him at the North as to

AND THE SENTIMENT OF UNION 409

gain support for him in the South; and his resolute
adoption of a policy that he regarded as _ national
rather than sectional was really an instance of high
moral courage. It was, however, a concession that
did violence to his sentiments of humanity, and the
pain and uneasiness it occasioned is visible in some of
his latest utterances.

On President Taylor’s death, July 9, 1850, Mr.
Webster became President Fillmore’s Secretary of
State. An earnest attempt was made, on the part
of his friends, to secure his nomination for the presi-
dency in 1852; but on the first ballot in the conven-
tion he received only 29 votes, while there were 131
for General Scott, and 133 for Mr. Fillmore. The
efforts of Mr. Webster’s adherents succeeded only in
giving the nomination to Scott. The result was a
grave disappointment to Mr. Webster. He refused to
support the nomination, and took no part in the cam-
paign. His health was now rapidly failing. He left
Washington, September 8, for the last time, and re-
turned to Marshfield, which he never left again, except
on September 20, for a brief call upon his physician
in Boston. |

On the 24th of October, 1852, he died, and on the next
day flags in all towns that had caught the sad news
were at half-mast. I was a little boy then, and had
never been in Boston or seen Mr. Webster; but I
could not forget that day if I were to live a thousand
years. Daniel Webster was dead. A godlike pres-
ence had gone from us. Life seemed smaller, lonelier,
and meaner. I well remember catching myself won-
dering how the sun could rise and the daily events of
life go on without Daniel Webster.

INDEX

A

Aberdeen, Lord, 400, 402.

Adams, John, urges appointment of
Washington as commander-in-chief,
70-71; letter from, to Charles Lee,
75; jealousy between Hamilton and,
136-137, 174; death of, 181; aristo-
cratic notion of location of political
power, 223; Webster’s eulogy on,
380.

Adams, John Quincy, 215, 311; as
Monroe’s Secretary of State upholds
Jackson’s course in Florida, 257;
elected President, 281-282; ‘“ prince
and protagonist of mugwumps,” 322;
and policy of internal improvements,
323; as a member of Congress in
President Tyler’s administration, 358.

Adams, Samuel (the elder), 17-18.

Adams, Samuel (the younger), 152, 154,
176; British opinion of, 5; elected a
member of: the legislature, 31; at-

tempt to arrest and send to England |

for trial, 32; demands removal of
soldiers from Boston, 35; replies to
Hutchinson’s defence of supremacy
of Parliament, 36-37; Hutchinson’s
criticisms of, in letters to Thomas
Whately, 37; carries resolutions
looking to a Continental Congress,
Io1; asa Federalist, 168-169.

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty of, 20.

Alabama, admission of, to Union, 271.

Albany Congress of 1754, 23, 200.

Alien and sedition laws, the, 135-136,
174, 211-213.

Ambrister, Robert, 256, 257, 261-262.

“ American Notes,” Dickens’s, 275.

*‘ American system,” the, 323, 382-383.

André, Major, Hamilton’s acquaintance-
ship with, 112.

Annapolis convention of 1786, 117-118,
196.

Anti-federalism, the beginning of, 117,
168; Governor George Clinton a
champion of, 118-119, 124; Me-.
lanchthon Smith defends, 125; the
Waterloo of, 125.

Antinomians, 365.

“ Anything to beat Van Buren,” 349.

Arbuthnot, Alexander, 256, 257, 261-
262.

“ Aristocracy of office,” theory of an,
289.

Armstrong, Secretary of War, 241, 245.

Arnold, Benedict, comparative dignity
of character of, beside that of Charles
Lee, 97-98.

Ashburton treaty, 399-400.

Assumption of state debts by federal
government, 127-130; Madison op-
posed to, 208-209.

B

Badger, George E., 356.

Bancroft, George, 23.

Bank, National, established by Hamil-
ton and Gouverneur Morris, 114,
133; opposed by Madison, 209;
Jackson’s opposition to and attacks
on, 235, 236, 302-303; removal of
deposits from, 304, 336-337; com-
ments on destruction of, 311; ques-
tion of rechartering in 1811, 329;
Tyler’s opposition to, 336-338;
President Tyler and, 352-353; per-
manent defeat of, 357.

Bank, Fiscal, 353-356.

Banking, wildcat, in early New Eng-
land, 13-22; enormous development
of, before panic of 1837, 346. See
Bank, National.

4II

412

Barre, town of, originally named Hutch-
inson, 47.

Barrington, Lord, Charles Lee’s letter
to, 71-72.

Barry, W. T., 286.

Bayard, Richard H., 353.

Belcher, Governor Jonathan, 14-20.

Bell, John, 356.

Bellamy, Dr. Joseph, 374.

Bennet Street Grammar School, Boston,
10, 47.

Bentham, Jeremy, 44.

Benton, Thomas H., 283, 302, 325, 334,
336, 337, 338, 360, 383, 389, 392;
early affray with Jackson, 241-242;
persistency in having resolution of
censure on Jackson expunged, 305-
306.

Bernard, Governor Francis, 25, 28, 30,
31, 34-

Berrien, J. M., 285, 292.

Bibles, old ladies in Connecticut hide, on
election of Jefferson, 175.

Birney, James, 350.

Blair, Francis Preston, 295, 325, 336, 360.

Blount, William, 231.

‘* Boiling Water,” Mohawk nickname of
Charles Lee, 60.

Boone, Daniel, 223.

Boott, Dr. Francis, 390 n.

Boston Massacre, the, 34-35.

Botts, John Minor, 354.

Brackenridge, H. M., 280.

Branch, John, 285, 292.

Braddock’s defeat, 58;
Madison as a boy, 189.

Brent, Richard, 329, 338.

“ Brother Jonathan,” Trumbull the orig-
inal, 12.

Brown, Rev. Francis, 374.

Bryant, William Cullen, 309.

Bunbury, Sir William, 63.

Bunker Hill orations, Webster’s, 380.

Burgoyne, General, as a target for silly
remarks by American historians, 5;
Charles Lee in Portugal with, 63;
Charles Lee’s correspondence in
America with, 74.

Burke, Edmund, at famous meeting of
privy council, 44; Charles Lee writes

recalled by

INDEX

to, 69; “Letters on a Regicide
Peace,” 166.

Burr, Aaron, 138, 175; elected Vice.
president, 139; prevented by Hamil-
ton from becoming governor of New
York, 140; duel with Hamilton, 140;
visit to Andrew Jackson, 240. |

Butler, Colonel Edward, 290-291.

Cc

*‘ Cabbage-planting enterprise,” Charles
Lee derides expedition against
Louisburg as a, 60,

Cabinet, Hamilton and Jefferson in
Washington’s, 125, 167; Jackson’s °
first, 285; the “kitchen,” 286, 295;
Jackson’s second, 293-294; resigna-~
tion of members of Tyler’s, 356,
400-401.

Calhoun, elected Vice-president, 281;
reélected, 285; misrepresented to
Jackson, 291-292; succeeds Hayne
in Senate, 298.

Campbell, G. W., unpublished letter of
Jackson’s to, 259-264.

Capitalists, Hamilton aimed at alliance

of government with, 130. See Plu-
tocracy.

Capitals, state, reason for location of,
162.

Carlyle, Thomas, on Daniel Webster,
389.

Carr, Dabney, 163, 180.

Cass, Lewis, 294.

Censure, resolution of, on President
Jackson, 305-306, 338, 396.

Charleston, Charles Lee at battle of, 77-
78.

Chatham, Lord, admiration of Ameri-
cans for, 4.

Cherokee Indians, disputes between
Georgia and, 296.

Chesapeake, affair of the, 214.

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, origin of,
196. .

Choate, Rufus, 353, 402.

Chotzim, Charles Lee at battle of, 66.

Church, disestablishment of, in Virginia,

159-160, 190-191.

INDEX

Cities, growth of, in United States, 309,
344.

Civil service, previous to Jackson's
administration, 287-288; Jackson’s
treatment of, 288-290; in Harrison-
Tyler administration, 350-351.

Clay, Henry, chosen Speaker of the
House of Representatives, 215; be-
ginning of feud between Jackson
and, 258, 279; candidacy of, for pres-
idency, 281; becomes J. Q. Adams's
Secretary of State, 283; charged with
making a bargain with Adams, 283-
284; forces United States Bank ques-
tion to the foreground, 302; candi-
date for presidency a second time,
303; carries resolution of censure on
Jackson, 305, 338; election of Harri-
son considered a victory for, 351;
struggle with Tyler, 351-358.

. Cleveland, Grover, 174-175.

Clinton, De Witt, 216.

Clinton, George, as an Anti-federalist,
118-119, 168; elected Vice-presi-
dent, 215.

Clinton, Sir Henry, succeeds Lord Howe
in America, 87; possibility of an un-
derstanding with Lee at Monmouth,
92-93-

Coddington, William, 8.

Commerce, difficulties in regulating inter-
state, at close of Revolution, 196-198.

Compromise act of 1833, 358.

Connecticut compromise, the, 202.

Constitution of United States, Madison’s
share in framing, 122.

“Constitu'ion not a Compact between
Sovereign States,” Webster’s, 393-
394-

Conway, Thomas, 56.

Conway cabal, the, 79, 87.

Cooper, James Fennimore, 309.

Cooper, Dr. Myles, 69, 108.

Cornwallis, Lord, silliness of remarks by
some historians as applied to, 5; in
Virginia, 163.

“Corporal’s guard, the,” 357.

Cotton, John, 7.

Crawford, W. H., 253, 280 n., 281, 286,

383.

413

Creeks, Jackson’s campaign against,
243-244.

“Crime and Punishment,” Beccaria’s, 64.

Crimes act, the, 381.

Crisis of 1837, 343-348.

Crittenden, John J., 356.

Crockett, David, 244.

Cruger, Nicholas, 104,

“Cruising convention,” the, 400.

Currency, decimal, devised by Jefferson
and Gouverneur Morris, 164.

Curtis, Benjamin, 50. '

Cushing, Thomas, receives the Whately
letters, 39.

,

D

Dartmouth, Lord, meets Hutchinson in
London, 47.

Dartmouth College, Webster graduated
from, 368.

Dartmouth College case, the, 373-379.

Day, James, quoted, 271 n.

Debt, payment of national, in 1835, 344.

Debts, of United States, at close of
Revolution, 126, 192-193; assump-
tion of state, 127-130; assumption
of state, opposed by Madison, 208-
209.

Declaration of Independence drawn up
by Jefferson, 155-157. _

De Kalb, 56.

Democrats, origin of the, 324-325.

““ Demos Krateo’’ principle, the, 337,
395:

Deposits, removal of, from United States
Bank, 304, 336-337; results of re-
moval of, 346.

Dickens, Charles, comments on America,
275

Dickinson, Charles, Jackson’s duel with, »
239.

Disestablishment of Church in Virginia,
159-160; Madison’s connection with,
190-191.

Dix, John A., extract from letter of, 280 n.

“ Domestic Manners of the Americans,”
Mrs. Trollope’s, 275.

Donoughmore, Irish earls of, 7.

Draper, Dr. Lyman, 188.

414

Dress, Webster’s style of, 270, 389 n.

Dryden, Sir Erasmus, 7.

Duane, W. J., 304, 396.

Duel, Charles Lee’s, in Vienna, 66-67 ;
Lee declines to fight, with Steuben,
94; Lee wounded by Laurens in a,
95, 111-112; Hamilton’s son killed
in a, 139; the Burr-Hamilton, 140-
141; Andrew Jackson’s, with Avery,
238; Jackson challenges General
Scott to a, 253; between John Ran-
dolph and Henry Clay, 283 ; Jackson
dies as result of a wound received in
a, 308; Randolph challenges Web-
ster to a, 372.

Duels, plan to kill Hamilton by a series
of, 117; discredited in Northern
states as a result of Hamilton’s
death, 141; caused by the “ Mrs.
Eaton” episode, 292.

E

Eastman, Abigail, 367.

Eaton, John H., 285, 290, 292.

Eaton, Mrs. John H., episode of, 290-
294.

Eliot, Rev. Andrew, 30.

Eliot school, Boston, originally named
the Hutchinson, 47.

Ellsworth, William, 190.

Embargo, Jefferson’s, 214-215, 278, 322;
Webster’s pamphlet criticising, 369-
370; jingle about the, 369 n.

England, yeomanry and country squires
of, compared with French classes,
145-148; arrogance of, in War of

1812, 247-248.

Entail, system of, in Virginia, abolished,
157-158.

* Era of good feeling,” the, 279.

Erie Canal, results of completion of, 344.

Everett, Edward, 399.

Ewing, Thomas, 353» 350.

Exeter Academy, Webster at, 367.

F

“Farmer Refuted, The,” Hamilton’s,
107-108.

INDEX

Farragut, David, sent to South Carolina
by Jackson, 298.

“Federalist,” the, 122-123, 188, 204.

Federalist party, building up of, 114-
125, 168; victory of, over Anti-
federalists, 125; cause of downfall
of, 134; absorbed by Republican
party, 207, 215. ;

Fiscal corporation bill, 353-355.

Florida, base for British operations in
War of 1812, 245; Jackson drives
British from, 245-246; in 1816 be-
comes a nest of outlaws, 253-254;
invaded by Jackson in 1818, 255-
257; purchased by United States
from Spain, 258.

Floyd, John, 303, 334.

Foote, Samuel A., 386.

Foote’s resolutions, 297, 386-387.

Force Bill, the, 335-336, 391.

Fort Bowyer, British defeat at, 245.

Forward, Walter, 356.

France, peasantry of, compared with
yeomanry of England, 145-148;
Jefferson’s sojourn in, 164-165; Jack-
son settles American difficulties with,
307-308. :

Frankland, Sir Harry, house of, 28.

Franklin, Benjamin, a delegate to Albany
Congress, 23; comes into possession
of Whately’s correspondence, 38-
39; abused by Wedderburn before
privy council, 44-45 ; dismissed from
postmaster-generalship, 45 ; descrip-
tion of Earl of Loudoun, 60; letter
from, to Charles Lee, 76; a proto-
type of the “franklins” of England,
146-147; Jefferson succeeds, in
France, 164.

Franklins, the, in England, 146.

Free trade speech, Webster’s, 382-383.

Fugitive slave law, Webster’s attitude
on, 404-409.

Fulton, Robert, 271.

G

“Gag resolution,” the, 342.
Gage, Thomas, serves under Braddock
in America as_ lieutenant-colonel,

INDEX

58; in battle of Ticonderoga, 61;
takes command in Boston, 46, 101.

Gallatin, Albert, 223.

Gallicism, Jefferson’s so-called, 155-157.

Gantt, Colonel Thomas Tasker, 259,
264; Mrs. E. B. Lee’s letter to,
quoted, 292 n., 298 n.

Gates, Horatio, first acquaintance of
Charles Lee with, 58; Charles Lee’s
friendship with, 70; Hamilton re-
gains Washington’s troops from, III.

George III., accession of, to throne,
25-20.

Georgia, disputes with Cherokee Ind-
ians in, 296.

Giles, William E., 329, 338.

Girdlestone, Dr. Thomas, on Charles
Lee as the author of “Letters of
Junius,” 96-97.

Gladstone, W. E., end of army purchase
system by, 60.

Gore, Christopher, 369.

Gower, Lord President of privy council,
44.

Granger, Francis, 356.

Grayson, William, 206.

Great Britain, arrogance of, in War of
1812, 247-248.

Green, Duff, 286, 295.

Greene, D. H., quoted concerning rela-
tionship of Charles and Robert E.
Lee, 57 n.

Greene, Nathanael, mentions Hamilton
to Washington, I09.

Gridley, Jeremiah, 25, 26.

Griswold, Roger, 242.

H

Hallowell, Briggs, 28.

Hamilton, Alexander, delivers patriotic
address when seventeen years of
age, 103; birth and family of, 104;
enters King’s College, 106; on
Washington’s staff, 109-112; mar-
ries Elizabeth Schuyler, 113; admit-
ted to bar in Albany, 113; aids in
establishment of Bank of North
America, 114, 133; delegate to Con-
gress in 1782, 114; first famous law

415

case, 116-117; delegate to conven-
tions at Annapolis and Philadelphia,
117-118; joint author with Madison
of “ Federalist,” 122-123, 188, 204;
wins New York over to ratifying fed-
eral Constitution, 123-125; Wash-
ington’s Secretary of Treasury, 125;
proposal for federal assumption of
state debts, 127; aims to insure sta-
bility of government by alliance with
capitalists, 130; an advocate of pro-
tective tariff, 132; feud with Jeffer-
son, 134-135, 167-168; jealousy
between John Adams and, 136-137,
174; killed by Burr in duel, 140,

Hamilton, Philip, killed in a duel,
139.

Hamiltonians, comparison
Tories, 170-173.

Hanging Rock, Jackson ind at fight
of, 229.

Harcourt, Lieutenant-colonel, capture
of Charles Lee by, 81-82,

Hard cider campaign, the, 349-350.

Harrison, William Henry, 206, 242;
birth and early career of, 340; po-
litical life, 341; second nomination
for presidency, 349; elected Presi-
dent, 350; death of, 351.

“ Harry of the West,” 278.

Hartford convention, the, 247, 278, 322,
371.

Harvard College, Thomas Hutchinson
at, I1; versus the backwoods, as
illustrated by J. Q. Adams and Jack-
son, 284.

Hawke, Lord Edward, 12.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 309.

Hayne, Robert Y., 387.

‘Hayne, Reply to.”
Hayne.”

Hearts of Oak, Hamilton a member of
the, 109.

Heath, General, 79-80.

Henry, Patrick, British opinion of, 5;
as an Anti-federalist, 168, 205, 206,
372; advocates extension of powers
of federal government, 208.

Hermitage, the, Jackson’s home _ at,
308.

of, with

See “Reply to

416

Hervey, Lady, a cornet in British regi-
ment from infancy, 57-58.

Hill, Isaac, 286.

Holmes, O. W., 309.

Holy Alliance, Webster’s speech against,
381-382.

Holy Ground, the, 244.

Houston, Samuel, 244.

Howe, Lord, death of, in battle of Ti-
conderoga, 61.

Howe, Sir William, and Charles Lee,
83-86.

Hume, David, Charles Lee’s epistle to,
64-65.

Hutchinson, Anne, 7-8.

Hutchinson, Thomas, ancestry of, 7-10;
childhood of, 10-11; at Harvard,
II-I2; marriage, 12; beginning of
public life, 13; member of General
Court, 13-20; Speaker of House,
20-21; member of council, 22; resi-
dence on Milton Hill, 22-23; ap-
pointed judge of probate and justice
of common pleas, 23; loss of wife,
23; appointed lieutenant-governor,
24;. chief justice, 25; house of,
wrecked by a mob, 30; appointed
governor of Massachusetts, 35; and
the Boston Massacre, 34-35; mas-
terly statement of doctrine of su-
premacy of Parliament, 36; adjusts
boundary line between New York
and Massachusetts, 37; correspond-
ence with Thomas Whately, 37-38;
goes to England, 46; met by Lord
Dartmouth, 47; refuses a baronetcy,
48; death of, 49; his character and
intellectual powers, 49-51; analogy
between case of, and Webster’s, 406.

Hutchinson Mob, the, 30-31.

Hutchinson, town of, name changed to
Barre, 47.

I

Illinois, admission of, to Union, 271.

Impost law of 1783, proposed, 192-193.

Indemnification to Charles Lee, Ameri-
can, 71-73, 78.

“Tndian War,” Church’s, 12.

Indiana, admission of, to Union, 271.

INDEX

Ingham, S. D., 285, 292.

Internal improvements, policy of, 323,
371-372.

“ Tolanthe,”’ quoted, 319-320.

Irving, Washington, 309.

Izard, Ralph, on Wedderburn’s abuse of
Franklin, 45.

J

Jackson, Andrew, family of, and birth,
228-229 ; prisoner at Camden during
Revolutionary War, 230; story of
the British officer’s boots, 230; stud-
ies law and appointed public prose-
cutor in North Carolina, 230; story
of Mrs. Robards, 232-234; marriage,
234; representative in Congress from
Tennessee, 235; elected to Senate,
237; judge in Supreme Court of
Tennessee, 238; duel with Dickin-
son, 239-240; in War of 1812, 241;
nicknamed “ Old Hickory,” 241; in
Creek War, 243-245; appointed
major-general, 245 ; at battle of New
Orleans, 250-251; invades Florida
in 1818, 255-256 ; beginning of feud
with Clay, 258,279; appointed gov-

-ernor of Florida, 258; becomes
United States Senator, 279; defeated
by J. Q. Adams for presidency, 281-
282; defeats Adams in 1828, 285;
death of Mrs. Jackson, 291; re-
elected President, 303; death, 308 ;
remarkable character of the period
of his two presidential terms, 309;
Webster’s support of, 391-392.

Jackson, Mrs. Andrew, death of, 291.
See Robards, Mrs. Lewis.

Jay, John, Hamilton first meets, 106;
a delegate to Continental Congress,
152-153; essays in “ Federalist” by,
204. :

Jay’s treaty, 135, 209, 210, 235-236.

Jefferson, Thomas, birth and ancestry of,
150; marriage, 151; elected delegate
to Continental Congress, 152; draws
up Declaration of Independence,
155-157; an active member of Vir-
ginia legislature, 157-163; governor

INDEX

of Virginia in 1779, 163; death of
wife, 163; elected to Congress, 163;
minister to France, 164-165; be-
comes Washington’s Secretary of
State, 125,167; Vice-president, 174;
presidential campaign of, 174-176;
buys the Mississippi territory of Na-
poleon, 177; reélection to presi-
dency, 180; death, 180; Madison’s
intimacy with, 189; responsibility of,
for theory of nullification, 212; treat-
ment of civil service by, 287-288;
mantle of, fell on Van Buren, 311-
312; Webster’s eulogy on, 380.

Jeffersonians, comparison of, with Eng-
lish Liberals, 170-173.

Johnson, George, letter from, to Charles
Lee, 88.

Johnson, Richard, 342.

Johnson, Sir William, 59.

_ Judges, election of, instead of appoint-

ment, a crying abomination, 272.

K

~ Kant, Immanuel, on Wedderburn’s
abuse of Franklin, 45.

Kendall, Amos, 286, 295, 304.

Kentucky resolutions of 1798, 174, 211-
213.

King Philip’s War, 9.

King, Rufus, 203, 278, 322.

King’s College, Dr. Myles Cooper presi-
dent of, 69, 108; Hamilton a stu-
dent at, 106.

“Kitchen cabinet,”
break in the, 295.

Knox, General Henry, 111, 137.

Knox, Dr. Hugh, 104, 105.

Kosciuszko, in America, 56.

Jackson’s, 286;

L

Lafayette, Marquis de, 56, 88, 89; love
of, for Hamilton, 111; innocent
cause of disagreement between
Washington and Hamilton, 112.

Land Bank of 1740, 16-17.

Langworthy, Edward, 66, 77.

Lansing, John, 119.

2E

A417

Laurens, Colonel, Charles Lee’s duel
with, 95, I1I—I12.

Lee, Charles, wrongly stated to be
father of Robert E. Lee, 56-57; an-
cestry of, 57; birth of, 57; com-
missioned lieutenant in the British
army, 58; in America with bBrad-
dock’s army, 58; adopted by Mo-
hawk tribe, 59; in Earl of Loudoun’s
expedition against Louisburg, 60;
wounded in battle of Ticonderoga,
61; narrow escape from assassination
on Long Island, 62; return to.Eng-
land in 1761, 63; with Burgoyne in

’ Portugal, 63; in Poland, 66; arrives
in America in 1773, 67; appointed
second major-general in Continental
army, 70; letter to Lord Barrington,
71-72; service in Continental army,
74-81; at battle of Charleston, 77-
78; captured by British, 82; con-
duct during captivity, 83-86; ex-
changed for General Richard Pres-
cott, 86; treason at Monmouth, 89-
g1; in disgrace, 92; death, 95; pre-
tensions to authorship of “ Letters of
Junius,” 95-97; Benedict Arnold a
dignified character in comparison
with, 97-98.

Lee, Mrs. Elizabeth B., 259; letter from,
to Colonel Gantt, quoted, 292 n.,
298 n.

Lee, Henry, 206, 303.

Lee, Richard Henry, 155, 205.

Lee, Robert E., Charles Lee wrongly
stated to be the father of, 56-57.

Legaré, Hugh S., 356.

Leigh, Benjamin Watkins, 338.

Leopard, affair of the, 214.

Lepel, Colonel, makes his infant daugh-
ter a cornet in British regiment, 57. °

** Letters and Times of the Tylers,” 327.

“Letters of Junius,” Charles Lee pre-
tends to authorship of, 95-97.

“ Letters on a Regicide Peace,” Burke’s,
166.

Lewis, William B., 279, 286, 292.

Liberalists, English, chief character-
istics of, 171-172.

Lippe-Schaumburg, Count von, 63.

418

Literature, the blooming time of Ameri-
can, 309.

Little Belt, affairvof the, 215.

Livingston, Edward, 249, 293.

Log cabin campaign, the, 349-350.

Longfellow, H. W., 309.

Louisburg, fortress of, 20-21; Earl of
Loudoun’s expedition against, 60.

Louisiana purchase, 177, 321.

Loyalists, American, hard position of,
in history, 5-6.

Lyon, Matthew, 242.

M

McCarthy, Daniel, on Charles Lee as
author of “ Letters of Junius,” 96.

McCay, Spruce, 230.

Macdougall, Alexander, 103.

McLane, Louis, 293-294, 304.

McLean, John, 356.

McMurdo, Tyler’s schoolmaster, 328.

Madison, James, 157, 168, 176; Ham-
ilton first comes in contact with, 114;
share of, in framing the Constitution,
122; joint author with Hamilton of
the “ Federalist,” 122-123, 188, 204 ;
ancestry of, and birth, 188; intimacy
with Jefferson, 189; at Princeton
College, 189 ; entrance to public life,
190; delegate to Continental Con-
gress, 191; member of Virginia leg-
islature, 194; delegate to Annapolis
and Philadelphia conventions, 198 ;
the “Virginia plan” devised by,
199-201 ; services in securing ratifi-
cation of Constitution by Virginia,
204-206; elected to first national
House of Representatives, 206;
leader of the opposition, 207-210 ;
marriage, 210; draws up Virginia res-
olutions of 1798, 210; becomes Jef-
ferson’s Secretary of State, 213-214;
elected President, 215; reélected
President, 216; old age, 217; cause
for dislike of Jackson, 240.

Maine, admission of, to Union, 271.

Mangum, Person, 341.

Marcy, W. L., declares that “ to the vic-
tors belong the spoils,”’ 288,

INDEX

Marshall, Chief Justice, 185, 186, 190,
206 ; ruling of, on power of Federal
government to acquire territory, 178;
the Dartmouth College case before,
370-379.

Marshfield, Webster’s home at, 397-398.

“ Martin Chuzzlewit ” quoted, 275, 347.

Maryland convention of 1776, 76-77. ~

Mason, Colonel George, 157, 161, 198,
206,

Mason, Jeremiah, 369, 375.

Mather, Rev. Samuel, 30.

Maysville turnpike bill, 334.

Mifflin, Thomas, 70.

Milton, Hutchinson’s residence in, 22-
23.

Mimms, Fort, massacre of, 243.

Mississippi, admission of, to Union, 271.

Mississippi River, free navigation of,
177, I9I-192, 199.

Missouri, admission of, to Union, 271,
339-3325 372+

Missouri Compromise bill, 330-332.

Mobile occupied by General Jackson,
245.

Mohawks, Charles Lee and the, 59-60.

Monmouth Court House, battle of, 89—
gl.

Monongahela, battle of the, 58.

Monroe, James, 206, 322; elected Presi-
dent, 278.

Monticello, Jefferson’s home at, 163,
179-180.

Montpelier, Madison’s home at, 210,
217.

Morris, Gouverneur, aids in establish-
ment of Bank of North America,
114; subscribes to the “three-fifths
rule,” 203; singular views of, as to
so-called back-country people, 221-
ya

Morris, Robert, lends Charles Lee
£3000, 70; aids in establishment of
Bank of North America, 114.

Morton, Major Jacob, testimony of, con-
cerning Washington and Lee at
Monmouth, go n.

Moultrie, Colonel William, 77.

Mugwumps, J. Q. Adams _ protagonist
of, 322.

INDEX

N

National bank, See Bank, National.

National Republicans, the, 324.

Naturalization in United States, 162-
163.

Navigation of Mississippi, 177, 191-192,
199.

Navigation Acts, trouble caused in Bos-
ton by enforcement of, 28.

New England Confederacy, 8.

“New England Memorial,” Morton’s,
$2:

New Orleans, Jackson at, 246, 248-252 ;
battle of, 250-251, 278.

Newspaper, development of modern type
of, 309.

Non-intercourse acts, the, 215.

Northeastern boundary question, 399-
400.

“Notes on Virginia,” Jefferson’s, 159-
160, 164-165.

Nullification during Jackson’s adminis-
trations, 295, 297-300, 312-313.

O

Ohio, admission of, to Union, 271.

Old Corner Bookstore, Boston, William
Hutchinson’s house on site of, 8.
“Old Hickory,” Jackson receives nick-

name of, 241.
Oliver, Andrew, correspondence between
Thomas Whately and, 37-38.
Ordinance of 1787, 164, 225.
Oregon question, the, 221, 402.
Otis, James, 25, 74-75.
Overton, Judge, 232, 238, 239-240, 255.

P /

Paine, Thomas, 64.

Pakenham, Sir Edward, 250, 251.

Pamphleteer, Charles Lee as a, 64-65,
73+

Panic of 1837, 343-348.

Paper money, in 1690, 13; in New
England in eighteenth century, 13-
I5, 21-22; issued by Continental
Congress, 192-193; virulent craze

419

for, in 1786, 195-196; before panic
of 1837, 345-347.

Parker, Theodore, sermon by, on Web-
ster and fugitive slave law, 4o04-
405.

Parkman, Francis, 23.

Parties, political, earliest division of
American, 168 ; comparison of, with
English, 170-173; division into
Whigs and Democrats, 295; develop-
ment of, to 1832, 317-325.

Paxton, Charles, correspondence be-
tween Thomas Whately and, 37-
38.

Pearl Street, Boston, originally named
Hutchinson Street, 47.

Pendleton, Edmund, 158, 206.

Pensacola captured by Jackson, 257,
260-261.

“Pet banks,” the, 305.

Philadelphia convention of shoe 118,
198.

Phillips, Stephen C., 349 n.

Pickering, Timothy, 140, 141, 223, 277,
286, 371.

Pinckney, Cotesworth, 137, 180, 203,
215, 223.

Pinckney, Thomas, 203, 223; candidacy
of, for presidency, 136.

Plutocracy, gravest danger to our country
is a government by a, 130, 179.

“ Pocket veto,” Jackson’s, 296.

Poland, Charles Lee in, 66.

Potomac Company, the, 196.

Pownall, Governor Thomas, 24-25.

Presbyterian junto, the, 103.

Prescott, General Richard, Charles Lee
exchanged for, 86.

Prescott, W. H., 309.

President, affair of the, 215.

Priestley, Dr., 44, 45.

Primogeniture, law of, in Virginia, at-
tacked by Jefferson, 158.

Princeton College, Hamilton applies for
admission to, 106; Madisonastudent
at, 189.

Protection of American industries.
Tariff, protective.

Provincialism, period of, in America,

267-276.

See

420

Pulaski, Count, 56.

Purchase system, end of, in British army,
60.

Putnam, Israel, in battle of Ticonderoga,
61.

Q
Quincy, Josiah, 178, 249.

R

Railroads, development of, in United
States, 309, 322-323, 344.

Randolph, Edmund, 198, 199, 206.

Randolph, John, 283, 333, 372.

* Religious Freedom Act,” Madison’s,
194-195.

“Reply to Hayne,” Webster’s, 297, 312,
387-391.

Republican party, absorbs Federalists,
207, 215; divided in 1824-1832 on
questions of internal improvements,
tariff, and national bank, 324.

Revenue question, the, 131-133, 167,
192-193.

Revolution, French, 166-167.

Rhea, John, 255.

Richmond, state capital of Virginia re-
moved to, 162.

Rives, William C., 343, 353.

Rivington, James, 108.

Road-building, era of, in United States,
344-

Robards, Captain Lewis, 232-234.

Robards, Mrs. Rachel, 232-234, 290-
291.

Robertson, Donald, 188.

Robertson, James, 223.

Robertson, William, letter from, to Dr.
Fiske, 90 n.

Rockingham, Lord, 31.

Rockingham Memorial, the, 370.

Rodney, Thomas, conversation of, with
Charles Lee concerning “ Letters of
Junius,” 95-97.

Rousseau, Jefferson not in same class
with, 154.

Rush, Dr. Benjamin, correspondence of,
with Charles Lee, 76, 79.

Rutledge, Edward, 76, 153, 203.

INDEX

S

Sargent, Lucius Manlius, 369 n.

Schuyler, Elizabeth, marriage of, to
Hamilton, 113.

Schuyler, Mrs., and Charles Lee, 61-62,

Scotch-Irish breed in the West, 225,
228.

Scott, John Morin, 103.

Scott, General, 253, 298.

Seabury, Samuel, 107.

Sears, Isaac, 103, 108,

Seventh of March speech, Webster’s,
404-406.

Sevier, John, 238-239.

Shays’s rebellion, 118, 126, 199.

Shepard, Edward M., 348.

Shirley, Governor William, 20.

Slavery, Jefferson an advocate of aboli-
tion of, 158-159; prohibited north
of Ohio River, 164; Tyler’s views of,
339-332.

Smith, Goldwin, misconception of, con-
cerning Madison, 187.

Smith, Jeremiah, 375.

Smith, Melanchthon, 125.

Southard, William L., 356. :

South Carolina, ordinance of nullifica-
tion in, 297-299, 326, 386-394.

Specie Bank of 1740, 16-17.

Specie circular, the, 347, 348.

‘Spencer, Herbert, should be read by

every American, 310.

Spoils system, inauguration of the, 288.

Stamp Act, opposition to, in Boston,
28-31.

Stark, John, in battle of Ticonderoga, 61.

State debts, federal assumption of, 127-
130.

State rights, question of, in Hamilton’s
time, 118-121.

State Rights Whigs, Southern strict con-
structionists call themselves, 339;
Tyler, as leader of, elected V' -e-pres-
ident, 349-350; break with Northern
Whigs over annexation of Texas,
359; join the Democrats, 360.

“Stepfather of his country,” Washing-
ton called the, 135.

Steuben, Baron von, 88, 94, III.

INDEX

Strachey, Sir Henry, preservation of
Charles Lee papers by, 72, 85.

“Strictures on a Friendly Address to
all Reasonable Americans,” Charles
Lee’s, 69.

Subtreasuries, establishment of, 349; bill
for abolishing, passed, 352.

“Summary View of Rights of British
America, A,” Jefferson’s, 152.

Surplus, distribution of, 346-347.

T

Talladega, battle of, 243.
Tallasahatchee, battle of, 243.

Taney, R. B., 294, 304.

“Tariff of abominations,” 297, 334, 384.

Tariff, protective, Hamilton an advocate.

of, 132; Jackson opposed to a, 297 ;
Clay favours, 323; John Tyler and,
332, 357-358; Webster’s attitude on
a, 371, 384-386.

Tarleton, Banastre, 81-82.

Taylor, Zachary, 402-403.

Tazewell, Littleton, 330. ©

Tea ships in Boston harbour, 40-41.

Tecumseh, 242-243, 341.

Temple, Mr., duel of, with William
Whately, 40.

Tennessee admitted to Union, 235.

Thames, battle of the, 243, 340-341.

Thomas, Captain John, 397.

“Three-fifths rule,” compromise of the,
203.

Ticonderoga, battle of, 61.

Tilden, Samuel J., 175.

Tippecanoe, battle of, 242, 340.

“ Tippecanoe and Tyler too,” 350.

Toast, Jackson’s. immortal Union, 297,
334-

Tohopeka, battle of, 244.

Tories, English, chief characteristics of,
171-173; attempt to call Jackson’s
followers, 339.

Townshend Acts, 31.

Traffic, interstate, just after the Revolu-
tion, 196-198.

Trimble, Robert, 330.

Trollope, Mrs., on America, 275.

Trumbull, Jonathan, 12.

421

Tyler, John (the elder), 197, 327-328.

Tyler, John, birth of, 328; member of
legislature, 329; elected to national
House, 330; arguments on slavery
question, 330-332; opposes protec-
tive tariff, 332; governor of Virginia,
333; elected to Senate, 333; break
with President Jackson, 335; op-
posed to United States Bank, 336—
338; vice-presidential campaigns,
340-342, 349-350; becomes Presi-
dent on Harrison’s death, 351; -
United States Bank question, 352-
353; contest with Congress on Fis-
cal Bank bill, 353-358; allied with
Democrats on Texas question, 360.

Tyler, Lyon Gardiner, 327.

U

United States Bank. See Bank, National.
Upshur, Abel P., 356.

Vv

Van Buren, Martin, Jackson’s Secretary
of State, 285; resigns secretaryship,
292 ; nominated minister to England
but not confirmed, 295; mantle of
Jefferson fell on, 311-312; elected
President, 342; and the panic of
1837, 348-350; defeated in presi-
dential campaign of 1840 by Harri-
son, 350.

“Van Buren,” E. M. Shepard’s, 348.

“Virginia dynasty” of Presidents, the,

279.

‘Virginia plan,” the, 199, 200, 201, 202,
217-218.

Virginia resolutions of 1798, 174, 210-
211.

WwW

War of 1812, 216-217, 241-252.

Ward, General Artemas, 70-71, 78.

Warren, Mercy, description of Charles
Lee by, 68.

Washington Benevolent
Portsmouth, 370.

Washington, city of, bargain over loca-

Society of

422

tion of, 129-130; burned by the
British, 216-217, 245, 246.

Washington, George, admiration of
British for, 4; Charles Lee’s first
acquaintance with, 58; receives
Charles Lee at Mount Vernon, 67;
reasons for appointment as com-
mander-in-chief, 70; at battle of
Monmouth, 89-92; altercation with
Hamilton, 112-113; chooses Hamil-
ton and Jefferson for members of his
cabinet, 125, 167; termed “the step-
father of his country,” 135; ap-
pointed by Adams commander of
army for expected war with France,
137; first president of Potomac
Company, 196.

Watkins, Tobias, 290.

Wayne, Anthony, 89.

Weathersford, 243-244.

Webster, Daniel, birth of, 367; gradu-
ated from Dartmouth, 368; mar-
riage, 369; elected to Congress,
370; the Dartmouth College case,
373-379; Bunker Hill orations and
eulogy on Adams and Jefferson, 380-
381; represents the Boston district in
Congress, 381-384; the “free trade
speech,” 382-383; elected to Sen-
ate, 384; attitude on protection,
384-386; the “Reply to Hayne,”
312, 387-391; “The Constitution
not a Compact between Sovereign
States,” 393-394; speech in White
murder trial, 397; home at Marsh-
field, 397-398; second marriage,
398; candidate for presidency, 341,
398, 409; Secretary of State in Har-
rison-Tyler administration, 351, 356,
399-401; attitude on fugitive slave
law, 404-409; Seventh of March
speech, 404; Fillmore’s Secretary of
State, 409; death, 409; mode of
dress, 270, 389 n.

Webster, Colonel Ebenezer, 365-367.

Webster, Ezekiel, 369, 378, 398.

Wedderburn, David, abuse of Franklin
by, 44-45.

“ Westchester Farmer, A,” 107.

INDEX

Whately, William, 38, 40.

Whately letters, the, 37-38; published
in America, 40; effect of, on Hutch-
inson’s reputation, 43-44; Franklin
publicly abused by Wedderburn on
account of, 44~45.

Wheelock, Rev. Eleazar, 373.

Wheelock, John, 373-374.

Whigs, beginning of party called, 295,
339:

Whiskey rebellion, the, 132-133.

White, Hugh Lawson, 340, 341.

White murder trial, Webster’s speech
in, 397.

Whittier, J. G., 300.

Wickliffe, Charles A., 356.

Wildcat banking in early New England,
13-22.

Wilkes, John, 64, 65.

Wilkins, Isaac, 107.

William and Mary College, 151, 327,
328, 333-

Williamsburg, state capital of Virginia
removed from, 162.

Wilson, James, 114.

Winsor, Justin, 390 n.

Wirt, William, 303, 334.

Witherspoon, President, of Princeton,
106,

Wood, Rev. Samuel, 368.

Woodbury, Levi, 294.

Wormeley, Ralph, on Charles Lee as
author of “ Letters of Junius,” 96.

Writs of Assistance, 26.

Wythe, George, 151, 157, 161, 206.

Xx
X. Y. Z. despatches, the, 210.

¥:

Yates, Robert, 119.

Yeomanry of England, comparison of,
and corresponding class in France,
145-148.

Yorke, Sir Joseph, opinion of, concern-
ing Charles Lee, 88.

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

From the Compromise of 1850
By JAMES FORD RHODES

In Four Volumes. Cloth. 8vo. $10.00, net

“Tt is the one work now within reach of the young American student of to-day in which
he may learn the connected story of the great battle that resulted in the overthrow of slavery
and the rededication of the republic to unsullied freedom. In no other publication are these
facts so concisely, so fully, and so well presented, and the student who makes careful study of |
this work will fully understand, not only the actual causes which led to the war, but le will
know how gradually they were developed from year to year under varying political power, until
the nation was ripe for the revolution. ... Taking the work all together, we regard it as the
most valuable political publication of the age, and the intelligent citizen who does not become .
its careful student must do himself great injustice.” — 7e 7imes, Philadelphia, Pa.

“There is the same abundant and almost exhaustive collation of material, the same sim-
plicity and directness of method, the same good judgment in the selection of topics for full
treatment or for sketchy notice, the same calmness of temper and absence of passionate partisan-
ship. He may fairly be said to be a pupil of the Gardiner school, and to have made the great
English historian a model in subordinating the literary element to the judicial.” — 7e Nation.

A SHORT HISTORY OF GERMANY
By ERNEST F. HENDERSON
A.B. (Trinity), M.A. (Harvard), Pu.D. (Berlin)
Author of ‘‘A History of Germany in the Middle Ages’’

In Two Volumes. — Cloth. 8vo. $4.00, net

Vol. I. go A.D. to 1648 AD.
Vol. II. 1648 A.D. to 1871 A.D.

“This work is in the form of a continuous narrative, unbroken by monographs on par-
ticular institutions or phases of Germany’s development, but covering the whole subject with a
unity of treatment such as has seldom been attained by earlier writers in the same field. In
this respect, at least, the book is unique among popular histories of Germany in the English
language.” — Review of Reviews.

“Tt has remained for Mr. Henderson to treat at all effectively in English in a short space
the development of the German nation as a progressive and ever mobile whole. And to
appreciate the difficulty of the task before him, we have only to glance at the powers and
forces that work out their expression if not their fulfilment, on German ground and through
German institutions.” — Commercial Advertiser, New York.

“Of very decided importance. ... We have never seen in English a more satisfactory
record of the story of Germany— one that fulfilled as many requisites as does that under review.
Mr. Henderson writes in a straightforward, unstrained style which makes his work easy read-
ing.” — Baltimore Sun.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 Fifth Avenue, New York

THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH
By JAMES BRYCE

Author of ‘‘ The Holy Roman Empire,’’ M.P. for Aberdeen

In two volumes. Third edition, completely revised throughout,
with additional chapters. Crown 8vo. Cloth, gilt tops

Vol. I, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT —THE STATE GOVERNMENT. Pp. xix + 724.
Price, $1.75, net
Vol. II, THE Party .SystemM — PuBLIC OPINION — ILLUSTRATIONS AND REFLECTIONS —
SocIAL INsTITUTIONS. Pp. 904. Price, $2.25, net

The two volumes in a box, $4.00, net

‘It is not too much to call ‘The American Commonwealth’ one of the most distinguished
additions to political and social science which this generation has seen. It has done, and will
continue to do, a great work in informing the world concerning the principles of this gover:
ment.” — Philadelphia Evening Telegraph.

“ No enlightened American can desire a better thing for his country than the widest diffu-
sion and the most thorough reading of Mr. Bryce’s impartial and penetrating work.” — Literary
World,

THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON I.

INCLUDING NEW MATERIALS FROM THE BRITISH OFFICIAL RECORDS
By J. H. ROSE, M.A.

Author of ‘‘ The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era, 1789—I1815,’’ etc. j

Illustrated. In two volumes. Cloth. 8vo. $4.00, net

“Mr. Rose seems to have read everything bearing on his subject, and to discriminate wisely
as to the value of the authorities. In particular he has for the first time thoroughly explored
the English Foreign Office Records. The information which he derives from them serves in
general to confirm the views held by the majority, at least of competent judges. English policy
during the great struggle which arose out of the French Revolution was, as it has usually been,
honest and sound. in purpose, but too often ill managed and weak in its methods.... Mr. Rose
excels in the difficult art of stating complicated matters briefly and yet clearly.... Best of all,
perhaps, is his chapter on the schemes for colonial expansion which Napoleon set on foot as
soon as France was at peace; it is admirably clear, and contains much that will be new to most
readers. Mr. Rose is equally successful in his military narrative, a subject which is especially
difficult to treat both briefly and lucidly. He always sees the éssential points and never includes
needless details, though here and there an additional fact would have made the whole more
easy of comprehension. .... We do not know where else to find a series of great military
operations described so well and also so concisely. . . . Nothing could be better than the pages
in which he describes and comments on the death of Pitt.” — 7he London Times.

“The author is John Holland Rose, the well-known English historian, and his biography
of Napoleon Bonaparte will have little difficulty in taking rank as the best in the language.
Napoleon is, to Mr. Rose, neither a demi-god nor an ogre, but a wonderfully brilliant man,
whose complete, but on the whole, attractive personality is made the subject of a penetrating
and luminous psychological study.” — 7he Philadelphia Press.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
66 Fifth Avenue, : New York

® @ 4°64 @ £ a 4 =e eo kat”,

“* ch UAT AA ee
SAA Eee eed
NR

ean
SOM eh MNS UH Gt Aan Coat bear he te by be
a4 a* * . we
LAS SO eae eee er hehe hk ‘ SSS BTR dk agg
a wag POC are otk Ror Br re “s
SUM USN Ets EEN
a aad aia’ : :

see hays

SME eC A eT pe 7 ‘ ALAA

ee Oe De Be be le a Oe nar eA bP SS LE a Aa hd at ha a
Beat en Oe Re ey etal late tata!
Statagenns es £86 Cana eee Be ey OO OE ICN hint
Sesh Rint 41 Grae ves ore

. aa ‘
ASN RON oon
Pe MLM PRC Re te Se be Br Be Be Bee |

Sa kev bags
SUR RA ee
eter he biel “3

-

dae C8
Reset
aiaatat
a Setatg’
Manet
sale P
weak
eS} < 4
SN
BS Ae Cad on ca a)
ies tara rene Asay
dias sence Wb!
ah aoagehaceea tate
<4 Nat et hy’, wes
ier hs . oe
See eSeSetate tested ‘ ¢ aah
CBOE RGGI ats ‘ tats
Hye en} Rann DRA RDN Sie ne)
REA tad GEE Co beh bet ey
MAAN “x Gt, tas AUVs eags aA
aie ‘ Sara ar ara arya NFHS oO ahaha tahetal
my he s ata! 4 ee
i) * ‘ ‘4 +“
< ay CR he be be be a ha bed be be “ee
Oe te LaPorte he heh be ears
OT bet hy be Pra aOR BER Bh heh
wt a RPL PL WO Be me Oe De Oe Be Be | Saae
GS Ceeaaany 6 taew ee cugae
ie th hy
ta
> ee | ‘ tag
SPR 4,5, NSS 4
Ge

‘
‘

4
af

an
mo

tN 4
SN pet
‘
tires
yeas
‘

.
“ Pen aes “
cc Seatac
OCR
BEE
m dicke < ate
Sea hteatetatae
4
4
‘
¢
at a he's
at

‘<a

cae <
AS AAA at
AA 4
be *
At <
AAG «
ad
es ‘ y,
‘4 tedee
tA < 4 Ceeweaerag
ceig HEY 4 prota ae we
¢ “ teas
DRADER RED Ne
CA CUUS
< ec Pn ae
‘< te

a

t
t '
4
Cte “
PA OE Be} ‘
64,4000 ea
CA ee anes
ttt aaa eee
tA eee eae
008 Cee eee
4 Ok ete a ee
See eRe Be ae ey
tee ead
tet Gh, tty ;
s ’ ’ 4 ‘
Bele tetetetet aeeee mn Natale latent tne ant " te
Oetecededds ees Ve telelatatstetelahetatet et tt at TAG
4 « ‘ wtee Otte Ce eee hee ee ag eee ee eigea
. * teen? ’ tas we ‘
J bd tet ee ‘
« 4 Cece sas
MP CE PN
. t
CtUvetrneceeye
eae e cae egty
era or

“yf t eter
f CRI ee i P Pee ae he ie of
' te fer at et eletetalelatatetettstatetat Fae ee Cv eet clctatate
| 4a Sta eet etetetetstetet tC OCt eee
Ny sete tf Ran PL PP aoe Ba Be On
Oot Ce eae ete OH eh atetel eke hgl tet ce rene ge ate ey
eee dtetatet 4 te teeceege a5 758 tet
a peer meqenneatis yt
te 4 ee 4 6 4
latelat Stet
40¢
b 1
‘ ¢
tt <4 4 ¢
fhe te ee aes
Beet et tet e

? Pid he . we
Mica at ee * 2
4 a
fa
wk, eee ees
ie j
CAE
PPPS, Lee af #0, ¥
ES, fe ketal Fete taht ee
OA AE ttt Cees
4
Ay of geet Cea A tala et sake «t
Aah hetett tt tee ee tag
24 BGG Out,
fff FEN OPO CV a oes “

ae
As ‘ ele %
7 ‘ *% |] ' a ial y .

- 7.t . . e di raeee vf s » tte re re
Nee ORO ee ELL: ere PK OT eR Po me ON Ae eats Cena eters eatitstetg
FEA hal gt Fal el eh eens Cte OOO Oe tO 8 be ae OR ee Cs 4 See rens
Ct ti¢ satel et tha? 2 ete ete ee ¢¢ #08 St tS CISA eee eb ea g 180 eel ete tat gett
ft etet tet et he ee ett, 7 .

. oe Stead t
’

:

TTP eee ec eae pote ease
7.0 Oe ET ee ede te tb
re

ever gre
ra
tee er eee a F

eters
ta

seen
Oe enrages
Ce a ae te ae a

’ ‘
OF ft tha er eae e Seeees sep eaee
eee Steerer ee ea ra CO MS a eT PRA
ae Caer ere Coe ek Oe eg ba ce rs ae ea eee es

eae
ones
renee

Hoy

He MME EEE EEL AND
, 1.8 90 gate

ST ee or at ae a fot tt ws pe oa i gg

4044 t fable SS AOA Se ewe ee ese es ate
patel A x iS Se eC be sas ec. Perec ecenesiect

a ee ee?

Pie ee eee we ey tet,
eater eegan eae

teeee tee ree

*

st 9t fe

ey
Pevse
reene see

‘

Oe ee er ea
Cot ee ee ae fb

OU REE AP AL te tag aie a iy pele e era
‘ Bee Oe eae ee wa « alte “ee
: oo due eh nd

ae
# Vel tat
a@2@ed¢ée